Hosta

This is fucking ridiculous. I've complained about this again and again: will anyone listen? Just as Satanic ritual abuse is finally starting to make some progress, single-purpose account Abuse truth jumps in with more tendentious reverts and talkpage disruption to waste the time of the users who are actually fixing the page. Methinks a page-ban is needed. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed a gentle warning on the user's talk page at User talk:Abuse truth. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'll need a bit more than that. This has been up at FTN twice, AN once - every time the contributions of Abuse truth are highlighted, every time we all agree there's a problem - and yet nothing happens. Now something finally has happened: the SRA article has been massively improved by recent contributions and yet Abuse truth continues to try to derail the process. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a variety of editors who might be interested in this entry, but I'm wary of ganging up on AT and the strong POV of the skeptical disputants may over-ride the good that AT can do on the very limited number of pages they edit. AT does have a very strong POV and only edits towards that POV, but is always within the letter of civility, if not the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. I'll admit the strong desire to indulge in a little incivility, and I have stepped beyond what I consider politeness. However, AT's polite ignoring of other editor's substantive comments and posting of over-long, sometimes irrelevant replies is sandpaper to my delicate sensibilities. Broader input from the community would probably be a good thing. One thing AT does bring to the project is a knowledge of the more...credulous literature and contributors and there is serious discussion of SRA in reliable sources that would not be included in the page were it not for AT and a minority of other editors. WLU (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a 1RR/day or 1RR/week limitation? Then Abuse Truth would need to engage and obtain consensus for his/her proposed edits. If the disruption is limited to the talk page, then options would include a complete talk page ban (the most drastic), versus limiting him to 1 talk page post per day (as was done with GordonWatts (talk · contribs)) or assiduously removing any posts which violate the talk page guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 20:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an option? That's a good option. AT does not disrupt talk pages by the way, AT is very, very polite. They're just long posts that don't really address the reasons why people are reverting. Often it comes down to a simple 'I disagree' and a page revert. I will admit that some of AT's comments deserve answering (or used to, they're mostly spurious in my mind these days) and I make an effort to try to address them when brought up (if I think they have merit). But I find the reverts never actually have a good reasoning behind them and AT does not (in my memory) revert more than once per day. Engagement with the community is usually very limited - no postings on any of the AN or DR pages that could a) help if AT has a point or b) conclusively state that AT is wrong in conclusions or interpretation of wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WLU (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree that the SRA page is currently making progress. Certain recent edits have been made without consensus, including the deletions of large amounts of data on the page. At times, I have restored the data deleted w/o consensus. IMO, the real reason I am being attacked here is because of my POV. It is not a skeptical one. Certain editors find this problematic and have decided to try to limit my ability to edit. Normally I do not leave more than one talk page comment per page per day anyway. I also disagree that I have ignored the reasons people revert on the talk pages. I have tried to respond to all comments and have explained my edits throughly on the talk pages. Other editors simply revert my changes and do not even explain themselves. But they are editors coming from a skeptical position, so IMO they are not held accountable. IMO, there is a strong bias in wikipedia toward skepticism in the subjects of child abuse and related topics. This shows in the way reliable sources are treated. Those with a skeptical view are accepted rather quickly, regardless of quality. Those that may back the existence of SRA, etc. are subject to harsh criticism and often deleted w.o consensus.

This is also shows up in the way certain editors such as myself are treated. Abuse truth (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Moreschi, I completely agree. Fucking ridiculous. I have blocked this querulous warrior for WP:TRUTH, you are free to set an expiry time if you like but I don't see much chance of change. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Moreschi and Guy, and I fail to see what all the fuss is about - the username alone rings several alarm bells. Will ^(talk) 00:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AT, we have tolerated your POV for MONTHS. None of the involved editors or admins have blocked, or suggested a block. It was all independent. You are not being crucified, perhaps consider taking some of the reams of advice handed out to you over the past months and weeks. The accusation of bias is laughable, insulting and reeks of the abuse of good faith.

New discussion - can anyone with the word 'truth' in their name be automatically blocked, unless it's meant to be ironic? Seems like it would save time. I'm sure WP:V applies somewhere : ) WLU (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "IMO, there is a strong bias in wikipedia toward skepticism in the subjects of child abuse and related topics." —AT

I have explained to you, AT, and the other pov pusher in SRA talk page that child abuse is my specialty. However, it is unwise to swallow extreme claims such as the "Satanic" abuse of children.

• "This shows in the way reliable sources are treated." —AT

It has been pointed out to you that no sociology or criminology peer-reviewed journal endorses SRA claims. If the criterion of limiting the article exclusively to peer-reviewed literature were used in this article, it would become far more skeptical than its present incarnation.

Finally, AT, I also hold a most strong "pov" and "truth" stance, as anyone who take a look at my user page can see. But presently I refrain myself from using WP to push my pov in the way you do. Listen to WLU: verifiability, not truth; and change you user name and your behavior.

—Cesar Tort 06:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The user seems completely unable to understand the problem (which is, of course, largely why the problem exists). He's now asking to be unblocked so he can change his username, because he thinks the username is the problem, rather than simply being the kind of username that problem editors so often choose. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AT's been very good at civilly acknowledging that a point has been written, while totally missing the substance of the point. Months of patient comments, pointing to policy and advice has led absolutely nowhere. I have seen no progress towards behavior that is in line with the community at large or overall purpose of the project, just a relentless trudge along the same POV-pushing path. WLU (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request review of indef block

• For reference: Abuse truth (talk · contribs) per discussion above.

I request the indef block of this user be reviewed and reversed. The block is unfair, was done without warning, without a series of shorter blocks, and does not follow process-based community action in Wikipedia.

This is nothing like the extreme disruption that justified the recent blocks of multiple pro-pedohile activist editors without warnings. With the pedophile activists, there was a huge disruption by a group of people that went on for months before several of them eventually were blocked. Even in that situation, there was controversy about the blocks, and it became a matter for ArbCom.

This is a totally different situation. User:Abuse truth does not deserve an indef block and I request that the block be reversed.

Yes, he/she edits only a certain range of articles, and yes, the user's name implies a certain POV. However, the editor is more civil than most, and brings many references. Sometimes, too many sources perhaps, but that's better than not enough, and in particular his/her editing does not consist of simply re-writing sections without references, and s/he does participate in talk page discussions about the content.

Also, and importantly, those articles involved bring out strong POV editing in many editors, and not only among editors, but even in the scientific research and published papers and books there are POV battles including scientists and activists. This is not just about Satanic ritual abuse, but a range of articles relating to Child sexual abuse, including Repressed memory, Recovered memory therapy and others.

It's a difficult ongoing process to find ways of getting to NPOV on those topics, when the literature and editors have polarized viewpoints. To let the process work, we need people from both sides of the debate to work on the articles. The fact that some editors may be getting frustrated with the work does not mean that the process is not working OK.

I concur with User:WLU, at 17:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC) that more input on the articles from a wider base of editors would be helpful. These are content disputes, perhaps WP:RFC would be a good idea.[reply]

This block should be lifted. The user was not even warned at all. If someone has a problem with a user, there are processes for that, such as WP:RFC/U that were not followed here. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I said this, the only real advantage to having AT on any page is the addition of a blatant single side of an argument, at the expense of having to triage sources, review and dig up counter sources. Sure, the page improves, but at the expense of tremendous aggravation. The pages would benefit from knowledgeable editors willing to add both sides of the debate. AT does not do this. WLU (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with block of at least one week, although I think "indef" may be too long, and an indef article-space ban until he provides evidence of reform. On the contrary (to Jack), he was warned many times that some specific actions of his were inappropriate and violations of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. He wasn't warned specifically for WP:TRUTH violations, but many of his clear violations involving misquoting sources, using self-published sources by self-proclaimed experts, inserting extensive quotes from sources which didn't support his article text, adding references to Elizabeth Loftus which are (claimed to) discredit her theories, etc., which all fall under WP:TRUTH violations. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for concurring that indefinite is too long. About the warnings, I meant only that no warning was placed on his/her page indicating that if s/he did not stop, there would be a block and especially, nothing about the possibility of an indef block - at least, not that I saw.

I did see that there were improvements in the user's behavior over time. For example, instead of repeated reverting, AT has brought sections and references to the talk pages in recent weeks. I did not see blatant mis-quoting of sources, though it might have happened. If so, that needs to be addressed of course, but there are procedures for that, like RFC for consensus, or RFC/U; to allow other editors to offer feedback for the user to learn and change.

Regarding the content issues such as reliability of sources, those are complex. Elizabeth Loftus for example is a controversial researcher and there are many who have, as you wrote, "(claimed to) discredit her theories". Some of those who have done so are WP:RS. Maybe the way this user went about including that information was not quite on track, but criticism of Loftus are appropriate, with proper sources, because that criticism and controversy is WP:Verifiable and goes to NPOV. I'm just using Loftus as an example, of course.

My point is that there is a content dispute happening in these articles that extends beyond this one editor. If we lose this editor, we lose part of the process of finding NPOV through consensus. For the content dispute, the path to resolution is RFC, and I don't think that's been tried yet. If there were enough editors chiming in to create a real consensus, then it would be more obvious if one person were trying to go against consensus. Those articles need that kind of attention anyway. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

←I want to clarify that i don't know this user other than by seeing the editing and talk page comments. I'm advocating for a review and unblock because I believe from what I've seen that the user is a good-faith editor and is willing to learn and improve. This is shown by the user's clear statement of intent to change and learn in his/her unblock request. That is a very different response than many blocked users who become angry; here we have someone who wants to cooperate and learn, that is exactly the right response to this kind of challenge.

I hope that an administrator will accept the user's promise and execute an unbolock. It will be a loss for Wikipedia if this hard-working editor is lost, and, it will have been done outside of established procedures, without formal process. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an unblock with an indefinite article-space ban, with AT agreeing to the ban explicitly on his talk page before the unblock. He's misinterpreted too many statements which seem clear to me, for anything less than a "signed" statement to convince me he's willing to follow the rules. It should be pointed out that, as I've interacted with him, it would be inappropriate for me to unblock. I'd also ask for comments from the blocking admin as to whether this would seem appropriate to him.

As for Loftus, my concern is that, as her theories have separate pages, references discrediting those theories should only appear on the pages for those theories. That's another failing AT has exhibited; placing his reference on any pages loosely related, while it's clear to me that they should only appear on the articles which are most relevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion above, I'd accept an indefinite 0RR in article-space. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your willingness to accept a reduction of the user's block. But those conditions are too strong. This is not an ArbCom case where long-term user sanctions are decided, or even an RFC/U with evidence from both sides and comments from a wide range of editors. This was a single, overly speedy, overly punitive action by one administrator, without a fair hearing.

The block is unfair and should be reversed. The editor is now on notice, as a result of this situation, so there is nothing to be lost by unblocking. If the editor does not learn and change as s/he has promised to do, then further procedures or blocks can follow.

Strong santions should not be applied unilaterally to any user without a fair and transparent hearing process. That's what dispute resolution and arbitration is for. If those steps are skipped when something is not an emergency, that is a degradation of community and is bad for everyone who edits Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I just wrote in AT's talk page, perhaps a compromise solution between Jack-A-Roe and other editors and admins is viable? I am still very, very skeptical that AT has understood the issues that led to his block (though I might be wrong of curse). —Cesar Tort 02:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reading of the debate there is that he simply doesn't understand what he's doing wrong. Blocks are preventive, I blocked to prevent further disruption, and an unblock can be considered once the chance of disruption is known to be reduced. Step one along that path is for the user to understand the problem, but we haven't reached step one yet. Guy (Help!) 12:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since AT is blocked and cannot respond here, please see the user's new post on the talk page discussion. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user's new post on the talk page discussion is typical. He still doesn't get it that (1) placing long lists on a main article, and in this case of dubious cases in which the "Satanic" element was purportedly present, is against policy; (2) he still believes that Noblitt's (who seems to believe in the lunacy in Michelle Remembers) self-published text is a RS; (3) he does not regret his endless reverts on the previous point but continues to justify this behavior; (4) he is still not embarrassed for pushing the extreme fringe pov of the issues that Michelle Remembers rises, and (5) he still continues to regard his previous edit wars as "heroic for standing up for our [his and Rubin's] beliefs". —Cesar Tort 21:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This amounts to "please unblock me because I can state my fringe POV at incredible length without being rude at all". We appreciate that, but it doesn't exactly help. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

read both this page and the link to the person page. He does agree to the accusation (truth) and says he will be different now. He seems to get what a good source is. Why is he still kept from posting? 161.77.184.2 (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "He seems to get what a good source is."

In fact, he still believes that in extraordinary claims a self-published text is a RS. —Cesar Tort 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a gross misrepresentation of his point made on the topic. He -correctly- pointed out that a scientific author - even if his findings do not suit the self-proclaimed sceptics (who are 'believers' when it comes to wiccan webpages and publishers who try to discredit sra claims) - can be a RS when the same author has been qualified as a source by previous RS publications elsewhere. AT has been consistently civil and positive in corrobaration (and collaboration with sceptic WLU) while trying to keep the point in which other editors try to push out of the article, that there is more to the topic than just a historical hysteria of previous decades. I am very glad he does this (and manages to do so with style and ssubstance, and am convinced that he does a lot to keep the page NPOV by working to keep more than one POV in and well-sourced. --Gwyndon (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that the book by Noblitt & Perskin equals to "well sourced"? I've tried to respond to you in talk:SRA. You can also see this book review. —Cesar Tort 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could see perhaps allowing the editor to return, provided he is adopted, with the additional provision that his edits to the page in question be limited or even having him barred from that page, but not necessarily the talk page, for at least a set period. Whether that editor would agree to those terms is another matter entirrely. John Carter (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several users (User:Getoar, User:Rinigjon, User:Pjetër Bogdani) have teamed up to make massive and highly POV edits to the History section of Kosovo. This has been going one since the protection was lifted, and but has spiralled out of control because of the current weekend. They have ignored all attempts at discussion, and one of them in particular, Getoar, has a highly combative attitude. When I tried to reach out to him he just ignored me both here [[1]] as well as here [[2]]. He has also tried to frame me for vandalism here [[3]] when in fact that edit was performed by another user [[4]]. I request urgent action to be taken to protect the article and prevent it from becoming a battleground. --Tsourkpk (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of problems on that talk page, including rampant incivility from User:Bosniak, who, it seems, can't reply without using "Duh!" to respond to the comments of everyone else, a clear breach of WP:CIVIL. Further, the three above do seem to be supporting each other's edits in the article space, but I'm not sure they're actively pushign a POV or such, and think diffs to that effect are needed. ThuranX (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• User talk:Getoar (established user)
• User:Dardan Prishtina
• User talk:Sintonak.X
• User talk:Rinigjon

... They appear to be coordinated off-wiki and they revert towards some WP:SNOW recension involving the "Serbian peril" and similar. No sign of willingness for collaboration on talk. how will we deal with these? Intervene at user level or lock down the article again? dab (𒁳) 21:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let us also remember that this article is on ArbCom probation, meaning any of these users can be blocked right now. I am going to leave notifications to all of them that they have listed on AN/I, for now. SorryGuy  Talk  22:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getoar's conduct is particularly troubling. I went to the article from here, and found a particularly bad bit of grammar. It took a while to fix it, but once I did, Getoar came right to my page congratulating me for having the right viewpoint, and trying to recruit me to be on his side, and push his POV. This, in turn, led to an outbreak of the damn war on my talk page, which I put down in the most absolute form. That editors now feel they can pick who is on their side like a pick up baseball game is a problem, one guaranteed to escalate the tensions and the warring on Wikipedia. As such, I recommend that Getoar be blocked 'toot sweet', so his recruitment drive does not continue. (This in no way endorses the other side.) ThuranX (talk) 23:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be totally honest, I think you are over reacting and not exactly using language conducive to the calming of the situation. At any rate, Getoar, for what it is worth, has been very open to communication with me. He agreed to stop reverting changes and instead bring his proposed changes to the talk page, which he has done. He did say "I can wait for a while and see what they say. But even if my version is not accepted I will challenge the current one (by tags and minor acceptable edits). It has practically no sources at least up to its later subsections." which gives me some pause, but I feel as though the situation, at least in regards t him, has been partially defused. SorryGuy  Talk  00:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My language only got blunt AFTER their actions ,to make things incredibly clear to them. before that, I was clear and concise about the problems I was addressing, it's not my fault that they want to see POV everywhere. ThuranX (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are now teaming up on Talk:Kosovo to try to ram these changes through. Massive canvassing evidenced on the these users' talk pages. --Tsourkpk (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know so little about the subject I can't comment on the validity of the proposal, but when they all obvious share similar beliefs I would sort of expect them to agree. Just give it time, if those neutral to the subject feel the proposal is a bad idea, I am sure consensus will develop towards not making them. SorryGuy  Talk  00:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My goals are to improve the article on Kosovo and at no point aggravate it. I don’t exactly understand what you mean by “teaming up,” but I am just asking people who are interested in the issue to give their opinion. I don’t personally know any of these editors, so I can’t presume their reaction. As to now, three people have preferred myy proposed changes to the history section as opposed to one objecting them (see Talk:Kosovo#PROPOSAL_FOR_THE_HISTORY_SECTION).--Getoar (talk) 03:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this fall under WP:CANVAS? BalkanFever 04:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Massive canvassing evidenced [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]], [[12]], [[13]], [[14]]. I don't speak Albanian, but it seems pretty clear to me that "diskutimin për historinë e Kosovës" refers to the discussion of the history of Kosovo. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the idea here is to appropriate that Kosovo was always Albanian, through whatever possible continuity between Albanians and ancient peoples, and never Serbian, simply by leaving all the information out. BalkanFever 07:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. Revanchism at its worst. --Tsourkpk (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an article under probation, with multiple complaints about him, why hasn't this user been blocked? This level of CANVAS (10 Users listed above) on an article with this much contentious editing, and there's no block? ThuranX (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, I am looking. Jehochman ^Talk 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getoar has been blocked for 96 hours and warned of the general sanctions. If they resume trouble making, I recommend a lengthy topic ban. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good block ,Jehochman. I'm inclined to support the topic ban now, but I think that would only escalate things, as the 'other side' would take it as a victory, and 'this side' would seek to escalate to get 'revenge' by getting one of 'that side' banned as well.ThuranX (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problems on Dardania related articles

Adding a subsection here. I've noticed that the Dardania related articles are also getting a POV pushing. As far as I can work it out, the POV goes as follows: IF the geographic land is Dardanian in heritage, then the Albanian people have to shut up, if the land is Albanian, the Dardanians have to move. TO that end, I note that prior to the Kosovo declaration, and the lead up to it, This was the explanation for the Dardanians: [15]. Now that it's been moved, the borders shrank. This push one way or the other is ridiculous, and it's the first time I've felt that I'm really watching Wikiality en masse, in the sense that Colbert intended. This POV pushing has to stop, and I really think that article locking for Kosovo related articles is the only way to handle it, and ask that The recent POV pushign edits by DBachmann be reverted and the articles locked by an admin. I'm on neither side on this entire fight, but only got involved through the AN/I reports recently, which have had me sticking my nose in. But I'm not an admin, and I've already seen how fast the POV warriors tag you as friend or enemy, and since I have no buttons, being lit up again isn't my interest. ThuranX (talk) 06:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Dbachmann's edits POV-pushing (he seems pretty neutral), but strongly agree to protecting both Dardania and Kosovo. --Tsourkpk (talk) 06:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would. He seems to be on the Kosovo=Dardania side, not the Kosovo=Albania or Kosovo=Serbia side. ThuranX (talk) 07:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, that's ridiculous. I'd be highly surprised if Dbachmann was pushing a POV. Much more likely he hasn't had occasion to look at these articles before, seen that they're already unbalanced, and has tried to repair them with a few reliable sources. If you're unfamiliar with an editor's history, do spend a couple of minutes looking through their contributions before making that sort of accusation. Relata refero (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dbachmann's notified of this thread. Relata refero (talk) 15:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all how it looks to me; Specifically, his edits to shrink the borders to custom fit Kosovo look suspicious, as per the diffs I provided. Seems like a deliberate intent to support the Dardani=Kosovo POV pushing. He changed all of it without good sources or citation, and hid some of that movement behind the cover of merging and moving articles. I note that as part of that ,he had to remove the article about the geographic location (Dardania) into the article on the people, which certainly fits with the Kosovo = Dardania POV pushing. Otherwise, he would've left an article on the place, and one on the people. ThuranX (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm spot on neutral with no personal interest whatsoever, which, as always, means I'm being bashed by both sides. I have just done abominable pro-Albanian edits at Kosovo (UNMIK), just as I've perpetrated abominable anti-Albanian edits at Dardani. The whole idea that the proto-historic tribe of the Dardani bears any relevance whatsoever to Kosovar nationhood is patent nationalist fringecruft with no footing in sane reality. I am, as always, on the side of protecting our articles on ancient history from the attempts of our less reasonable customers. Dardania: 400 BC. Republic of Kosovo: 2008 AD. Connection: none. dab (𒁳) 15:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps? I'll admit that Dab and I don't often see eye to eye on our edits, and we've often clashed over various articles, but I don't believe I'd ever consider our disagreements POV. Usually it's a difference in opinion over article formatting and how many maps each article should have. But POV editing is not something I would attribute to Dbachmann. Hope this helps... Thomas Lessman (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination), Philip Baird Shearer insists on putting a new post at the top of the AfD.[16][17][18] This is contrary to established practice, and distorts all of the talk below it, none of which has taken this posting into account. I have moved it twice to the bottom of the talk and pointed out the incorrectness of his placing of it to no avail. Tyrenius (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its unusual, but I'm not sure I'd call it disruptive. If anything, I'd say Sarah777's comments have been significantly more disruptive than anything Philip has done, even if the AfD nom was somewhat ill-advised. AfD isn't a hammer to enforce a position in a content dispute. Avruch ^T 03:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip is not even the nom. He wants the article deleted and is bizarrely placing his post at the top. The reason for new posts to go at the bottom of the AfD is that it is a debate, where subsequent posts comment on previous ones. If people start posting at the top, it breaks the whole ethos of that. It needs to be moved to its right place after the comments which it is a reaction to. What do we do when someone else thinks their new post is sufficiently important to go above his? Tyrenius (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's not the nominator in this case, but he has been in two previous related noms - and there was no nom statement, and opposes on that basis, so he provided one. Have you asked him not to post further changes to the top of the page? Avruch ^T 03:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no nom statement. That was how the AfD started and revisionism can't change that. There then follows a debate. There is still no nom statement. There is a statement from one of the participants placed in the wrong place and messing up that proper debate. If you look 3 posts up, you will read, "I have moved it twice to the bottom of the talk and pointed out the incorrectness of his placing of it to no avail." Tyrenius (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Seems like arguing over a technicality. If the AfD is invalid because the original nominator didn't place their own statement at the top then I suggest a speedy close followed by immediate renomination by Philip (or whoever) with the relevant arguments from editors in the current debate transferred to the new AfD. What admins can't do is let the current AfD run for five days then close it as "keep" because it was an invalid nomination. So either speedy close this now on procedural grounds or let it run its course as a valid AfD for the full period, then get the original nominator to place their statement at the top of the page where it should be or - failing that- allow Philip's statement to stand in for the nom. --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally if the "reasons" stay at the top I see no need to close it but I have already suggested on the AFD talk page to Tyrenius that "If you do not want them there Then I suggest we close this AFD now and re-open it with the reasons at the top. I am more than happy to do that if that is what you want."(See Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination)) But for some reason rather than answer on the talk page of the AFD he chose to post here. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am one of those who said Keep on the technical grounds that no reasons to delete were provided. It's too late to fix that so restarting is best. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two disinterested editors have commented on my retrofitting reasons to the top of this nomination have suggested closing and re-opening the nomination. As closing it and reopening it means extra work for a number of editors, I will post a message to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of massacres (2nd nomination) asking if anyone else has an opinion on this. If no objections forthcoming in 24 hours we close it and reopen it. If a disinterested admin wishes to close it before the 24 hour period is up, please post a message to my talk page and I'll resubmit it with all the steps done. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. The sooner this issue is clarified, the better, because the AfD debate is getting longer and longer and attracting more and more commenters. If it has to be aborted on a minor technicality a lot of people are going to be annoyed. If it is technically invalid as alleged then I'm surprised an admin hasn't speedily closed it already. --Folantin (talk) 14:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hold my hands up, my fault. Close and reopen seems to best way to proceed at this point. Ledenierhomme (talk) 14:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point - it'll just end up as a no consensus, just like the current debate. Lugnuts (talk) 14:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin stepping in here... Rather then closing and reopening the entire debate, I suggest Philip moves his argument to the proper place, because they are just that: your arguments. Putting your arguments on top of the debate and calling them "reasons" is a mirepresentation of your arguments, since you are not the nominator. Having to close the debate, only to have you re-open it with your arguments at the top again is not an option; I view that as gaming the system. So if this AfD is to be closed, Philip may not restart it, as it basically does not change the situation. — Edokter • Talk • 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There's no point closing it and re-opening. That would be a waste of everyone's time. The relevant points have been discussed in depth. PBS is worried because two keeps were on the basis of no nom statement. The closing admin is obviously going to see there are plenty of arguments for delete without a nom statement, so those keeps are not greatly convincing in themselves. PBS has chosen to post at the top of the AfD as a revisionist nom statement, which is entirely unnecessary. It means anyone responding to him will also post at the top, and it will become impossible to follow the thread of the debate. I posted here because PBS has placed his statement in the wrong place three times and has not discussed before doing so. Again I ask him to put it where it belongs in the logical sequence of the discussion. Tyrenius (talk) 15:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing it and reopening it on a technicality indeed sounds like a waste of time. If there was no nom statement, but there is a rationale for deletion that can be provided and has been, then why stop the AfD if it has vigorous participation? Opposes based on the lack of a nomination should be disregarded by the closing admin if they aren't revised during the discussion period. Philip should leave the nom section alone now that it has been populated with a rationale, and make further comments in the body of the AfD. Respondents can respond in the body of the discussion like they would to any other nominating statement, and everyone can move on knowing that while it may not be a technically perfect AfD the object is still being observed and technically perfect isn't what we here to accomplish. Avruch ^T 15:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Let's keep this as a valid AfD with maybe a note to the closing admin at the top explaining as much. I'm not sure it matters where Philip puts his comments but if people object to his substitute nomination rationale then he can move it down the page to where it would have been chronologically. --Folantin (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK now there is no consensus on what to do, So I have posted a message to User talk:Ledenierhomme#AfD nomination of List of massacres

Ledenierhomme If you confirm that you agree with my reasons and would like them placed at the top I will do so. But only if you confirm in unequivocal terms that you want them placed there.

That should satisfy everyone. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it confirmed. -- Ledenierhomme (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not your decision. You have nom'd but you don't control the ensuing debate. There is an established procedure for AfDs and this suggestion is completely counter to it. Statements are made and then responded to. If this goes at the top, responses to it will go under it. Then we have a new debate started at the top of the page, which is preceded by the debate lower down the page. Some people will continue to post at the bottom; some will post under the new debate at the top to answer those points. Some people will look at the bottom of the debate to see new posts and will miss it altogether. This is chaotic and makes the development of argument impossible to follow. It is a disruptive move and should not be done. Tyrenius (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me [User:Tyrenius|Tyrenius]] that you are making it up as you go along. Several editors have complained that there are no reasons at the top of the AfD. I put in a solution, you have objected to it because I was not the nominator. Now you are objecting to the nominator confirming the reasons for the AfD. Would you object to Ledenierhomme completing the AfD by placing reasons at the top. If so I would ask you to take a step back and consider who you think is being disruptive. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated the reasons in the post immediately above yours why it is not appropriate to post new reasons at the top of the page—whoever posts them. The nominator is welcome to state his reasons under the existing posts and to state that it is his rationale for nominating. Then the sequence of the debate will remain clear, and responses to his statement will follow coherently. Tyrenius (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A series of anons have made personal attacks following the deletion of a claim of satanic imagery subliminally planted in the film, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town. The anons seem to be the very same user who has new IP addresses created by dynamic IP generation: 76.244.160.121, 76.212.146.249, 76.248.229.104, 76.244.162.118, 76.248.229.104, 75.55.39.225, 76.244.162.118, 76.248.229.104 and 76.212.146.139. The first mention of satanic images was placed into a popular culture section: " * The use of the satanic symbol "666" in movies like The Omen could have begun with "Mr. Deeds." Although never mentioned, "666" can be seen in the "doodles" of the court psychiatrist." First mention which was supported by a reference that was a YouTube video: "* Youtube's Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, symbol seen at 2:20" The XLinkBot reverted the submission and it was later re-inserted but again the link was first reverted by Beetstra and later the pop culture note was deleted by myself, Bzuk. What followed was a talk page submission: "You deleted 666! Ha ha, that's funny! You deleted perhaps one of the most important discoveries ever made in Hollywood cinema! Wikipedia is a joke! Wikipedia has nothing of value here, it has no knowledge contained in its pages at all. If Wikipedia were a brick and mortar library in any country, it would have been demolished by now. There is nothing here but disinformation (remember that word? You should!). You're a joke and your administrators are fools. Remember, this site never represents anyone, you speak for no one. You are liars. And people can still find the link and reference in the history section. You cretins, you never speak for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.146.139 (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)" and immediately followed up by a series of attacks on my home page, some archived by myself and BillCJ. I then attempted to explain the reasoning for the deletion to the anon that requested further information. Basically, my concern was that it was OR, based on a faulty interpretation of a single image and was unattributed to any refrence source. I advised the anon to go back to the article's "talk" page with a request for discussion which was done. The continued attacks on me were placed on Beetstra's page and showed evidence of wikistalking as well as continuing personal attacks. I then requested a number of admins to review the article and although only two admins had a chance to do that with one suggesting "not to feed the trolls." Good advice but the continuing personal remarks have not abated. Please consider this situation as one that requires administration action.[reply]

I support User:Bzuk's take on this. I've asked the IP to provide a citation. The IP seems either not to understand WP:OR and WP:V or perhaps thinks the proposed edit is so earth-shaking as to transcend all Wikipedia policy. The IP's lack of civility and taunting are also very unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, I'm trying to discuss this with the IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bizarre. I wonder what Scattergood Baines would have made of it? Guy (Help!) 08:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the talk page and I see that this has been silly and tiresome. However, a quick look at the article's history suggests that it hasn't been degraded in this way for at least six days. I may have missed something, but I think the IP has recently been tiresome and irritating on its talk page; semi-protecting that seems a bit extreme. Somebody could s-protect your talk page if you wish. (Not me, or anyway not in the short term, as I'm about to leave the net for a few hours.) Since the anon is using a succession of IPs, it's hard to think of other countermeasures -- at least until I take off my admin hat, put on my editor hat, and add to the chorus telling him not to waste everyone's time with such silliness. (Incidentally, I think you and others there have been admirably patient so far.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well this inspired me to look up the author of the short story on which Mr. Deeds was based, Clarence Budington Kelland, who write Scattergood Baines, a book that my father referred to endlessly and we eventually managed to find in an antiquarian bookshop a few years back. What a fascinating man! I will try to get more sources and expand the stub I just created, but have a look at the picture on this site - don't you think he's an older J. R. "Bob" Dobbs? Guy (Help!) 12:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the issue is no longer the tenditious editing that is evident on the talk pages, it remains the unwarranted claims that are personal attacks. See:where he claims that I initiated the claim of "666", the demonic images, a statement about denying Truth, Justice and the American way, where he asks for an apology, claim of misrepresentation and claims of being a liar, censor, charlatan, evil. These attacks continued to come even after reasoned discourse was attempted. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I have requested a review of the block, and I have also requested that Mr. Bzuk be restrained from harassing me any longer. I never claimed the 666 symbol was satanic, I attempted to draw an analogy between its use here and other successful entertainment industry ventures. Its Mr. Bzuk who inserted his own belief into the matter. And all of this took place on the movie's Discussion page, not on the article page. And it wasn't continued on Mr. Bzuk's page, rather on other editor's pages and really didn't have much to do with Mr. Bzuk at all. Mr. Bzuk has shown his position to be irrational and extreme, and when the truth is shown to him, he cries harassment and stalking. Neither are true. Thank you very much.

This continuing claim that I am irrational and extreme flies in the face of every edit made during this back-and-forth. FWIW, I have no abiding interest in the "666" claims, it is the virulent commentary that has been engendered that is the issue. Bzuk (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Bzuk, your best bet is probably just to ignore the anon's attacks. He'll get bored and go away eventually. Natalie (talk) 17:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missed this ANI thread, but indeed, the anon has been quite persistent in commenting on my talkpage. I have requested that he backs up his claims from an independent source, not only with his own interpretation. Though I must say I was a bit annoyed by his continued posts, I have also decided that I am just going to ignore any further posts from him/her. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be the best bet. If you just ignored this person no doubt things would change for the better, as you don't seem to agree about what he is doing and his topics seem to infuriate you for little reason. Easiest way to avoid being annoyed. But what an interesting subject, and the 666 symbol is so easy to see. There's been much recent posting on Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, and references to "pixies" and "pixilated." So, pixies are seen in Mr. Deeds, but 666 isn't. That's annoying, too, isn't it?--76.212.153.191 (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And someone has included in the "Etymology of Pixilated" section that "pixilated" probably came from the word "pixy." That is an unsupported statement, the poster has no facts supporting this claim. Bzuk has not removed that from the article, so prejudice and partiality can be seen in his ANI and blocking request. This is exactly the reason why an editor or admin such as Bzuk isn't supposed to be employed at any museum, library, or other educational/information center, this is how truth gets altered. And why haven't any of the other editors involved in this ANI requested factual basis for this pixy inclusion? It is no different than the one for 666, it is worse, as there are no visible pixies in the movie, and I don't remember anyone using the word "pixy" at all in it. So any attempt at drawing conclusions as to where the word "pixilated" came from is unsubstantiated. There's your bizarre behavior, there's bad editing.--76.212.153.191 (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added the etymology as a quote from a referenced source - The American Notebook - this is not the same as adding an "unsupported statement" from an unreferenced source. I've added an online reference that states the same etymology. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, the "referenced source" simply states that the word is "probably" derived from the word "pixy." No hard, cold facts there. The 666 symbol is a fact, or was until the screen image was removed. But it's still in the movie, it can still be seen. And the online reference doesn't mention "pixilated" anywhere that I saw. So, what we now have is a citation from a reference source that is, in itself, vague. From the recent hub bub about the easily seen and verifiable 666 image, that just isn't good enough. Bad editing again, and further proof of how easily truth gets distorted by the unethical. I think the "pixy" should be removed from the article, I can't see it.--76.212.153.191 (talk) 14:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Dear anon, that other data is unreferenced does not give you an excuse to not find a (reliable) external source that states the same as you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Yes, the American Notebook source says "probably". That's as far as the source goes and as far as the Wikipedia entry goes. My online Chambers Dictionary source clearly says pixilated or pixillated adj, chiefly US 1 bemused or bewildered. 2 mildly eccentric; slightly crazy. 3 (slang) drunk. ETYMOLOGY: 19c: from pixie, modelled on titillated, elated, etc. - I'm not sure how you missed it. However claims that "666" is visible therefore there is (not even"probably") a connection with "the number of the beast" is unreferenced original research. I believe in neither pixies nor trolls, so along with Dirk I'm bowing out of this now. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP, you may wish to write up your thoughts on "666" for some academic journal on film studies. At least until your thesis appears in a peer-reviewed journal and is accepted by others, you're unlikely to interest many people here in it. You've tried hard, you've failed. Well, life's tough; or rather, WP:OR and other related policies are clear. Thank you; now please move along. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hairy, I had moved along until I noticed that someone was still posting here. Sorry, but that reaffirms my position of not having "failed." Life is tough, true, but the truth is tougher. I object to being punished for something that I'm not guilty of.--76.212.153.191 (talk) 15:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then your own logic dictates that the article should have included your dictionary should be referenced, and not the "Notebook." The latter should be removed from the article, your own rationale directs that. And once more, any satanical references to the 666 symbol are from Wikipedia editors, not me. I don't like being accused of things I don't do, but that's a peculiarity of my own. If I don't have an excuse for my posting, that doesn't excuse other people from doing the same and being allowed to do so. That's partiality and discrimination, and it's not truth. And now tell me where you see "troll" in all of this? Can you? I can.--76.212.153.191 (talk) 14:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What partiality or discrimination? You are being asked to provide a secondary source to support your assertions and you have yet to do so. Thus, your assertions will not be allowed in the article. This is the same standard all articles are held to. If your example above is supposed to be an example of a double standard it's a pretty damn poor one, considering it contains secondary sources. Why is this so hard for you to understand? Natalie (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK, I'll get an outside source. But I'll get a good one, not a vague one like you let other "editors" post. Why, I've gotten a good one today! You'll notice the legs of the 9's are curved, like here when they're typed. But when you handwrite a 9, the legs are usually straighter. Not like a 6, whose usually come out curved. So that's 666. I'll get you an expert opinion. In the meantime try not to cuss at me. I won't ask to have you blocked or deleted (I'm American, I don't censor), but it's a poor epithet to use in a 666 discussion. Uh, you didn't mean it seriously, did you?--76.248.229.209 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It scarcely matters anyway. The apparently oldest extant fragment of Revelation has 616. This manuscript is probably third century. A century earlier, Irenaeus discussed the fact that there were already Greek copies with 616, and declared it to be a scribal error in those copies. He claimed that all the oldest manuscripts then extant had 666, and also that those who had actually met John (the probable author) concurred. It follows that 666 as the "number of the Beast" is unreliable at best. It is as likely that 665 is the number of the bean and 667 is the number of the beetroot. Of course, in the UK, 01666 is the telephone dialling code of the beast. So arguments about 666 are largely jejune and barely above superstition. Let's wake up here, please. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is so nice, that's the nicest response I've ever gotten on this site. Thank you so much. I was wondering when someone was going to mention that. It doesn't seem possible that the number 666 would be made illegal due to Hollywood, and I've seen the 616 page here. So, who knows, but the 666 controversy has gotten to be like a 13th floor in a skyscraper. So, OK, thank you for your input, you are a kind man. And, incidently, in California the penal code for continuous petty thefts is PC 666. Perhaps there's many editors guilty of petty 666 crimes now, but what's California, anyway?--76.248.229.209 (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin WJBscribe has used a photo of a document alleged to be the birth certificate of Michael Lucas (porn star) (seen here: [19]) as a source to verify Lucas's birth name [20]. Editor Hux has used the same photo to source Lucas's birthdate and birth location, [21]. The photo itself fails WP:V as there is no way to verify its provenance or accuracy. Using the photo as a source to substantiate claims made in the text violates WP:PSTS as such use makes an interpretive, explanatory or evaluative claim about what is in the photo. To allow these would be a violation of WP:NOR. --71.127.238.135 (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign never ends. Aside from being a recent topic on this board, the forum shopping continued at the help desk (link) a couple of days ago. R. Baley (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's rather disturbing... passports and birth certificates should not be used as sources in articles. What's next, editors going through celebrity's tax returns to source information on the person's wealth? This kind of stuff is journalism, not encyclopedia writing. --Rividian (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh don't be absurd. If a fact is not disputed by the subject, then using the subject's own birth certificate, with the subject's co-operation, as a source for the fact, is hardly problematic. It's not as if the birth name is that big a deal anyway; if his birth name was Darth Vader it would make no real difference to his notability or the name by whihc he is currently or most widely known. Guy (Help!) 15:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's still journalism... we're producing unpublished information no non-user-edited sources apparently care about. We're letting subjects provide original documents to determine what's in their encyclopedia articles? Are we an encyclopedia or a press release service? --Rividian (talk) 15:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This was at WP:RS/N as well. I can think of a few more noticeboards to shop it to, anyone interested?

Seriously, though, as I said at RS/N, yes, sure, its a primary source and should be used with caution, but if we can't ignore those rules in this instance we might as well toss WP:IAR out the window. Relata refero (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are rules; WP:IAR doesn't apply here as there are many sources available to substantiate Lucas's birthname, which is a contentious issue in this bio. Remember that these are not the actual documents, but photos of those documents -- there's no way they can be verified. We can't allow the subject of a bio to provide photos of document she asserts to be official or accurate, when their provenance or acuracy cannot be verified. Anybody can create an offical-looking document and take a photo of it, or anybody can take a photo of a document and then use the various editing software to doctor it, then claim that it's offical. Those possiblities preclude the use of photos of documents as sources.

--72.76.9.10 (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

72, why is this such a huge deal for you? You seem to be really invested in adding Lucas' father's last name to his birth name, based on a single source (and derivative works), when it's not disputed that a) it was his father's name, and b) it's not his name any longer, as he legally changed it to Michael Lucas. I cannot understand what Lucas would gain from stating that it was not his name. Horologium (talk) 16:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two very long-standing Wikipedia principles which indicate that we should accept the subject's word here: WP:IAR and m:DICK. To insist on a passing bit of poor research by an entertainment magazine against some pretty comprenehsive attempts by the subject to prove the truth, would be dickish in the extreme, and would also be an absurd piece of rules-lawyering. Guy (Help!) 16:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V trumps both WP:IAR and m:DICK. The photo cannot be used because there is no way to verify its provenance or accuracy. There are reliable sources that say Lucas's name was Andrei Treivas Bregman. There are sources that say otherwise. Are we to ignore some reliable sources and not other sources? Is the subject of a bio to direct which should be utilized and which should not?--72.76.2.52 (talk) 17:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating Horologium's question, why is this such a huge deal for you? What is your interest in this matter? Such single-minded pursuit comes from somewhere, and it has nothing to do with an accurate encyclopedia, so what is it? R. Baley (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to apply Occam's Razor here, there are only two possible sources for the collection of images of passports and related documents: the subject, or an elaborate forgery. So either we have an elaborate campaign to fraudulently change information of no obvious significance, or we have a simple mistake by a tabloid and an increasingly exasperated subject trying to fix it. Whcih do you think is more likely? Guy (Help!) 21:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) My interest here is: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:PSTS, WP:RS, WP:NPOV. The subject of the bio is obviously trying to fix something, but in pursuit of executing repairs he is employing workmen using faulty tools. A photo of a document, genuine or forgery, cannot be used as a source because its provenance or accuracy cannot be verified. There are reliable sources that say Lucas's name was Andrei Treivas Bregman, and there are sources that say otherwise. --72.76.96.89 (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As someone entirely uninvolved in this, it seems to be that your "interest here" is to disrupt the encyclopedia by rule lawyering around an insignificant detail in a BLP. Whether that is because you have a bone to pick with the article's subject or for some other reason, stop it. — Coren ^(talk) 04:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding BLP content Jimmy Wales said, "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed..." Please re-read the first paragraph of this thread. Look at the diff's. It's all there, nothing is made up. Can you contribute resolution to the issues raised there? If you're really interested, go over the revision history at Michael Lucas (porn star) and see the direction of the edits from about two years ago. You will see a once relatively balanced bio transformed into an effective PR piece for Michael Lucas. There's more than simple policy violation at work here. The real disruption to the encyclopedia is the compromise of its integrity.--71.127.239.175 (talk) 12:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, User:AnonEMouse received a strong ticking off from Jimho for using a primary source to verify a detail in this way. Apparently in this case it is not that Michael Lucas does not want this info on the article, but that he wants it so the situation is not nearly as dire, but it is still completely unacceptable to use a primary source in this way. If Michael Lucas's real name mattered, then it would have been covered in a reliable secondary source. If it wasn't then it shouldn't be on the article. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the situation is more complicated then I first thought, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Michael Lucas (porn star) which is probably the best place to discuss this (since it is a BLP issue) Nil Einne (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It actually has been covered in a secondary source which someone unearthed on Google Books, but for some reason that was rejected by the same person trying to do this. I've looked into the situation and am satisfied the guy's name was at birth "Treyvas". It's worth pointing out we do have the full cooperation of the subject of the article in this. I don't see what the problem is if we're getting the name right and the subject is not complaining. Orderinchaos 16:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a photocopy of an affadavit from a notary affirming the legality of the birth certificate also be rejected? Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 12:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not that we don't trust the birth certificate (bizarre conspiracy theories by certain wikipedians aside) so it wouldn't make any real difference Nil Einne (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again with all this?!? In the interest of "Don't feed the trolls" I invite all to see that the issue seems to have been sorted out on the talk page of the article. Mistakes do happen but we have handled the situation working with the subject of the bio to avoid BLP concerns. Do i expect birth certificates to start being accepted? No. This is an exceptional case being fed by an exceptional wikilawyering IP who, despite good faith piled high and deep, is likely the same IP who harassed wikinews/wikipedia editor David Shankbone (who did a wikinews interview of Lucas) and has stalked the Lucas article. I really see this as forum shopping at this point. Benjiboi 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has attracted another determined conspiracy theorist intent on propagating his/her personal beliefs and providing minority theories (diplomatically speaking!) with undue coverage, violating innumerable policies in the process. Articles targeted have thankfully been few in number: Carl Bildt, Armenian National Committee of America‎, and David Mayer de Rothschild. The user has attributed their additions to an inherently unreliable website and disregarded multiple warnings deposited on the talk pages of Screwed-n-chopped (talk · contribs), 85.229.25.77 (talk · contribs), 85.229.25.221 (talk · contribs). She/He has been repeatedly directed by others to familiarise themselves with policy and guideline which has evidently been unheeded. The additions seem unsalvageable: aggressively entrenched in the POV it was created from - just conspiratorial vitriol. Is this user determined enough to be deterred by protection? I was tempted to protect to discourage the user from ignoring warnings and pursuing such a blatant agenda, but that would be rougely unilateral (;-) and might only convince the user to redirect their focus. Regards, SoLando (Talk) 19:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my suggestions. If the user inserts the material once, just revert it, explaining to the user the reason for the revert and mentioning the relevant policies. If the user inserts the same material multiple times, explain to the user about the edit warring, 3RR and consensus policies. If the user still continues to insert the same material, see if you can make a clear case that the user is violating the 3RR rule and report it to WP:AN/3RR, or if you can make a good case that the user is violating the edit warring policy, and make that case on this noticeboard. If the user inserts different material, the user may be trying to reach a compromise; see if you can negotiate. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy protected the relevant pages and gave him a stern final warning. I think this is entirely the appropriate thing to do; There's really no reason to bend over backwards for disruptive single purpose accounts who display no interest in discussing their actions (aside from, I see, once asking who deleted some content, and once claiming that the BBC is engaged in censoring). Someguy1221 (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR isn't an avenue that I considered appropriate. Those edits were in violation of policy. To report the user for a 3RR vio' would, in my opinion, imply a degree of validity that those contributions do not enjoy. The decision to report the user in lieu of decisive action doesn't mean I advocate leniency towards disruptive users ;-). My intention was to raise awareness of the user's egregious behaviour and determine whether there would be support for immediate protection as an effective expedient against the disruption, and possibly other measures. In effect, I echo the sentiment of Someguy1221.SoLando (Talk) 17:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alansohn has taken dictatorial ownership of the article Dane Rauschenberg, which began as a self-contributed autobiographical article written in violation of WP:COI. The article came to his attention during a proposal to delete it, and now to validate his "inclusionist" philosophy, he is fighting over all common sense to resist any edits to it. His disruptive revisions include: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dane_Rauschenberg&oldid=193592131, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dane_Rauschenberg&oldid=193334689, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dane_Rauschenberg&oldid=190331857, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dane_Rauschenberg&oldid=189197886, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dane_Rauschenberg&diff=prev&oldid=188874943, among others. I have been told that this violates WP:OWN, WP:NPA and other policies. For example, I have tried to remove the birth month and year from the lead paragraph under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays but he keeps adding it back. I add a sentence stating the date the project ended and the amount of funds raised at the date, and include a proper citation, but he keeps deleting it, in order to create the impression that the fund raising goal was more complete by its announced deadline. The subject of the article ran 71 marathons, but his reflex deletions replace that sentence (as a part of a conventional biography) with a list of 5 marathons that are selected for no apparent rhyme or reason. He displays a need to emote and engage in personal attacks rather than discuss the matter at hand -- how to develop a balanced and accurate article. I understand that this article started in a hole because for most of its first year, it was edited exclusively by its subject. But reasonable people should be able to work together to remove the junk and come up with something balanced and objective.

For example, many people do not consider Rauschenberg an "amateur" because his derives his living organizing running events and giving motivational speaches about his running experiences. Mr. Alansohn keeps reinserting that difficult-to-define characterization in the lead paragraph, while I and others believe it should be left out in light of the ambiguity and controversy on the point. I have tried to reason with him and used the article's discussion page, but he leaves personal attacks and insults, rather than objective arguments in reply.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Alansohn , this is a recurring problem. Please help. Thanks Runreston (talk) 21:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That RfC is likely stale, though having Burntsauce speaking up for him probably is not a good sign given subsequent events. You might want to consider a new one. I don't see action being taken on the basis of that particular RfC. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion. However, the discussion page has been updated as recently as January 15, 2008, so I'm not sure that it is stale. I would hate to go back to square one on what appears to be a continuous, ongoing pattern of incivility. Runreston (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The bigger question is why User:Runreston has not been banned as an abusive sockpuppet of User:Racepacket as was the result of The most recent sockpuppet check. Racepacket, together with his earlier sockpuppets User:Xcstar and User:207.91.86.2 (see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket), has been joined by Runreston. I do not know what the nature of the monomaniacal obsession is, but some 90% of User:Racepacket's edit history has been dedicated to the Dane Rauschenberg article (and other directly related articles), following directly in the footsteps of Xcstar's edit history, which also topped off at about 90% of his 300 odd edits. It is extremely hard to understand why there was no follow through to ban both User:Runreston and his puppetmaster User:Racepacket, in light of the "likely" finding of the SSP request, but in light of this continued abuse of article and abuse of process, it's well past time to give the both of them the permanent heave ho. Alansohn (talk) 00:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alansohn is trying to draw me into this dispute by leaving this snippy message on my talk page [22]. I am not involved in this WP:ANI posting, but I want to point out that the above statement "some 90% of User:Racepacket's edit history has been dedicated to the Dane Rauschenberg article (and other directly related articles)" is mathematically untrue. I have 1,445 edits and the article has been only edited 561 times. I recommended that the article be deleted at the end of October 2007, but I have no position on its current contents. Racepacket (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will make a rather small apology for typing "Racepacket" when I meant "Runreston" as being the one whose edit history is 90% attacks at Dane Rauschenberg in his and other related articles. Though in retrospect, once all of User:Racepacket's definitively confirmed and likely sockpuppet's -- User:Xcstar, User:207.91.86.2 and User:Runreston -- are added in, Racepacket's overall Rauschenberg obsession may well reach about 20% or more of total edits combined with sockpuppets, still quite a disturbing obsession with one article. Racepacket's initial excuse for using Xcstar as a sockpuppet was a knowingly false claim that Dane Rauschenberg would physically attack him if he were to use his own Racepacket username to edit the article. After being successfully outed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket, it should be extremely disturbing to all legitimate Wikipedia editors that Racepacket has started with another sockpuppet, User:Runreston, to push the same attack against Rauschenberg, especially after The most recent suspected sockpuppet check came up as "likely" confirmation of sockpuppetry. If Racepacket is still willing to attack Rauschenberg after being caught once, it makes clear that Racepacket has a complete disregard for Wikipedia policy and confirms that the original excuse of feared retaliation by Rauschenberg is an out and out lie. It is rather telling that the statement "I recommended that the article be deleted at the end of October 2007, but I have no position on its current contents." ignores Racepacket's extensive sockpuppetry by User:Xcstar, User:207.91.86.2 and User:Runreston since Racepacket pulled away from using his own username for Rauschenberg attacks in October 2007. Alansohn (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have search both the Dane Rauschenberg article as well as the various running discussion boards and cannot locate any authority for the claim stated in the paragraph above that there was a claim of "fear of retaliation" or that it was or was not a lie. That is not the issue here -- the issue is Mr. Alansohn's disruptive edits and personal attacks. The tone of Mr. Alansohn's remarks here are further evidence that he feels he "owns" the Rauschenberg article, and that anyone who wants to edit it must be personally attacked. I invite everyone to compares my last version of the article before Mr. Alansohn reverted it to Mr. Alansohn version, to judge which has a more objective neutral presentation of the facts. In the meantime, let's have some civility please. Runreston (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You used the "Rauschenberg will beat me up" excuse to convince an admin not to block you permanently after the initial checkuser came back positive. This cock and bull story was told so convincingly that the sockpuppet report was blanked due to "privacy" concerns. You used the BS story yourself at this link. I don't own the article. You don't belong on Wikipedia. While you are still here, I have suggested that any proposed legitimate changes should be discussed on the talk page AND consensus reached before making any changes to a stable article that has passed AfD and been the subject of repeated abusive attacks from you and a whole gaggle of your fellow sockpuppets. You have refused to get consensus and then made abusive and defamatory changes to the article without any evidence of support. The real question is why nobody has followed up on the confirmation that you are a sockpuppet and tossed you off this island once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relax dude, this isn't that big of a deal. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into this fellow removing large sections of French invasion of Russia when asked to explain things went down hill fast. Apparently he has decided that I shouldn't be allowed to edit this page and its getting personal. I've requested a few time to cease communication to me or about me and it just keeps getting worse. Its all over both of our talk pages and on the talk pages of French invasion of Russia as well. I am thinking about taking a wiki break for a few days but rather resent someone trying to get me to cease editing. --Tirronan (talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong, I removed a section of unreferenced text which did not have any sources, and if I may point out that Tirronan has done the exact same thing for the exact same reason here in the Battle of Borodino http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Borodino&diff=190771476&oldid=190423773 as you can see he gave the reason "(Reverting uncited change, before adding information bring up the change on the talk page with your proof.{rv}IP address vandalism”Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And then again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Borodino&diff=192104061&oldid=192070965 which he gave the reason “Multiple changes by IP addresses without a single citation, please do not add or change facts without citation”Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if Tirronan removes unreferenced materiel that is ok but if others do it is not allowedWheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I did respond to it, but he refuses to continue any conversation. Not only did I respond to the removed section I gave a source which proved it wrong which he also ignoredWheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And no I have no personal grudge against anyone but I find it amusing to see that most if not all of my responses were completely ignored by him whilst I answered everyone one of his Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But he has stopped adding that specific paragraph now and all of his recent edits have been mostly good and backed up by a source, possibly he has just copied this new text directly from a book without rewriting it but that is a different story Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I am willing to forget this whole thing as long as he keeps the specific, unreferenced and proven wrong, paragraph out and does not use pov wordingWheelcarboat22 (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew I smelled a rat here are the citations in the "unreferenced" sections removed!!!! The Wordsworth Pocket Encyclopedia, page 17, Hertfordshire 1993) ^ Helmert/Usczek: Europäische Befreiungskriege 1808 bis 1814/15, Berlin 1986 there is a 3rd but it isn't legal since its a wiki ref in german. your whole argument never was valid and this should not have been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirronan (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I however have had enough, I had an IP address making changes to the results box and reverted it. This is done every day for the same reasons. When you reverted a paragraph you reverted much more than that and kept it up removing cited and ^{[citation needed]} tags without citation which is what I was objecting to. Further I didn't write that objectionable paragraph nor did I approve of it. Stating the weather is POV then my vericity despite citation then claiming I was a lying and furthered by multiple charges of plagerisem and other acts. I am a fairly well regarded editor and I have little tolerance for this childish behavior. I am only interested in making history articles better and have never attempted to do more than that. Unless you have something constructive to add to the article I simply do not wish any further communication from you at all. --Tirronan (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have no interest in the specific paragraph then how do you explain this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=French_invasion_of_Russia&diff=190767120&oldid=190315816Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no interest in that paragraph, though in fact it is right and sections above it in fact give citation on whoever wrote it earlier. After reading that and other statements however I began rewriting the entire thing because in fact I agreed that it needed a more specific rewrite with citation. That you attempted to interfer in my editing is what got me upset. I repeat I didn't write it but it is in fact correct. If you read the logistics sections it even speaks directly to that section. Now understand this, anybody on wiki can and will edit your work and mine too. But it better be a good edit and ready to stand a challenge. Your behavior didn't lend itself to that and if you can't stand your edits be reverted this then make sure you have good reason to cite for it and all this would have been avoided. In history articles it isn't about what your or my opinions are, it is what is supported by fact as documented in reliable verifiable histories. I don't care one wit who won or lost but I do care that it is accurate and provable. None of this should ever be personal and my reversions are not attacks on you nor ever were intended to be. If you want to get along here be then understand what someone is trying to tell you and don't take it personally. Now let this be and I am going to continue to fix that article and get it right. --Tirronan (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is wrong and I proved it wrong with the link but you reverted anyway, I also proved that you did reinstall it without any sources and that you did remove sections from other texts that were unreferenced (Battle of Borodino) and in fact the section is wrong which I have so clearly explained on the appropriate discussion page that it is wrong and why it is wrong and a source proving that it is wrong. And my behavior? It is you and you alone who have refused to have a discussion I have replied to ALL your comments whilst you have ignored ALL my comments so it is YOUR behavior that is wrong just as the section is wrong and this could have been avoided if you would have stopped installing unreferenced text which I proved on the discussion page was wrong with a source. As long as this unreferenced and totally bogus text is not installed and other equally bogus and unreferenced texts are not installed then I will be most happy Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so there we have it, you can't be wrong and I am not right regardless of fact. BTW here are the 2 citations you removed with the "unreferenced" text... as may be seen, you never should have removed it in the 1st place...

The Wordsworth Pocket Encyclopedia, page 17, Hertfordshire 1993) ^ Helmert/Usczek: Europäische Befreiungskriege 1808 bis 1814/15, Berlin 1986

Now let me make this very clear, I am done with this argument. I don't wish further communications with you and I will edit as I see fit by how I understand the rules. That is it, no more discussion. Go pester someone else ok? Bye bye now... Tirronan (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tirronan: Since User:Wheelcarboat22 was created on February 9th, and immediately started editing the article in question with an edit summary that said "Some vandalism that is fake has sneaked in....", and has not edited any other article, you really should consider the possibility that the person you're arguing with is someone with whom you've had conflict before, editing under a different name specifically created to annoy you. I don't know if this is something that an admin can look into...? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 15:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TO Tirronan those quotes as you well know where from a DIFFERENT paragraph and I said once we have discussed the paragraph above we can move on to other paragraphs and to Ed Fitzgerald all I have to say is take of your conspiracy hat Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, leave the guy be, given some time to learn he might turn out to be one hell of an editor, heck I have seen it before. Hopefully we can just move on, and so long as he refrains from attempting to hinder me editing and keeps it to himself we should be just fine, so far he has, so let it be water under the bridge. After a certain point no matter how right I might think I am I don't look much better flinging mud. Time tends to show who a person is, hopefully he'll turn out to be just fine like most of us ended up being. --Tirronan (talk) 03:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How nice to see that this thing has been settled for now Wheelcarboat22 (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The guy who makes nonsense and made-up changes to Transformers characters is back again, now using the anonymous IP address 74.46.211.45. I reverted his work, but I thought I'd mention it for the purpose of watching him to ban him when he does more vandalism. It's the same sort of changes made from 2 or 3 other anonymous IPs that got banned over the last few months. Always making up fake episodes and characters for the Transformers TV series and toy line articles. Mathewignash (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any sources for your outlandish claims? Smith Jones (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Jones, please be polite and don't bite people. Matt, is there a previous discussion on this guy somewhere for comparison? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for instance, this guy keeps adding an episode called "Contageous Slobber" to the Transformers: Animated page. This is the same episode added by the last two anonymous IPs he used, and it's not on the list of official episodes, and seems to be made up. He also made up a fake Transformers: Universe Megatron figure a few days ago, and added a voice actor to the Transformers Hardtop character, a character who didn't appear in the animated series (he was a toy, but didn't make it into the TV show). How do you have a voice actor for a character that wasn't in the tv series? On the Hot Shot (Transformers) page he made up a toy line called Transformers: Nebulon, something that didn't exist. This page banned the last two anonymous IPs he used a few weeks back. You can look through the archives for a Transformers vandal. For instance, he used to make edits from 74.46.211.155 got it blocked a few weeks ago Mathewignash (talk) 01:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for "nebulon toys" returns this hit, which has information about a blue nebulon. As well ass 3695 (I'm not kidding) other toys. Please sweet Jeebus don't create a page for each one. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are toys called Nebulons in the Transformers toy line, but he's claiming there was a series called "Transformers: Nebulon", which is just his demented mind. It's like saying there was a TV series called "Star Trek: Tribbles" or something. Yes, Tribbles are in Star Trek, but they didn't have their own TV series. He just makes characters, episodes and series up willy nilly, usually using words that sound official. It's the hardest king of vandalism to spot, because unless you know the subject he's talking about, it sounds possible, but it seems he makes up things just to make Wikipedia look inaccurate Mathewignash (talk) 01:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I should declare that I'm a deletionist and I would allow Transformers to have about 8 kB in WP) Are you sure he's not just saying there is a range of toys in the nebulan faction? In which case "transformers: nebulan" seems sensible. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the intentions of the relevant edit are debatable, the fact that he replaces names en masse without making any alteration to the context is extremely worrisome. Combine that with his apparent nature as a multiply blocked returning user, his lack of response to talk page messages, and the extensive nature of these sorts of edits, I'd support his block at this point even without really knowing anything about the Transformers (I saw the movie...) Someguy1221 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite sure he's just sabotaging. He goes on kicks, doing things like making up fake voice actors for animation characters, or changing series around, or assigning alt-modes for transforming characters that are completely wrong, and simply doing it because most people who don't know the source material wouldn't know it's a line of BS. You can argue how much space on WP should be used by Transformers articles, but I don't think you can argue that the articles that do exist should be accurate and not full of intentional pranks. If I change the Mister Spock article to say he was played by William Shatner and was the communications officer on the Starship Excelsior, someone who didn't know Star Trek might not notice either. This is what he's been doing. You may also notice I wasn't the only person to make vandalization warnings to this IP today. Feel free to ask the other guy who notified him about the last edit he made. Mathewignash (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone repeatedly adds hoax information to articles, they should be blocked. As Mathewignash noted, this can be the worst kind of vandalism, since only someone familiar with the subject matter would be able to spot it. *** Crotalus *** 12:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed yesterday that several articles I started were deleted on the evening of December 19 2007.

All three were deleted by the same admin. I asked that admin to tell me where the deletion of these articles was proposed and discussed. I asked that admin to restore those three articles to my user space, so I could consider whether I could address whatever concern first triggered their nomination for deletion.

Today I learned that they hadn't deleted those three articles in a single session. They had deleted eight articles in a single session.

I know we are all supposed to assume good faith. These eight articles were all related to the "war on terror" -- controversial topics. Reasonable people can disagree about these topics. Now my understanding is that the wikipedia's decision-making should be open and transparent, and aim to be based on civil, reasoned discussion and consensus-based decision-making.

I know administrators have the authority to delete certain kinds of articles, on sight. Patent nonsense for instance. But should administrators unilaterally delete articles based on reasoning on which reasonable people could disagree?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking quickly at these articles, notability was not alleged for the first seven, and the last was redirected to a different spelling. My take is that although those detained at Guantanamo may be notable as a group, individually they do not deserve their own articles without further properly-sourced detail, because they are not necessarily inherently notable. I'd just ask whether you saw that these articles had been tagged for deletion, and if so, whether you put a {{hangon}} tag on as advised? Even so, that's no guarantee against deletion, and it may be better to build the article, with sources, in a sandbox before moving it to the article space. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles if you would like to recover the articles for rework. Jeepday (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not gotten them yet, let me know, but I think the deletion as speedy was unjustified altogether as it should have been realised that the deletions would not be uncontroversial, and the articles were sourced. But the practical course, is to get them back, strengthen them somewhat, and reintroduce them. DGG (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, deletion is uncontroversial. There was absolutely no claim of notability in the deleted content I just checked, and notability is, by common consent, not inherited or contagious. Wikipedia is no more a directory of Gitmo detainess than it is a directory of anything else. Guy (Help!) 10:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except of French villages, of course. rudra (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've snipped the names of the article. I know that WP:AN/I is not the venue for discussion of the pros and cons of deleting or retaining specific articles. My apologies for inadvertently triggering others to discuss the merits of these articles.

I was hoping for informed comment on the general case. The first two sentences of Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, which states

"Even admins should mostly use the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion pages when they think a page should be deleted. There are a few limited exceptions, which are given at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion.

IMO it is a very good idea for administrators to reserve their usage of unilateral deletions for genuine emergencies, or cases where there is no possibility of a serious disagreement. Administrators don't bat 1000. I don't expect administrators to bat 1000. If administrators comply with the advice in Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators then more than one set of eyes looks at the situation that triggered their concern.

IIUC we are all supposed to be committed to open and transparent decision making. We are all supposed to be committed to consensus decision-making. IMO, when an administrator comes across an article that triggers their concern, they should initiate the same process for deletion as any of the rest of us.

The only reason I became aware of the deletion of these articles is that I saw the red-links left behind in another article. There is something wrong with this. Since it wasn't an emergency, those who had a concern over those articles should have voiced their concern, and given those who didn't share their concerns a chance to respond.

Even if, for the sake of argument, several administrators were to agree that an administrator's decision to delete an article was the correct decision, those decisions should still be made through our normal, open, transparent procedures, where there is an opportunity for civil discussion.

First, a wikipedian who started an article, in good faith, deserves the opportunity to participate in a discussion where they can seek civil explanation of where they went wrong. When administrators delete articles following closed, opaque procedures, the wikipedian who made the good faith, but poorly advised decision is going to go on and make the same good faith mistake in other instances, because they still don't know any better.

Second, an administrator can be wrong, several administrators can be wrong. When I participate in an RFA I ask candidates for administrator to remember that they are fallible, and will make the occasional mistake. When administrators follow closed, opaque procedures for deletion they are not providing an opportunity for them to learn they may have made a mistake.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feh. Unilateral is a Wikipedia term of art meaning an action I disagree with. Geo, all Wikipedia actions are ultimately unilateral, even if they appear to be supported by consensus. In the end, we take the rap for pressing the delete button just as we do for pressing the Save page button. Although in general I'd be happy to see any marginal call simply treated as a contested PROD, there is a strong smell of WP:SOAP about these articles and I would unhesitatingly !vote delete. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, its perfectly possible for an admin to be wrong, that's why we have the deleted page archives.

The merits of the articles is really all that matters. This is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in bureaucracy. Just because there was no official AFD discussion does not mean that discussion is absolutely prohibited. There is WP:DRV and admins have talk pages. Mr.Z-man 18:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I dispute your characterization that I am trying to drag everyone into an "experiment in bureacracy". I want administrators to use their powers the rest of us entrust them with in a clear, open, transparent, accountable, responsible manner. The rest of us deserve to know how to predict how administrators will use the powers we entrust them with. I make no apology for the expectation that administrators use their powers responsbilgy and accountably. Geo Swan (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By "unilateral" I mean an action taken by a single individual, with no attempt to take others opinions into account beforehand. This is, I believe, one of the canonical meanings of "unilateral". I haven't a clue what you mean when you say even actions that appear to be supported by consensus are ultimately unilateral. User:Rodhullandemu, who has been able to look at the deleted articles, as I have not, hinted that deletion tags may have been placed on one or more of these articles. If this particular admin deleted eight different articles in response to eight different deletion tags then I would not characterize these particular deletions as unilateral deletions -- because two sets of eyes looked at them.

I have seen administrators unilaterally delete articles under questionable circumstances.

Yes, deleted page archives are an excellent idea. But it is not sufficient. Currently various deletion policies and guidelines strongly recommend that those nominating articles, categories, images and templates for deletion leave a courtesy "heads-up" on the talk page of the article creator. But it remains optional. And, in my experience, nominators routinely ignore this recommendation.

This is flawed. We shouldn't learn that articles have been deleted by finding red=links where we thought we started an article. This is not open. This is not transparent. And it is not respectful to those who made an effort to contribute those articles. Even if the contributors good-faith efforts were flawed, misplaced, it seems to me that respectful treatment requires more openness. Good-faith contributors deserve to know when material they contributed was deleted. They deserve to know why. If their efforts were flawed or misplaced they deserve to have someone at least take the first steps in educating them about what they are doing wrong, so that they won't waste any more effort.

IMO these flawed and disrespectful opaque decisions can largely be avoided (1) if the deletion policies were amended so advising the person who started the article, category, template or image was no longer optional, and administrators making deletions told nominators they had to make sure they left the heads-up before the deletion process could go forward. (2) if administrators followed the advice in deletion guideline for administrators, and only deleted articles that hadn't been tagged in the case of real emergencies, or in cases that were truly open and shut, like patent nonsense. Geo Swan (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My tuppence worth is that assume good faith is a door that opens both ways, unless an article clearly meets the speed deletion categories then there is no harm in putting them up of and AfD (if they have a common thread such as Guantanamo prisoners then a collective AfD might well suffice) -- five days give or take is not long on a project such as this. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could some uninvolved admins take a look at this? I reported this as a violation at WP:UAA but it was declined by Rudget. In my opinion, the use of the username "The Community" serves to misleadingly imply an authority the user doesn't have, especially given the stated purpose of the account, which you can read about at User talk:The Community and User:The Community. Mangojuice^talk 03:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not admin but I suggest going to User:AbdRgoodermote  03:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, a role account, isn't there only 1 of those, and that one's explicitly permitted by the Foundation? I'd suggest following the example of User:Oversight and pointing it as a redirect to Wikipedia:Community Portal and resetting the email address to either none or the foundation. MBisanz ^talk 03:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the account, given that no mandate is evident that this role should exist. This does not mean that the discussion isn't interesting, mind you. — Coren ^(talk) 04:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support block as a role account: the user page bends over backwards to state that the account will only be operated by one person at a time, likely to avoid being labeled a role account, but it specifically exists to act on behalf of multiple individuals, which amounts to the same thing. There's also the fact that the user page states the account may change hands in the future (if 'The Community' decides it's appropriate) - I can't cite a policy, but I'm pretty sure that's also a no-no. Honestly, it looks a lot like an excuse for the editor to refer to himself in the third person as 'The Community'. -- Vary | Talk 04:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, at this point, it may be safely presumed that Abd's intent is entirely benign. I do think it's too early to make any such account given that no consensus exists that this is desirable or workable. (I've also annotated the user page to that effect). — Coren ^(talk) 04:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly an interesting concept, though I agree, it's relatively unworkable. ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is unworkable if administrators act to crush it before it utters a peep. I'm a bit surprised by the extremity of the wikidrama of the last day:

• a virtual RFC on the Village Pump Policy page, rapidly closed.[24]
• an SSP report filed, sufficiently egregious that an administrator deleted it,[25]
• a totally unnecessary checkuser case confirming the obvious,
• a legitimate sock indef blocked apparently for insulting the administrator who blocked him,
• and then older, unused accounts of the same user blocked by another administrator involved in dispute with that user,
• an AfD on Delegable proxy bringing up the irrelevant wikidrama above,
• an MfD for WP:PRX, created two weeks ago, and hardly even considered, tagged Rejected without broad comment or lapse of time, and then, contrary to usual practice for rejected proposals, actually to be deleted, making it obvious that somebody -- and obviously more than one person -- really doesn't want these ideas to be considered and tested,
• and now, this ANI report, made without notice to me, (Thanks to [[User:Rgoodermote|] and a block with no sign of problem editing or misrepresentation or any kind of emergency.

Because, in due time, all this will go before dispute resolution, I'd urge all players to be careful. In spite of The Community (i.e., me, logged in as such) having committed only one edit creating the user page with tight proposed rules for that user, which should certainly be read carefully, and without any warning or process, Coren has now blocked The Community. I think when I wrote that user page, I had not researched role accounts, or I wouldn't have written about giving up the account at the request of the community, but ... because the document specified a community decision as a requirement for transfer of ownership, no policy violation was involved (and The Community, as a user, would not take a contentious action, i.e., contrary to consensus). This was not a multiple login account, the meaning of "role account." See [26]. No, I don't refer to myself as "The Community," unless I'm wearing that hat, and I'm not authorized to put it on except provisionally (i.e., in advance of authorization solely for the purpose of facilitating such), and in which case I would not be expressing my own opinions at all. I have not been blocked, The Community has been blocked. Improperly. Let's see if the actual community agrees, through WP:DR, which should have been conducted beginning with discussion of disagreements before filing ANI reports, etc. I'm not going to skip any steps; but others have been moving so quickly here that they are skipping steps. It's all for the best, I'm sure. I'll come back with diffs for claims above.--Abd (talk) 06:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that it is entirely unneeded to have the "The Community" moniker and the pseudo title of the 'community secretary'. My understanding is that this account is supposed to act as 'the community of Wikipedia' would. Why is that nessecary at all? To make a visual representation of 'the community', so actions will seem more justified than claiming a consensus was made somewhere and a editor making the change that was decided? Seems like nonsense and the very reason WP:BOLD exists. Editors shouldn't make contentious edits if they know they go against the general view of the community. If an action is backed with consensus, there really is no need for a single account to represent the community in making an action. Editors should be held accountable for their actions, whether it be page moving, removing content, protection, deletion, etc. and I feel a user who would be called "The Community" makes users actions become less accountable since "The Community" did it. — Save_Us † 09:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a joke? User:The Community should read WP:SEI. We have no bosses and no secretaries! Igor Berger (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I note that Igorberger was asked and agreed here at WP:SEI maybe WP:MFD not to add blatant spam links to his joke page WP:SEI as a continuing stream of addition to ANI threads. A check of Igorberger's history will reveal other editor's concerns over this addition which does not help these threads at all. His addition of these spam links had stopped for some time because he went on holidays but he appears to have returned to with the view that his agreement is not important anymore?--VS ^talk 10:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VirtualSteve I compared User:The Community as a joke to the sarcasm of WP:SEI. Igor Berger (talk) 11:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious how User:The Community is a more presumptuous name than User:TheProject, for example. Of course in a Community vs. Project wiki-deathmatch, you know where my money will be. — CharlotteWebb 16:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, User:TheProject makes no attempt to claim to be representative of anyone but themself, is not a role account, and is an editor rather than a process. In other words, no common point except that they are technically implemented as "user accounts" in the software. — Coren ^(talk) 17:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no rush here. User:The Community wasn't editing and wouldn't have edited unless, in his (my) judgment, there was a real consensus of at least a significant segment of the community that wished it (quite a bit larger than what usually passes for community consensus around here, and, if I can succeed in encouraging it, broader representation).

There is an active, informal but powerful movement to prevent the bare possibility of such an expression of consensus from arising, using repetitive argument all the way up to indef blocks (this one being quite minor and not a problem in itself), and if it succeeds -- or continues to succeed, might be more accurate --, the account would never be used except for process management in that userspace only, if that. The plan, actually, would be no edits outside that space, but ... that account represents me wearing a pure servant hat, and I can't predict what the community might ask me to do. This is, in a sense, a doppleganger account for the community. Please, before making any judgment about this, carefully read the user page for The Community. It is very easy to make assumptions from the name that would not be true. If I follow the rules I set for myself in using that account, in that space, none of the bad actions or effects that are imagined above would happen. And I specifically requested that the account be blocked on sight for any disruptive or inappropriate behavior. No fuss. Ask questions later, it is okay, better safe than sorry. There was no editing outside the userspace at all, no phony claim was made, and the block is incorrect but not a serious matter. If it is not lifted, I will eventually dispute it, I expect, through normal process, starting with an unblock tag and then simple discussion with the blocking administrator, which I expect may be quite sufficient. And thanks to all who comment here.--Abd (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, some of the objection here has been to a detail or details of the description on the page User:The Community/ This is a wiki, and that page specifically invites editing. The only difference about it from any other page is that, as the user, I have an unrestricted right (at least normally) to revert there. I would not use that right during any good faith process. I'm, in a sense, as we all are, a quasi-administrator for my own userspace. --Abd (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, I think this idea isn't going to take off. See, for instance, meta:Role account. But in any case, calling the user "the community" is going one step too far: the name itself would automatically imply a level of approval that is misleading. Mangojuice^talk 15:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bostonjj (talk · contribs) (and probable sock Bostonasia (talk · contribs)) has been requested six times [27][28][29][30][31][32] to add new talk page comments at the bottom of sections instead of at the top, and to sign his posts. He continues [33][34][35] to refuse to follow this practise. This in addition to making factually-suspect edits, like claiming that there are 108 million people of Korean descent in Northeast China [36][37] (the entire population of North + South Korea is 72 million, and of Manchu people only 10.68 million), and personally attacking [38][39] other users. He never responds when asked to provide sources for any of his claims. A block might be overkill (me and SineBot are the only ones who have complained to him so far), but I don't know what other measures can get this editor's attention as he doesn't seem to read his talk page and he can't be reached by e-mail [40][41], which is why I'm bringing this here. cab (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment, but adding deliberate misinformation can definitely be construed as vandalism. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Anyone else had this problem? Sinebot is signing my comments even though I signed them. [42] followed by [43] ? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it happen to a couple people, who have the same thing in common with your signature: [[:en:User:Casliber|Casliber]] (the :en: at the beginning). - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you left a note with User:Slakr? He may not even know that its doing that and be able to fix it. Tiptoety ^talk 05:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... it's the interwiki signature that it's not programmed to handle. It's already been reported and it'll be fixed. In the future, please read the bot's user page, view the bot's talk page, contact the bot's owner, and then come here if all else fails. :P --slakr^\ talk / 06:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, and if it's bugging you, for now you can use {{NoAutosign}} (as is said on the bot's user page). --slakr^\ talk / 06:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

This user has an external link on his talk page which does something quite unpleasant. It starts a music video which refuses to go back to Wikipedia, stop or close - I had to use Ctrl-Alt-Del on it in the end. It also jumps all over the screen. Even though this is on the users own talk page, I feel that it is not useful or Wiki related and should be removed, especially as it is the only thing on the page (or at least it was until a message turned up today). The users short contribution history contains no useful edits; it is all trolling, vandalism or otherwise unhelpful, although he has had no warnings for these (unless you count the message from his "friend" User:Penfish). SpinningSpark 07:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Removed and given a final warning for vandalism for the user's recent edits. --slakr^\ talk / 08:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first AN/I incident may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive373#User:boomgaylove) - Wikidemo (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this edit I inadvertently made to the archive. Should I pull the whole thing back here or file a new report? I'm really not sure how to proceed here but we could use some help in the midst of a sock/meat/disruptive/AGF/NPA/AfD, issue that seems to be blowing up. I don't know whether a checkuser request is the best approach. I'm hoping we can declare a standstill (and possible protection for the articles and speedy close on the AfD) for J Stalin and Cypress Village, Oakland, California while we sort out the sockpuppetry issue. Wikidemo (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we kindly get some administrative help on this? There are edit wars brewing on the AfD discussions, articles, etc. I'm in a tough spot of having to choose between attempting to keep order at the risk of edit warring with possibly legitimate Wikipedians, and letting the articles devolve because I don't want to get involved. This may all clear up once we run a checkuser on some of the suspicious-looking editors who have jumped in, so I think everything would benefit from a cool-down. Some neutral, experienced help would be much appreciated. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 15:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several issues here, one of which is a possible BLP violation accusing this rapper of having been a drug dealer, another of which is alleged sockpuppetry, but if a user is using socks and another user is making potentially harmful claims of drug dealing by a subject of an article, then we have a problem. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please, do help! I am not "making" claims of drug dealing or inserting any derogatory material. The article mentioned the rap artist's drug-dealing (he was convicted of it and placed on probation as a 17-year-old) before I ever came to this, and I did so only because of the abusive sock puppet issue. The sockpuppets have been gaming this issue heavily. The information does not seem to be harmful because he apparently freely admits to it, and a feature article about him in a local newspaper mentions it. The news article and the artist's own words are the sources, and the attempt to remove the fact and the citations, as well as all references positive and negative to the rapper himself, were part of the sock attack. Since the sources are reliable and the mention relevant and harmless, there is no obvious BLP violation. I have no stake here, but I do not want to let sockpuppets dictate article content or goad people into starting edit wars. Wikidemo (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly is the problem, it must be verified by a reliable source. Also what newspaper article says this? Provide it! Provide an opinion based on WP:RS how album notes are reliable. You simply can't. Therefore it is gaping BLP vio.Icamepica (talk) 09:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SELFPUB for the interview. The newspaper source is obvious from the article. Try reading it.Wikidemo (talk) 10:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and moved Wikidemo's edit from the archive to this thread for ease of use. --jonny-mt 03:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New sockpuppetry report

Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove. In addition to the obvious sockpuppets / evasion of block, a number of IP and recently-registered users have recently flocked to the issues, nominated for deletion the two articles that the now-blocked editor was trying to gut, parroted the same tactics and language. There are several users who are not clear sockpuppets but may be, could be meatpuppets (the user has admitted to meatpuppetry as well), or might just be innocent editors who wandered in. I'm not sure what to do next - a checkuser?

Also, I'm wondering if we can speedy close or otherwise suspend the AfDs pending a resolution of the sockpuppet issue. I won't argue the articles' notability here (obviously I think they are or I wouldn't be here), but it's an undue waste of time dealing with edit wars, AfDs, and other wikigaming in the middle of trying to figure out who is a sockpuppet. If the articles are deletable they can wait a couple weeks until we've gotten rid of the trolls, and reasonable editors can have an honest content discussion. Wikidemo (talk) 07:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are legitimate AfD concerns which are evident by the majority opinions on the AfD of J Stalin. Just because some user was blocked for contentious editing does not mean that any editor which coincidentally has a similar stance on the article's notability its a sock puppet. Also not a reason to indefinatly stop AfD's which you are biasly in favor or not occurring, while vindictively adding arbitrary and baseless warnings talk pages.Icamepica (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't look like it will be deleted so the question is moot, and I see no point responding to the random potshots of an accused sockpuppet. I don't want to get into AfD procedure because, assuming this is boomgaylove, he/she has nominated at least six articles for deletion in five days, including this one three times using three different accounts, and should not be taught the ins and outs of how AfD relates to sockpuppetry.Wikidemo (talk) 10:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am being harrassed

Move attempted fork to main section - Wikidemo (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

removed comments added here by another user. Removing my comments from another place. I didn't put them here. And don't want them here.Icamepica (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may have a confirmation now that this editor, Icamepica, is in fact a sock/meat of boomgaylove. Any help sorting this out over on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove is appreciated. Wikidemo (talk) 09:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am being harrassed II

User:wikidemo removed this complain the first time i placed it and moved it somewhere else where he claimed it was more fitting.!Icamepica (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

harrassment

Is this archiving by User:Black Kite acceotable? User:MickMacNee added his post at 22:21, 24 February 2008, and four minutes later Black Kite removed it with the edit summary "archived to WP:AN/B". MickMacNee then undid Black Kite's attempted archiving. However, as I've stated here and here, I think there were legitimate concerns and that there needs to be restraint shown by those who want to push everything towards that page, as quite frankly, some genuine concerns will start to get lost in the noise over there. Please note that this is not about the edit war (which Black Kite dealt with well), but about the archiving of complaints and the contribs from Betacommand through his alternate account (the diffs I highlighted). Carcharoth (talk) 09:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I was concerned that MickMacNee, having already been warned in the thread above by a number of users - including myself - about creating spurious AN/I postings, had created yet another, especially when his comment could either have been added to the thread that was already on this page or to a page that had been created for such discussion. I believed his editing was starting to edge towards the tendentious, especially when he'd just been warned about participating in an edit war during which he reached 6RR. Black Kite 10:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That page you mention, WP:AN/B, may indeed have been created for such discussions, but it is clear here that Betacommand and MickMacNee are not disengaging, and that the differences between them are beginning to obscure legitimate concerns. Too much centralising can lead to stuff being lost in the noise. I feel people are no longer following WP:AN/B and are missing issues that need to be raised here. For this reason, I am starting a new section to address that, and I'd appreciate it if links are left here, instead of sections being archived with no link left. Carcharoth (talk) 10:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds reasonable enough to me. Black Kite 12:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I specifically asked for that previous thread to NOT be archived, and got a fair bit of support for NOT archiving, but some admin archived it anyways. GG, admin, cause I saw this thinking coming, and said it at the time. ThuranX (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • What are you talking about? It's not clear at all. Do you mean what Black Kite did by archiving a single ANI post from MickMacNee, what MZMcBride did by doing the redirect of the page, or what I did by archiving part of the talk page here? I really don't know who or what you are referring to. Other questions: what does "GG" mean? What does your edit summary of " thanks for listenign to me, unknown admin" mean? Carcharoth (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think GG usually means "good going" or "good game". Avruch ^T 14:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It meant, in this case, 'good going', and sarcastically. I was referring to the fact that a number of the Betacommand threads all got archived to AN/B, including one long one where a few editors agreed with me that moving it to AN/B was bad, because it meant less of the community could comment on it. After that, LaraLove agreed with me, as did a few others. More community input was heard. Then it went poof, covered up like many of these threads. ThuranX (talk) 05:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Blocked by MBisanz

Would an admin please drop by Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Thileepanmathivanan and block the confirmed socks at the bottom of the page (there are 2 of them)? Alison confirmed them yesterday but they still need blocking. No drama or sexy disputes here, just boring admin work! EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean Sikol99 and Roti99? Tonywalton ^Talk 10:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep that's the two she confirmed yesterday. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done MBisanz ^talk 10:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You beat me to it! Flagging as resolved. Tonywalton ^Talk 10:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone more experienced please have a look at what this ip is doing? They are emptying lots of sock-puppet categories and nominating them for deletion I don't know if it's constructive or not, but it looks a bit strange to me. Ascidian (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be mistaken - but the recategorization seems to be correct, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets for similarly names categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the usual behaviour of a sockpuppet, but this does seem constructive. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just checking as I thought it could be some sort of weird vandalism, thanks for looking into it. Ascidian (talk) 14:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this person? Bearian (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2008 (UTC) I mean, who is the IP? Bearian (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could some uninvolved admins and editors have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Conflict between Betacommand and MickMacNee and give their opinon? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a thread last week about an anon range continually blanking and/or resetting the sandbox and sandbox templates. There was a short range block, but the user really hasn't slowed down much since that 3 hour block expired, having continued from nearly 40 IPs in the past week. In the grand scheme of things, this isn't really all that disruptive, but it doesn't appear to be very useful either.

Some of these have been blocked. Some haven't. Blocking directly probably doesn't do much good since the user doesn't appear to have any trouble switching fairly quickly to a new address. Is this disruptive enough to worry about? If so, is this too large of a range to consider trying a longer range block? --Onorem♠Dil 13:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a range block would be a good idea here - we're talking about all IP addresses in the range of 151.49.0.0 - 151.49.63.255, which comes out to 16384 IP addresses. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...almost all of which appear to be vandalising. Seriously, though, I'm not sure what we can do about this, short of blocking each IP we find. The Sandbox cannot be protected, for obvious reasons. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having experienced this first-hand myself, and then being vandalized a multitude of times after reverting the user's blanking, I've come to the conclusion that a range IP block might be pushing it. For now it might be better simply to block each new IP individually as they spring up. I think if the anon manifests the same behavior (contributions restricted to sandboxes and disruptive blanking), they should be reported to WP:AIV without warning with a message that points to either the sockpuppet case, or WP:ANI discussion. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least they've moved on from just messing with the sandboxes. [44] [45] --Onorem♠Dil 13:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now reverted User:Alow18's talk page twice now for social network behavior. I just got around to actually reading the full content of the talk page and noted that the only editor to the talk page was the account and me. It appears the user is either talking to them selves or there are two people using the account. Note here, it appears that there is a conversation between two lovers going on and that they are both using the same account. To my knowledge it is against Wikipedia policy for more than one person to use a single account. Rgoodermote  13:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right – see policy. And that's really quite odd... —αlεx•mullεr 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot where to find it, thanks. Yeah this is the first time I have encountered an account being used by at least two people and not trying to hide it. Rgoodermote  14:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It happened few days ago - see this. Looks like it may be some of the same people, given the references in both conversations to "the ship's internet not working", S Africa and so on. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah from the exerts that a user thankfully copied and pasted. They are the same people, may I suggest the same course of action as before?Rgoodermote  14:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Alow18 indef blocked and marked as a suspected sock of User:Ajk5055. It was amusing and slightly "Awww..." the first time round, but they seem to want to make a habit of it, despite being told the first time not to. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting)It's exceedingly similar to User talk:MCD26, where I warned accordingly - you'll have to look a bit back through the history, as I've blanked and warned and the user blanked themselves this morning. User talk:Kragar and User talk:Sullke, whilst unrelated, have also been used for an IM service - I added them the thread linked in above (but by that stage it was quite a long way up AN/I so probably got overlooked. I'm on my public account, but it might be an idea if someone could block User:MCD26, as that's clearly another account of the ship-based lovers. _{The public face of GB}^T/C 16:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)User:MCD26 indef blocked. I'm not sure it's the same people, however - it's similar but the names are different. Perhaps someone "helpful" has told their friends about this Great New Way To Communicate. If it continues I'll raise a WP:RFCU to see if it's all the same people. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a check user should be done before more arise. Because it may not be destroying the articles it is bringing in the unhelpful. By the way nice title for them. Rgoodermote  16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be at least two families involved. Doing some sleuthing in the deleted and blanked contributions there is a common factor (a ship and Cape Town) but also differences - User:Sullke talks about going to church, while Ajk5055 was going to shul (synagogue). I'll hold off on the checkuser unless any more of this starts - the problem is that they seem unaware enough of what the problem is (or willing enough to ignore clearly-worded "Don't Do This" templates) that they're unlikely to listen to arcane terminology like "checkuser", "sockpuppet" and "community ban". At the moment they're not disrupting mainspace; they're just burning cycles. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to view the deleted history so I was not aware of those differences. Anyways I believe this is done and maybe some Star Struck Lovers and a Family Apart have learned that Wikipedia is not their personal blog, things tell me though that we will be seeing them again. Rgoodermote  16:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For information, I came across User talk:Bnut7 a few days ago, although they've stopped now and it's probably unrelated. Ascidian (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unrelated, the MO here is that there are multiple people using 1 account to talk to each other because they do not think they have another way. In your case there are two different people using two different accounts to talk to each other. But it is still equally annoying having to deal with them. Rgoodermote  17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys this is far from resolved, I was reading the history and I stumbled up this written by, I presume the male.

"we can ust use another name and continue." this statement came after he mentioned the account getting blocked from editing. I think that enough evidence to warrant a checkuser in about 8 hours or so...mostly because I doubt they have sleepers. Rgoodermote  17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-I've removed the tag. I've been thinking about this though and I'm not sure what good a checkuser will do. Normally a sockpuppet is multiple usernames using the same IP abusively'. Checkuser uncovers the IP. Here we have, basically, the opposite - one username using multiple IPs. I suppose checkuser could IPblock the IPs that they're using (though my block of Alow18 included autoblock of the IP. Any thoughts, people familiar with checkuser? Tonywalton ^Talk 18:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since one of the parties appears to be travelling, their IP is going to change all the time anyway. If they keep creating new usernames there's not really any way of stopping them bar repeatedly blocking the usernames as they're found. Though if the other party has a static IP, blocking that might be useful. Black Kite 18:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The male party seems to be stationary and the female party seems to be in Africa using a laptop. We could get lucky and we may be able to get a hold of the male's IP address and that if we block it could stop the accounts from being made. The only problem is the female will most likely make a new account if he is unable to. I am a little concerned though. If Wikipedia is their only form of communication...how are they able to inform each other of new user accounts? Rgoodermote  18:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Direct them to Blogger.com or MySpace or LiveJournal. There is nothing that is stopping them from using those equally free, equally accessible sites, where such chatter is more appropriate and more private. Horologium (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they're the same people as User:Ajk5055, I pointed them towards Blogger last time. Black Kite 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From their conversations it appears that they know about those other sites and they feel this site a better option. Rgoodermote  19:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor is creating multiple articles about non-notable footballer players (a couple might scrap in because it's asserted they have made a single senior team appearance but no evidence actually presented, so I prod'd them). I've pointed out the footballer notability criteria (which those articles clearly fail) on his talkpage but I get no reply or acknowledgement. I'm DB-BIOing them as they pop up, but it would be nice if he's actually stop or even just engage in conversation with the rest of us because this is just creating work for the sake of it. Can someone stop by and ask him to, others have tried to no effect. Although the editor seems to acting in good faith, their current actions are basically disruptive. Can someone ask to stop for the moment and review the relevent policy pages. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. He's on a final, final, warning now. I can't find any reference to the two players that you PRODded hving any first-team appearances, even looking at their club's official sites, so I suggest that info is also false. Black Kite 15:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – fixed, user blocked

There are a ton of userspaces in CSD, very few of which appear to be tagged CSD. The only thing I can see in common with them is that they all have {{signpost-subscription}} in them. Be really careful about deleting userspace from there until we know what's going on please... - Philippe | Talk 15:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need someone smarter than me on this one please. I'm baffled. - Philippe | Talk 15:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reason. It's been reverted now -- I expect the pages will disappear as the job queue progresses. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) - what Sam said. Neıl ☎ 15:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that explains it. Thanks.  :-) - Philippe | Talk 15:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The job queue is at over 5 million at the moment so I have removed a few through purging. Woody (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help noticing that this was the first and only edit of Qsxwdvefv (talk · contribs).--Tikiwont (talk) 15:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He got a warning; someone could block, I suppose, but I would imagine it would be the last edit anyway. And it may (may) have been an error on his part. Possibly. Perhaps. Neıl ☎ 16:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no block. He/she has made one edit. It was a doozy, he/she was warned, and has now successfully been watchlisted by several interested parties. Let's see if he/she makes any other contributions first. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We only assume good faith in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary. In this case, we have a very clever use of a CSD template on a widely-transcluded page that a new user would be very unlikely to stumble across by chance. (Bonus points for correct use of includeonly tags to help conceal the change.) I note that the account has been indef-blocked as a sensible precaution—if nothing else, such a block may interfere with the creation of new throwaway accounts.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That username is indef-blockable as a vio of the username policy, anyway. —Travis^talk 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by User:East718. I would have done it myself otherwise, this is definitely a throw away account, and I prefer not having him around once he's autoconfirmed. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akinsane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — After a minor dispute, which I believed to have been resolved, about several speedily deleted articles which did not meet WP:N and violated WP:COI, I then received this message from the articles' author – aside from constituting a legal threat (although directed at the WMF, rather than myself), it also seems to be a violation of username policy as evidence of a multiple-use account.

The legal threat seems invalid, but I'm not sure how to respond to this one... perhaps someone could take a look? haz (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked until they retract it. John Reaves 17:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a thinly-veiled attempt to force Wikipedia to relist the article about that non-notable company/wrestler. Assuming good faith though, I'm not sure how there is any legal threat because of an article being deleted anyway. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Their rationale, such as it is, seems to be "We want our article on here because if someone else writes one they may tell lies about us". Looks to be in contravention of WP:NPOV, WP:GFDL, WP:OWN just for a start Tonywalton ^Talk 18:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is gone. seicer | talk | contribs 17:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The legal threat remains. Tonywalton ^Talk 18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced about the validity of their GFDL and Creative Commons licenses on the two images they've uploaded, given that the website they're from clearly states that ... all Icon Championship Wrestling, Inc. Logos are Registered Trademarks which are the exclusive property of Icon Asylum Entertainment. Would someone who knows more about image licensing take a look? Tonywalton ^Talk 17:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As they're orphaned anyway, it might be a non-issue. I also note that two of them appear to be duplicates with differing licensing. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, though worth bearing in mind if an article ever does survive. By the way, my bad, there is a third image. Tonywalton ^Talk 18:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tagging the second image (this one) as a dupe, since it appears to be a bit-for-bit copy of the first. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd threat for a "class-action" when the only apparent member of the class would be themselves... But a threat is a threat no matter how implausible --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt their company is very legit, based from their web-site. No privacy or copyright statements, yet they have a CEO, CFO, a Board of Directors... seicer | talk | contribs 20:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to wonder about a website whose Corporate page has purple lettering on a black background. Corvus cornix_talk 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of closely held S corporations have full boards. Anyway, it appears to be a legal threat to me. Bearian (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – It took 3 users to do it, but it has finally been repaired! —Travis^talk 19:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone fix the log? It's the broken entry for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiss Me Like That and Boubaker polynomials that appear to cause the problem. Have tried to fix it, but it doesn't seem to work. Seems to be a 2nd nom issue. Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed. The correct title is Who Will I Run To / Kiss Me Like That. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I only fixed the first one. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boubaker polynomials still needs to be addressed. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both appear fixed now, at least the page isn't broken! :) Thanks so much. Know this didn't necessarily require admin tools, but I couldn't think of another way to get a 'fix it' notice out after trying to fix it myself. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of Boubaker polynomials and another one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiley Dean (2nd Nomination). —Travis^talk 18:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, what a mess. I took care of the first nom for Boubaker, the 2nd nom was just now corrected by Ultraexactzz. —Travis^talk 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the heading, though - at least these were caught relatively early. Good times. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you for your parts in fixing it! I didn't even noticed Kiley Dean, I just thought it had been speedied between nom and listing as happens on occasion. Have a good day! TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is basically my last step before this heads to RFC. User:Mdsummermsw continues to prod articles with no notice. He never marks them for improvement just prods, as you can see by his user page dozens and dozens of articles. He is obsessed with notability criteria and his arguments are getting increasingly pointy. Nominating albums with imminent release dates citing WP:Music [46]. He also has a habit of not taking enough time to look at what he is proding, such as he here where he prod'd it as being an unreleased album [47]. If you look through the list on his user page you will find many examples of things that are clearly notable that he has nominated [48] [49][50]Among others . He seems to be trying to prove some point about notability, and seems to be actually asking for an RFC. Ridernyc (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He never marks them for improvement just prods,

"never"? e.g., Hittman: [51][52][53][54]

And a few others:[55][56][57][58][59]

as you can see by his user page dozens and dozens of articles.

...any of which went through AfD, ending in deletions.

He is obsessed with notability criteria

Wikipedia has notability criteria for very good reasons.

and his arguments are getting increasingly pointy.

I can only state that I am not trying to disrupt wikipedia, nor am I trying to prove a point. I'm trying to get rid of articles on unsourced (or poorly sourced), non-notable, unreleased albums.

Nominating albums with imminent release dates citing WP:Music [60].

Albums that haven't been released are unreleased.

He also has a habit of not taking enough time to look at what he is proding, such as he here where he prod'd it as being an unreleased album [61].

The first time you took issue with this was for what you said was "actually more like a demo". As I explained, the article and its few sources called it lots of things: a "demo album (which) has never been released in any form", "a suite ... but not a complete album", an "alleged recording" [[Category:Unreleased albums]] at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Ballad_of_Stuffed_Trigger. This case was a poorly written article. The lead tells us it's "I Murdered Mommy is a the name of an abandoned cd-rom project by avant rock band The Residents" and put it in the category "Unreleased albums". I'm still not sold on the notability of this one [62]. I'll get back to it.

If you look through the list on his user page you will find many examples of things that are clearly notable that he has nominated Homegrown (album)

Neil Young is clearly notable. Homegrown, in my opinion, is not clearly notable.

Human Highway

Please be sure of your accusations before you make them. I've never touched that article. [63]

[64]

Are you also taking User:Ten Pound Hammer to task for voting to delete the same article? Seems I'm not the only one who isn't sold on that one.

He seems to be trying to prove some point about notability,

If I'm "trying to prove" any point about notability, it's the same point I "try to prove" about verifiability, reliable sources, NPOV, etc.

and seems to be actually asking for an RFC.

I'm not hoping for an RFC, but you are certainly welcome to start one. If you find a meaningful consensous that says I shouldn't PROD and AfD based on Notability I will certainly stop. Or, perhaps you can mobilize them to make whatever changes (if any) you feel are needed in the guidelines. Personally, I think requiring substantial coverage in reliable sources is a good standard.

Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, there isn't any administrator action being asked for, nor is there any that would be appropriate. Ridernyc, a better first step would have been to talk to Mdsummermsw on his/her talk page about your concerns. From the random edits I looked at, I see no evidence that Mdsummermsw is not acting in good faith, nor does he/she appear to be violating any of the deletion policies, so I see no reason to take any action at this point. Natalie (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Natalie Erin's assessment here. What admin action are you hoping for? Saying "this is the last step before an RFC" seems overly dramatic. You obviously have a dispute about content/appropriateness of unreleased albums with Midsummermsw in that you think they should be kept and he/she thinks otherwise. I personally don't see enough justification for an RFC, but by all means go for it. I think mediation or dispute resolution, if not attempted yet, would seem to be a better venue. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have dicussed this issue on his talk and totally ignored. Ridernyc (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see one message, which points out things you want Mdsummermsw to pay more attention to. Is it at all possible that he/she took your advice and didn't feel like any further comment was necessary? Regardless, now you both know that you disagree, and you can either hash this out on one of your talk pages or agree to avoid each other. Either way, there really isn't anything here requiring administrator attention. Natalie (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No because things got even worse today. Look at the 2 unreleased Neil Young albums he sent to AFD. Ridernyc (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, what? What are you asking administrators to do here? Natalie (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prods and AfD's are often completely fine without other efforts by the prodder on the articles. For instance if the prodder thinks the article's subject is genuinely not notable at all. People are free to add the 'hang on' template and improve articles they think are encyclopedic. Removing stuff that is genuinely not suitable for wikipedia is a great thing to do IMHO, and Ridernyc you should try to WP:AGF that other editors are trying to improve wikipedia by prodding etc.Special Random (Merkinsmum) 22:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the amount of Prods. I have literally spent the last 2 hours going through all his prods and AFD's and finding sources. His recent batch of AFD's are not going well, more then a few people have commented that the articles never should have been brought to AFD. I Have no problem with proding things and sending things to AFD, just look at my edit history. The problem is sending so many things in such a short amount of time and being clearly wrong a high percentage of the time. Ridernyc (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small point of fact: prods do not have to be contested with the hangon template. The prod can simply be removed by anyone for any reason, and that is taken as contesting the prod. Again, if you feel that this user is nominating a lot of things incorrectly the best tack would be to start a conversation with him/her. There is not rule that says he/she cannot nominate a hundred articles a day for deletion, whether prod or AfD, and you haven't demonstrated at all that this user is acting in bad faith. And for the fourth time, I think, what admin action are you asking for? Natalie (talk) 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above user is requesting an unblock. They claim that they have atoned for their sins, and are willing to contribute constructively from now on. I hold no opinion on the matter as yet, and am only posting this to bring more admins in on it to see what the prevailing opinion is on this request. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not terribly opposed, provided they're willing to accept mentorship (heck, I'll even volunteer to mentor) and to go on a "one strike and you're out" civility patrol. - Philippe | Talk 19:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some background can be found here, where the indef-block was discussed and endorsed. I personally don't see much in the way of apology or acknowledgment of the issues that led to the block in the unblock request, which makes me naturally wary. If someone's willing to keep an eye on him (and the other eye out for sockpuppetry) and block again if there's any sign of the activities that were unpalatable last time, then perhaps an unblock would be worthwhile. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, this guy. Sure, unblock him, but keep a very close eye on him. Grandmasterka 22:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been 10 months. If he wants to edit on this account, with all its history, rather than create a new one, it has some ring of sincerity. Gimmetrow 08:50, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I say unblock him, with a warning that he is being watched. The fact that he's coming back and wants to use the old account is IMHO a good sign. He could have just as easily, no easier, created a new account without the baggage. By using his old account, he knows that people will be watching him---particularly if Phillipe is sincere about his offer above.Balloonman (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 10 months should be enough to learn his lesson. Would it be possible for a checkuser to be run against his current IP to see if there has been any recent anon. or sockpuppet abuse that we just haven't connected to him? MBisanz ^talk 09:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've unblocked. Gimmetrow 09:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This individual at the eBay link below is selling a photo I uploaded to Wikipedia.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300200215160

Here's the photo: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Huckabee-SF-CC-024.jpg

I know it's permissible as per the copyright release, but the seller isn't giving proper attribution as required via the copyright notice. Is there a Wikipedia lawyer who wants to rattle this guy's cage?

--Mactographer (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't have standing here—it's your copyrighted material, so it's your responsibility (and right) to challenge the violation of your license terms. Scroll down to the bottom of the eBay listing and click on the Report this item link under the Other options section header, and follow the directions. Alternatively, you can go directly to this link to report violations. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely complain to eBay, showing your original, your copyright, and as much info (including for example EXIF) as you can muster. Good luck. -- Alexf⁴² 19:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have only given a license to use this photo provided you are properly attributed as the copyright holder. You have not been so attributed, so the seller is in breach of copyright. You have the upload date on Commons to verify your first claim to the image. You can demand that it is withdrawn, or send them your bill for use of the image. If the image were released under GFDL it would provide more safeguards, as any user would have to provide the text of GFDL with the image. Tyrenius (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a flickr user and thus a sufferer from such shenanigans, eBay's own tedious processes require that you speak to the seller first (UK advice), which [opinion only] is best done in neutral, non-threatening but clear language - just like Wikipedia's WP:AGF, assume first that the seller is an idiot; your reasonableness will count well against any intransigence from them. Set a reasonable deadline for a reply. If that fails, you'll need to get an eBay account (get a GMail anonymous address for it) and progress it to their "Community Watch" procedure (UK version). This is for "Inappropriate items: If you find a potentially illegal, infringing or inappropriate item on eBay, you can report these items to Community Watch at eBay." Your concern falls under "illegal items" - your CC licence is binding on the seller. Sadly, neither the community here nor the Wikimedia Foundation can help you directly. Nevertheless, please keep me informed of the outcome. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add, although it's unlikely of any consolation to you, that your picture has been up for bid for its full run of 7 days, with only 6 hours remaining, without a bid (and unlikely to garner one). So the ebay lister, despite his 100% feedback rating will have paid his nominal listing fee with no return. I'll also add that when you contact the "seller", who has been an ebayer for 9 years with 8000+ successful transactions, who has there own ebay store, that you will find that the lister is probably not an idiot and is likely very aware of what he/she is selling and illegally at that. Just my Two cents (which is exactly 2 cents more than I would bid for that picture, and I actually kinda like the guy. Cheers:) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, I've gone through eBay's process before, in having to have a photograph of mine removed from a listing. It was tedious, very much time consuming, and in the end, I made little impact. While the listing was removed, the user was not disciplined. He would have only made a few dollars on the image in question, and if I had to go back through it again, I would have declined based on the value of the image. seicer | talk | contribs 20:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that's a useful consideration though. Sniping is very common on eBay and if I for some stupid reason wanted this, I would definitely snipe Nil Einne (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was tedious, very much time consuming, and in the end, I made little impact. - indeed, quickest impact I ever had was a man hotlinking pictures off my servers for his adverts - he threaten to sue me when I swapped them out for goatsie and ruined his ads.. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the seller intends to provide an 8 x 10" photo from a file of 570 × 764 pixels, which at 300 dpi would give a print size of around 2 x 2½"! You could always put it on Ebay yourself with a starting price of 1 cent, an explanation that it is available free of charge on Commons and that any other offer for sale without attribution is a copyright violation. Tyrenius (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been informed the item has been withdrawn from sale. Bit silly, really, since it only had a couple of hours to go. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really that surprising IMHO. I would presume the seller has no desire to get into arguments or risk his/her eBay account (since if they get enough complaints, they will be taken down eventually) so he/she simply responds to complaints and continues selling copyrighted images without permission from people who have not complained. (The stupid thing is, the seller could actually easily comply with the license in this case, but he/she is so used to just selling copyrighted photos with permission, he/she just doesn't bother) Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

unless of course we hear from the anon editor with more information. Or maybe I'm just abusing my admin privileges. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

The system told me to make an account and wait a few days before editing, so I did, but when I finally got a chance to edit, my account was blocked! So then I made a new account at a different IP address and waited a few days more until it would let my new account edit, and then that account was blocked too. WTF? Tell your admins to cool their jets a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.161.188 (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are the account names, that we may review for you? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Admins have been warned to "cool their jets". Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make a note of it. Natalie (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My jets are officially cool. As am I. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, am quite a froody admin. — Coren ^(talk) 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a dispute going on at Religion in the United States. Esimal has been attempting to insert a bunch of material about Neopaganism that includes a number of unreliable sources and dubious claims. He's resorted to blind reverts, personal comments, and sockpuppetry to get his way and attempts to get him to discuss on the talk page have been unfruitful. I breached 3RR reverting his sockpuppet but reverted myself. I'd appreciate some input.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the opposite view has been presented on WP:AN by User:Zidel333 on Esimal's behalf, under the heading "User:Cuchullain advice requested". MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been away for a few days so maybe I missed something, but when I was scanning the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates/January 2008 I noticed a red link for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/xxxxxx. Did I miss some back-history, or did this slip by unnoticed? My understanding was we usually do not delete the MfD. From what I can tell, the user changed his username and then deleted the MfD, and was later blocked for editing after exercising the right to vanish. (I purposely am omitting his new username since he envoked RTV.) Was deleting the MfD apropriate? Do his other deletions need to be checked, too? What is going on? --12 Noon ^2¢ 21:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC) removed add'l information per below request.--12 Noon ^2¢ 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think things like this are covered in the RTV. Undelete? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 21:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some info you need from the MfD, or is this just pointless poking Adam with sticks? Mr.Z-man 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please would you consider removing his name? He clearly doesn't want it on WP and having it here does seem like poking him. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, based on Mr.Z-man's and DanBealeCocks's comment, it appears this is more side-taking WikiDrama than I bargained for. The point was deleting an MfD about yourself. I wish not to partake in empty accusations, and hope others would do the same and stay on point, but I have no horse in this race, so good-bye. :) --12 Noon ^2¢ 21:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for editing the name out. Everyone knows who you mean, and I hope you get some useful information. Dan Beale-Cocks 23:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the name could easily have been obscured without deletion. The process is as follows:

1. Move page with name in the title to a new name.
2. Check "what links here" in the redirects" and change the links to point to the new name.
3. Delete the orphaned redirect.

Simple. Everyone's contributions to the page in question are preserved. The page name vanishes from searches. The page itself can be courtesy blanked so the searches don't pick that up either. Usually, though, people don't think of this and they just ask for deletion. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Wunderlee, purportedly through a representative named "Greg Levant," is threatening to sue Wikipedia unless the Christopher Wunderlee article, which is currently on VfD, is kept by the community. This is one of the worst violations of the non-lawsuit guideline we have ever seen. In short, he is threatening to sue merely because his self-promoting article has been proposed for deletion. I think the full force of our guidelines should be applied and he should be banned. Here is the specific threat: [65]. Leesome (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have proof you are willing to stand behind in court, you should seriously refrain from accusing someone of "self-promoting". Indeed, I think your making this claim here would normally count as a personal attack warranting at least a 24 hour block. But consider yourself warned instead.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if banning the IP would mean an indef block, it might not be best if it is reassigned. The editor should be informed that it is a discussion page, so it isn't really libel. Based on the article in it's present condition, I'd say the article should be deleted, but I'm avoiding getting directly involved. If the article in question doesn't exist, it can't be libelous. How are all the other supposed legal threats handled? I mean, after all restrictive actions? Who do they contact? Why is Wikipedia never sued, with all these BLP cases. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 22:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your statements are being monitored and action will be taken. well monitor this, block for breaching WP:LEGAL. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the IP for 48 hours and left a note explaining why on the talk page. Obviously the IP cannot be blocked for any longer period of time unless there is some suggestion that it's static, so this will just have to do for now. I've watchlisted the article, the AfD, and the IP talk page, but some other people with magic buttons may wish to do the same. If this becomes a real issue we can courtesy blank the AfD, but obviously not until the discussion is actually closed. Natalie (talk) 22:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just 'splode it? Every entry has been for delete, the only entry not suggesting has been a legal threat and every entry since has been delete and salt. Snowball, maybe? Or too soon? HalfShadow (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try putting the IP into the address bar of your browser, ie http://216.231.41.66/homepage.htm to find that it is actually the IP address of CollinsWoerman architects. This means that it's fair to assume both that someone has received a legal threat from an architect and that there's a good chance the IP is a static one, therefore blockable. --WebHamster 22:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel terribly strongly either way about the AfDs, but as this author appears to be somewhat upset and has an itchy lawyer finger, maybe it's best to let them run there course so the delete is as valid as possible. I'm also not up on my technical knowledge in regards to IP addresses, but if others are pretty sure that this IP is static then I'm not opposed to lengthening the block. Natalie (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Good catch! seicer | talk | contribs 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the AfD debate as a violation of WP:BLP. See section below. As for The editor should be informed that it is a discussion page, so it isn't really libel, you couldn't be more wrong. It doesn't matter where you publish something, it is still published. There is no excuse for gross insults to subjects of articles and such lack of courtesy. I suggest an apology is in order to the subject, or to his agent. The IP was warned 3 hours after posting the legal threat, then 12 minutes later he was blocked. Tyrenius (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius is absolutely right. Yes, this poor person should not have made a legal threat. And people should never have engaged in the kind of completely failure of courtesy that led to it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's my block, I'll point out that blocking indef is SOP for legal threats until the threat is revoked. To quote from WP:NLT: "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." If the IP revokes the threat of legal action, they will be unblocked. If they continue in this vein, they will continue to be blocked. This is how these matters are nearly always handled, and I can't see any compelling reason to handle this matter any differently. Natalie (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think it's preferable to let a new user know they are doing something that contravenes policy, before they are sanctioned for doing so. They should be given the opportunity to withdraw. They hadn't done anything during the 3 hours after one post. Tyrenius (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, blocks generally aren't sanctions. They are an attempt to prevent further harm and I believe the theory behind insta-blocking after legal threats is that it prevents the user from pushing the lawsuit point, and creating a further chilling effect. And they have been given the opportunity to withdraw - there is a templated warning on the IP's talk page as well as a personal note from myself, explaining exactly why they were blocked and welcoming them back once they withdraw the threat. Once the threat is withdrawn, or once 48 hours has passed, they will be free to edit once again. Natalie (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not complaining about Natalie's block at all, although if forced to choose, I would support the idea of letting the warning stand in a case like this to allow the person to withdraw the threat. But a better response would have been a mass blocking on all the people who insulted the guy in the first place.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just deleted this as a violation of WP:BLP with its liberal accusations of vanity. Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Shorthands states unambiguously:

"Vanity is a potentially defamatory term that should be avoided in deletion discussions."

This has been there since October 2006.[66], after discussion at WT:AFD and WT:BLP.[67] Likewise since 2006, the shortcut WP:VANITY has had a warning:

Please do not use this shortcut, as the term can be considered insulting to the subjects of articles.

There are pertinent posts about this also (under maintenance at the moment).[68], [69], [70], [71]. Neither vanity nor self-promotion are in themselves valid delete reasons anyway, so there is no need to mention them. This applies to the above section also. Tyrenius (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a major difference between "should be avoided in deletion discussions" and "is cause for immediate deletion of an AfD page that makes use of the term". I've restored the page pending consensus for doing otherwise here; maybe the word vanity should be removed from the page, but your action was heavy-handed to the point of ludicrousness. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've refactored it. I'd point out that using the term "vanity press" is completely reasonable, it's a valid term for a self-published book and has even got its own article. Thoughts? Black Kite 23:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity press seems like an acceptable term for me, but then again, I haven't tried to promote a vanity press-published book. I'm sure everyone can just avoid the specific word "vanity", if that's the problem, and the AfD can continue as normal. Natalie (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Note: Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion even if you think it's the case — AFD gets media attention, and the word "vanity" in AFDs has caused real problems for the Foundation."[72] (emphasis in the original) I think that's clear enough. Tyrenius (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the author's article has just been snow-closed as Delete, I doubt if it's going to be a problem for much longer. Black Kite 23:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd suggest courtesy-blanking (not deleting) the AfDs when they're completed. Note, though, that the individual was threatening to sue not over the content of the AfD, but over the outcome, which is plainly dumb. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think actually deleting the discussion was more than a bit overboard, especially considering it was two discussions deleted, and not one. If there is libel, you can delete the particular revision in question and leave a note. Deleting the entire page of an ongoing discussion without restoring any part of it is outlandish. Avruch ^T 23:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've closed it as a snow delete and redacted the nomination. I don't see any reason to continue a minor drama. Black Kite 23:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completed AfD deleted per WP:BLP:

Courtesy blanking of deletion discussions

If a biography of a living person is deleted through an Articles for deletion (AfD) debate, the AfD page and any subsequent deletion review that fails may be courtesy-blanked or deleted if there was inappropriate commentary.
"...In the meantime, it is my position that MOST AfD pages for living persons or active companies should be courtesy blanked (at a minimum) as a standard process, and deleted in all cases where there was inappropriate commentary. This is not the current policy, but currenty policy does allow for deletions of material which is potentially hurtful to people." --Jimbo Wales 01:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[73][reply]
After the deletion of a biography of a living person, any admin may choose to protect the page against recreation.
End of material quoted from WP:BLP. Tyrenius (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I think a courtesy-blanking would be more than sufficient in this case, and would ask you to stop making contentious deletions unilaterally. As "inappropriate commentary" goes, suggesting "vanity" is very mild. In the interests of avoiding wheel-warring, I won't restore the pages unless there's a consensus to do so, but I think your actions are getting a little tiresome here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides which, you appear not to have deleted the discussions at all. Please don't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity as in vanity press is apparently a provable fact here. Just to muddy the waters :-) Feel free to courtesy blank the debates after closure, that is entirely acceptable in these case. {{courtesy blanking}} does the job, but probably no need to actually delete. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Guy, but if we have not received such a request and have no obvious reason to expect one, the default would be to leave it well enough alone. — CharlotteWebb 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"No obvious reason to expect one"? Just above, there is a legal threat. The default is WP:BLP and the onus on wikipedia editors to act pre-emptively:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.(emphasis in original)

Wikipedia is an international, top-ten website, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends.

Vanity accusations are clearly contentious and were made as pure editorial opinion.

Tyrenius (talk) 00:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've courtesy-blanked the pages, as there seems to be something approximating a consensus in favour of doing so. All history is still available to anyone who cares to look, so I don't think it does any harm, and I agree with the substance of Tyrenius's interpretation of WP:BLP (although obviously not with the severity of the conclusions he's drawn from this interpretation). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is the main reason the server is configured not to allow Google to index AFD pages (despite how difficult it can become for as editors to find a specific AFD at a later date), not that the overall behavior of Google should matter much to us anyway. If we actually do believe the user plans to sue (and is not simply trying to troll us), I would suggest consulting Brad Patrick Mike Godwin before tampering with any of the "evidence". — CharlotteWebb 00:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that (not instantly, not overnight, not in a way as to shock people) policy be firmed up to make it clear that a deletion reason of "vanity" is a personal attack on the subject of an article, and not just "not recommended" but a blockable offense under WP:NPA.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'd like to request some outside eyes. NCdave (talk · contribs) posted a lengthy, largely off-topic thread at Talk:David Reardon describing his personal views on abortion and including a few external links to "crisis pregnancy centers" (). I indicated that this was a misuse of the article talk page as a soapbox, and removed the external links as promotional and unecessary ([75]). NCdave responded by restoring the links, saying "Please do not censor what I say, and I won't censor what you say. OK?" and noting, inter alia, that "... a mom 'wants' an abortion like a wild animal, with its leg caught in a steel trap, 'wants' to gnaw its leg off." ([76]). I don't see this as productive or appropriate discussion in the forum of Talk:David Reardon.

Context: I've had run-ins with NCdave before. Based on his tendentious editing at Steven Milloy, I sought a topic ban and NCdave was banned by the community from that page for 6 months. I don't think there's any response I can take at the talk page that will be viewed constructively, given our history. Therefore, I'm asking for outside input regarding whether these discussions are appropriate under the talk page guidelines, whether it is appropriate to add (and re-add) these external links to the talk page, and so forth.

Possibly relevant links:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/NCdave (pretty old)
• Block log
• Community sanction noticeboard thread
• Current talk-page thread in question

Any input or feedback is appreciated. Thanks. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His post does not look appropriate, or at least the second half of it is not appropriate, and I've removed the external links again. Is there a particular reason you haven't brought this up with him on his talk page? Natalie (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given our disputatious history, I doubt that anything I have to say will be received constructively (as with the article talk page). I thought it would be more useful to have uninvolved eyes look at it, though I did notify him of this thread. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, and your reason for wanting outside help makes sense. I note that he had a mentor, and possibly still has. Perhaps this person could talk to him about the inappropriate talk page comments? They may have a better idea of how to approach him effectively. Natalie (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just chime in here quickly. When Mastcell brought NCdave to WP:CSN I suggested we give NCdave a second chance and instead of community banning try topic banning, if NCdave entered WP:ADOPT. He did and he got topic banned. When he asked what behaviour people found inappropriate I went to some length to it all explain him (see his talk page) as did his mentor. However NCdave has decided to argue with issues in my posting (I'm not saying my advice was perfect but in all fairness it's a pretty good explanation of his previous problems and why they are problematic) which wasn't a very encouraging sign. But if this post is anything to go by NCdave hasn't learned from his past mistakes. Mastcell is right to bring this here - NCdave's post is utterly inappropriate - NCdave is using WP as a forum, again. That said, I thought he was doing okay in his editing at Jesse Helms--Cailil ^talk 00:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Natalie.

I disagree with MastCell's characterization of my Talk page comments, here. (I also strenuously object to MastCell's characterization of my contributions to Steven Milloy, which were over six months ago, anyhow; for the record, my edits to the Steven Milloy article were not tendentious, they were attempts to bring the article into conformance with WP:BLP.)

Background: the article in question is a biography of Dr. David Reardon, a pro-life activist whose specialty is post-abortion trauma and counseling. The broad argument here is over whether there is such a thing as post-abortion trauma (also sometimes called post-abortion syndrome, or PAS).

The specific discussion in question was about an edit to the article by a IronAngelAlice which introduced an inaccuracy into the article. In 1988 Koop wrote to President Reagan, and in his letter he said that "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." However, IronAngelAlice's edit replaced that quote with a transplanted fragment of a statement that Koop had made elsewhere, and reported it as being in the letter to Reagan. She also made her edit with no Talk page discussion.

Rather than just fix it in the article, I sought consensus by discussing the problem on the Talk page; I then edited the article with what I hoped would be wording that would be acceptable to all: I included both the accurate quote from Koop's letter to Reagan, and also the quote which Alice had inserted, but with a correct attribution to where Koop had said it.

It is my opinion that the way to build consensus is to have frank, open discussion about points of contention, on the Talk page. Alice contends that PAS (Dr. Reardon's specialty!) does not exist. So I explained how it is that I know, from personal experience, that it does exist. The personal story I told linked to the web site of the local Crisis Pregnancy Center to which I had directed a woman suffering from PAS. I included that link so that someone who reads what I wrote can see why I gave that woman their phone number. If MastCell doesn't want to see that, he doesn't need to click on the link. Some people might not know that post-abortion counseling is a big part of the ministries at most CPCs, or might not know what that counseling really is. It seemed better to include a link rather than a big quote from their web site.

MastCell then joined the conversation, not to help find consensus on the contested sentence about Dr. Koop, but to accuse me of misusing the talk page and "spamming," and he deleted the links to the local CPC from my comments.

MastCell also didn't like the "wild animal" anecdote. But (as I noted in my comment) the wild animal anecdote was a close paraphrase (from memory) of Dr. David Reardon -- the subject of this biography! (It was one of the two most memorable things he said in the speech that I heard.) How can a close paraphrase from the subject of a biography be inappropriate to the Talk page discussion about that biography??

Cailil, hello. I respect your opinion. Please read my comments to Natalie, and review my attempt to find a consensus wording for the disputed sentence about Koop, and tell me what you think was inappropriate about my change and my explanation of it (other than wordiness, a sin of which I am frequently guilty).

Also, I am anxious to hear what bothered you about my contributions to the Jesse Helms article, but please put it on my Talk page or in private email. NCdave (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NcDave, there is no complaint about your first comment to the talk page (this one) - I don't see MastCell complaining about it and I'm certainly not complaining about it. You were using the talk page to discuss a change to the article, which is its exact purpose. The problematic post is the second post, which is several paragraphs of your personal opinion about a controversial medical diagnosis. Your personal experience is not an admissible source for a Wikipedia article (or for scientific research - as the old saying goes "the plural of anecdote is not data") so you are hopefully not suggesting that this information be in the article. I also think the links are inappropriate - Wikipedia is not the right place to be advertising for crisis pregnancy centers. I would suggest that information about counseling from CPCs is maybe not the best unbiased information, considering their quite upfront bias about abortion and various related issues. So, in my view at least, the second post wasn't really about improving the article in any way. It sounds a lot more like soapboxing, which is an inappropriate use of a talk page.

Small point of fact, as well: Cailil doesn't criticize your contributions to Jesse Helms, he says quite the opposite. Natalie (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@Natalie: You're absolutely right, User:JodyB was previously working with NCdave. I probably should have gone that route first before coming here, but I had forgotten about the mentoring agreement. I will touch base with JodyB. MastCell ^Talk 00:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First: I'm sorry, Cailil, for misreading what you wrote! To take a liberty with a quote from a famous President, "there I go again." If I had a nickel for all the times my sloppiness has gotten me in trouble or caused me embarrassment... <sigh>

Also, I'm sorry if it seemed like I was advertising a local CPC, I assure you that wasn't my purpose. You are right, Natalie, that I was not suggesting that my personal explanation of why I am certain that PAS is real belongs in the article. (I can't prove that it ever even happened... trust me, I do not lie, but that assurance is not WikiProof.) In fact, I said as much when I wrote it: "The following is a personal anecdote, so it obviously doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article." But I believe in openness, I think it is helpful to know where editors are coming from. Considering that there was an argument underway about whether PAS is real I thought it pertinent to tell why I'm sure that it is. I'm sorry if it came across as soapboxie (is that a word?). I think it would be helpful to know where the other editors are coming from, too. But, of course, that is up to them.

However, I do think that CPCs' web sites are reasonable sources for information about the services that CPCs, themselves, provide, and I note that WP:V permits such sourcing. By way of symmetry, I noticed that 5 of the 15 references in the Planned Parenthood article are references to PP's own web site. NCdave (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is starting to move into the realm of a content discussion, so I think we're mostly done here. You're right, NCdave, that an organization can be a source for its own services. The issue here, I think, is that the debate is over whether or not this phenomenon exists (if I'm misreading this, then disregard the following). If I'm trying to prove that something exists, its probably best to avoid sources that have a vested interest in proving that the phenomenon exists, since their bias is quite obvious. And the anecdote seemed soapbox-y to me because it was long, detailed, written in expressive language, and seemed designed to cause an emotional reaction. If your anecdote had been more along the lines of "I've had some experience with this," and then you outlined your experience in a few sentences, that would feel less soapbox-y to me. Natalie (talk) 14:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi folks: I'm a relatively recent admin with a problem; I think I now have a Wikistalker who's creating usernames that are rather like mine, and leaving me what you might term an abusive message. The first one here was from "Accounting4Tasteless" and the next one, here, was from "AccountingLacksTaste"; the same message both times. I reported the first one at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention and the name was promptly blocked, but I figure a second go-round means it's going to continue. What's the best course of action, please? Accounting4Taste:talk 23:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert, block, ignore. Natalie (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just hard block on sight. Eventually they get bored. bibliomaniac15 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked User:AccountingLacksTaste indef per Wikipedia:UN#Similar_usernames. Suggest an occasional review of Special:Listusers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot. I was gonna call my "public" non-admin account "Notaccounting4taste". Would that be a no-no?  :-) On a serious note, biblio.. and natalie.. give good advice. They'll get bored and go back to their other MMORPGs. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone, for your prompt and useful advice. One question: am I allowed to block this individual myself, since I'm concerned? Or should I report to Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, or here, each time in the future? Oh, and User:Keeper76: -- there IS no Accounting4Taste, although I wish my vandal believed that more wholeheartedly ;-) Accounting4Taste:talk 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think transparency for admin actions is an isse here. Block on sight would be supported, at least by lowly Keeper, using of course normal editing discretion. If someone turns up as User:Keepersucks76, I don't doubt that I would block him/her and I also don't doubt that I would be justified in doing so (and supported by the community) My thoughts. You are now officially two cents richer. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I wouldn't have any problem with you blocking these usernames yourself, since they're obviously impersonating you and you've brought the issue up here for review/advice. I can't imagine anyone else would, except perhaps the impersonator themself. Then again, I'm basing this mostly on having blocked my own impersonators before and heard nary a complaint. Natalie (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(exdent for convenience) Many thanks to all again for the advice. I do think transparency is a good thing but at the same time I have no wish to waste anyone's time unnecessarily, so I'll handle this myself from now on unless things get REALLY weird. I'm writing the quote from Natalie on the whiteboard over my computer desk -- "Revert. Block. Ignore." Words to live by! Accounting4Taste:talk 00:24, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I totally stole that from Wikipedia:Revert, block, ignore. Natalie (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This SSP report has just been filed against this editor, but one of the given diffs includes this, which looks very much like a threat to me. Given the user's recent history (see talk page), I am minded to block indef without even looking at the SSP. Thoughts? Black Kite 23:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an indef block. The threat is ambiguous, but the editor is obviously not here to build an encyclopedia. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the threat seems likea joke to me. i would recommend looking at the SSP, just inc ase thaere is somebody else who is helping to contrib to the proble, but i have to agree with what my felow editors have suggesed above. Smith Jones (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Jones, off topic here a bit, but do you have a spell checker? Your posts are hard to read. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've always taken it as dyslexia, but WikEd does have a spellchecker I think, as a suggestion for Smith Jones. Avruch ^T 23:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read his posts as dyslexic, per say, as words aren't spelled backwards or in a "jumbled" fashion. I read them as "typing too fast, and not using preview". Just my thoughts. I think SJ many times has relevant opinions, but because of the formatting, are too easily discounted, including by me. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a relatively common (in my experience) typographical error forw hichI 'vec oinedt hen ame" slows pacebar" - when typing too fast the spacebar of some keyboards can take just enough more (or less, whic hwoul dbe "fas tspacebar") force than the other keys so as to screw up someone's rhythm. —Random832 23:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? I have no idea what you just typed. Perhaps that was your point....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that drives me nuts. I had an old, sticky keyboard once (back in the Apple IIe days), and thed amns pacebarj ustw ouldn'tk eepu p. Oritjustwouldn'tworkatall,whichwasjustasbad. And a one poin one of he leers jus sopped working. You'd type a line and look back and it'd just be gibberish. Hated that thing. --TheOtherBob 05:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either way is fine with me; I didn't take that as a physical threat myself, more a threat to harrass, but since I'm lobbying for an idef block anyway... The SSP is pretty cut and dried, IMHO. I'd just like another admin opinion on the SSP so I have more ammo when I request an RFCU. --barneca (talk) 23:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a timed block, long enough to let the SSP run its course. After those results are available, block others as appropriate. – ClockworkSoul 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indef for trolling & threats, and advised can email myself or another admin if wishes to submit material to the SSP enquiry. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Tis a bit hard to get too worried about a threat of that nature, but I think it adds to the ample evidence that this editor is not a useful presence on Wikipedia. I support the indef block; in fact, I closed the WP:SSP case before seeing this thread. MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, I went to make a coffee and was going to block and close the SSP when I got back ... looks like I'm redundant :) Black Kite 23:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redundancy is a key feature of most well-engineered systems. Not to mention Wikipedia... :) MastCell ^Talk 23:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the block, too. Bearian (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this place runs like a well oiled machine sometimes. --barneca (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this guy's story of having a brother who used his email account was a bit of a stretch, but when he says a schoolfriend used his computer when his back was turned, this is sounding too much like "the dog ate my homework". --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clockworksoul, he's very recently, had a timed block (48 hours) for persistent incivility. This was upped to an indefinite block but following discussion with me and others the admin who applied the indef block agreed that I could reduce the block to the original 48 hours. I endorse the more recent indef block; it seems he is incorrigible. Tonywalton ^Talk 13:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Unless the editor in question really really jumps off the cliff.

Is this a legal threat? I'm referring to the ludicrous threat to contact a third party on the issue of "libel", not the preposterous report to oversight-l. Yes, I realize the threat is thoroughly frivolous; apologies if the question also is. --Rrburke^(talk) 23:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's borderline. At this point your best bet is probably to ignore it unless it escalates. Natalie (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a freakin' full moon tonight? What's with all the threats? </typing my thoughts>. I agrew with Natalie here. Keep a close eye or three on the perpetrator for us, would you Rrburke? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I'm planning to respond to the editor -- I didn't know whether it was worth suggesting he consult WP:NLT or if that would just raise the temperature unduly. The exchange that gave rise to the problem is here. --Rrburke^(talk) 00:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you have there is a bonified content dispute. Thanks for the heads up though Rrburke. Let any admin know if his posts to you (or on that talkpage) escalate any further!. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added a fair warning to the editor in question. Just an FYI. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – personal info oversighted, troll blocked - Alison ^❤ 00:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]