Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

(For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators and experienced editors. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. For incidents involving the possible misuse of administrative powers, please attempt to engage in discussions with the admin before posting here.
Are you in the right place?			How to use this page
To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see administrator intervention against vandalism. To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette assistance. To report improper deletion or request undeletion, see deletion review. To report improper usernames, see usernames for administrator attention. To request page protection, see requests for page protection. To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. To report long time edit warring/abuse, see long-term abuse. To report suspected sockpuppetry, see sockpuppet investigations. To request permanent deletion of sensitive personal information, see requests for oversight. DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone. To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution.			Please add new incident reports to the bottom of this page. New threads should be started under a level-2 heading, using double equals-signs and an informative title that is neutral: ==Example title==. If a thread is related to an ongoing discussion, consider instead placing it under a level-3 heading within that discussion. Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically. When moving long threads to a subpage, add a link to the subpage and sign without a timestamp: "~~~"; this prevents premature archiving. Move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/[concise title]. Also consider adding/updating a status tag (e.g. {{unresolved}}). Threads will be archived automatically after 24 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment. If you cannot edit this page because it is protected, place your comments on this page and they will be addressed accordingly. When an issue is resolved it may be marked with {{resolved}}. If it is misplaced it may be marked with {{NOTHERE}}
Requests for Comment on User Conduct Candidate pages Certified pages Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kolins – potential editing against consensus and lack of discussion on talk pages. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DocKino – alleged persistently uncivil edit summaries. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Fæ - allegedly misleading citations, disputes over BLP sourcing and WP:CLEANSTART. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Shakehandsman - alleged improper BLP sourcing and POV editing. General
What this page is not
This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues.
See also
Requests for Arbitration enforcement Blocking policy Block user		List of blocked IP addresses and usernames Block log List of protected pages		Protection log Subpages of this page

Click here to start a new discussion thread

---

Noticeboard archives

unpleasant editing environment at Neuro-linguistic programming

• "The article on Neuro-linguistic programming, and related pages, are placed on article probation. Any user disrupting these pages may be banned from the article and related articles by an uninvolved administrator."[1]

I asked Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) to stop making accusations of bad faith against me via his talk page[2] but he continues. Snowded (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Lam Kin Keung (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) are not creating a pleasant editing environment. Rather than dealing with the issue they keep making accusations of sockpuppetry both direct and implied. The reason I created the account is that I want to be anonymous. I realize that this is an extremely controversial topic and that several editors have been harassed off-wiki by editors exposing their real identities in order to embarrass them to their friends and family, cause them anxiety or other harm.

I made it clear when I create this account that it is a single purpose account for editing the NLP and related pages only. I am not here to promote or disparage the subject. I want to see articles written based on reliable sources and relevant wikipedia policies.

Every edit I make in good faith based even when clearly based on reliable sources is automatically reverted. It has been going on for some time, but here are some examples from the past few days. I have been trying to ascertain how to accurately report on the Norcross et al 2006 paper. It is a poll designed to establish a consensus on "what does not work" in psychotherapy. It does not make any specific conclusions about NLP in the body of the article. There is a table which lists the results concerning NLP for round 1 and 2 in a table. Snowded and Lam Kin Keung argue that we can just use the data from the results table and make our own interpretation for the wikipedia article. I do not agree with their opinion on this so have been asking them to tell me the conclusions made by the authors. Rather than dealing with the issues they launch into personal attacks saying it has been discussion before and that I am wasting their time on the same sources. I do not believe I am wasting their time. It really does not matter what has been discussed or agreed to before if the article still misrepresents a source.

• "just by changing your name"[3]
• "you have been told this before"[4]
• "Please stop your disruptive time wasting behaviour."[5]
• "you wasted a huge amount of editors time on exactly the same references."[6].

This is a highly controversial topic on wikipedia. Looking at the editing statistics here, Neuro-linguistic programming is probably more controversial than Abortion. The editors whether they are pro, con or neutral have been personally attacked and harassed off-wiki. I can provide more details privately to a trusted administrator as I do not want to give away my real details.

The user Snowded has been threatening for some time to reveal my personal information. I don't think he knows who I am but still the threat is there. Links and further evidence can be provided privately. I'd rather it done in a way that protects the privacy of editors including me. I think he is trying to put pressure on editors to conform to his viewpoint or "be exposed". He has also implied that I was responsible for creating a off-wiki web site designed to bring in meatpuppets. I have approached Snowded at his talk page and ask him to stop making the threats but he continued and even stepped it up a notch.

I believe I am within my rights to edit using this single purpose account so I ask that the editors remain civil and assume good faith. I request that they stop trying to accusations of bad faith. Rather than just dismissing and autoreverting all my edits, try to work with me in creating a better article. If I ask for clarification on a source they should not assume that I am trying to waste their time.

I need help dealing with this situation. Perhaps a mentor can be suggested for me. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is the fourth "serial" ID that this user has used (listed at the bottom of this sandpit which has draft evidence. Changing ID of itself may be OK, but its not OK to use said change of ID to repeatedly return to issues which were previously resolved with his earlier persona. Especially as the first manifestation (Comaze) was subject to Arbcom remedies. We can then add to that a series of SPA's editing in conjunction with the current persona and clear evidence of meat puppetry linked to two of the previous IDs (both in comments from banned users and in the repetition of attacks suggested by external web sites organised by one group of NLP enthusiasts). I and other editors (see the article talk page) consider that the disruption has gone on long enough and I have agreed to put the evidence together and submit it to the community here for consideration. It is a fairly time intensive task which I can't undertake given work commitments for a week or so. I think this report is probably an attempt to pre-empt that report or at least muddy the waters. Oh, and by the way, as far as I am aware I am the only editor who has been harassed off wiki so I am not sure what that is about. --Snowded ^TALK 23:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

A cursory study of the talk page will reveal that recently 122.x.x.x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in repeated unilateral editing against consensus, or while subjects are under discussion. The user has consistently attempted original research, (a recent example of many being an accusation of plagiarism by an author of a journal article here), some of his talk page "queries" have verged on hoaxing (see this thread for example), and he has repeatedly tried to shift talk page discussions into general discussion about NLP, contrary to WP:NOTAFORUM. He has been given numerous warnings about this kind of editing behaviour. There are also serious and legitimate questions about whether the user is an spa or mpa, which are still to be resolved. In any case, the user's editing has been disruptive, and of itself calls for administrative intervention. I would suggest a ban on editing pseudoscience-related pages, but given the fact that the user has admitted it is a single purpose account, a block would be more appropriate. ISTB351 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, the user here admits to being 122.108.140.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). The user does not make this openly clear, and there is an overlap of editing without declaration on January 17th this year. This is a fairly clear case of sockpuppetry, even if an obvious one, and there is much to believe that this is just the tip of the iceberg. ISTB351 (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia frowns on SPAs & the person behind the mulitple IP accounts, has just declared him/herself an SPA. GoodDay (talk) 01:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just as a quick point of order, Wikipedia doesn't frown on SPAs (or shouldn't), as long as they edit according to policy. Wikipedia does frown on sock puppetry, however (no implication on my part that sock puppetry's involved in this case, as I haven't really reviewed it). — madman 02:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I do not think that ISTB351 is independent of Snowded so his comment should only be taken lightly. I edit NLP and related articles under a separate name is that the topic is highly controversial within my professional and social circle. Unfortunately my Wikipedia identity is traceable to my real name and I have already been the subject of harassment. I don't want to discuss or give any more details because it might give them more fuel for the fire but I am willing to talk to a trusted administrator privately. For this reason I wish to use an alternative account to avoid this harassment and embarrassment in other areas of my professional and personal life. Snowded repeatedly claims whenever I discuss an proposed edit that I "repeatedly return to issues which were previously resolved". I'd prefer that we foster a collaborative atmosphere rather then the war zone metaphor. He keeps calling my edits "editing warring". I am not repeating previous discussion that have been resolved because I am basing my edits on what is currently in the article. If it was resolved, why do the issues remain in the article? ISTB351 claims that i have: "consistently attempted original research". This is not fair because I have been using reliable sources to make my edits. It is a stretch to call what I am doing original research. ISTB351 and Snowded said that I should not use the word "sought" in my change proposed edit: here: "Using a delphi poll methodology, Norcross et al (2006; 2010)<ref name="Norcross et al 2006">Norcross et. al. (2006) Discredited Psychological Treatments and Tests: A Delphi Poll. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, American Psychological Association. {{doi|10.1037/0735-7028.37.5.515}}</ref><ref name="Norcross_et_al._2010_Pages_176-177">Norcross, J.C., Koocher, G.P., Fala, N.C. and Wexler, H. W. (2010) "What Does Not Work? Expert Consensus on Discredited Treatments in the Addictions, ''Journal of Addiction Medicine'', Vol. 4, No. 3. pages 174-180.</ref> sought to establish expert-consensus concerning discredited psychological interventions, they found NLP for the treatment of mental and behavioural disorders was ranked between possibly or probably discredited, and certainly discredited for substance and alcohol abuse." ISTB351 believed that the word "sought" was a weasel term. I knew it was familiar. I looked at the Witkowski paper again and found that not only was that word "sought" used in the context of reporting the intention of the Norcross study but it was also used in the abstract of the original study Norcross 2006. In fact Witkowski had plagiarised the Norcross abstract. Earlier in discussion Snowded that there is no question that Witkowski is reliable and we should take what he says at face value. But I noted that the journal was not highly regarded anyway - it is not listed as a reputable journal. I ran the Witkowski paper through "turn it in" and found a large plagiarism count. I was just making a comment that I questioned the credibility of the journal and the author and that we should report on the original two studies by Norcross et al instead. ISTB351 (falsely) claims that I "shift talk page discussions into general discussion about NLP". I strive to stay on topic and rarely discuss anything in general about NLP. My discussion is almost always about specific edits or I am questioning the papers cited in the article. I did attempt to divert discussion to what other editors would accept as reliable sources but they refused to be party to those discussion. They said you they need to evaluate the source in the context of a specific edit. So I made effort to be very specific giving the exact text in question and a proposed change. I need to add that I completely agree with the arbitration findings and suggested rememdies on NLP back in 2005/6: [8] but think the remedies should be extended to current editors of the article such as Snowded, ISTB351, Congru and even me, or anyone else who joins in. I would not be surprised if several editors banned under the arbcom remedies have returned to the article (albeit better behaved which is a positive). I do not want to name anyone in particular because I think that this should be a blanket guideline for anyone editing NLP or related articles. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So, we have a number of new users who only edit NLP and who all edit in the same disruptive way, making accusations of sockpuppetry against other established users who edit a broad range of topics, and whose only alleged connection is that they also edit NLP. This is about as good a case of WP:BOOMERANG as we are ever likely to see. ISTB351 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

ISTB351, don't pretend that you are independent of this dispute. Wait for an independent administrator to comment. And don't be fooled by Congru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who might be a strawman sock: "Creating a separate account to argue one side of an issue in a deliberately irrational or offensive fashion, to sway opinion to another side."WP:SOCK Congru I would not doubt your authenticity if you used reliable sources more consistently and used diffs to give weight to your views. 122.x.x.x (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So everyone is a sock apart from you. You are in breach of AGF to an extent that WP:Conspiracy comes into play. This is of course despite the fact that you have been running SPAs contrary to wikipedia policy. It's laughable. ISTB351 (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

(out) I filed a request for a third opinion, and then a request for comment on one of the points (the declaration that NLP is a pseudo-science) in the article. This complaint I mostly agree with; there is a hostile attitude towards NLP expressed in the article that didn't used to be there, and on the talk page; edits intended to return the article to the more NPOV flavor it used to have (at the time it was a good article candidate) are reverted. htom (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

That is a point about article content and is not suitable for the ani. The reason that the article says what it says is because that is what the sources say. The user above incidentally is another who mainly edits NLP-related issues. ISTB351 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Disputes about article content, raised in improper, hostile ways, are indeed appropriate for ANI. As far as my edits on NLP or the talk page, recently that's been too true, and for a sad reason. htom (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Please note that in their final decision the ArbCom decide that "The article could more closely conform to neutral point of view by ascribing controversial viewpoints such as "NLP is pseudoscience" to those who have expressed such opinions, rather then presenting them as bald statements of fact." --122.x.x.x (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There is not a single violation of that Arbcom ruling in the current version of the article. Nowhere does it state as a fact that NLP is a pseudoscience. The article reflects the balance of the sources. You are simply wasting people's time here with spurious and tendentious points. ISTB351 (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you know that "the article reflects the balance of the sources"? What is your evidence? As I said in the discussion we need to work together to compile a list of reliable sources that represent the different viewpoint according to weight. It is not an easy task because the literature is spread across different disciplines. We should not just focus on the view of naive empiricists or evidence based psychologists, this is just one view. Balance can only be achieved by compiling a list of reliable sources that represent the different viewpoints. At the moment there is hardly any description of what NLP is as described by its founders. There is a book titled Frogs into Princes by Bandler and Grinder published in 1979. It has 700 citations in Google scholar but there are just two short mentions of it in the current article: (1) "Bandler and Grinder gave up academic writing and produced popular books from seminar transcripts, such as Frogs into Princes, which sold more than 270,000 copies."... (2) "According to Stollznow (2010) “Bandler and Grinder’s infamous Frogs into Princes and other books boast that NLP is a cure-all that treats a broad range of physical and mental conditions and learning difficulties, including epilepsy, myopia and dyslexia.” That is far from a fair and balanced treatment of the subject according to the sources. --122.x.x.x (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The context of the NLP situation has been mentioned before recently: [9]. There appears to be a commercial element at issue. For the past months a commercial site named Inspiritive.com that promotes a “New code” of the neuro-linguistic programming: [10][11][12] was linked to. Subsequently, more Inspiritive.com related commercial links were recently removed:[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20]. Commercial links continue to be removed:[21][22][23]. Some editors on the neuro-linguistic talk page tend to edit towards the new code version of neuro-linguistic programming and be towards edit warring or against BRD:[24][25]. Discussion is encouraged even so: [26][27][28][29]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of those commercial links except for maybe the 1996 interview of John Grinder [30] that was linked on the John Grinder article. That interview is also linked from the Skeptic's dictionary article about NLP and from memory is also used as a reference in several academic publications. It probably meets wikipedia guidelines for external links. --122.x.x.x (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting development: Following the lead from postings of user Congru and confirmed sockpuppet Syductive: There are the other further diffs [31][32][33] to commercial firm [34]. Firm appears to be an example company of comaze.com [35]. This all relates to the case: [36]. Comaze.com concerns with writing promotional NLP sites and the search engine optimization [37]. This needs more following up. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that the example company NLPcorporate has now gone from Comaze.com website [38]. It was there a short time (minutes) ago. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 08:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Screenshot evidence of recent coverup on comaze.com: [39]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

And, per my earlier link the editor who brought this case, in his previous IP address was linked to a Hong Kong member of New Balance NLP, who was then apologises to "Scott" for her inability to get things changed just before she is blocked. Nearly all the SPA accounts on this page, including those permanently blocked have made multiple accusations of sock puppetry against other editors as part of their Headly Down conspiracy theory. That is again detailed on external web sites which includes clear guidance as to how to disrupt wikipedia. 122.x.x.x in a previous manifestation is no exception to that. What we have here is extensive meat puppetry, with some socks all geared towards a commercial interest. It really needs investigating by an experienced admin. --Snowded ^TALK 08:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Sydactive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) a certified sockpuppet of Congru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) made this edit, asking an editor: "Hello, have you ever previous been banned from editing wikipedia? You writing style is similar to a banned user[6]. Please explain." 122.108.140.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who is the same user as 122.x.x.x (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) who started this thread, made this edit asking a different editor: "Hi, have you previous been banned from editing wikipedia? You writing style is similar to a banned user. Please explain". The similarities here are too obvious. Even if 122.x.x.x is not a sock of Congru, then there is clear evidence of meat puppetry here. Admin intervention is required. ISTB351 (talk) 11:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Good catch ISTB351. Following up on your lead: The edit summaries are similar here also: Sydactive: [40], User IP122... [41]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Snowded, I have nothing to do with that exposing socks site that you mentioned. I will support your efforts in guarding against that sort of disruption. I would not collaborate with editors who pop up with that sort of agenda. I do need to stress that your implication that I been editing "towards a commercial interest" is false. Point out any edit that I have made which is promotional. You will not find any. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Then its a pity you have been making the same accusations as advocated on that site. As far as I can see from the Brenda Lim posting to your user page and the links the the NLP sites in Australia that you are associated with this is meat puppetry at best. The pattern of behaviour over the last year or so is your persona that attempts to adopt a "reasonable" position supported by a series of SPA accounts that change over time. Some of those SPAs have made commercial posts and have been banned, others have attacked other editors. The pattern is pretty clear and I imagine some more analysis of text (per ISTB351 above) would spot more links. --Snowded ^TALK 12:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment that I take the "reasonable" position. But don't be fooled Snowded. I don't know who is doing it but I can absolutely guarantee that I have no known personal, academic or professional connection with any editors on the NLP or related pages. I had to assume good faith with these people but always demanded evidence and reliable sources from them and certainly did not accept their support. I have not asked anyone to edit with me or for me. Didn't you consider the possibility that the SPAs (Sydactive, Congru and probably Brenda Lim) you referred to were probably strawsocks? Someone was just copy and pasting my words an using it in edit comments then adding links to commercial sites to try to embarrass me. Assuming what I said is true, you (Snowded) must be at least a little embarrassed that you did not detect it earlier. I'm willing to assume good faith with you (Snowded) again but you cannot keep autoreverting my edits and keep accusing me of things I have no control over. --122.x.x.x (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Its an interesting conspiracy theory but I doubt it and I am more than happy to be embarrassed in the interests of assuming good faith, although I did start collecting evidence last June. Also you are not "auto reverted", you are reverted when you ignore decisions or discussions on the talk page.--Snowded ^TALK 13:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Noted for the record that 122.x.x.x suggestion of straw socks turned out to be false and yet another attempt to create a distraction. SPI result here ----Snowded ^TALK 08:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

"Autoreverting" is an accusation used also by now banned user Congru: [42] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the OP on precisely one point: That there is an unpleasant editing environment at Neuro-linguistic programming. In reality, the unpleasant environment is caused by a stream of different accounts - whether SPAs or socks or whatever - which all turn up to patiently advocate NLP or try to remove or water down the mainstream position. Still, at least we've moved on from the "skeptic" conspiracy theory and SPI... The offsite coordination is hardly a surprise, but nobody's going to confess to being associated with that site even if they act in accordance with its bizarre claims. bobrayner (talk) 13:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bobrayner, At no time have I tried to "advocate NLP", patiently or not. Show me the diffs where I have advocated for NLP. Also, can you give diffs where I have sought to "remove or water down the mainstream position" because the has never been my intention. I did try to clarify the Norcross pollshere. "Using a delphi poll methodology, Norcross et al (2006; 2010)"... My edit actually strengthens the "mainstream" or EBP position because it lets the evidence speak for itself. In this edit I added a reference to a high impact journal to support the "mainstream view". Also in relation to the use of NLP in management training, I made this edit followed by this edit to strike balance. It is difficult to know with precision how widely NLP is used so we had to base it on the estimations by independent sources. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Your evasive use of multiple identities makes it the difficult task, but evidence can be found that is contradicting your claim: Persistent removal of reliable critical material [43]. Doing same using misleading edit summaries [44]. Doing same using accusatory edit summary [45](creating unpleasant editing environment). Removing reliable source critical of NLP [46][47]. Personal attack [48] (no WP:SPI made). Misleading edit summaries to remove mainstream critical view [49] misleading edit summaries similar to banned user [50]. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've been reading and editing the Wikipedia article about NLP for a few months now and fully agree with 122 that there has been an unfair amount of pressure put on him by Editors, many of whom sadly are disparaging him right here on this page yet again.

122 has shown a deep understanding of the subject and a balanced approach to editing. For example, he made a perfectly valid point about the Norcross reference, which reflected study and thought. That point was met with auto-reverting and attacks rather than with recognition of his ideas and cooperation towards a balanced reflection of that source on Wikipedia.

You can find the nasty responses on this page.... you don't even have to look at the article talk page: LKK says "evasive," Bobrayner says "unpleasant" due to "pro-NLP" people, Snowded has been accumulating references that he can use to attack "SPAs" and linked it here. Etc. etc. It's obviously not a nice atmosphere, just as 122 says.

Instead the Editors who are responding that way here should address the source not being reflected fairly on wikipedia, and then work towards a balanced reflection of the source. They are focused on the wrong thing. I do not believe this will be solved without intervention of some kind in support of knowledgeable people such as 122 simply trying to express well referenced ideas in a balanced manner.--Encyclotadd (talk) 08:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

(sigh)Encylotadd is the latest SPA to edit the article (it might be worth pulling them all up with edit dates, as they all link with periods of active editing by 122). Encylotadd is currently on a final warning for personal attacks relating to the NLP page. And guess what, the accusations he made all came directly from the external web sites referenced above. He has stopped the attacks since that final warning, but it is ironic given his comments on atmosphere above. --Snowded ^TALK 08:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional evidence of meat puppetry

This site relates specifically to new code NLP and Wikipedia. A check on edits shows that the author is Scott C. Same venue as this attack site. I have screen shots of the pages in case they are taken down. The sequence of serial editors culminating in 122.x.x.x together with the links to Scott C is:

1. User:Comaze, subject to Arbcom injunction account redirected to Action Potential
2. User:Action potential (user page linked to Scott Coleman of comaze.com) edits from 23rd August 2005 to 24th July 2010 (and we have six months of peace thereafter)
3. User:122.108.140.210 comes in after a period of silence, but is linked to other SPAs via web sites for New Code NLP. Here we have confirmation from Brenda Lo that IP is Scott and that she has been canvassed before she was blocked. Contributes from 12th January 2011 to 29th January 2012
4. User:122.x.x.x link shown by this edit shows the IP is 122.108.140.210 edits from 26th January 2012

Now I assume meat puppetry is reported here not SPI? Also this may be an enforcement issue given that Comaze is subject to an (admittedly old) arbcom ruling here --Snowded ^TALK 11:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Especially significant is line on the site [51] that states "The Oxford English Dictionary definition is by far the closest to the new code definition, and it is a lot more appealing than others". The last entry on the footer link of that page (recent site activity) is December 11 2011. User 211... continued to edit war for Oxford English Dictionary information in January 2012 [52] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

User 122.x.x.x. also advocates the OED (Oxford English Definition) here on 17 January 2012. [53]. Also advocated by user Encyclotadd [54] Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional evidence of commercial involvement

New information emerging: Changes to Comaze.com website yesterday included removal of “search engine optimization” from the page, but evidence is left over in “search engine optimization” in the mouseover function [56](photo evidence No 6).

Also, the information on “NLP new code” advocacy site [57] includes “Neuro - we only know and represent the world through our neurological processes (our mind, body and sensory systems - the five senses.)”. This line and others also appears on the comaze.com website before Jan 30th [58] (photo evidence No3).

Concerning the commercial connections between companies involved, there are the hosting similarities with NLP companies related to case [59][60][61][62] all companies being remotely hosted from Houston area according to the links. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 06:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

While I share your frustration in dealing with promotional editors, I certainly do not appreciate that you have taken out your frustration on me. Please show me diffs where I have supposedly added promotional or "commercial" links to wikipedia articles or otherwise engaged in SEO. If you think that I did it using another account then make a case to SPI. Otherwise, stop your unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry expressed or implied. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

User 122.x.x.x recently applied for a self SPI and will be likely rejected [63]. This is a meatpuppetry case. It involves multiple editors some already been banned. It concerns neuro-linguistic programming, known to be a mainly commercial development involving mainly promotion on the Internet. It appears to be likely that the organization of the meatpuppetry would rule out the use of a single IP. There is also the possibility of the website company (ISP interactive [64] and following the company link there, Comaze.com) being able to access Wikipedia via shared proxy servers. Applying for an SPI would be without a point.

More commercially related information discovered: There appears to be the long term habit of meatpuppetry: It goes even back to 2005 [65][66] both in the same commercial directory [67].

User 122.x.x.x. promoted as user Action Potential using the links (inspiritive.com.au) [68][69]. They are the same commercial site identified very recently as the spam[70] [71]

The promotion appears by removing criticism on the neuro-linguistic programming article, adding favourable or preferred promotional phrases to it and appears to be using promotional links via a group of meatpuppets. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 13:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Further commercial information: As of 1st Feb 2012, Comaze.com has been changed again [72] photoevidence No7[73]. Before 30th Jan 2012, the website included promotion of company NLPCorporate (photoevidence No1) [74], a company promoted by probable meatpuppet[75] notified here on Jan 30th [76] removed minutes later on Jan 30th (photoevidence No2). Such a cover-up series appears highly incriminating in the circumstances. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 15:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Example SPA accounts

I think there are some more, but this is a basic list. All support 122.x.x.x in current and previous manifestations generally taking a more extreme position. The advise given here to: "Disagree with other pro editors when necessary for the sake of appearances" is followed in most cases.

• User:Encyclotadd Nov11 todate warned for attacks using material from external web site
• User:Congru Dec 11 to Jan 12 blocked as sock
• User:Willyfreddy July 11 to Dec 12 multiple personal attacks re HeadleyDown conspiracy theory
• User:Colemchange Oct 11 to Nov 11 personal attacks re HeadleyDown conspiracy theory
• User:Jpjans July 11 too Aug 11 supporting 122.x.x.x on citations tags etc.
• User:Brenda Lo88 June 11 blocked

I have not listed non SPA accounts who may be linked to meat puppetry --Snowded ^TALK 11:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated above, I have nothing to do with any of those accounts. If you think I am connected with any other account then please submit an SPI, otherwise, stop making your unfounded accusations. This is exactly why I made the complaint here. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is meat puppetry and disruptive behaviour not sock puppetry (I think, although I would not rule that out). Evidence has been presented in that respect, including direct links to offsite web sites edited by you which propagate a view of what should be on wikipedia for NLP. That plus the links to BrendaLo88 (not just her posting on your user page, but links to NLP web sites which can be provided if needed) demonstrate that your comment above is just bluster. ANI is the proper format for that discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 14:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

References

 References

My 2 cents

I use Wikipedia often to research concepts/subjects that I am (newly) aware of, but not very familiar with. As I mentioned to Snowded when I first got involved in the discussion, I have avoided editing/discussing pages on Wikipedia because of the us vs. them mentality that often prevails (and is especially present here). Nevertheless, NLP was one subject that I had a passing interest in where the corresponding Wikipedia page was (imo) abhorrently lacking in informative, and unbiased, content. I first heard about it through my sincere interest in Erickson's work, but found most of the books on NLP to be awful. And so I chose to get involved.

Now, as to the "charges" against me from Snowded. They are all patently false. I never was involved in the HeadleyDown conspiracy theory. People pointed out their theories to me on my talk page, and I asked about getting someone with authority involved. That was my level of involvement. Secondly, I never offered 122.x (and his previous names) blanket support, not at all. In the past, Snowded has labeled me as a "proponent of NLP" simply because I disagreed with him (if I had more time, I'd find the diff on the talk page). And it is the same situation here: I have regularly disagreed with him and so he is labeling me as a confederate of 122.x. Furthermore, by highlighting this statement on some website: "Disagree with other pro editors when necessary for the sake of appearances", he is now able to accuse anyone who disagrees with him of working in collaboration with 122.x. If I agree with 122.x then I'm guilty. If I disagree with 122.x then I'm guilty as well. It is because of users like Snowded that I did not get involved with Wikipedia before, and never will again.

Regarding the state of the NLP page, I do agree that it is in awful shape. Honestly, I think it's embarrassing. The majority of the lede is now devoted to criticism, and it amazes me that anybody could consider the article as demonstrating an NPOV. Snowded and LKK, two of the most active and vociferous editors on the page, both believe that NLP is "a fringe pseudo-science." (again, apologies, but I don't have time for the diffs) As long as both of them have considerable control over the article, an NPOV will never be achieved.

I wish everyone involved good luck. Willyfreddy (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

"...I did not get involved with Wikipedia before, and never will again", that statement needs clarification. If you were never involved with Wikipedia before? then you couldn't get involved 'again'. GoodDay (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed remedy of structured workshop to develop article

"A case against editors on Neuro-linguistic programming was closed on Monday. As a result, a form of probation was enacted on the subject, whereby any administrator can ban any user from Neuro-linguistic programming and its related articles. The article will also be placed under mentorship, with mentors to be named later. Editors Comaze, HeadleyDown, JPLogan, Camridge, DaveRight, and AliceDeGrey have also been required to discuss any reversions on article talk pages, and have been reminded regarding NPOV and adequate sourcing."from Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2006-02-06/Arbitration_report --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that it says that "any administrator can ban any user from Neuro-linguistic programming and its related articles". The mentor run workshop was intended to help editors work together in a structured way to bring the article closer to NPOV. Unfortunately, the mentors gave up after banning most of the editors for failures to adhere to workshop rulesbanned. I think that another structured workshop is in order to encourage edits to work together and produce a better quality article based on relevant policies, especially regarding NPOV together with WP:FRINGE recommendations. --122.x.x.x (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And you of course as Comaze (referenced in the ruling above) are subject to those sanctions which you have persistently over several IDs broken. We need to deal with the clear evidence of disruptive behaviour, attempted promotion of commercial links and meat puppetry outlined above. The view that there is some massive POV issue is yours and that of the SPAs that appear from time to time, other experienced editors brought to the site have in the main endorsed the current properly sourced position. --Snowded ^TALK 13:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, well.

I invite any non-involved editor who intends to participate in bringing the article to a NPOV to read Bandler and Grinder's Frogs into Princes, Reframing, and The Structure of Magic I && II, and and then compare both today's version of the NLP page and the allegations about NLP above to what you know about NLP. That hucksters have taken it and used it to bad ends ... demonstrates that it can work; Bandler and Grinder also explain how it can fail, in Frogs into Princes, page 175:

If you decide that you want to fail with this material [NLP], it's possible to. There are two ways to fail. I think you ought to be aware of what those are, so you can make a choice about how you are going to fail if you decide to.

One way is to extremely rigid. You can go throught exactly the steps that you saw and heard us go through here, without any sensory experience, without any feedback from your clients. That will guarantee that you fail. That's the way most people fail.

The second way you can fail is by being really incongruent. If there's a part of you that really doesn't believe that phobias can be done in three minutes, but you decide to try it anyway, that incongruency will show up in your non-verbal communication, and that will blow the whole thing.

There are those who believe that NLP does not work, and they currently own the article. Eventually, they'll go away, and those of us who are skeptical of NLP while believing in NPOV will be able to improve the article. htom (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The arbcom ruling was clear: any editor may be banned by an admin if they fail to adhere to Wikipedia policies. There is no need to produce another workshop because people were banned in accordance with that decision. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sock puppetry & Meat puppetry is unacceptable. All puppeteers (upon being discovered) should be immediately banned. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That worries me because I have openly stated that I am using single purpose account so I technically a sockpuppet account. But I choose to do this for privacy reasons. I am not simultaneously using multiple accounts to support myself or make my viewpoint appear more widely held. I can absolutely assure you that I am not a sockpuppeteer. When looking for sockpuppeteers please take into account that someone has been deliberately copying my contributions including edit comments(e.g. Sydactive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)) and supporting me in a strawsock way (e.g. Congru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)). I believe that a long term sock-puppeteer has changed tactics. As part of this this latest attack, sock-puppeteer pretends to support to other editors in an uncritical or exaggerated way in order to muddy the waters and make their own position seem more rational. --122.x.x.x (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

You are persisting with the conspiracy theory idea? I assume (from your attacks on other other editors in a previous guise) that this is part of the Headlydown stuff? SPI reports on that have been dismissed. In contrast we have clear evidence here that you are maintaining a web site to at least coach other editors to support your commercial interesting in a specific variety of NLP, and that you have altered those sites during this debate in an attempt to cover up that involvement. --Snowded ^TALK 23:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the edit history of Sydactive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Its a blatant example of a strawsock. --122.x.x.x (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User 122.x.x.x, timing is against you in your conspiracy argument. Your advocacy for the Oxford English Dictionary [77] comes after the last edits of the NLPwikipedia google site (photoevidence[78] ). You are repeating advocacy of the website, not the other way. Also, timing of the commercial cover-up [79][80][81][82] is the most incriminating of evidence. It is consistent with your changes in ID on Wikipedia to apparently attempt avoiding association with the now covered-up neuro-linguistic programming promotion/search engine optimization company[83], Comaze.com. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I have too much drama in my own real life already, my ADHD provides me with too many distractions, and now I'm to worry about being shown to be a sock-puppet or a meat-puppet? :snort: This should be interesting. htom (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Alleged disruption by User:122.x.x.x/122.108.140.210

There has yet to be any recent credible evidence that I (using my permanent IP or User:122.x.x.x) have engaged in disruptive editing. Show me some recent diffs (in the last 6 months) where I, not an alleged sock or meatpuppet, have been supposedly been disruptive or engaged in promotion. Please see my discussions and edits in the context of the Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming talk page. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarify: "(using my permanent IP or User:122.x.x.x"). GoodDay (talk) 02:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

He is now admitting the link, it would help if he would acknowledge the links to the two previous IDs but you make a good point GoodDay. Otherwise 122.x.x.x shifting between identities and reopening the same issues that were resolved with your previous manifestation is clearly disruptive. There are also multiple examples provided of your disruption above. You are not responding to those, just opening up another section and making statements again (which is what you do all the time on the NLP page). --Snowded ^TALK 02:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You can see from the logs that 122.108.140.210 is my permanent IP address that does not change. I would rarely log in from another IP address unless I am on my mobile device but I don't recall making any edits not logged in. I used the name User:122.x.x.x so that there was no confusion that I wished to remain anonymous but wanted to continue from my previous edits and contributions under that IP address. Except for make initial accusations against one user as being a a HeadleyDown reincarnate, I tried to remain civil and engage in reasoned discussion. On the balance of edits, I think I was neither promotional or overly skeptical. I did ask for help at the NPOV noticeboard at one stage. The advice to compile a list of reliable sources and engage in a reasoned discussion. --122.x.x.x (talk) 03:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Considering the long history at Wikipedia, edits of IP 122... User122.x.x.x appear deliberately disruptive: Asking for evidence using different identities [84], adding material when no consensus reached [85], [86],[87], attempting time wasting debate or original research [88], as IP adding edit without consensus [89][90][91][92] disruptive tagging [93], and many others.

Disruption is related also to the off-site activity: [94]. Comments “Looks like Scott and Inspiritive are doing a pretty good background check on Snowden” indicate some connection with the neuro-linguistic programming community. This in the combined with recruit site [95] appears to have bought the severe disruption to the neuro-linguistic programming article in addition to the meatpuppetry and NLP link promotion on related articles. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Lam Kin Keung, I am preparing a reply to your allegations below. In your post you said that here are many more. Are there any more important diffs you want to add before I make my reply? --122.x.x.x (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I am as interested into your denial or confirmation that you also edited as Action Potential and as Comaze, and if you edited that off wiki page giving guidance as to how to edit here. Also your response to the edits made to cover up off wiki links identified above. You are being very very selective in what evidence you choose to respond to ----Snowded ^TALK 08:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes 122.x.x.x, reply to all points above and account for the subsequent sudden changes to the commercial Comaze.com site on 30th January 2012 [96][97][98]Lam Kin Keung (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I meant, are there any more allegations or supportive evidence specifically related to disruption of the NLP and related articles using IP User:122.108.140.210 or User:122.x.x.x. I can deal with other allegations in a separate section. If not, I will prepare my response. --122.x.x.x (talk) 11:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

All the above are specifically related. Your apparent reluctance to give the answers is noted. Lam Kin Keung (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Point by point reply to Lam Kin Keung (work in progress)

I will be updating this section as I prepare my response.

Lam Kin Keung claim 1

"Asking for evidence using different identities"

• diff 1a

Lam Kin Keung claim 2

"adding material when no consensus reached"

• diff 2a
• diff 2b
• diff 2c

Lam Kin Keung claim 3

"attempting time wasting debate or original research"

• diff 3a

Lam Kin Keung claim 4

"as IP adding edit without consensus"

diff 4a

• diff 4b
• diff 4c
• diff 4d

Lam Kin Keung claim 5

"disruptive tagging"

• diff 5a

--122.x.x.x (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Cease and desist notice

OK, everybody stop! This board is for situations requiring immediate administrator attention. The only immediate administrator attention I can forsee is that I'll block the next person who posts here.

• If certain editors suspect certain other editors of sock/meatpuppetry, the correct course is to open an SPI. Not keep making accusations here, there, or anywhere else. I don't see a sockpuppet investigation started by one of the accusers, I see allegations being tagged onto editors and IPs without that courtesy [99]. Can someone either endorse Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/122.x.x.x (which he filed himself, so theoretically can't be investigated) or else strike all the allegations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and remove all the tags that link the 122.x.x.x account to anything but his own static IP. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• OK then help out, I asked right at the start of this which is the correct forum for meat puppetry and got no answer. My understanding is that SPIs were for socks, not meat puppetry. ALso its not just meat puppetry, its a combination of issues that have been building over two/three years. When 122.x.x.x first came here I and others brought that evidence forward. I expected some response to investigate those issues or suggest in which forum the issues should be raised. Just to be clear no one is saying that this is sock puppetry case. The issues are:

1. Meat puppetry, through identified off wiki web sites and the presence of multiple SPAs repeating material from those web sites
2. Creating serial IDs in order to raise resolved issues again and again, and associated disruptive editing
3. Using wikipedia to promote the commercial interests of a particular approach to NLP

So where does this get resolved? Most of us have shown extreme patience over the years on this article and we just want to know how to deal with it.

---

Snowded ^TALK 19:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The trouble was, this thread was disappearing under what looked like a content dispute. Let's pick out the problems that can be dealt with by administrative action. You reckon there are meatpuppets connected with an organisation wanting to promote a particular NLP product? Have I got that right. In that case we should focus on that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with your comment. You have it right, the original intent (if you look at the talk page) was to assembly the evidence and make a report here. 122.x.x.x then brought the case here so the report was made in bits and pieces rather than as a coherent whole. Its probably time to assemble the evidence in a summarised form without all the noise and start again in a more structured way. Maybe close this off, let things calm down for a day or so and start again. ----Snowded ^TALK 22:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User: Satinmaster

I would think that a block of some reasonable duration is in order for this SPA who, despite repeated warnings over first editwarring[100], then outing[101], and finally personal attacks, persists in asserting that experienced, uninvolved editors (as well as some involved editors) who disagree with his or her, are pursuing an "Islamophobic agenda". The editor has been warned at the article talkpage, RSN, and the editor's talkpage, but pointedly reposts the same attacks. A SPA vigorously defending a diploma mill is pretty routine on Wikipedia, but this is over the top.

Diffs: [102][103][104][105][106]

Warnings:[107][108][109][110]

Notice to User: [111]

Fladrif (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got to admire persistence. More of the same, now on an Admin's talkpage, even after getting notice of this ANI.[112] Fladrif (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• On my talk page, Satinmaster asked "Why do you keep accusing me of working for euclid?" Actually, I don't believe I've ever accused that user of working for Euclid -- and, in fact, my interaction with this user has been relatively limited. I will, however, say that this user is a WP:SPA focused on promoting EUCLID (university), by embellishing that article with content that appears positive but is fundamentally meaningless, by discrediting entities that have published negative information about EUCLID (some diffs of edits against Oregon Office of Degree Authorization: [113], [114], [115]; Satinmaster's accusations against Accredibase are largely at Wikipedia:RSN#"cannot_guarantee_the_accuracy_of_the_information"), by accusing anyone who reverts his/her work of being an Islamophobe, and by hinting at the identity of various IPs who have reverted or disagreed with Satinmaster. All in all, Satinmaster is disrupting Wikipedia with these behaviors. It's time for a final warning that additional disruption will lead to a long block. --Orlady (talk) 20:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Court found 'Oregon Office of Degree Authorization' violated constitutional rights

Ah yes, 'Orlady', the wiki editor who thinks the fact that the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization being found by a court of law to to have violated the constitutional rights of a non-accredited degree holder, should not be included in the ODA article. But I get accused of being disruptive. LOL . Satinmaster (talk) 21:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe you must be confusing me with someone else. I basically ignored the innuendo that you posted on the article talk page, although I did add a lot of content to the article in response to the campaign to declare the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization to be non-notable. (On second thought, maybe I did respond when you posted that comment somewhere else -- you've been engaging in a bit of forum-shopping, so it's hard to keep track of the various different places that the same discussion might have been started.) It was another who user who responded when you posted a similar complaint at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Oregon State Office of Degree Authorization. I did look at the court decision (which is, by the way, a primary source, making it questionable as a source for Wikipedia) and did not find it to be of sufficient consequence to bother mentioning in the article -- which might explain why there doesn't seem to be any secondary-source documentation of the court case. --Orlady (talk) 22:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I am quite sure Orlady, that if it was a court document saying something bad about a school it would be "worth mentioning". LOL Satinmaster (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What about the comment on your user page: "I no longer wish to contribute. No point. To many idiots with agendas and a keyboard." A promise to stop editing and keeping that promise might close this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Shalom Bbb23, That was before I realized what was really going on here. So I am morally obliged to continue. Satinmaster (talk) 15:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Enlighten the board. Please. What is it precisely that you "realized was really going on here"? Don't be shy. Fladrif (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

SPAs with WP:TRUTH agendas are always like that Fladrif. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't it funny that this user starts every sentence with "Shalom" whilst s/he continues to claim there is an anti Islamic agenda in relation to Euclid? Am I the only one getting confused? 2.96.245.231 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In itself there's no reason why a Jewish person or someone else we would expect to use shalom can't be concerned by Islamophobia to the extent of seeing it in places where it doesn't exist. However [116] does make me wonder of the user. Nil Einne (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the "Shaloms" are Satinmaster's way of saying "If you disagree with me, you must be a Jew.". Fladrif (talk) 14:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive canvassing at an AfD

Yesterday I nominated an article created by Edvini (talk · contribs) for deletion [119], and today, a large number of "Keep" votes by users active on the Albanian wikipedia began materializing. This is because Edvini canvassed on the Albanian wikipedia [120]. One does not need to speak Albanian to see that he tells them to vote "Keep". This is disruptive in the extreme. Athenean (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I have given one of the commenters an WP:NPA warning, but my time is limited today so I hope other administrators can take a look as well. 28bytes (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In that posting i was discussing the creation of the most historical moment in the Albanian history, as this year is the 100 anniversary of the Albanian independence. If you check thoroughly, you will see that at least 3 voters are not Albanian at all, nor do they speak Albanian. And, all those voting against are Greek speakers or Greek nationals with one exception. Why don't you put a new rule if you are so concerned in deleting this article: Only votes of non-Albanians, non-Greeks, non-Macedonians, and non-Montenegrins will be counted. (Edvin (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

Does canvassing in an AfD really make a difference? The closing admin is supposed to look at the strength of the arguments, not the number of votes. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't make a difference - I've tagged it with {{Not a ballot}} to make others aware of that. GiantSnowman 19:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If canvassing in AfD didn't make a difference, WP:ARS would not exist. 109.151.89.180 (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The justification for ARS exiting is that any canvassing that may be a byproduct of their activities does in fact not make a significant difference, but that the sourcing and other improvements that their work sometimes generates does make a difference, just as it ought to. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So you admit that because "good" members of the ARS do good work rescuing some articles, we should allow otherwise non-notable trash to be kept due to the canvassing of their "not good" members? Interesting. 109.151.89.180 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it shows disruptive intent. At the very least Edvini should be strongly warned by an admin to refrain form doing so in the future, and if he does so again, he should be blocked. Athenean (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So if i start an article, i put sources and other people start editing it, i should be blocked? Is the aim of this encyclopedia to enrich information or to limit to the tastes of a small group of people? If so, you don't need to block me, i can leave myself and contribute to less hostile encyclopedias.

If you follow the article you have nominated for deletion, there is nothing wrong, and the people talking or commenting see nothing wrong except enriching it with more materials and sources. Since yesterday, you started attacking me, threatening to report etc. For what? For citing some books and writing an article....This is not fair! (Edvin (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

WP:CHILL. Calabe1992 19:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's very strange, because I never "threatened to report you" yesterday, I only notified you of the AfD. On the other hand, I did warn this guy [121] that I would report him if he removed the AfD tag. Sockpuppetry, anyone? Athenean (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here we go. Calabe1992 21:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Strangely enough, they are Unrelated. Calabe1992 21:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

it clearly does. I can't count the amount of AfDs I've been involved in on stuff that has failed notability but which happened to be some kind of internet meme, joke, or other than that may have been relevant to a few people here, but produced no real sources that ended up being kept because no admin would close against the "vote". I've found very few admins who will truly discount WP:ILIKEIT votes and actually close to the arguments, this applies not just to AfD, but any remotely controversial discussion on Wikipedia.--Crossmr (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, before jumping to conclusions on Sockpuppetry, you should know that Athenean is well known in the Albanian community of Wikipedia, and on every article on Albania, he tries to push his POV and if other people edit, he threatens to report them or reports them. That's why I said that. And that's why I am not related to Olsi, and you should also know that this article is also visible in WikiProject Albania. Athenean is not following the talk page on the article, and the arguments given there, nor he is following the discussions. he only tries to impose his POV through reporting first. Does the one who reports first win in this Wikipedia? It is pathetic! (Edvin (talk) 21:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC))

User Edvini, although being warned not to continue this dirsuptive canvassing pattern has now initiated a strategy of recruiting users to increase his edit war firepower. Another thread was posted in sq wiki [[122]] and soon new single purpose, revert only recruits showed up. In a similar fashion he filled a list of users that, according to him, pose a threat to his national views [[123]], also asking other users to expand his list of potential enemies. This behavior seems too problematic, while any discussion initiative until now is in vain.Alexikoua (talk) 14:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky, sockpuppet of Rlevse

Resolved: There's a right way, and a wrong way to return after RTV. this was the wrong one (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

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

In the last few weeks, User:PumpkinSky has made numerous personal attacks against me - so many that other people openly wondered where the animosity was coming from. But there's more - he's also been adding tons of copyvios. Well, it turns out that Pumpkinsky is, in fact, a sockpuppet of disgraced ex-arbitrator user:Rlevse (violating Rlevese's claims of right to vanish). When Amalthea confronted Pumpkinsky about this, Pumpinsky admitted he was Rlevese and claimed he was leaving the project.

I have tagged Pumpkinsky, but not blocked him. (I'll let someone else do the honors). Meanwhile, people should be on the lookout for any more sockpuppets of his that happen to get registered in the next few days. Raul654 (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you should self revert tagging the page until something more official occurs, like an actual block. My76Strat (talk) 20:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with tagging the account. The sock account needs to be blocked and the Rlevese main account needs to be tagged as a sockpuppeteer and blocked. Anything less is going to be seen as blatant bias. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've switched the tag to a more appropriate one until a block is enacted, or whatever. Calabe1992 21:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Disgraced or not, Rlevse is not a banned editor. Is there an allegation he's using more than one account at the moment? 28bytes (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that he abused WP:RTV. I don't know if this is possible, but if so, I think his account should be renamed from Vanished User back to Rlevse. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And abused of it in order to specifically revisit old grudges (his disgrace via the defeatured Grace Sherwood, revisited in his attacks on Raul654 and FAC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, the Rlevse account is already blocked. Do the bureaucrats and/or ArbCom need to be notified? --Rschen7754 21:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, they have most certainly been made aware. Raul654 (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like Amalthea or another checkuser to comment here before anyone does anything drastic. Rlevse may be back, or Pumpinsky may be falsely claiming to Amalthea that he is Rlevse for whatever reason. Any action taken on the Rlevse account (e.g. renaming) should only happen if the first case is true. 28bytes (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Could someone provide a little background here? Since his "vanishing", does Rlevse have a history of reappearing with socks and/or contributing copyvios, or is this the first time? I recall that his original departure had something to do with copyvios, yes? or no? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes on both counts. He left originally because it was discovered that he had created huge numbers of copyvios. Here he is doing it again. And this is the second time he's tried to come back after his right to vanish. The first time was last year. I can't remember the name of that sockpuppet off the top of my head. Raul654 (talk) 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Background:Rlevse was extremely active at DYK, which came under fire (um, from me) in October 2010 for extreme repeat instances of copyvio. This culminated in October 2010 with Rlevse's Halloween WP:TFA revealed to be a copyvio (Grace Sherwood). He stepped down as an arb over that, and then exercised RTV. Now he's back, going after FAC, and committing and passing copyvio at DYK, with them turning the same blind eye they turned back in 2010. But specifically, he is violating RTV to revisit his old grudge on Raul and FAC.Let me know if diffs are needed-- this is all pretty well known stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• Just picked up on this. Rlevse vanished, not blocked or banned, and although he disappeared following issues around plagiarism/close paraphrasing, I don't think he *would* have been blocked, as it wasn't copy-pasting-half-a-website or passing off ripped-off piccies as one's own work, it was a sentence or two, albeit in a lot of articles :( Which would mean he couldn't WP:CLEANSTART, and anyway I think his style is so characteristic that he'd get spotted fairly fast, but there is nothing to stop him coming back. The prescribed course when a vanished user comes back is supposed to be to reinstate the vanished account. Tagging the new one as the old one is also OK (as far as I can see) but there's no need for a block. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(tons of edit conflicts) He exercised RTV. That means you leave permanently, not "rename my account to hide my history and then I'll come back with a new account to resume editing". If he's not blocked already he ought to be blocked. He exercised RTV, then came back with a sock to resume engaging in old grudges. This is just as bad as circumventing a block. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Account is blocked because he was editing from it - which vanished users are not supposed to do. If Pumpkinsky is also generating copyvios, lets focus on that. If he's come back to do it again, then I suspect the community will have an opinion on it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That (EotR) is an incorrect description of his copyvio, and users who continue copyvio and don't help clean it up are blocked. OK, so how many arbs are behind or aware of this and any other RTV or CLEANSTART accounts affecting FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• (many edit conflicts) Actually just for clarity, he vanished, his old username isn't currently registered and his vanished account was blocked. [124] — Moe ε 21:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So he is circumventing a block. The userpage is protected or something so can someone plase add the puppeteer tag? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4) It's only a block from the standpoint that vanished users cannot be editing. It's not a true block. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How about someone make a checkuser verification before this conversation continues along the lines that they are affiliated. My76Strat (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Amalthea is a checkuser (see User talk:Amalthea). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes but I've seen no indication that tools were actually used. My76Strat (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This user must remain blocked. He caused all manner of damage to the project and, once made aware of it, exercised RTV. He then came back and resumed damaging the project, now without any excuse that he may not have been fully aware of what he was doing. This is precisely what blocking is for, and this is how blocks should be applied to this project. --Laser brain (talk) 21:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

More background: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page. As to the attacks and disruption at FAC, too much to diff-- I sorta think everyone is aware of it by now, but diffs can be easily offered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

More background: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1. Also, since October 2010, we've been quite aggressive at FAC about monitoring for copyvio, so Rlevse joined in a mere handful of editors calling for FA leadership to be thrown out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just as a general request could everyone just slow down a couple notches and think rather than just shooting from the hip? Everyone seems to be responding based on gut reactions rather than coherent, well-developed thoughts. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

speak for yourself, thanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've said nothing on the matter and have no intent to at this point. By the way, that indent may have looked like I was replying to you specifically but that wasn't my intention, it was more a general comment to everyone. Need another cookie? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 21:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, I know Grace Sherwood was a fiasco, but editors who get blocked for copyvio are the ones who copypasta entire websites, rip off photos etc. This was a sentence here, two sentences there, close paraphrasing way too much. Yes, it was a huge issue for FA, I'm not denying that, and I'm not supporting a vanished user coming back and repeating problematic behaviour, but.... Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And to my knowledge, you are still wrong. Considering where the arbs' credibility is on this matter, and that as far as I know you weren't an arb then, pls reflect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not coming at this as an Arb Sandy. I used to work a bit in CCI, and I've blocked a good few copyright violators. All I'm saying is that the ones that get blocked are attempting to pass off the contents of entire websites as their own work, and hiding it by not citing the copysource. It appears Rlevse had great difficulty rendering his cited sources using his own words, which is a major problem for someone trying to write an FA, and a problem for the pedia, I'm not denying that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I have seen I agree with that: In my estimation the improper paraphrasing is caused by carelessness, not malice or intent to disrupt. Obviously a huge problem if done on this scale, but since it was a first offense back then the editor was not blocked: a block would not have been preventative. That part really is normal. Amalthea 22:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

To the degree that an editor who generated copyvios is unwilling to help clean them up, I have to agree with SandyGeorgia; if Rlevse has returned to editing, he needs to lend a hand to the cleanup effort (and obviously not create any more). Other editors have been required to actively help clean up copyright messes and the ones who don't aren't allowed to continue editing. For consistency's sake I think we need to approach this the same way, assuming the identity is confirmed. 28bytes (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My point was only that at the time when Rlevse vanished back in 2010, the account was not blocked for copyright violations (edit: or plagiarism/close paraphrasing -- I'm in no position to judge whether any of this actually is a copyright violation.). He could have un-vanished and, yes, would have been expected to help with the cleanup. The situation is of course different now, and I'm expecting that this thread will at some point make that quite explicit. Amalthea 22:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Provided the two users are the same, I would support a block for flat out disruption, ignoring the sockpuppetry issues. --Rschen7754 22:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to clear up a point, which the conversation above seems to be confused about. Usually we do not permanently block an account if the person does not help clean up a copyright violation mess they have created. You only have to spend a short time at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Open investigations to see how unusual it is for a perpetrator to help clean up their mess. Not long ago a well known and prolific editor was temporarily blocked for hindering the clean-up process, but because there was no evidence s/he had been involved in adding any copyrighted material since the start of the investigations, the block was lifted once it was clear the person would no longer hinder the process.

Unfortunately as can be see from the investigations many editors caught persistently breaching copyright first of all deny it, then plead ignorance, and then, despite the initiation of an investigation, they continue to add copyrighted material to Wikipedia. To protect the project from further harm, it is those editors who are indefinitely blocked for copyright violations. -- PBS (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's be sure it's him before we do anything

It should go without saying that any editor can claim to be someone else. Some editors are better at such things than others, but we should eliminate that possibility first. 28bytes (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Based on the conversation I had it is very unlikely that he was pretending to be Rlevse, and that wouldn't have really made sense in the context. IP also matches older information that I can find, and FWIW, the latest mail I sent was CCed to Rleves' old address. I have no doubt whatsoever. Amalthea 21:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I've sent the person I know is Rlevse a text message and will call him later this evening. MBisanz ^talk 21:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder who leaked Arbcom-L to Wikipedia Review! Wait, no I don't. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

If this is Rlevse, it may not be the first time he's broken RTV: PumpkinSky started editing just two days after BarkingMoon quit last July. That may be worth revisiting. Geometry guy 21:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW: Rlevse strongly denied to be BarkingMoon. I myself am convinced that they are the same though, there are way to many similarities to explain it away.
A cursory look through the articles created by BarkingMoon did not raise red flags, but that's not really my specialty: I agree that a closer look would not hurt -- but not on ANI. Beyond that, I don't think that anything needs or should be done. Amalthea 22:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I mainly wanted to draw it to checkuser attention: the BarkingMoon account is blocked, but by user request, and is not tagged. An example of a point of contact revealed by this new information is the Noel_F._Parrish article. There may also be a pattern of behavior here. Geometry guy 22:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is the original barkingmoon SPI. Raul654 (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Alas, that one ended inconclusively. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say that it ended with Arbcom intervention: I have asked for clarification about this here. Geometry guy 23:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And I have not yet received a satisfactory answer, 3 hours later. Geometry guy 02:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, this is absolutely not the first time Rlevse has come back after his RTV. About a week after he left, he created another account. A firestorm ensued, and he left after a day or two. I am wracking my brain but I cannot remember the name of that account. (Someone help me here) Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought he came back and started editing with the vanished account, caused a firestorm and that's why it's blocked.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe Elen is correct. He left after a lynch mob on AN/I, initiated right to vanish and then made a few edits after vanishing. Which resulted in a major firestorm. I don't recall any other incidents. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I find your account to be blatantly wrong, I was there minute by minute, but I'll leave it to others to read the link of the entire incident I've posted here. The minute his copyvio was discovered, he left-- there was no "lynch mob" at that point. The anger came later, when he continued editing after having exercised his right to vanish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

All this happened while I was going through one of my periods of "underground" editing (I embark on these periodically). I consider Rlevse to be a friend, and so naturally my first inclination is to support someone I respected. However it is easy enough to review the evidence, and Sandy's assessment is, unfortunately, painfully accurate. Manning (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Is there any possible relationship with the recently blocked User:PumknPi? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

No, he's a sock of User:TungstenCarbide, a serial socker and all around troll, which would fit with PumknPi's edits. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Scuse me...need to go and whack someone upside the head. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Duly whacked [125]. He's definitely TungstenCarbide. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In the fiasco surrounding the Grace Sherwood article what was ignored in favour of a mob like lynching was that Rlevese had asked for editor help on that article citing his own weakness in writing, and that as Elen said the sections which were too close to source text where sentences not pages which an editor was trying to hide. Clearly there was no malice involved.There are few articles on Wikipedia where one cannot dig up sentences that are close to the source text. There was and still is no established line where text automatically is judged to be too close to the source. Holding one editor to a standard that is difficult for most editors on Wikipedia is unfair. And I'll add that after the first incident with Rlevse I found numerous instances of the same kind of writing concerns that Rlevse had been attacked for in articles, and some of the writers were those who had attacked Rlevse. Perhaps More of Elen's calm and reasonable behaviour would be useful on the this thread, rather than another ugly lynching?(olive (talk) 23:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

He couldn't write well so he plagiarized in order to get ten FAs? How is that anyone's fault but his own? Also, lynching kills people. ANI does not. --Moni3 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Lynching, bullshit. Rlevse has close to 100,000 edits, and during that time couldn't learn a simple thing like proper paraphrasing? And then comes back, a couple of times, doing the same shit? They should have used their time off-wiki at a community college, re-taking freshman comp. Olive, have you even looked at this, Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/PumpkinSky? If you're looking to do a nice thing for them, you might get started on that list. There's a couple hundred more to go. Drmies (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What's more strange is that someone could make 100,000 edits before anyone else noticed the problem. Thankfully SOPA didn't pass. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No, it was quite common place then, before the Plagiarism Dispatch was written, and if you'll read the description of the entire incident at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Plagiarism and copyright concerns on the main page, you'll find it was a systemic problem at DYK. Worse-- still is. Rlevse came back there to continue more of same, and it still wasn't detected, and there have been multiple serial copyright violators at the top of DYK for years. Was always a problem, still is, what is shocking about this case is that Rlevse came back to continue more of same even after being discovered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If Rlevese/Pumpkin Sky struggles writing articles without plagiarising, then they shouldn't be writing at all. Good intentions don't outweigh the disruption caused. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

So after an editor has a certain edit number its not called lynching. I wonder how many editors on this page could stand the same scrutiny. Wikipedia is full of this kind of writing, full of it , and its tolerated and rewarded. I'm not saying its the best way to write, its not, but don't kid yourselves that this one editor has crossed some clearly identifiable line behind which we all stand, and he does not. Get real guys. Any editor here want to have all of their edits combed through? I won't cmt further.(olive (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC))

You're welcome to trawl though mine; I don't think I've "offended"! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 10:37, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In four years on Wikipedia this is the most offensive statement I've ever seen. You just compared a difference of opinion on Wikipedia with the brutal terroristic murders of tens of thousands of African-Americans and the destruction of their families through rape and other forms of violence. And on the first day of Black History Month. (shakes head) --NellieBly (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's called lynching when a mob drags you from your home or a jail cell where you are awaiting trial and beats you, hangs you, burns your corpse, then takes souvenirs from your clothes, and possibly body parts. It's some serious shit. ANI is a circus for children. Here I am, natch. Copyvio and plagiarism are problems, and perhaps pervasive problems, but serious editors should recognize plagiarism and copyvio, learn how NOT to do it, then not do it--and quite possibly help undo the copyvio they've done. None of what Rlevse or PumpknSky have done in this realm is respectable in any way. Rlevse quit when his copyvio was brought to light. Now he's used a sockpuppet to harass editors at FAC and sound like a dimwitted adolescent. What is there we should be mindful of in this instance? --Moni3 (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Why would we selectively take this term literally on an encyclopedia that includes terms like cherry-picking, WP:DUCK and we could go on?...TSK....(olive (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC))

We might selectively perceive its casual usage, unlike that of ducks and cherries, as belittling something we don't wish to belittle. For similar reasons a lot of people dislike casual hyperbolic usage of Fascist (epithet) or Feminazi. The difference is that lynching and fascism and Nazis stand for something atrocious, while ducks and cherries don't. I don't mind being called a duck or someone who picks cherries. I do mind being called a Nazi or someone who is part of a lynch mob. Now, you can call me PC for pointing this out, that won't offend me at all. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I was friends with Rlevse, and also hold Raul and Sandy Georgia in high regard. What follows may imply my support towards RLevse, and that is not my intent - I am just trying to present his claimed position, (which has been absent thus far). So here's a diff of his farewell statement, posted by SirFozzie on his behalf back in Nov 2010. Make of it what you will. Manning (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's what I make of it. All true, but then he came back to DYK to continue defending copyvio, and back to FAC to beat on the very people who instituted checks for copyvio, making it harder to get an FA. And this goes to what Oliveoil is saying above-- sure, probably few have a stellar record. In the early days of my editing (2006 to 2007), I thought it was ok to cut-and-paste from public domain, and I thought it was OK to almost directly translate foreign (non-English) sources. Then the Plagiarism Dispatch was written mid-2009 -- by the way, well before Rlevse's 2010 copyvio was discovered-- and a whole lot of us learned we'd been doing it wrong for a long time. So, bottom line-- once you are educated (and Rlevse was), do you try to clean up after yourself, or do you come back under multiple other accounts to 1) defend ongoing coyvio at DYK, and 2) continue creating copyvio yourself? He didn't help-- he continued same. Endorse indef block, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I sincerely wish I had some basis on which to disagree with you, Sandy. I'm so saddened by the whole affair. Manning (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, can you back up you claim that Rlevse "came back to DYK to continue defending copyvio"? Cause I see no indication that's true. Amalthea 01:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Poor phrasing on my past, because Rlevse defended copyvio, and PumpkinSky blamed "the FA crowd" for increased copyvio checks: more concise phrasing to put those two together would be "came back to DYK to continue defending the status quo" (which was and remains little checking for copyvio, and was what Rlevse did); see for example, Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 76#Reflections of a long-time user. And generally note that Pumpkin appeared there to keep pushing things along, which lowered the chance of getting regulars to take copyvio seriously, even after a year and a half since the Rlevse Halloween debacle (which was not a few phrases as stated here several times). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky blocked

I've blocked the PumpkinSky account indefinitely after realizing it had not already been done. I'm watching PumpkinSky's user page. There seems to be some confusion: a sock template was placed on that page and removed twice despite a confirmed checkuser. If it happens again, I'm going to protect the user page. As for this thread, I'm not sure what more can be said here. --Moni3 (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably for the best. Not much more can be done in this thread. Hopefully he realises that if he wants to come back and edit, he has to deal with the backstory. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm staying totally out of the issues with PumpkinSky's battles with admins, as I respect him but I also respect many of you, (Sandy, for example, was at one time very kind in defending me when I had a major problem with a now-blocked user) but I was working closely with PumpkinSky on an article where he was a useful and gracious editor and feel someone needs to make some statement in his defense. I have spent hours and hours on the article myself, and now will probably have to purchase a hardcopy book to verify every last bit of his work and I am not happy about it because I suspect that it will be, at most, another Grace Sherwood situation where one or two sentences here or there might be a little close, but not a mass plagiarism issue. Seems most of this fuss is over personality issues, not content. I AM concerned about the level of vitriol here over the copyvio issues, because we now have about 800 articles to look at, mostly for what will mostly be minor edits and vandal reverts, with possibly be too-close paraphrasing. Paraphrasing is a fine line on very short start class articles, particularly when there isn't a lot of source material. And that was a lot of what PumpkinSky was working on. As for Rlevse, I have no clue if they are the same person, but Rlevse was an admin who also helped me deal with the same individual Sandy helped me face, so I also considered him a kind and helpful person. I was sad to see him go and remember thinking the Grace Sherwood dogpile was a bit over the top when the problem was only a few sentences in one paragraph, which probably should have been quickly fixed (before the article hit the main page, agreed) and then move on. Seems to me that personality issues are getting in the way and minor sins are viewed through a lens clouded by other concerns. As for not writing at all, it is important to remember that in some fields of writing, scientific discussion or law for example, close paraphrasing is practically required so as to keep precision in nuance and interpretation -- getting too creative changes the meaning. So I have some sympathy for stuff getting cranked out that comes a bit close to the source. It's like WP:BEANS -- once a concept is in your head, it is a bit of a challenge to put aside a concept and be completely original. So my take is that I'd like people to separate the content from the contributor: PSky may have been wiser to have avoided engaging with admins on admin issues, I won't comment there because I've not been following the drama boards. But the content sins are, as far as I can tell, misdemeanors at most, and mostly less than that. I will admit that PSky bailed fast rather than defend his work, and that was the same pattern as Rlevse, but seems to me both were the acts of people who were vulnerable and hurt, maybe a bit thin-skinned, but not some sort of evil monsters. So I just hope everyone tones down the rhetoric. I'd like to see these users -- whether one person or two -- return, as they were tackling things that needed to be done. I for one am going over the CCI stuff and trying to at least check off the low-hanging fruit. I'd also be willing to help these users if they return by being a second set of eyes. Montanabw^(talk) 00:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Given all the personal attacks directed at me from his pumpkinsky sockpuppet, I for one have no intention of toning down my commentary on him. Nor do I have any desire to see him return. He should have the good grace to never darken our door again.

And for any checkusers reading this, please make a note of any IP data used by Pumpkinsky, because if he stays true to his pattern, he'll be registering another sockpuppet very soon. (If he hasn't done so already). Raul654 (talk) 00:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems quite likely even to me. Camp Disappointment. Google "Rlevse Montana". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ha ... for example:

I lived in Montana too, blacks were about 0.1% of the population there. Indians and Hispanics are far more common in that part of the country. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I also "hear" where Montana's coming from, but no ... after all the attacks directed at FAC and Raul over the last months, this reaction is justified. It wasn't "just" copyvio that brought us to here-- it was coming back under a new account to visit huge amounts of disruption upon FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Montanabw for a humane and perceptive comment, "but seems to me both were the acts of people who were vulnerable and hurt, maybe a bit thin-skinned, but not some sort of evil monsters."(olive (talk) 03:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC))

1. Seemed like the dude was doing good work on the Yogo Gulch article. At least trying.

2. The Grace Sherwood concern was vastly overblown. Especially the ZOMFG on the main page concern. Lots of articles get more traffic than a main page article just from Googling in and the vast amount of our content is not accessed through the main page. The main page of the NYT it is not! Isolated sentence level too-close copying exists (at least in history) in every popular and well contributed to article (every major element, country, etc.) The lack of perspective on a too close para (even just by Wiki standards, not real world liability or the like) and confounding it with blatant or large scale copying is a real problem. The genuine plagiarizer has a pattern and does it a lot and in stretches. Some of the parsing being done on phrases at Wiki would get laughed at by an IP lawyer or an academic review board.

3. I'm concerned that copyvio is becoming on more weapon to use in feuds. (We already see this some with some of the Wiki rules and policies.) This is especially concerning since it is a perversion of what should be very much a content thing and not connected to squabbles of factions. I have personally seen this used this way twice recently. Both times very sketchy, too. I think concern of a single, nonremarkable fact in an article missing a references (in the Fae RFC) is similar.

4. Thinking that Raul does not do much as FA leader or that the position should be elected is not a personal attack. It actually shows a lack of perspective and analytics to confound the two.

5. The Pumpkiner dude's not perfect (like I want a more detailed map of the Yogo Gulch damnit, not that little red county!), but he is probably just bailing from the embarrassment more than anything.

TCO (talk) 01:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah 100% TCO: all style "dude", no substance. Reminds me of, now who? Geometry guy 01:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, after the original departure of Rlevse issues about his activities on Wikipedia were discovered which were perhaps much more serious than the plagiarism. At the time it seemed more fitting to let the negative stuff stay hidden since he had left and didn't appear likely to return. If he has returned then he needs to address his past errors.   Will Beback  talk  08:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia has categorised the recent activity at FA as "disruption". Since that word has such negative connotations here at Wikipedia, I would like to point out that what actually happened was there was an RFC which called the current leadership into question and proposed possible elections for those positions. Sure, the current leadership at FA would find such an event "disruptive" in the more usual sense of the word, as it interrupted their normal routine and challenged the status quo. But I can assure you that none of us did so with any intent to destroy FA or the work they do. And just because the proposal is going to fail does not mean that the RFC was a waste of time, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 13:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect I disagree; it seems to me to have been a complete waste of time, although the revelation about Pumpkin Sky is elucidating...Modernist (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to "call the current leadership into question" without inaccurate overly personalized stirring-the-pot statements, verging on personal attacks, most certainly a failure to AGF, which those doing the "calling into question" engaged in frequently. They also consistently fail to provide diffs or answer direct queries, but that's already been pointed out many times. Here is Pumpkin's involvement (as a returning user breaching CLEANSTART, grinding an ax against Raul and FAC, clearly disruptive):

• Pumpkin on Rauls' talk
• Pumpkin at WT:FAC
• Pumpkin at the RFC fueled by a small handful of editors, including Pumpkin (where those editors have been found to be in a substantial minority).

Perchance, with the hindsight of 20–20 and knowing know that there was motive, you (Diannaa) will go back and answer the multitude of queries you chose to ignore throughout the runup to the RFC. Apparently I wasn't the only person using the word "disruption"; some outside observors also found the runup "disruptive". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree - lots of unanswered questions...Modernist (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Missed this:

• http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/usersearch.cgi?name=PumpkinSky&page=User+talk%3AAlarbus&max=100&server=enwiki

Alarbus (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Entertaining as all this has been, somebody close and hat this. The account has been blocked. It's over. If Rlevse wants to come back after exercising courtesy RTV, there is a process which he is certainly experienced enough to follow. All the issues, real or imagined, about whether he should be permitted to return and on what terms can be hashed out then. This hardly seems the time or place. Fladrif (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Disruption by User:Orfeocookie on Talk:Clavier-Übung III

• Orfeocookie (talk · contribs)
• Clavier-Übung III (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Over a period of six months last year with over 1,000 edits, I created the article Clavier-Übung III, considered Bach's most important single collection of sacred organ music. It was carefully sourced, with history, musical analysis, audio midi files for all the music prepared by me, new images and a long section on the reception and influence of this seminal work. The material was written in a similar way to other articles I've written (e.g. Great Eighteen Chorale Preludes, Canonic Variations, Handel organ concertos Op.4, Handel concerti grossi Op.6). The work itself is large and complex, often considered either inaccessible or unplayable, and there is a considerable literature. It is made up of 27 individual pieces.

Orfeocookie has made 11 article edits to wikipedia so far, with an extended series of edits in user space preparing a sortable list. 3 days ago Orfeocookie arrived on the talk page of this article and demanded it be split up into bits. He has suggested titles for bits of this work which do not exist in the Bach literature and are thus WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. They happen to be titles of sections of the article that I invented myself, following the sources, but they are not suitable titles for wikipedia articles.

At no stage has Orfeocookie discussed any sources. I explained that if he wants to edit music articles there are plenty of gaps, one being Clavier-Übung I. He did not take kindly to being told about these gaps and in this diff[126] more or less told me he was retaliating for these suggestions by going ahead in actively dismantling the article Clavier-Übung III to chop it up into parts with names from the arbitrary section headings I had invented myself. He has had no prior experience in editing articles on music on wikipedia (apart from two lists).

I had already explained that a new article on the reception of Bach's organ music, the last and longest section of the article, could be written incorporating parts of what I had written. But I added there was no point in splitting up the musical analysis (which is unusually detailed because it uses several sources). Creating a new article on "Bach reception" would be a lot of work (3 or 4 months). Orfeocookie did not respond to that suggestion. Graham87 has helped with the article for a long time now and is one of the main people with it on his watchlist. He agreed that, although long, by its nature it could not easily be divided into pieces.

From my point of view, Orfeocookie appears to be disrupting wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. This is a carefuly written article which cannot be split apart in this way, except for the section on Bach reception. That could only be split off once a new version had been completely prepared. Orfeocookie's current attitude, which has not involved engaging in calm discussion based on sources, does not seem at all helpful. He has in addition referred to me as having "slaved" over the article,[127] which is another indication that his actions are not being conducted in good faith. I am not quite sure what to do in the current circumstances. Orfeocookie's actions seem unduly aggressive and verge on harassment: a sort of luddism. Mathsci (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Saying that you "invented" those section headers sounds a bit own-y to me. But (T)the only piece of advise I feel qualified to offer is that advising an editor leave "your" article alone, and suggesting other places on Wikipedia where he/she might be more welcome, is, perhaps, not condusive to a collaborative environment, and invites a bit of push-back. I would personally be insulted by such a sugestion. But I'm not an Admin so what the heck do I know? Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 03:22, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, at its core this is a content dispute. Have you broached the idea of an RFC if Orfeocookie feels this strongly about the proposed split? Especially if, as it seems, there are not a lot of eyes on this article? If nothing else, that would (hopefully) provide a relevant consensus if the issue arises in the future, as it seems like it might, since you even admit (and I agree) that the article itself appears overly long at first glance. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 03:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They are the titles I invented myself and were tailor-made for the particular context in the article, given the lede and introductory sections. As such they are not recognizable outside that context and are not in usage in the literature as titles. This is not a question of WP:OWN. I have already suggested a way of shortening the article, which would almost halve its size. That is in fact something I have thought about for quite a while. (Incidentally one part of the "reception" stops more or less at 1920: there is material on the use of Bach organ music and the choirboys of Bach's Thomaskirche in the Nuremberg rallies. Hitler had a monster organ built with 5 manuals.) Mathsci (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Granted. After reading further, I take your point and will retract my statement referencing WP:OWN as a mistaken interrpretation. I see that you have put a lot of work into this article, but I still maintain that this is not the correct forum, and advise you to strive work with Orfeocookie in efforts (radical as they may seem) to improve the article. I feel like there is potential for compromise to be made here. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 04:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

TBH, I don't think this is anywhere near ANI level ... nothing here requires administrative intevention. It might have been better to get a third (or fourth) opinion? Graham87 03:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps ask for opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music. Graham87 03:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject Music would be the normal way. The wider issue of articles on Bach reception would be a sensible matter to discuss there. Mathsci (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I sought opinions on the topic of splitting by the method suggested on WP:Split, which is adding banners that automatically place an article in the category of articles for which splitting has been suggested. After I had done this, Mathsci said that I ought to have gone to the Wikiproject on Classical Music. I have looked at it and did not find anything that seemed pertinent to the issue. I accept that people in the know might think that that is the 'usual' method, but I didn't just make my method up off the top of my head. I acted on suggestions from Wikipedia's own pages. Again, I fail to see how this qualifies as 'disruptive'.Orfeocookie (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly did not demand anything. If I was demanding it I would have gone ahead and started modifying the article instead of raising an issue for discussion on the talk page. I certainly did NOT expect, given the pleasant history of the last few weeks when raising points for discussion, to be flatly told that my opinion didn't matter because I was new. It is also a mystery to me how placing a suggestion banner at the top of a page constitutes 'active dismantling of the article'!!

The constant requirement for 'sources' seems to come from a basic misapprehension that I am challenging the quality of the content of the article. Not a bit of it. I am raising a query about whether an article well over twice the size of the guideline in WP:Split is the smartest way to present that content so that it can be comprehended by readers. The issue isn't the quality of Mathsci's research, the issue is readability - and I did provide a page with some sources on that issue. How this material is presented in a book is not the only relevant question for presenting it in the online medium. Mathsci appears unwilling to even discuss the notion of daughter or sister articles that enable users to come into the content from several different directions. The whole reason for raising this is that I came looking for information on Duets (Bach), followed the link to the article on the Clavier-Ubung, and was totally overwhelmed by what was there. The same information could be presented in a different way so that a person who 'just wants to know about the Duets at the moment' is not daunted by over 40 pages of other material first. The beauty of hyperlinks is that they provide different routes of discovery, so that a person can learn about the Clavier-Ubung III either 'top-down' or 'bottom-up'. Mathsci appears intent on requiring everyone to accept 'top-down' as the only viable way of learning the subject.

Mathsci has neglected to mention that as well as removing my move/split suggestion banners twice, he has previously removed a 'very long article' banner only 5 minutes after it was put up by a very experienced editor. So I find the idea that I am a disruptive newcomer to really be a reflection of a deeper reality, that Mathsci believes he 'owns' this article, and that no-one, be it an editor of many years standing or a person familiar with Wikipedia policies on article size or readability, should be allowed to even to question Mathsci's decision as to the 'right' format of the article.

It is perhaps also worth mentioning that I sought help as to how else I might seek the opinions of others on what is going on and how to resolve it, but Mathsci has saved me the trouble of deciding by bringing the topic here.

And finally, I have already indicated to Mathsci that the word 'slaved' was not intended as derogatory and merely meant that he had worked very hard. But apparently this has not been accepted as an explanation of my intent. Orfeocookie (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The main issue in writing articles about music is not about providing hyperlinks. A glance at Clavier-Übung I shows that it is at present very little more than a list with some unsourced and misleading commentary. On the other hand there are plenty of sources out there and the main effort is usually to locate them. I'm sorry that you don't like discussing sources, but that is the way we edit on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 04:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that treating this as a behavioral issue is the best approach. I brought this up at the Classical music Wikiproject where in my opinion this would be better handled. I think you both would get some good opinions there. (Excellent article, by the way.) Antandrus (talk) 04:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I concur that, all else aside, this is a fantastic article as it stands. Very well written. Quinn ^{❀ BEAUTIFUL DAY} 04:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources are required for content. I am not proposing any new content! Orfeocookie (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I'm not sure that this rises to the level of an administrative incident yet, but it easily might. Orfeo's edits are certainly POINTy, as are their talk page comments. It is a mystery to me why they would want to pick this argument over this article in their first one hundred edits--unless it is to make a point or, of course, if they've been active here before. Drmies (talk) 04:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If I understand WP:POINT correctly, it involves making edits elsewhere for the sake of 'consistency'. Which is actually what Mathsci instructed me to do with another article on the piano music of Faure!! (Unfortunately I have not yet learnt the diff technique to show you exactly where this was said). So no, my edits aren't POINTy in that sense.

I have not had an account here previously. What I do have is years of experience in relation to the topic of how to organise, structure and present material for an audience. Readability, basically. This is not an issue which is exclusive to Wikipedia so I somewhat surprised that the length of time I have been on Wikipedia comes into it. I am happy to take advice on the content of Wikipedia policies, on the method for raising discussions and seeking additional opinions, and I am in fact quite content to defer to Mathsci on factual questions about Bach's organ works. But none of that was what I was hoping to address when I first wrote on the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orfeocookie (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

---

My two cents I don't have much to say regarding this dispute, but it was brought to my attention by Orfeocookie. This article is far too long—at 246,150 bytes, it should be split. Wikipedia:Article size says amongst other things "Articles of about 200 KB (~30 pages) are not uncommon for topics that require depth and detail, but it's typical that articles of such size get split into two or more sub-articles." and that articles in excess of 100 kb (again, this is 2.5 times that size) should "almost certainly" be split. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

---

Koavf was canvassed by Orfeocookie (talk · contribs).[128][129][130] He has canvassed in other places too.[131][132][133] Orfeocookie has proceeded in this way after consensus at Wikiproject Music was clearly against him and several experienced editors had made positive statements about the quality of the article. This kind of tactic of Orfeocookie seems therefore to be more attempted disruption. His posting at various user pages indicate that the content of the article or its quality have no significance for him: what seems important to him is winning what he perceives as a WP:BATTLE for his rights. Since January 20, Orfeocookie's only edits to wikipedia have been about dismembering this article into four or five articles (not about shortening it). His edit count still stands at 11 in article namespace. Drmies has also mentioned that he has made just over 100 edits on wikipedia. Of those about 40 have concerned this article.

Koavf has not participated in the discussion on the talk page of the article or at Wikiproject Music. Instead he left a WP:POINTY message on Orfeocookie's talk page,[134] commenting about new users being disenfranchized. If Koavf wishes to comment he should (a) read the article and its talk page (b) read what has been written by music editors, including me, at wikiproject music and (c) comment there. Disenfranchizement does not seem to be the problem here. This is a new user playing WP:GAMEs. Normally WP:BITE applies to new editors, but in this case a new editor is spending all his time on wikipedia trying to harm excellent content on wikipedia. Orfeocookie (and Koavf) should listen to what experienced editors write at Wikiproject Music, instead of continuing to disrupt wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. As some administrators have indicated, that could lead to his editing privileges being restricted if his editing continues in this way. Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who cares to follow the trail can clearly see that I asked an administrator a question of etiquette (having been invited by that administrator previously, as a new user, to ask questions if I wanted), followed the advice given by that administrator, notified Koavf accordingly and made absolutely no attempt to tell Koavf whether or not to support me. I have made clear repeatedly that if the consensus is to leave the article as is I have no intention of touching it - and despite your repeated claims that I am dismembering it, I haven't altered a single word! I think you are just upset that I didn't doff my cap and accept your insulting advice (see Quinn's first response to you here) as expected. That doesn't make me disruptive, it just makes me independent of you. Please stop trying to control me in this fashion. Orfeocookie (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course you are independent. No one is trying to control you, just as you should not try to control the article (consensus on the article talk page is against you). That article is in excellent shape and worrying about its optimum size is rather pointless. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathsci has engaged in a wide range of behaviour that appears to be based on telling me that my job is to agree with his opinions and do what he says, and that I should consult him on how to behave on Wikipedia rather than seek advice from the help pages or from administrators. I am supposed to instantly know all the behaviours that he views as appropriate, regardless of whether they are written down and regardless of whether they contradict the material that IS written down. Frankly, it is bullying and intimidating. I am beginning to lose count of the number of things that he has said or done that contradict the advice on here about ownership of articles, not telling newcomers that their opinions are less valid when new, not threatening people with consequences just for disagreeing and so forth. He treats putting up a discussion template, as suggested by help pages, as dismemberment of an article. The only reason he is not in breach of the 3-revert rule is because I only bothered trying to put up the template twice. He removes DISCUSSION templates (not just mine!) unilaterally within 5 minutes. He raised an incident here which appears to be generally regarded as a complete overreaction. All of this BEFORE any consensus on the article talk page. At no stage did he make an effort to create a discussion (that was done by others after the incident was raised) or do ANYTHING other than convey that because he wrote the article, his was the only opinion that should count. It was I who tried to seek other opinions, beginning with raising something on the talk page to begin with. That is what I was foolish enough to think talk pages were for: talk! Even if he expected that others would agree with him on the original topic, a sensible response would have been to help me obtain other's input so that I could see that for myself instead of the repetitive instruction that I should go and edit what he thinks I should edit. And you think he's not trying to control me? Orfeocookie (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Failure to assume good faith

I just noticed two pro-Jesus usernames created in the last hour or so... coincidence? (doubt it)  7  00:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Where have you reported them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

May be this is WP:BEANS and I don't know what specific usernames 7 is referring to but I looked at all user names with Jesus going back over a day and none of them have any edits so it's a moot point. Nil Einne (talk) 09:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Action to safeguard policy at Wikipedia:Consensus, please

I draw admins' attention to this edit at Wikipedia:Consensus. As he made that edit, User:JCScaliger simultaneously raised the contested issue in a current case before ArbCom, with this edit. The matter is therefore now before ArbCom, so in good faith I reverted the edit to a key policy page, put a discussion tag in place (and an inline note). I also left this note at the talkpage for the page.

I request that an admin urgently protect the page to prevent abuse of it for pointy polemical purposes in current action at ArbCom; I request that the protection be lifted only through a motion at ArbCom; and I request that JCScaliger be counselled not to do this sort of thing during the conduct of a case in which he is a party.

Noetica^Tea? 04:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

In the absence of edit warring over the policy, I don't think it's necessary to protect the page. And even if there were a contentious edit war, you can probably have faith in the arbitrators that they won't take a single revision of a policy as the community's will. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Also Noetica I believe you forgot to notify JCScaliger as per the orange box. Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. I'll notify JCScaliger now. I'm not used to this sort of thing! But I do know that when you're making allegations such as he is making in an ArbCom case, it is unhelpful if you also (provocatively) edit a page you are discussing without also noting that fact. It is not a question of what ArbCom will eventually rule in the present case; the page in question is not even within the rather vague ambit of the case. I just don't like to see that happening to a policy page.

If someone now reverts me (after I protected defended the policy provision in question, which was subject to editing in December and discussion and editing in early January), is it then considered an edit war? I don't want an edit war! I don't appreciate being dragged into anything (sheesh, ArbCom is bad enough ☺).

Perhaps the situation can be monitored here for a little while. It is not appropriate that it be discussed on the policy talkpage, now that it's before ArbCom; and ArbCom itself should not be expected to deal with mere incidents.

Noetica^Tea? 05:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Already in 2012 there are almost 100 policy page edits and over a dozen talk-page sections on edits to this important policy page. It's obviously an edit war, and JCScaliger was obviously trying to give himself more leeway to edit policy pages without consensus. Something needs to be done. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the turmoil early in the month was caused by User:Collect; relevant to the present issue, in this edit by Collect, the idea that changing policy is special was removed; he changed this:

Village pump

For disputes that have far-reaching implications—mostly ones centered on policy or guideline changes—placing a notification at the pump can bring in a large number of interested editors. This ensures broad consensus across the project.

to this:

Village pump

Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional ediors who may help.

which left no hint of special consideration for changes to policy and guideline. Key changes without consensus are the problem that caused JCScaliger (and some others) to be included in the current ArbCom case about other policy and guideline pages. He should be warned not to dig himself in deeper. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And note that almost all of my edits, which were made to make the policy clear, have been accepted. Your sideways attack on me notwithstanding. Changes to policy were, and are, subject to the same policy of CONSENSUS as any, else we are examples of Janus-editors. Collect (talk) 10:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Village pump: Neutrally worded notification of a dispute here also may bring in additional ediors who may help.

Many of these discussions will involve polls of one sort or another, but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.

Was my actual proposal - which , I submit, is not properly shown by Dick's claim that I used a single line replacing the section. Such inaccuracy leads, at best, to accusations of misunderstanding, and at worst to deliberate errancy in presenting material on this noticeboard. Collect (talk)

Amazingly enough, I suggest that WP:CONSENSUS should use the consensus procedures it, itself, advocates. Either the system works, or it does not, and that is independent of what page is being discussed. Indeed, it may be more important here. Collect (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear what those last comments from Collect are supposed to mean. Collect was the one who introduced the disputed text into policy without discussion (and without an edit summary that showed what was happening), in December. In any case, the instability triggered by an edit apparently motivated by action at ArbCom continues: History of recent edits.

If this politically sensitive disruption to policy cannot be addressed through action here, I will now seek advice from an ArbCom clerk about moving for an ArbCom injunction.

Noetica^Tea? 11:05, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately Dicklyon not only grossly misstated my edit, you now also seem to ignore the fact that the CONSENSUS has ended up supporting my edits. And I would appreciate your noting that none of my edits had anything to do with any ArbCom stuff whatsoever. And that WP:CONSENSUS worked on that page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to see a reason to pay close attention to a policy which keeps changing. Policies do need to change at times, obviously, but how can editors be expected to keep to a policy subject to an edit war? Or to even know what it is? Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Note that the gist of the policy has not changed. And also note that setting the wording of a policy in stone is contrary to the Five Pillars <g>. And lastly note that the edit ascribed to me by Dicklyon was egregiously elided. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The appropriate forum for this discussion is Wikipedia_talk:Consensus. Nobody Ent 13:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Noetica, given that you've been accused in that Arbcom case of reverting without discussion/stonewalling to maintain the status quo, I find it curious that you felt the need to revert without discussion to maintain the status quo in the middle of the case, instead of allowing the other editors actions to speak for themselves. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sarek, I will address that comment more directly at your talkpage, when I can find time to do so. Here I act only concerning an incident that threatens the stability of policy; and that necessarily involves mention of ArbCom. If no one else will act for that stability, there is little I can do: a non-admin, in particularly difficult circumstances right now. Thanks to you, in the first instance (though I took the trouble to show my appreciation of your motives at your talkpage). Be sensitive to this please. You must understand the distress and disruption these things can cause in real people's real lives; I cannot act with a perfect appearance of propriety by your unpredictable standards or anyone else's. No one could do that. Let's remember: all actions and comments of all parties to the present ArbCom case may be under scrutiny, and may be used as evidence. ♥☺ Noetica^Tea? 20:49, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If I'm not a "real person", then there's no need to respond at my talkpage, is there? And regardless, I'm not interested in holding policy discussions at my talkpage, instead of the proper venues.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• Noetica unilaterally added language to a policy page.
• This language serves to defend his position in a controversy, then already underway, and now before ArbCom
• The new language is the following addition to a long-standing sentence: Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly if the edit being reverted created a change in prescribed practice (as on policy and guideline pages), since such a change would need to have wide consensus to be valid.
• The sole discussion of this change is WT:Consensus#Noetica edit, begun after the edit. Two editors commented, besides myself and Noetica. Both disagree with the change. This is not "wide consensus".
• Therefore, the addition condemns the process by which it was added.
• Noetica has now restored his own language; Dicklyon also reverted to it after it was removed by another editor; it was then modified by uninvolved editors and Noetica reverted again to his own original wording.

My action was hardly subtle or secret; I announced it on the talk page, and at the ArbCom workshop. I presume this is how Noetica and Dicklyon, his shadow self, know about it. JCScaliger (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

we had long discussions on this several years ago, where some people tried unilaterally without prior discussion to split articles they considered too long. The operation was strongly condemned, and the present practice, stated in the policy above, was that each article must be considered individually. Since then, changes have on the one hand increased the ease of handling large articles for many readers, but simultaneously we have expanded our reach in areas of low-speed internet coverages, and the rise of portable devices has required the development of a special interface. (I think the general policy requiring consensus good, but all this needs to be kept in mind.) DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish that more of you had taken the time to look at the disputed content, which has had zero talk page support since it was first added. Noetica changed a sentence so that it reads:

Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of "no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly on pages that describe long-standing Wikipedia policy.(emphasis added)

Noetica added the text I've marked in red and has multiply reverted to it, and is now claiming that an ArbCom discussion somehow prevents any changes to this nonsensical statement. (Why? Does Noetica believe that the arbs don't know how to read a diff, so if it's not in the current version, then they won't know that Noetica believes helpful edit summaries on policy pages are unnecessary?)

Now perhaps your experience is different, but have any of you ever encountered a situation in which an edit summary of "no consensus" ever helped a user understand exactly what was wrong with the changes they made? I've never seen it. The idea that an edit summary of "no consensus" is an unhelpful edit summary on an article, but that the same phrase magically becomes a helpful explanation on a policy page, is just nonsense.

Please take a careful look at the content of that sentence: it doesn't say that you can't revert anti-consensus changes. It only encourages (but does not require) helpful, explanatory edit summaries when you do so. (The previous sentence encourages helpful, explanatory talk page discussions when you revert anti-consensus changes.) Before Noetica's anti-consensus change, it encouraged helpful edit summaries on all pages. I cannot imagine the community ever supporting unhelpful edit summaries on policy pages. Can you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Propose community ban for User:Rlevse / User:Vanished 6551232

Per WP:CBAN, moved here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Propose_community_ban_for_User:Rlevse_.2F_User:Vanished_6551232 Nobody Ent 17:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Sleuth21

Resolved: blocked, and handling on their talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Sleuth21 wants to be banned for life (see his talk page), and is now engaged in a fit of teddy-throwing to get this done - his recent edit summaries alone [135] should provide sufficient evidence to oblige. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Well done, Andy. Hope this works: 137 edits? Gosh! Surely not in one day? Is there a sock-puppet? 137? That's what some so-called editors do in one afternoon, jumping from site to site, leaving their scent marks everywhere, leaving e.g. some newbie editors in total confusion. Re: Teddy-throwing: My mother always said (and I remember it well) I was good at tandrum throwing. Never got me anywhere with my mother, but here in the frienldy WP environment it may just work. A life ban please! Reinhard 'Dick' Wentz, aka sleuth21 Sleuth21 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

If you no longer wish to contribute, then the power is in your hands to logoff and simply not log back in again. We're not your mommy or daddy, so please, own your own actions. Tarc (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Sleuth21, that "137" simply means that it's link number 137 in this page. You actually have 656 edits[136]. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• I've blocked for 31 hours to end the disruption, and will increase it to indef if they really want me to. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

And nothing of value was lost. --Golbez (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Legal threat at Talk:Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

See [137]. 'Unless this matter is attended to swiftly by the appropriate "authorities" at Wikipedia, the matter will have to go to court'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Indef blocked, talk page warning left. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Any suggestions as to what we do regarding the 'opinion' left on the talk page? Given that we don't know who posted it, I wonder if we should delete it as a possible copyright violation ;-) AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Either delete it or hat it. If the latter, make a note that it is merely an opinion of a single barrister. We have ample refs indicating the official position of the HOL, and until they (or the British courts) change their mind, this barrister's opinion is no more valid than mine or yours. Manning (talk) 00:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Far from the first time they've posted this on the talk page and made similar legal threats. They've been directed to where they can direct their complaints before. RBI is probably the best bet as they continue this. Ravensfire (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Concur with the deletion. I don't think hatting is enough. The barrister's position may be online, and perhaps they gave permission for the poster to republish it in some form, there's a fair chance they didn't give them permission to release it under the CC-BY-SA licence though. Nil Einne (talk) 08:52, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment, but should we really be indeffing a shared IP address registered to the largest ISP in the UK? Or is there some evidence that this is an open proxy or someone's static IP? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

More phone numbers

Resolved

No admin action needed. Rich Farmbrough, 03:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC).

A variable IP in the 108.39 range has added phone numbers at Plaza Middle School. All three of their versions and the first revert by me are affected. Calabe1992 00:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying phone numbers for the school are revdel'able? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know who the numbers are for. I'm guessing the one that's been there is probably the correct one. Calabe1992 01:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The school's website here lists 757.648.4900, within the blue bar. Dru of Id (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

This pdf from 2007-2008 gives the 757-431-4060. Dru of Id (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Any reason why we list phone numbers in the first place? This is exactly the kind of sneaky vandalism target that is hard to detect and that can cause harm to real persons. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 02:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would think providing the site link should be sufficient; I doubt people have difficulty finding the phone numbers on websites despite the format variations. I specifically chose the pdf reference as it was, presumably, not a mirror site. :D Dru of Id (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We used to have a guideline of not providing phone numbers IIRC, it is now a field in Infobox school I think. Talk:Infobox school is probably the best place to discuss the general issue. Certainly it's not rev-del time. Rich Farmbrough, 03:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC).

You mean Template talk:Infobox school. I cannot see any "phone" in {{Infobox school}} (good—clearly Wikipedia should not provide phone numbers as a substitute for the official website). Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this covered by item 3 of WP:NOTDIR? Deor (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Tendentious Editing

Resolved: warning issued, IP under observation.Manning (talk) 06:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

To make a long story short, the Wild Kratts article has a problem editor (IP 74.127.219.8) who cannot WP:DROPIT. The edit in question is whether or not Martin and Aviva are in some kind of non-platonic relationship on the show. The edit has at least 4 problems, with WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH, WP:NPOV, and WP:WEASEL being just the beginning of it. The problem is there are no sources within the show that has stated that they are or aren't. So, if I were to edit the article to say that they're NOT in love, that would be NPOV on MY part, so it's not like any of the editors are reverting because they disagree with the statement (however, the user is reverting because they disagree with our stance that they AREN'T, based on what they present as "proof"), and the best thing is to just not even mention the shipping war at all on either side of the fence.

This user was warned twice (and a previous time about another article), by two different editors, and that was before I found out they edited this into the article 30 times in 6 months. These recent edits make numbers 31-33. There was an edit war about this before (sad to say I didn't realize it was a war until it was already over), and I'm not even going to touch it, not with edits, reverts, or templates. They will only continue to revert and edit war, and I'm going to let the admins handle this.

It states clearly in the talk page why this edit is not Wikipedia standards, but of course the user is pulling WP:IDHT. Given the nature of this outside of Wikipedia, it's safe to assume the edit is not in good faith (aside from WP:POVPUSH and WP:TE). I won't say the user is trolling, but I can say it is not good faith, and this is no newbie who's confused. They've been here long enough, and know what they're putting. The diff's start when I came into the picture; the user started editing way before that.

First time I reverted that user's edit: [138]

They put the information back after I reverted another user's edit: [139]

User's last edit (until now): [140]

Most recent:

[141]

[142]

[143]

Here is the article's talk page: [144]

Here is the article's history: [145]

And here is the user's contribution history: [146]

Any thoughts anyone has on the matter are welcome. I will be notifying the user of this discussion; if the template is not on their talk page, please give me time, because it took me two hours just to figure out how to diff. I'll eventually get it up there. Thank you for your time and attention. SmallCheez (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

You've done well, if all issues were logged this thoroughly our jobs would be much easier. I'll start looking it all over and get back to you. Manning (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No recent warnings, so I've given a nice friendly one to get things started. Drop a message on my talk page if things don't improve. Manning (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Much thanks. SmallCheez (talk) 05:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

There's a long backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Someone should take a look when they get a chance. Zagalejo^^^ 04:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow. --Bryce (talk | contribs) 10:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be reasonably under control at the moment. —Dark 11:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Gothic Forest

User:Gothic Forest (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I am reporting this user because of some of regular editing activity of his which consists of changing genres on band or album pages. If (s)he even adds sources, the sources are usually of questionable value or are not at par with WP:IRS (for example edits, see this and this; all four sources near the genres were added by the user, as seen in the respective histories). And then there are edits such as this and this, from the Somnium Obmutum article, which don't even bother dealing with sources. Despite many warnings on his talk page to cease such activity, the user has continued to make unconstructive genre changes. This user has also only barely communicated and worked with other users on the issue, maybe using invisible text within the article (for a relevant article history, see the history for Where Lovers Mourn). I even posted on the Where Lovers Mourn article talk page, and requested him/her to state their reasoning for such edits on the user's talk page, but the user has not responded after several days. Gothic Forest's talk page reveals that on August 1, 2011, (s)he was blocked for 48 hours because of similar activity, so that means that (s)he has received consequences for this in the past. I'm sick of dealing with genre warriors, and I feel that since the user has disregarded so many warnings, it is appropriate to report it to this noticeboard. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 07:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought the username looked familiar; apparently I issued their previous block. It's regrettable that it didn't have the desired effect so this time they're blocked indefinitely. A talk page full of warnings and increasingly frustrated requests to discuss their edits, coupled with zero talk page edits on their part, is unfortunately not something we can allow to continue. I would be amenable to an unblock request on very specific terms—namely that they undertake to communicate constructively with other editors, respond promptly to concerns, and use proper sourcing—but that's up to them. EyeSerene^talk 09:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive new troll needs a block

Resolved

Could someone please block the troll who had this to say on my talk page? Thank you. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 07:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Featured picture delist discussion needing closure

I tried posting this at AN, but it was archived without comment. There has been a discussion on the featured picture candidates talk page over the last few weeks about how "delist" discussions should be dealt with. It would be good if we could get some closure- there have been no comments for some days. Can I request that an experienced editor who was not involved in the discussion close it, and post any conclusions reached? Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Overturned delisting. If there is a more appropriate place for this request, please point me to it. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)