Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Template removal & incivility...

Unresolved

Restored from archive... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Again... still unresolved, silly Miszabot... - Adolphus79 (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Once more, due to continued activity... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This timestamp will prevent auto-archiving. Please remove it when the thread is marked resolved. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2199 (UTC)

Back on September 20, 2009, Chao19 (talk · contribs) was blocked for removing article maintenence templates and incivility. He was removing {{fact}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{references}} templates from assorted Creed articles... he was given fair warning, and his only replies the the warnings were that no references were needed and I was an asshole for restoring the templates. After the block, that user was inactive for a while, although there were one or two IPs (67.167.33.47 (talk · contribs) and possible others) that continued the pattern, even going so far as to continue the incivility on my user talk page (this and the following half dozen revisions)... within a minute of the IP's last comment, Chao19 had logged in, and replied to his own IP comment (Chao19's first edit since the block)... Since that edit, the IP has not made any further edits, and Chao19 has continued the incivility[1] and removal of maintenence templates without reason... I filed a report at AIV, and was going to file a report at SSP, but was told it would be better brought to ANI...

It is obvious that the IP is a sock of Chao19, and it is also obvious that Chao19's original block did nothing to change his editing habits... his counter-productive editing and harassment of other users has become more than an average bother to me, and I would like someone else to look into this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes this behavior is pretty bad. Comments like "Why do you expect everything to be referenced? Jesus.." leave me with doubt that this person has the willingness to comply with Wikipedia's most basic editing rules. If this was a new editor I would suggest that a person have a talk with them about the necessity of verifiability but seeing that they've been an active editor for over 9 months with over 600 edits I'd consider any ignorance of rules at this point to be willful. -- Atama頭 19:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For the last month I have tried to explain this to him, and have been met with nothing but stubborness and incivility every step of the way... I just sat down to find his latest revelation, "And from what ive seen over the year and a half ive been on here, your the only once who truly gives a flying fuck about the unreferenced stuff."... Anyone that takes a look at my conversation with him so far, will see that this guy obviously does not care about Wikipedia's policies, and plans to continue doing what he wants with no regard for them. Add to that the incivility, and you've got the makings of someone who (while not a blatent vandal) will do nothing but cause harm to the project in the end... - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Although, I am still looking forward to my Worst Admin Ever award... LOL - Adolphus79 (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll get started on an excremental barnstar for you. :) -- Atama頭 19:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sa-weet... that'll be number three in as many years... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Back to the original comment, the editor in question has now begun vandalizing my user page, and continues the incivility on my talk page... Someone with tools please do something about this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Adolphus79. That last comment was completely out of line.--Crossmr (talk) 01:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. A block per WP:NPA would seem to be in order if this happens again. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

His being blocked a month ago for it, and coming back to continue harassing me isn't enough? Or the contsant and blatent template vandalism, which also continued after the last block? I can guarantee that the harassment and template removal will continue, it's not a matter of if... - Adolphus79 (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that didn't take long, I just sat down to find that the user had removed maintenence templates again on assorted creed articles, and continues to think that twitter, youtube, and blogs are reliable sources... I am really getting tired of having to constantly clean up after a user that thinks third-party, reliable refs are stupid... - Adolphus79 (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations

Resolved

 – Nothing for admins to do here, and the discussion is just going in circles. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

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

---

I have been accused of a sockpuppet but no case has been filed and I consider this a slur on my wiki-name. I have never been blocked or involved in sockpuppetry and I am concerned with how this will impact on my reputation. If no case is filed, can I remove it or ask for it to be removed?

What I also find disturbing about this is the editor who has added the report names two other editors who they say it could be - surely, editors cannot accuse multiple editors of being a sockpuppet and hope that one sticks? It looks like they wish to run a fish-tripping on multiple editors.

In addition, they deleted a reply of mine to that page where I noted that I had received an email about this matter to make it look like it was something I was trying to hide rather than someone I noted myself. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. You're BOTH (you and Benjiboi) admonished to put up or shut up regarding sockpuppet accusations and WP:BITEing. I totally agree that its likely that user is not a new user, but you have no basis for who they could possibly be a sock of. If they are a new user, you both bit them in an attempt to bully the other. If you can establish who they might be, you're free to bring a CU request but until then neither of you should reinstate those sock notices. Syrthiss (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I hold my hand up on that - and will offer my apologies to the user about that - my anger at the false accusation got the better of me and I should have known better. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clear this is - yet another - attempt at WP:Baiting me and it's unfortunate that Cameron Scott invests sooo much energy in following me around. I guess I should be honoured they are obsessed with me. -- Banjeboi 14:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't particularly like having my good name thrown around by User:Benjiboi in all this as well. - Schrandit (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record both you and Cameron Scott have continued to heap piles of bad faith on me and this claimed concern about your wiki-reputations rings quite hollow, actually. If you didn't support banned editors using anon socks, blanketing articles with {{COI}} and {{fact}} tags with apparently no interest but in deleting material you apparently don't approve and, possibly most chilling - defending attackers and murderers as unjustly accused of hate crimes against LGBT people - none of this would likely be going on. Instead, bolstered by Wikipedia Review you nip at my heels and throw muck at my work until you hope something sticks. Essentially you're playing the worst sort of game and playing the community for fools. If you don't approve/like/condone LGBT people and culture than work on some of the other three million articles. If you don't care for another editor? Then avoid them, don't continually target articles they work on when you obviously have little to no interest in them. In short, move on. Your actions are disruptive and are counter to building good content. You work will make or break your reputations. -- Banjeboi 14:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for more of the same vague accusations of bad faith that you have made previously and started this section. If you have a problem with my edits, I invite you to start a RFC and I'll be happy to stand on my record.Other well respected editors in the LGBT project have stated previously that they are happy with my edits and therefore I feel there is no case to answer. Otherwise I have no further comment to make here (as it only seems to encourage you in your accusations) unless invited to do so by an administrator or anyone else who is seeking answers. Otherwise I consider this matter resolved. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that was too vague for you. Leave me alone, stop harassing me, stop accusing me of COI editing, stop trying to out me or whoever you think I am, stop WP:Wikihounding me. Hope that is more clear and we can all more on from here. -- Banjeboi 15:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Benji, your edits have shown time and time again violations of policies and guidelines. Anyone has every right to scrutinize them, and hiding behind the flag of homophobia is against common decency and WP:AGF. Please strike your accusations, apologize to the user and move on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of vague accusations. If you have some tangible concern of my "time and time again violations of policies and guidelines" please present them in a proper forum so some non-biased eyes might see what merit your concerns hold. I'm hardly hiding behind anything, homophobia exists on Wikipedia but most editors are willing to act civilly towards one another despite their beliefs. We don't suspend our civility in order to make a point or enforce some other policy. There is never a reason to harass other editors. -- Banjeboi 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who knows Benjiboi's real name will see that this is an obvious attempt to annoy or harass him. While this shouldn't give Benjiboi license to accuse others of sockpuppetry, perhaps the account should be blocked. On the other hand, if Benjiboi was more open about his connections to the subjects that he edits, I suspect that the editors he accuses of being obsessed with him would find other things to do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Impressive sleuthing DC, that does put many a suspicion to rest. - Schrandit (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It had already been raised in this discussion, where the putative conflict of interest was relevant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• No comment on the other matters at play, but I have blocked the account indefinitely for harassment. –xeno^talk 17:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• My connection was answered here. And even if it hadn't been answered there is never an excuse to harass other editors here. No matter someone's background they need to act civilly toward others or find another website to express their ideas. -- Banjeboi 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So let's see if I understand this:

• At least as early as January 2008, Benjiboi is asked (during the first AfD for the now deleted bio of DJ Pusspuss) about his connection to DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.
• In early September, the COI questions noted in the first AfD were brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.
• For the past two months, at this ANI thread, this WP:COIN thread, and a couple of AfDs, Benjiboi has steadfastly denied any conflict of interest in DJ Pusspuss, Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, etc, etc
• Now that a diff from 2006 is produced in which Benjiboi states that he is "the archivist for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Inc. in San Francisco" with the same email used by DJ Pusspuss, Sister Kitty Catalyst, and the freelance journalist who shell not be named, Benjiboi states that the diff "was made by someone else" using his account.

It seems odd that after so much fuss, Benjiboi didn't earlier offer that "someone else" had used their account. And if "someone else" was responsible for the 2006 diff, it can only be assumed that the same "someone else" went back in May 2007 to remove only the email address from that comment.

I am fully aware of WP:OUTING and I understand that editors may not wish to have their WP usernames connected to their real life identities, but at some point the presumption of good faith is overwhelmed by the evidence to the contrary. Benjiboi claims that because he edits LGBT articles he is at risk of becoming a victim of a hate crime. Since all of the personas in this mess (Sister Kitty, DJ Pusspuss, unnamed freelance journalist) are openly gay LGBT activists and "homo-propagandists" (their term, not mine), it is hard to see how this can be rationalized. Rather than simply avoid editing the articles where the "someone else" who used Benjiboi's account would have a conflict of interest, Benjiboi has edit warred and blustered about being harassed by accusations of COI. This has become a low-level but constant distraction and has now blossomed into actual harassment of Benjiboi by anon IPs and abusively named accounts.

Ignoring the problem hasn't made it go away. Can we find some constructive way to deal with this issue, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, despite - yet another - rehashing of this alleged problem you have shown a connection likely exists, it has been acknowledged. That is different than an actual problem, as has been pointed out out repeatedly. Yet you choose to dredge it all up again to publicly flog. Luckily we don't reward bad behaviour even if perpetrated by anon vandals bolstered by Wikipedia Review. The COIN thread, where apparently COI problems are reported, is rather explicit that our civility policies should not be swept aside in order to conduct witch-hunts. If you have any evidence of actual COI editing problems you can make your case there rather than enabling incivility of a handful of editors, some already shown to be socks of banned editors. I'll repeat my same admonishment - Delicious carbuncle please leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 03:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean this in a snarky way, but I can't parse your first sentence. Can you please rephrase that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It was confusing to me too but in context with the rest of the comment, I believe that Benjiboi is saying that yes, there's a COI and it is acknowledged, but a COI in and of itself is not a problem unless it's paired with disruptive editing. Which is true. I'm sure that you have a belief that there is disruptive editing otherwise I doubt you'd be pursuing this in multiple places, but that's the point that Benjiboi is disputing. -- Atama頭 19:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

there's a COI and it is acknowledged, Where? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think Benjiboi just did. I think that the COI is undeniable with the diff you provided. So Benjiboi basically said, "Yes there's a COI but so what? It hasn't caused a problem." Saying that the COI "has been acknowledged" is an acknowledgment, isn't it? If this COI is acknowledged after a long denial, of course, that in itself may be a cause for concern. -- Atama頭 15:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

If Benjiboi is finally acknowledging a COI, that would be a welcome and refreshing change. My reason for bringing this up again here is that it seems to be at the root of this latest ANI report and Benjiboi's current disputes with other editors. I hope that Benjiboi does not cease his diligent work with LGBT subjects, but if he could stop editing the small number of articles where he does have a conflict, it would probably make the drama go away entirely. I'm not asking for a ban of any kind, just a voluntary action for the sake of peace. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, you and a few other editors are self-appointed hall monitors creating drama where there is none. Similar to your treatment of David Shankbone, your stated concern seems somewhat reasonable. But with any discernment reads as you wish to compel others to disclose, by inducements or relief from harassment, a compiled list of various articles they do or may have a COI on. We don't operate like that. Every article doesn't carry with it an alert tag "Warning: the following editors are compromised here" nor does every editor come with a list of articles and subjects where they are or are not allowed. Instead we look at content and behaviours. So no, I don't believe "the drama go away entirely" at all as before this I have been stalked and harassed by anons and quite a few since banned editors. And no, it wasn't for COI issues but a variety of LGBT-related subjects where I primarily work. I don't care if it's the same person or a small group working in a collaboration. I don't even care why someone is harassing me just as I wouldn't care why any other editor was being harassed. We don't allow it no matter what point someone is trying to make. If have have any actual COI problems - that is where a real or perceived COI is manifesting in COI editing please start a thread at COIN and make your case there. A connection was shown a COI problem was not. Feel free to get in the last word if you must. -- Banjeboi 03:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi's assessment. In my case, the same person--User:Delicious carbuncle--that was raising a fuss was the same person saying that 'all this will go away if you do what I think you should do' despite everyone on the board telling DC, to the point of exasperation, that he was unable to show any problems. It's similar to how the mafia operates; they create problems that you must then bend to their will to have solved. He targets people who have completely stuck within policy simply because he doesn't like them or feels they should do what he thinks they should do. Instead, he maligns the people (including Benjiboi and Peteforsyth) who pointed this out to him. He nominates a very notable foreign film for deletion (Ping Pong Playa) as "unremarkable", templates User:Ynotswim, upsetting him, all because he Googled the wrong phrase. I spend five second Googling the correct phrase, and when he closes the AfD says "I'm sure someone will be along in 6 or 7 months to add references". He created a situation, was in the wrong, and doesn't do anything to actually improve the article nor apologize to Ynotswim. Over on Outlaw motorcycle club he tells User:Dbratland that his word is no good (despite that user providing in good faith six sources to back himself up, with links DC could easily check for himself). Here he is going at Benjiboi. Only on ass-backward Wikipedia can I undertake routine linkspam removal and have it presented by Carbuncle on Wikipedia Review as an attempt to "strongarm the competition", have him enter a delicate discussion with personal attacks, and then have nobody do anything about it on this board except for Manning Bartlett to characterize it as a "misunderstanding" despite all evidence to the contrary. And people wonder why content contributors get fed up? All of this just in the law few weeks. -->David Shankbone 12:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

David, to be so brutally and publicly attacked by one Wikipedia's most renowned editors is especially painful to me because I though that our problems had been resolved. I had hoped that your appearance on several articles I was editing was a sign that you thought we could work constructively together. Unfortunately User:Ynotswim is a serial copyright violator, but nonetheless I am sorry if they are upset. My initial impulse was to ask for Ping Pong Playa to be CSD'd for copyright violation, but I went the AfD route to allow for discussion. I closed the AfD when you showed me my mistake. As I said in closing it, I made a mistake when searching for evidence of notability. You'll find many more mistakes if you search through my contribution history. Let me apologise again for the misunderstanding that lead to your recent ANI thread about me. Since you obviously feel that I am a destructive influence here, perhaps you should start another thread instead of further clouding the already murky discussion here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I don't mean to minimize the harassment you and other editors receive for your work on LGBT subjects, but in relation to a very specific set of articles I honestly do believe that the current situation will be resolved by a voluntary pledge not to edit articles where you have a conflict of interest. We can ask the editors who have in the past tagged those articles as COI if they agree. There is no witch hunt or intimidation intended here since your connection has already been shown. After literally years of denial, you have finally admitted what has been obvious for a long time. It is therefore understandable that some editors may not let go easily. I am proposing a way forward with this persistently disruptive pattern. Are you willing to try it? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, just stop. There was no years of denial as much as never revealing who I was, and I explained why. Every one of those COI tags has been removed insisting - as we have pointed out here and every other time - that you show actual problems instead of inventing a narrative bolstered by various Wikipedia Review socks, six - by my count - have been blocked so far. The way forward is for you to drop it, you've wikihounded and I simply am not going to take your word on behalf of a group of disruptive vandals that now they will act like adults. It's unfortunate you don't see the problems your causing by re-opening closed issues and attempts to air "concern" publicly. If all the editors involved simply focused on the content and not the contributor - per policy, none of this would have been a drama to begin with. Walk away and know that your mission here is done. In the future if you think someone is COI editing take it to COIN and show a problem exists not a connection. And avoid even the appearance of outing people - it remains a form of harassment. -- Banjeboi 16:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have already described the problem - there is a low-level but long term disruptive edit war going on at a number of articles with which other editors perceive that you have a conflict of interest. I am not speaking on behalf of anyone. I am suggesting we ask editors such as User:Cameron Scott and other editors in good standing here who have been in conflict with you on this issue whether they would accept my proposed solution. Since your identity is already known (because of your own edits) there is no "outing" going on here. I realise that this is probably a touchy subject for you, but please consider my proposal seriously, rather than simply assuming that I am trying to harass you. Wouldn't this reduce the amount of friction for you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle, I don't know how to make this more clear - you are the source of friction here. Everyone else seems to have moved on to actually build articles. You have described a connection, based on who you think I must be even though that was confirmed to be untrue. The edit-warring was by those looking to add {{COI}} tags on numerous articles - all of which have been removed as described above. Thus you are the only one still WP:Beating a dead horse. Move on. Show actual COI exiting persists and perhaps do so at COIN following the guidelines there. -- Banjeboi 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I find it hard to keep track of where we are in this conversation. User:Atama interpreted your earlier statement as confirmation of your connection to DJ Pusspuss/Sister Kitty Catalyst. I expressed my doubts, but you seemed to confirm it when you said "A connection was shown a COI problem was not". Are you now retracting that admission? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Showing someone might or likely has a connection is not in and of itself a problem. I'm admitting that you are the only problem in this thread. Accusations have been leveled against me but they ring quite hollow. Please get off proving anyone's identity at all, ever. It's simply disruptive. No actual problem has been shown to exist despite multiple requests here and elsewhere. Otherwise this seems like you just stirring drama and disrupting to make a WP:point. Delicious carbuncle, this is your invitation to drop it and move on. You have expressed your concern and whoever needed to see it likely has and is not as passionate about targeting editors as you seem to be. Drop it, move on and please be more careful about these methods in the future. -- Banjeboi 03:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, I'm not accusing you of anything other than equivocating. There is no question that you have a connection to the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence since you have divulged that information yourself. I have offered a possible way forward with this situation that one of the participants has tacitly agreed to on my talk page. I don't know who the other parties in this dispute are, but if they also agree, will you? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That diff was already brought up and answered. The way forward in this situation is for you to cease and desist. You are simply badgering and harassing with no actual COI editing problems. Your attempts to continually out, shame an offer your way forward are a sham. Leave me alone and find something constructive that actually benefits Wikipedia besides harassing other editors. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you got your response, but hey we can rewrite the COI guidelines, 'simply refuse to discuss your COI and if pushed cite the Benjiboi precedent'. The fact that one of the sources that they add is from the his organisation's website and for all we know, they write it to support their need for a source - no problem, it's all good. Reliable sources? pfff independent sources? what you talking about? --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? how is a film company my organization? Please find something better to do. -- Banjeboi 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that Cameron Scott is referring to the information added in that diff giving the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence website as the reference. As a member of that organisation and the current or former archivist, presumably you have influence over the content of the website. This is precisely why the issue is unlikely to go away. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As that diff shows I added a ref to an independent film. The other refs were already there. And, again, please stop assuming who I am and what any of my connections might be. If you have an actual content problem that needs to be addressed then talk only about that. -- Banjeboi 10:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Meta discussion

Cameron Scott and Delicious Carbuncle. Maybe I am missing the point here, but:

1. Lets say that Benjiboi is not involved in writing the articles, or not even in the organisation. In that case, there is no COI, and that edit is OK
2. Lets say, that someone writes a good, reliable document in the organisation, and Benjiboi has a COI with that organisation and uses it as a reference. How is that not just a WP:IAR to actually improve the document. And does it actually advance Benjiboi's position?
3. Lets say that Benjoboi is writing a good document in an organisation he works for, and then cites his own work. Does Wikipedia advance, yes, does he advance himself, yes/maybe. It may be frowned upon, but you do not have any actual proof, and even if you did, it is not a reason to revert or to tell Benjiboi not to do it. He was actually improving the encyclopedia.

So unless there is scenario '4' (where either Benjiboi is writing unreliable sources in order to be able to use them here to advance his position and Wikipedia is not getting better), there is no issue here. You are close to assuming bad faith on Benjiboi and baiting him into answers, and Wikipedia does not seem to get better by it. Wikipedia has many editors with a conflict of interest of which we don't even have the slightest idea that they have it, here we seem to have someone who may be involved in a part of the organisation, who may be influential in the content of the website of the organisation, but unless you now come up with clearly bad edits that is by far not enough to discuss this. Move on. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread was started because Benjiboi accused three editors of sockpuppetry. This is just the latest skirmish in a battle that has been going on for some time. I find it more and more perplexing that after repeatedly posting the link wherein Benjiboi details his involvement with the Sisters of Perpetual etc, we are still discussing this in terms of hypothetical scenarios. Dirk, you have taken one edit to serve as the example of the COI concerns here. This does not show the larger pattern. Benjiboi created not one but two autobiographies as DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.. He voted to keep in at least one of the AfDs. He has inserted pictures of himself into those articles and others. Just days ago, he was the only editor arguing to keep an image that others felt was unnecessary. I do not see these as signs that the interests of WP are being served, or that the encyclopedia is being improved. Benjiboi is a valuable contributor to LGBT articles, but in the specific cases where he has a COI, I think there will continue to be conflicts until the situation is dealt with in some manner. I have proposed a negotiated solution which Benjiboi evidently does not wish to accept. (I say evidently because he has never directly addressed the question.) Note that I'm not even directly involved in this dispute, I'm just tired of it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is fine with me that the COI is real, but that does not have to be a problem, thát is what I meant. We have many disclosed and undisclosed COI editors here, and they all can join in in discussions. To me there is no bad thing in that Benjiboi with a conflict of interest or without a conflict of interest defends articles and comments in AfD's on articles they started. Or creating those articles, etc. etc. If his editing violates our core policies, then we are talking, but I don't see any proof of that. I don't see why there 'will continue to be conflicts' when he is editing like that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I do however agree that Benjiboi should not accuse editors of creating sockpuppets when there is no proof it is actually a sock of that editor, leave that to the checkusers. I do however think that HenjiBolmann is somehow questionable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. that's why I suggested the account be blocked as an obvious attempt to harass Benjiboi. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That connection was asked and answered and the core take-away message remains the same. Show an actual problem exists not an acknowledged connection. As for those XfDs I think you'll find I'm rather consistent in insisting we find valid reasons to save or delete content whether articles, images, etc. I don't see that changing. I'll let you get the last word in here but it would seem that yet again this discussion has been WP:Beating a dead horse. Please move on. -- Banjeboi 19:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Unthinking vandalism of cited material by User:Ckatz & User:Ruslik0

Aurora (astronomy). Ckatz & Ruslik are tag-team reverting my corrections to this article, which I've cited sources for. They clearly have no idea of the subject material, having never contributed creatively to the subject, but that doesn't stop them repeatedly reverting my corrections.

I've been trying to get this edit[2], which was pretty much off the top of my head plus a little research, to stick, on & off, since 27 August, 2009. On that day I was in the process of putting together some proper refs, but Ruslik undid me within 15 minutes of my correction. So I thought, what is the point?

I recently chucked a couple of naked sources

1. [3]
2. [4]

in the text (I wasn't going to waste formatting effort only to be unthinkingly reverted) the article was still reverted. I was not surprised, and was right not to waste effort.

Ruslik reverts:

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]

Ckatz reverts:

• [10]
• [11]

A sample of their edit summaries:

• restore more encyclopedic text
• I do not agree with removal of information
• It was reverted because the rewrite was not of the same quality as the previous version.
• Are you a physicist

They are clearly unthinking vandals.

Even when another user reverted back to my version[12], saying, "don't remove cited mateial", Ckatz came back with the ludicrous justification about quality.

This is a fending off exercise by these two users, who clearly have no desire to improve the article, and every desire to harass me.

They have partially succeeded in fending me off, because of them I have done no other research for this article, what would be the point?

Could these two users be topic banned from this article? Thanks. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your false accusations of vandalism are disruptive. Ruslik_Zero 15:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not vandalism; it's an edit war. Simonm223 (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like a content dispute to me. dispute resolution seems a more appropriate path than ANI to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Have to disagree. The material I'm replacing is unreferenced, and clearly wrong. Referenced material is being removed with spurious justifications. Repeated removal of referenced material is vandalism in my book. The targeting by these two users of me is harassment as well, but the real concern is the inaccuracies of the article I'm ironing out. Topic ban for these two please. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The proper course would be to ask for assistance from the Physics or Astronomy workgroups--we have people here who can help resolve this and--quite possibly--write a better section than either of the two. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd ask that anyone reviewing this first compare the versions in question, and note especially the latter paragraphs of Harry's version. From what I can tell, it does not appear to be encyclopedic text. As to his spurious accusation above, it would be of great benefit to first review Harry's contribution history, and his lengthy list of issues on this board and elsewhere. Really, that speaks more to this particular situation than anything else. --Ckatz^chat_spy 16:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict} Good call DGG. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

DGG, kick this into the long grass? You see no need to examine the behaviour of Ckatz & Ruslik? HarryAlffa (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

(outOfSequence)Ckatz deceit and mischaracterisation, "the latter paragraphs ... it does not appear to be encyclopedic". Even if you agreed with this assessment, it is in no way justification for the removal of cited material. Notice the sleight of hand in directing you to other concerns. He seems to be saying, "Me and Ruslik have had trouble with this guy, so that justifies us harassing him".

{moved comment to ANI within ANI below}

(edit conflict)You've been trying to edit war an underreferenced section into an article for two months, which is much harder to read than the existing version, you haven't gone to talk once, and you insist it's the other editors' problem?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek, You refused my olive branch over your misunderstanding recently, now you turn up here with the perverse implication that I refused to discuss a point with others on Talk. This is a deliberate deceit. The proper procedure would be for Ruslik to start a thread on the talk before he reverted an article whose subject he knows little about. Neither he nor Ckatz made any such effort on Talk, in fact Ckatz almost universally refuses to contribute to the talk pages of any of the articles he involves himself with. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate deceit, huh? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes? There is no communication on the talk page by anyone on any of this. If you are only going by the history of the talk page (as your link suggests: 4 contribs since end of July) and not looking at the talk page itself then you have deceived yourself, and have thus carelessly passed that deceit onto this page. I'm a little pissed off at your accusation of edit war when Ckatz & Ruslik have been removing cited material - repeatedly. Particularly when you say I've been trying to edit war. Your prejudice and hostility are plain, you should recuse yourself. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

{moved whole load of comments to ANI within ANI below)

Back on topic

Ckatz & Ruslik have repeatedly, and tag-teamingly reverted cited material.

Topic ban for these two please. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Referenced? The only link (web link, not reference) that you managed to insert is this one, which, however, contains almost no useful information. So, your version is uncited and contains serious errors and omissions. You removed a lot of useful information about auroral emissions, and you are trying to use a confusing terminology, which you invented yourself. Ruslik_Zero 18:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes referenced, two separate links, as I explained above I was not going to waste formatting effort to have you revert anyway - which you did.

So lies you have told here

1. only one reference
2. "contains almost no useful information"
3. "removed a lot of useful information about auroral emissions"
4. I am guilty of neologism

1. There are two references [13], NASA[14]
2. "The flow of charged particles from the Sun, known as the solar wind, expands outwards to the surrounding space. Close to the Earth the solar wind interacts with the magnetosphere, feeding energy and particles there. Processes taking place in the magnetosphere lead to the acceleration and precipitation of electrons and protons in the upper atmosphere of the Earth, know as the ionosphere. When the charged particles enter the atmosphere, they excite the ambient atoms and molecules, which emit light when returning to the ground state, thus creating aurora (northern lights). In this course, we study the formation of aurora as an ionospheric process as well as from the viewpoint of solar wind-magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling."[15]
3. I corrected, not removed, info - as per the bold parts above.
4. I have invented no new terms of any sort

Now that we've established you will tell blatant lies about evident facts, we then examine your conclusions and, no surprise, your conclusions rely on the lies you have told about the facts. Then you throw in "contains serious errors and omissions" which is really just another lie. After that you have become quite hysterical.

You're trying your best to turn this into a "I said he said" thing about the content, but you have shown yourself to be a liar, and you and Ckatz have removed cited material in order to harass me. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I would draw the involved editors attention to the Bold-Revert-Discuss policy. 'Nuf said. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That might apply if it was a bold recasting of existing material, and not the correction it was. So I think it fails at that first hurdle. But I thank you for paying some attention here, and ask your indulgence in looking deeper at the false claims of Ruslik above. Ckatz & Ruslik have no record of creative interest in this article, and you can see above that Ckatz reckons past conflicts give them the right to harass - which is what this really is. HarryAlffa (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of lying and false claims is a violation of WP:No personal attacks, and may get you blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

... whereas actually lying and making false claims isn't. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment about the complaining editor

I can't really say much about the change proposed by HarryAlffa, but based on previous interactions and my overall impression of his contributions: I would revert any such relatively big edit by this editor on sight unless I could convince myself that it is factually correct or another, reasonable, editor convincingly supported the edit and would accept responsibility for it. This is the only editor so far that I would say something like this about.

HarryAlffa has proved in the past that (1) he is not a team player, and (2) his claims of having expert knowledge that trumps the consensus of everybody else are out of proportion to the little sense and knowledge that he may possess. This user is here to improve the encyclopedia, but does not seem to be contributing to this goal by any objective measure.

Recent previous ANI threads involving this user:

• June [16], followed by [17]. Result: Hard to say what the result was, but certainly not what HarryAlffa expected. Discussion died after he was blocked for a week.
• August [18]. Result: Proposed community ban against HarryAlffa not appropriate at that time.
• August [19]. Result: HarryAlffa blocked for a week. Discussion died after uncontradicted proposal of an indef block.

This is probably once more not the right time to discuss a community ban, but if HarryAlffa doesn't learn a few inconvenient truths about himself this will have to happen sooner or later. (Links to problematic behaviour, and some pretty funny examples of it, can be found in the ANI archive links.) Hans Adler 13:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what Hans is saying, "I don't like this guy and it is therefore alright by me if you harass him and remove cited material".

You can see his attempt to pick a fight with me here Artificial Intelligence User Accounts with this[20]. I instead used humour and whimsy to confuse him. This is another of his contributions designed to sow conflict. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I trust readers of this section follow at least one of the links before making up their minds. Yours would be a good start, as it does illustrate how you are putting your energy into eccentric distractions. Now if you had said that you "used humour and whimsy" from the start you might have convinced me it was just a misunderstanding and there is still hope to get you on board this project. Hans Adler 17:51, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of you are showing a great level of maturity at this moment.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This comment is offensive, whether it is read as sarcastic or not. It doesn't seem to be compatible with having followed the links above. Hans Adler 01:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hans, there was no misunderstanding in you trying to pick a fight. I used whimsy and humour to bamboozle you, I did not say my proposal was purely whimsical - whimsy and humour are not incompatible with a serious proposal, as everyone with a sense of these things was able to discern at the time. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic, thank you for your mature reflection. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ckatz persistent reverts against concensus

YellowMonkey has refused to comment. Please, could an admin take a look at this? HarryAlffa (talk) 13:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz has recently been unsupportedly dismissing the legitimate contributions of others as "vandalism" and "trolling". It may be that Ckatz would benefit from advice by more experienced editors/admins. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 16:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your difference link includes the "trolling" comment but has nothing to indicate Ckatz referred to any edits as vandalism. Furthermore how is this remotely relevant to the discussion at hand? Simonm223 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a link in the supplied diff that points to the vandalism comment, iirc.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference link pointed to another editor replying to a (supposed) vandalism comment but does not appear to include CKatz mentioning vandalism. I'll take another look in case I missed something. Simonm223 (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, difference link does not include CKatz using the word "vandalism" or any variant therein. Still don't know why this is relevant since the only person accusing anybody of vandalism right now is HarryAlffa. Simonm223 (talk) 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The link supplied goes to a talkpage. On that talkpage is a link to [21], which is what the anon is referring to. I reserve judgment on whether the term is accurate or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, a bit convoluted to post a diff link to a link to a comment but I can buy that. Notwithstanding the fact Ckatz has used the phrase "vandalism" questionably in the past what does this have to do with the current topic of discussion. My understanding was that HarryAlffa called edits vandalism, not Ckatz. Simonm223 (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP's comments have no bearing on this matter. He/she is unhappy at having tangential BLP text rejected from Chevrolet Tahoe, and has since been following all of my edits. (See Special:Contributions/24.187.199.178 and compare it to Special:Contributions/Ckatz.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for not doing things the best way; I'm new but learning much. An earlier editor's near-question seemed directed to me ("The IP"): "Your difference link includes the "trolling" comment but has nothing to indicate Ckatz referred to any edits as vandalism."[22]
It's just that I too have endured baseless accusation by Ckatz. Frankly, her actions seem quite different from what I'd expect from an admin.

Regarding the matter I mentioned earlier, four or five editors all moved to make Dog sex a disambiguation page. Ckatz repeatedly reverts while insisting that others discuss the matter (yet she herself refuses to do so until, like, yesterday). Of the seven links which follow, the last link shows that Ckatz calls the last attempt to disambiguate "harassment" and then she locks the article claiming "excessive vandalism" (of which there is literally no evidence).
[23][24][25][26][27][28][29].
It seems likely that Ckatz is an enthusiastic, but insufficiently judicious, editor/admin. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

AuthorityTam, I'd only ask that if you are going to claim I've made a "baseless accusation" against you, that you indicate where and when. I can't find any trace of a post from me on your talk page, nor from you to mine, and the only post you've made with "Ckatz" in the summary appears to be the one you just made here. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, having reviewed your contributions, I'm finding it difficult to see any articles we've both edited. There are two or three that may overlap, but I didn't see any interaction between us there. Again, please provide details or retract the claim. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict}That's me, I used my neighbor's computer. I'll figure out how to create my own account tomorrow since I think I'm going to be around a while. I for one am not intimidated by Ckatz threats: [30]. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz is doing the same thing on the Medical Cannabis page, fyi. Just take a quick look at the history. 68.13.178.225 (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz seems to dismiss others' work too quickly. Another editor may have spent much time creating something useful for readers, yet Ckatz might spend maybe two or three minutes consideration before rejecting and reverting all the efforts of others. For example, Ckatz also had an indefensible position regarding "SG1". She seems to have spent, at most, four minutes evaluating the matter[31]; then FIRST she cleared the disambiguation page[32], and SECOND she removed Stargate SG1's link to the disambiguation page[33], then was on to revert an unrelated article all within five minutes! That's myopic, since a disambiguation page for SG1 is an obvious! So, another editor has to go to the trouble of properly creating what was apparently too-hastily deleted, and must do so with care lest Ckatz pretend that he commits "vandalism" or "harassment" or other imaginary crimes against her. No one will be surprised to learn that SG1 is again a disambiguation page[34], despite the hurry-up deleting/reverting campaign of Ckatz. With so many examples like that, a person would have good reason to believe that Ckatz is not a sufficiently conscientious editor/admin. --24.187.199.178 (talk) 18:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll get User:YellowMonkey to look at this. He's blocked someone in the past for a week for "persistent editing against consensus", I wonder if he'll be consistent with his friend as he was with that victim? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Four individual editors have made a disambig page for dog sex, Ckatz has reverted them all; User:Xezbeth, User:Peter Napkin Dance Party, User:Kevinmon, User:24.187.199.178
The first revert had no edit summary, then:

• "Discuss at Talk:Canine reproduction first"
• "Wait for discussio to occur"
• "rv. - no consensus for this change"
• "rv.; please note that the issue of converting this page from a redirect to a disambiguation page is still under discussion at Talk:Canine reproduction"
• "rv. harassment by IP 24.*"

Then comes page protection, "Protected Dog sex: Excessive vandalism: IP changing before discussion complete"

This is typical of Ckatz' position. What he's is saying is, "You need permission first before you do this". Totally anti-empathetic to Wikipedian ideals.

He is unsuited to adminship.

The talk page was moribund, but then he puts something there, and then reverts with edit summary, "please note that the issue of converting this page from a redirect to a disambiguation page is still under discussion at Talk:Canine reproduction"

He is unsuited to adminship.

Then comes the accusations of, "harassment by IP 24.*", not true.

He is unsuited to adminship.

Then he pretends there has been, "Excessive vandalism", to justify protection.

He is unsuited to adminship.

I think he can reasonably be described as deceitful - that is my experience with him, and is as I pointed out in the ANI which contains this one. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly "the IP" gets a bit hacked off at being falsely accused of vandalism, and leaves a message on Ckatz talk page[35], which he deletes with the edit summary, "rv. trolling". Then Ckatz leaves a message accusing the IP of harassment[36]

Please note that your continued efforts to harass someone you've had a disagreement with are unacceptable. It is one thing if you wish to mirror my contribution list and fix genuine errors that exist in the articles.. That course of action, while creepy, is not a concern. However, it is another matter entirely when you begin to interfere with legitimate actions. Please stop, before this requires further measures.

— Ckatz

From "the IP" reply he is a bit surprised at this further accusation. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry, you need to read carefully WP:AGF. You have violated this very important policy repeatedly on this page by assuming the basest of motivations of people. I'm surprised no one here has pointed it out to you. You need to focus on edits, not what you think are editors' motivations. Auntie E. 15:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think I've "assumed"? You need to read this whole ANI carefully for the evidence WP:AGF asks for. That very important policy is not for the protection of non-truth sayers and deceivers. May I respectfully suggest that your efforts would be better directed at Ckatz & Ruslik in modifying their behaviour. The project would much appreciate your efforts in that endeavour. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry, I'm not going to bother pointing out the flaws in your claims, as that has proved utterly fruitless in the past. I will say, however, that I'd appreciate it if you could at least make an effort to accurately represent events rather than just spinning them to suit your purposes. As well, you should really examine the IP 24's contribution history carefully before basing your case too heavily on that individual. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I want say that HA is especially good at one thing—spreading slur about others. The dab page in question was a clear violation of our WP:BLP policy. Ckatz made only one error—did not delete the history of the page. Ruslik_Zero 18:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

um, Dog sex is NOT a biography of a living person so WP:BLP does not really apply. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would chime in on this subject as I am the main force behind Dog sex. I won't claim that I know ckatz's mind, but she seems overly tied up with the status of Dog sex. Even after a discussion was posted, and no one commented in weeks, she still had a problem with it. Even when an editor (probably patrolling recent changes) reverted her revert because he (the editor probably patrolling recEnt changes) saw it for what it was--a user taking away information and replacing it by near-blanking the article. I'm not sure why she is so concerned with the status of Dog sex. but she seems almost too concerned, and not at all a disinterested editor. I can not speak to her editing history, but as far as Dog sex is concerned, it isn't the best. I can understand why she claims 24* is herassing her, but seriously, it looks like he has been making mostly-constructive edits. So what if he follows her around and edits the same articles as her? Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP policy applies to any article that contains information about a living person. And calling somebody "dog sex" (this was written in the dab page) is an insult. I also strongly advise you not recreate the dab in the form it existed before I deleted its history. Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone being mentioned as being dog sex in the disambig page. I think someone was mentioned there because SHE WROTE A BOOK INVOLVING SEX WITH A DOG. Hence, people interested in dog sex might be interested in her book thus her. The article did not say SHE had sex with a dog (which in most circles I could see as being an insult). I do not think it is slander or liable or whatever if we include an author who writes about dog sex in an aritcle ABOUt dog sex, just seems like good policy to me. Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You seems to have bad memory. Saying that "dog sex may refer to ... {name of a person}, a professor who wrote a book about sex with a puppy" was grossly offensive. Ruslik_Zero 07:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It is impossible for either one of us to know because it has been censored. Maybe the wording was wrong, but I still think that having a professor who wrote about on the subject listed in the disambig page would be a good idea. The proper way about it is the CHANGE THE WORDING, not censor the information. But, if it is against the policy then I can understand why you would delete that specific instance within the history, but I still do not understand why the entire disambig page was censored. Note that Ckatz's original problem wit hteh page had nothing to do with BLP and I feel that BLP is being pulled out now when it looks like there is consensus on the state of the Dog sex article. But by bringing up this new accusation against it you are making it even longer to have it up. :( Peter Napkin Dance Party (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz misleads the community

Ckatz insists on the accusation of Harassment by IP 24.187.199.178; Host: Optimum Online (Cablevision Systems). Organization: FAM MED ASSC. City: West Babylon, NY 11704

[37]

you should really examine the IP 24's contribution history carefully

— Ckatz

I can find no evidence of harassment by any IP of Ckatz

[38]

Please note that your continued efforts to harass someone you've had a disagreement with are unacceptable. It is one thing if you wish to mirror my contribution list and fix genuine errors that exist in the articles.. That course of action, while creepy, is not a concern. However, it is another matter entirely when you begin to interfere with legitimate actions. Please stop, before this requires further measures.

— Ckatz

I have examined IP 24.187.199.178 contributions carefully - it is not true there has been any harrassment by this user, nor can I see any evidence of editing by anyone which could remotely be described as harassment.

Unless someone can show some diffs here, it must be concluded that Ckatz is deliberately misleading the community by outright lying.
Please correct me with some diffs if I'm wrong, and please no distracting tirades and accusations of smears - only diffs will do. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Unless someone can show some diffs here, it must be concluded that Ckatz is deliberately misleading the community by outright lying." - That turns out not to be the case. As you have already been advised, please give wp:AGF a good read.- Sinneed 14:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I note the asymmetry in the advice being given to me alone - if that is your view, you must also give it to Ckatz & Ruslik.

You say, "That turns out not to be the case". Perhaps you could show the evidence for that on this page, rather than simply making a claim - show some diffs please, or something, which will result in a different conclusion. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That because you can not find the evidence does not mean that it does not exist. Ruslik_Zero 19:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah! An intellectually typical contribution from Ruslik - someone else explain it to him, I'm to busy laughing! Why am I still surprised by this guy? But I am!!! Amazing! HarryAlffa (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Repeated posts by User:Carljung

I have tried to put similar type of complaints on Ckatz page but she removes it immediately. You just have to see her contributions to see her childish behavior. She removes links, materials etc without having any knowledge of the subject and always hides behind the fact that she is an adminstrator and has the right to do anything that she likes. I think this disruptive behaviour should be reported to the arbitration commitee and I think we should make a concentrated efoort in getting her removed as an adminstrator. The whole edifice of Wikipedia collapses with such ignorant adminstrators. Carljung (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd hoped to simply ignore this SPA whose sole purpose on Wikipedia has been to harass me (see Special:Contributions/Carljung). However, since he/she has seen fit to post here, I'd welcome another admin reviewing the matter. --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd also wonder if a CU is in order; the language in the posts reminds me of Serafin. Could be wrong, of course, but... --Ckatz^chat_spy 02:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ckatz, the harassment is not my posting but your continuous removal of links and materials according to your whimsical notions of administrative power. Somebody has to just look at your contributions. I am sure you maybe doing some useful things for Wikipedia but your lack of knowledge and understanding on subjects is very shallow and troublesome. Please remember little knowledge is a very dangerous thing and in the hands of a Wikipedian administrator like you it is lethal for Wikipedia! In fact there are lots of articles written about what ails Wikipedia and I am sure most of them may have an administrator like you in their mind. I appeal to you to please stick to editorial corrections only. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carljung (talk • contribs) 04:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have indef blocked User:Carljung as a single purpose harassment account. They are probably a sock puppet too. I may file a request for checkuser to determine whether this account is connected with any of the others in this thread. Jehochman ^Talk 18:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed by CU as a sockpuppet of Akraj, the head of an Indian institute who has repeatedly used socks and IP accounts for the purpose of adding self-promotional links to his own work. --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User Akraj(blocked) contributions[39] don't intersect with any of the articles by "the IP" here. Does CU confirm IP24.187.199.178 is a sock? Or that only Carljung is of Akraj? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Harry, in case the previous text isn't clear, this subsection is entirely about the sock Carljung. IP 24.* hasn't posted here, nor has anyone suggested they are related. (I certainly wouldn't have suggested such a thing, as I'm already aware of the IP ranges Akraj tends to use.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you have admitted that fact here. As I've indicated above, and you have not provided evidence to support your claims, I think you are not telling the truth on this page. So you can rest assured that it will be very unlikely that I will seek it from you. So please now go to the section above and support your accusations against IP24.187.199.178, and justify your repeated reverts against three other editors making the same edit as this IP. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll tolerate many things, Harry, but I value integrity and honesty very highly - and I certainly will not accept unwarranted and unjustified accusations of "lying". Despite our considerable differences, I had held out some small glimmer of hope that you might really be interested in the good of the project. I now realize that this was a mistake. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrigibly disruptive editor

Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is an incorrigibly disruptive editor who has systematically undermined the best efforts of a team of editors on the Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article for nearly a year now. During this period there has been a collaborative effort by a team of editors to bring the article to GA or FA status. Membership of the team is open to any editor who agrees with its goals and process. All the regular editors of the page have signed up to this team, with the exception of Skipsievert, who does not subscribe to its goals and process. Throughout this period, Skipsievert has mocked the collaboration, systematically confronting each editor in turn, tirelessly grandstanding back and forth with unfounded attacks and wikilawyer flourishes.

Skipsievert is always right, always. Anyone else's view is POV, while his view is always neutral. When the collaborative team disagree with Skipsievert, that is proof to Skipsievert that the team collude against him, and that their position is therefore invalid. He repeatedly states that even if there were 100 members on the team disagreeing with him, then it still wouldn't count, because Wikipedia is not a democracy and his view is the neutral one. He retains in his memory every disagreement he has had with the team, and endlessly recycles the same worn out issues, never letting anything go, determined that he is going to flog each of his dead horses back to life.

Most days, he tediously adds back into the article, one or more of the positions the collaborative team has rejected. He has been restricted to one revert per day, although recently he has not been adhering to this.[40][41] He also has a suspected sock/meatpuppet called AdenR, who usually edits in tandem with Skipsievert. AdenR occasionally adopts a rather strange and stilted style. Then he reverts to his more usual style, which is an uncanny mirror of Skipsievert's, echoing his opinions and language, including his idiosyncratic grammar. AdenR has never been known to disagree with Skipsievert.

The upshot is that work on the sustainability article has largely ground to a halt. The talk page has become little more than a vehicle for Skipsievert's grandstanding. The unpleasant and non-collegial atmosphere generated by him has driven off new editors — prompting Skipsievert to make more attacks on the remaining editors, claiming they are the ones driving the new editors away.

It would be easy, but not really helpful, to give long strings of diffs. What is happening here cannot be reduced to this or that incident. It is a pattern of behaviour that tenaciously games the system. He has mastered wikilaw. The flavour of it can be appreciated only by scanning the actual talk page material. I would suggest scanning the last archive followed by the current talk page. Then a cursory examination of the edit history to the article page, where Skipsievert's pattern of tendentious edit warring is on display. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that previous disputes involving this editor have been reported here and here. Skipsievert's disruptive behavior is also currently being discussed at Wikproject Economics, on this thread on the wikiproject talk page. Skipsievert has been warned several times about uncivil behavior, for example, here, here and here. On the Austrian School article he has continuously reverted User:Cretog8 and myself when we removed edits made by the socks of a banned editor User:Karmaisking, and then accused us of wrong doing. He refused to withdraw the accusations even after being confronted with conclusive evidence that the socks were of the banned editor. LK (talk) 14:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not a regular editor of the sustainability article, and so only know as much about this issue as I've seen from Skipsievert discussing the conflict at other talk pages. However, I did want to say that Geronimo20's description of Skipsievert's behavior is mostly consistent with what I have seen in economics articles. (I would disagree that Skipsievert has mastered wikilaw, since he often seems to misunderstand policy, but he is very free with arguments from his understandings of policy.) CRETOG8(t/c) 14:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Tsk, I forgot it's not a good idea to make ironical remarks when commenting. I merely meant that he extensively quotes wikilaw, as though his take is definitive.--Geronimo20 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This smells a bit like a content dispute, but I should also note that I am one of the project econ editors who has run into skip and basically been driven off articles in frustration due to his editing. His pattern of behavior fits the profile for civil POV pushing almost precisely. I don't actually know that AN/I is the right venue (and there is an ongoing attempt at mediation), but most of the comments made above are accurate. Protonk (talk) 15:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Protonk, your input into this thread looks like it could do more harm than good. Best to think twice before commenting here.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 21:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? Protonk (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the Mediation mention by Protonk would not be hindered by whatever action might be taken with respect to other complaints. (I have observed only a limited share of skipsievert's edits, and am not well-positioned to comment on his general editing behavior.) —SlamDiego_←T 16:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that this does seem like a content dispute, it actually is a repeated string of violations of behavioral policies]. IMO, the current mediation is an entirely separate matter. Sunray (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This revolves around a content dispute on the Sustainability article regarding a word definition (sustainability) to a political pov, which is not an actual definition of the word in question but to another word (Sustainable growth or development), and the use of uncivil interaction by user Geronimo who has misrepresented the situation. Also some people coming here to comment have made some disturbing personal attack commentary recently like Cretog's way over the top attack.

Also, User:Lawrencekhoo has interacted on several articles very much not according to policy and guideline editing in my opinion, along with making extensive use of personal remarks in a very negative way and that person (L.K.) believes that sources should be weighted toward a mainstream view and has asked me to not be a participant on the Wiki project economics page more or less or suggesting I should not edit there here, thus a larger issue of that editor and policy guideline issues.

N.p.o.v. is my comment as to my editing style, and also verifiable as contrasted with truth giving, whether mainstream or heterodox. Neither in or of themselves have weight. I may drop out of the Mediation described Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines, now concerning the Econ project page, because of the resulting bad faith explanation of L.K concerning my editing activity. Coming to this page by L.K. and using it as an attacking vehicle while this other mediation is happening, seems like a very very bad idea.

I am a good faith editor on Wikipedia. I doubt whether there is any evidence to show otherwise. I edit a lot and on a wide variety of articles. Real issues of non neutral pov to a political pov on the Sustainability article exist in my opinion. The sign up editing team there have used consensus more as a weapon than a positive editing process. Removing a tag calling for more scrutiny done by Geronimo and citing consensus or edit warring as he has done is not good. All around making false charges of calling another editor an Incorrigibly disruptive editor in the heading here is that persons opinion, but does not reflect my trying to make the Sustainability article into a better article by trying to maintain policy and guidelines as to neutral pov on that article. skip sievert (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Geronimo20 has provided an excellent summary of the situation, IMO. As a member of the editing team that has been trying, for the past year, to raise the quality of the Sustainability article to FA status, I can attest to the fact that there have been almost continual disruptions by Skipsievert. Five of us agreed to work on this in November, 2008. We have continually invited other editors to join. However, likely due to the disruptions, until recently no one else has signed up. Two things have changed within the past month: 1) The disruptions have become more pronounced with tandem reverts and continual violations of WP:POINT by Skip and AdenR, and 2) other editors have now joined in the discussion (User:Geronimo20 and Lawrencekhoo).

The article has had two peer reviews this year. In the second peer review Ruhrfisch advised that the article should be submitted for good article nomination prior to FA assessment. There is a consensus between all of the regular editors except Skipsievert/AdenR that the basic content should remain stable, subject only to format improvements, copyediting and reducing the size of some sections using summary style. The content of the article has been worked out over a long process of collaboration between Granitethighs, Travelplanner, Nick carson and me, who, collectively, have considerable expertise in the subject matter. We have been aided in this by the editing and administrative skills of several other editors, including OhanaUnited, Geronimo and Lawrencekhoo.

Going back to the beginning of October, the current pattern of disruption is evident when one considers this edit [42], which is a major change to the consensus version of the article. It was reverted with the message to discuss the changes on the talk page [43]. Despite lengthy discussion on the talk page from September 23 to October 13,, Skipsievert and AdenR failed to get a consensus that the changes had merit. Despite repeated requests to not make changes unless agreed to by consensus, the pattern of edit warring by Skipsievert and AdenR has continued: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], and so on and on, my fingers are getting blistered, but there are probably at least 10 more examples up to the present date.

It is important to note that, although the current situation is more blatant than before, the pattern has been consistent throughout the past year—over a half dozen issues that stem from a particular POV that is being propounded over and over by Skipsievert. He has singlehandedly brought any productive collaborative editing to a standstill. If the article is to have any chance for improvement, we need assistance. I conclude from the abundant evidence that a topic ban for Skipsievert/AdenR is warranted. Sunray (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've encountered Skipsievert on a number of pages. I broadly agree with the comments above. Skip supports a fringe POV and pushes very hard to get that POV given more attention and credibility than is consistent with WP:WEIGHT. That includes a good deal of unproductive wikilawyering and straight-out disruption.JQ (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Despite working for nearly a year on the article, Sustainability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) still has some not inconsequential NPOV and source issues. I do not know what condition the article was in a year ago but it appears that these problems have been caused as much by the group of editors trying to get the article up to FA standards as by Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his "disruptive" editing. While it is a problem that Skipsievert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems unable or unwilling to work with other editors toward building consensus on the article, I think he is not the only editor on the page causing a problem. There is plenty of blame to go around. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01: Would you be able to support your contentions above about the "group of editors" with some examples? I think that the regular page editors have been open and responsive to all outside parties, including other editors, various notice boards, and two peer reviews. With respect, given the evidence presented above, it seems to me to be a superficial view to refer to this as a "content dispute." Sunray (talk) 21:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Voiceofreason01: I have worked on the article now for about 2 years. I have found that the team of editors has worked extremely well (and efficiently) together except for the relentless and debilitating criticisms of Skipsievert that have protracted the development of the article by about a year. It is an unfortunate fact that over time the kind of disruptive editing exhibited by Skipsievert builds in resistance. When compromise only ever proceeds in one direction then the relationship eventually must deteriorate. Skip does not compromise - ever - and this does not endear people to his case(s). Perhaps a new but more "collegiate" editor expressing views in a less uncompromising manner would be a help in improving the article. Would you act as an advocate for those "not inconsequential NPOV and source issues" which you believe the article contains? In the meantime it is my candid opinion that Skipsievert has, since first working on the article, proved a relentless and indefatigable negative influence. Granitethighs 22:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I meant no offense to the regular editors of the Sustainability article, User Skipsievert's behavior seems to have been, in the balance, detrimental to the improvement of the article. In retrospect my comments, and the converns about the article that promted them, are probably not relevent to this discussion and I apologize. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert, on numerous occasions, made me pull my hair out. Whenever he loses an argument, he will employ the "I didn't hear that" strategy. By citing comments against his view as incivil and personal attack, he will removed comments on talk page even when the comment itself is neutral-worded to try redirect the attention. This is a clear violation of talk-page guidelines. In addition, he violated yet another 1RR just a week ago.[55][56] Skipsievert should have received a few more blocks due to his multiple 1RR violations, as shown by my evidence and from others. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Skipsievert has also been banned for disruptive behavior from various Technocracy groups and internet forums. As seen here: [57] [58] and //technocracynet.eu/backup/old_net/20_4_07/index.php?option=com_mamboboard&Itemid=103&func=view&id=3818&catid=44 (which is currently on a spam filter list) LK (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The above ^ is a personal attack Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor. I suggest it be removed. This is the reasoning

linking to outside information for use in attacking another Those are internet blogs that L.K. is using. This is turning into a witch hunt now above.

L.K. has canvased other users blatantly to come here in a very very negative way here. Linking a blog forum attack in this section points out something about what is going on here. Also the way this whole thing was presented Incorrigibly disruptive editor was not neutral or accurate for a content dispute. skip sievert (talk) 14:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I viewed it as a neutral message. Both you and LK have interactions on that page, so what makes his message viewed as "canvass" while you removed the post and claimed yourself to be neutral? Just today, you are getting close to violating 3RR at WikiProject Economics, which you tried to prevent people from coming to here and comment on the issue.[59][60] Others are warning you that you're edging towards 3RR violationg.[61] OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Skipsievert's activities obviously extend far beyond only the Sustainability article. Perhaps, in addition to the topic ban there should be a shorter term block to restore order and give him a chance to cool off. But please, let's address this question of the topic ban in any case. Sunray (talk) 20:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a topic ban for the Sustainability article and shorter term blocks are an essential first step. But I would mention that I have never seen such a blatant case of POV-pushing by SS, across a whole raft of articles as in Category:Technocracy movement. I am concerned that SSs own brand of pro-technocracy views have unbalanced articles such as Technocracy movement, Technocracy Incorporated and Energy accounting. (SS's agressive promotion of his own agenda has resulted in hundreds of posts from him to the Technocracy movement talk page.) There are many scholarly books written on the issue of Technocracy but these are not being referred to, and the WP articles typically rely on the slanted views of a few self-published and wiki sources. There is a lot of overlapping content in the Technocracy articles (ie., particular paragraphs and chunks of text appearing in several articles), see Talk:Energy accounting#More repetition and [62], and it appears that repetition of content across articles has been used by SS as a way to blatantly push technocratic ideas. I and other editors discussed this POV-pushing extensively on Talk pages of the articles involved and in extensive edit summaries in early 2009, but we had no success in bringing more balance to the articles. And SS has sometimes warned off other editors in a way that could be seen to be threatening, using edit summaries such as "Do not remove tag" or "Do not add again" see [63]. POV pushing was an issue that was discussed at SS's 2008 user conduct RfC, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Skipsievert. Johnfos (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

October 17, 2009

Just to underscore the seriousness of this problem, here are today's edits to the article:

• Skipsievert reverts once again with major changes to the article lead [64]
• I revert, pointing out that there is no consensus for these changes [65]
• AdenR reverts with the statement "Your POV is in conflict Sunray/GT/TP/Nickcarson/Geronimo. You edit in tandem." [66]
• Lawrencekhoo reverts, once again pointing out that the edits by Skipsievert/AdenR are against consensus. [67]

Meanwhile the tendentious posts and violations of behavioral policies and guidelines continue on the talk page:

• Endless rehashing of the same point [68], [69]
• Personalized comments at the expense of content [70], [71]

I believe that this tandem-editing duo is making a mockery of Wikipedia's fundamental goals and most important policies; there is a need to take action now. Sunray (talk) 18:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban for Skipsievert and AdenR

Given the evidence presented above with respect to continual reverts and insertions of major changes to article text against consensus, disruptive and tendentious commentary on the talk page and violations of WP:POINT, the following action is proposed:

Skipsievert and AdenR are topic banned from the sustainability article and associated talk page for a period of one year.

• Support. This combo has obstructed collaborative editing and violated Wikipedia behavioral policies. A topic ban is the minimum step needed for a constructive editing environment to be restored. Sunray (talk) 00:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
• No This isn't the right venue, we haven't explored or exhausted DR and there is an ongoing mediation with skip as a party. Protonk (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The mediation is unrelated to the Sustainability article. This is not mediatable, IMO (and I am a mediator). Sunray (talk) 01:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• If this in not the right venue, then let us move it to the right venue. The ongoing mediation has no direct connection with this case. You were referred above to 300K of talk page text attempting to resolve the dispute. And there is probably one or several megabytes of earlier attempts. You would not take this position if you had already experienced some extended process with Skipsievert. Skipsievert is interesting in grandstanding, not in resolving disputes. I think a lot of good editors will just give up at this stage if this matter cannot be settled. --Geronimo20 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• A few responses. First, I feel he has disrupted articles well outside the sustainability sphere, so a narrow topic ban may only actually resolve things for that one editor. Second, An/I is generally not a fair venue for those facing topic bans nor it is a good venue from which to seek a permanent solution (unless there is overwhelming support). Third, I noted above that I have been and am now involved in some version of the DR process w/ Skip, so you can't assume ignorance of the subject on my part. Lastly, the right venue is a user conduct RfC. Protonk (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, good points. From what you say, this process may have to be expanded. However, we are currently prevented from constructive editing of the sustainability article and we need an immediate resolution there. Someone may wish to initiate a broader RfC relating to his activities elsewhere. Given that, how would you vote for this specific proposal? Sunray (talk) 02:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I still oppose a topic ban, based at least partially on the unwarranted hassling on my talk page about this position. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. As a wholly uninvolved outside party, I agree that - from the description above - this appears to be a clear-cut case of persistent civil POV-pushing which is having a deleterious effect on the project. Editors who do not participate in good faith should not be allowed to disrupt those who do. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Skipsievert always stoutly maintains his behaviour is impeccable, and everyone else is out of step. If they are not topic banned, the behaviour will continue and the article might as well be abandoned by constructive editors as a lost cause. It is not right that so much time and energy from so many constructive editors should be shredded in this way. The collective effort lost, trying to contain and work around the Skipsievert/AdenR barrages, would have resulted in several FA articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with Geronimo: Skipsievert believes he is always right, and everyone else is wrong, so no collaborative editing is possible, and much time is wasted. Johnfos (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support Skipsievert, to my mind, is a paradigm of what is meant by "tendentious editing". Granitethighs 03:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• User Johnphos has previously followed me with negative commentary whenever the opportunity has arisen like here. I do not believe I am always right and I am a collaborative editor.

• To Geronimo... I have never said that my behavior is impeccable as you quote me above. I am human. I am a neutral pov editor that has had concerns about the Sustainability article directed in a non neutral political pov.

• To Sunray and Geronimo suggesting a topic ban? What is the point? No one is, or has, stopped anyone from editing the article. The same core of people have been editing this article for a very long time as this shows I only have tried to copy edit it for neutrality, and take out glaring non neutral aspects. Concerns about the article are different than being a disruptive editor. Also to propose a topic ban on a newbie editor... AdenR?? The sign up team previously tried to say that he was a sock puppet because he agreed on some editing points that others have also agreed with in opposition to Sunray and a couple of other editors. It is noted that the pov toward political in the article is so overwhelming as to be beyond question such as the over-sourcing of a political pov. which is still a dominating issue and has been the source of driving off multiple editors that disagreed with that over-sourcing for a long time, so this a consistent pattern.

• Suggestion to ChrisO. Manipulating sentiment by giving a one sided or incomplete view is not so hard if people are determined to do that. You might go to the talk page of the Sustainability article, and see my behavior instead of being convinced here by a negative attack. If there is a Rfc,... I believe it should directed at the article editing direction itself with a question of is it being neutrally edited? This is or was a content dispute. Now it seems a variety of disgruntled users that do not seem to like me for what ever reason, have appeared here through canvassing also Lawrence khwoo calling others to come here - Sourcing an entire lead to a political point of view is not a good idea. That is the only ref/citation in the lead. I tried to source the word to a dictionary meaning instead. That would have no baggage. Instead the editing team prefers the definition of sustainability to the U.N., but there is a problem there. That is not a definition of sustainability, it is a definition to sustainable development or sustainable growth, and it is dated. My wish is that other editors actually go to the article and get involved to improve it.

• Can people in the sign up team come here sign up team, and suddenly propose a topic ban because they do not like their edits being questioned as to n.p.o.v.?? Then pile in their friends for extra support? This is not good. skip sievert (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support topic ban and add in a few more blocks per 1RR violations. He still leads people going in circles even in here. Had I been a neutral admin, I would have issued the blocks right away because clearly Skipsievert did not learn his lessons after his previous block, which the admin blocked him indef for "Created blog to attack users, has an obvious axe to grind, nonstop tendentious editing and edit-warring, POV-pushing and general unproductiveness" before shortening the block to 1 week per ANI. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 04:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• There were no 1RR violations or undoing reverts in the time frame. I may have edited other parts of the article but that is not undoing an edit. Sunray under a 1RR did violate that though, at least once. I did not. I am not leading people in circles. Previous block... several years ago. No... I grind the ax of neutral pov. and that should not be a problem. How is it that you are dredging negative stuff from several years ago above? Not good. And why are people from the sign up team showing up here to now make negative attacks?? Previously I tried to resolve some issues through informal mediation and Ohana also showed up to castigate and make demeaning commentary and dredge edits from years ago and now he repeats the same kind of behavior. It is noted that he has not participated except negatively on the discussion page in question. Ohana is also a member of the editing team on the article Sign up team. Also it is noted that Ohana came to a sock puppet investigation by the team, which was proven to be not true, with the same kind of negative polemic here - skip sievert (talk) 04:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah ha, thanks skip for pulling out more evidences against yourself. This edit[72] shows your abusive behaviour. His edit is removing my comments on someone else's user talk page, added his own comments, and in the edit summary states "comment". You're trying to mislead others into thinking you're adding your own comments, when in fact you're also removing people's comments. I gave Skip one last chance in December 2008 in the hopes of AGF, but Skip did not improve at all and my faith is losing fast. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. The above comments, the evidence against the two user accounts and the continued disruption of collaborative, unbiased editing on WP in the affected articles, speak for themselves. I am disappointed it has come to this, but all other avenues, short of a face-to-face chat, have indeed been exhausted. I see 6 in support, 2 calling for the process to be expanded. Nick carson (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. as an uninvolved party - one individual (and has a sock-check be done) cannot hold up progress. After reading the talkpage and the archive, I'm happy the other editors are acting with the best intentions of the project. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support' as uninvolved. It's obvious from the comments above that SS uses false accusations of NPA which is a violation of policy. The issues with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT et al. show a tendentious editor who refuses to accept consensus. We need editors from all points of view editing here, but they must follow the rules and accept consensus. Auntie E. 15:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support as uninvolved. It is clear that progress on this article is being impeded. --Iacchus —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC).

• Support based on discussion above. (For disclosure I am involved in a mediation just beginning which includes Skipsievert.) The Four Deuces (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Enough already. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. If Wikipedia is to have a sustainability article worth reading, then the proposed ban is the only option. I have been editing the Sustainability page for one year now, I was part of setting up the editing team specifically in response to this post [73] from Granitethighs, who is clearly an expert on sustainability, ceding defeat to Skipsievert whose disruptive tactics had caused GT to give up on editing under normal protocols. One year on I have come to the conclusion that progress on the article isn’t difficult with Skip involved – it’s impossible.

Mediation and RfC are pointless – as pointed out at the very beginning of this thread, Skip is always right. The entire talk archive since Skip began editing has been one long mediation process – in common with all the other constructive editors I have spent hours attempting to mediate with Skip for every minute I have spent contributing to the article. An RfC will just require us to waste even more time, and nothing will change as a result.

BTW the above support from Wikipedia admins is heartening; I have been put through more incivility and timewasting than it is reasonable to expect anyone to tolerate, and the other constructive editors of this article have all had it worse than me. It is a delight to hear the Wikipedia community agree this is unacceptable.--Travelplanner (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I don't see any alternative, given the track record. This sort of situation is exactly what discourages improvement and deters collaboration. There shouldn't have to be a lone group of editors fighting against extreme tendentious behaviour to improve any article on this project. (For the record, I don't recall having ever edited this article or any closely related articles.) user:J aka justen (talk) 07:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Tally thus far

• Support = 14;
• Oppose = 0;
• Other = 1 (move to another forum)

As a sign of good faith, I will 'step back' from editing the article for at least a few weeks and stick to its talk page. The issue of neutral point of view editing on the article is not being addressed in my view and obscured with information that is not connected to that issue. skip sievert (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This wouldn't work, I'm afraid. Most of the havoc you have wreaked has been on the talk page. The continual reverts are highly annoying and against WP:CON, however most of the violations of behavioral policies and guidelines occur on the talk page. The inability to edit collaboratively and abide by consensus; endless disruptions to make a point and frequent violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA by you and AdenR are what prevents other editors from progressing with article improvements. As Travelplanner points out, above, dealing with you over the past year has been a continuous mediation. Nothing has worked. The only way to avoid a ban or a block, IMO, is for you and your puppet to leave the article completely. For good. Sunray (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This proposal to 'step back' seems out of character, and I doubt that it is serious, as edit warring continues on the sustainability page, and personal attacks on the talk page. It's more likely that the proposal is being made only because of advice given to Skip about how to respond to this proposed topic ban. LK (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, today it proved that this "stepping back" wouldn't work. AdenR is now doing all the work for Skip while Skip refrains from editing the article. For example, AdenR cited consensus in the revert[74][75] when the consensus is against such edits doesn't hold much weight. Merely using the word "consensus" in edit summary does not give you a "get out of jail free" card. It is the actual consensus backing your edits that matters. And has anyone realized that AdenR never come to this page and tries to defend himself? Hypothetically, if I were the subject of a topic-ban, I would come to this discussion immediately and try to stop it from happening. From what I am seeing right now, Skip is doing all the talking while AdenR is doing all the editing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for interjection, but given the care that seems to be placed in the review process I wanted to bring to light that while researching for a AfD I saw in Skipsievert's contributions page a solicitation for protection to another administrator here[76] in regards to this ANI. It would seem unethical for a protagonist to subvert the AIN process this way as similar WP:GAMES seems to be central focus of the incident review against this editor, so could be considered as evidence. At the very least I hope this can prevent more delays in getting a resolution for what is a very impressive portal. Again, sorry. Datheisen (talk) 07:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

whoww! Jeez guys. I never really check my page for messages. It would have helped if someone mentioned to me that this was happening on the talk page. I only saw it mentioned for skip by Geronimo20. I didn't know I was involved with this. Anyways, these accusation are ridiculous and false. I admit that some of my reverts could have been dealt with more reasonably but I still don't constantly revert. But my recent revert was already agreed by consensus. And I have proof, and we are currently discussing this on the talk page. AdenR (talk) 07:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If I'm being discussed for a topic ban then I think it would be reasonable to separate me from skip in this argument. I haven't gone agianst consensus but for a few times. I don't make Hugh changes either. I admit I did revert some edits that are questionable and I'm sorry about that. Also, my recent revert Is being discussed on the article. I have proof it was agreed by consensus and some editors are ignoring that fact. I will take this slow though. Plus most of my edits were not major changes and were still reverted citing consensus. I was reverted for switching "community and political structures" to "humanity" over here. I was reverted for deleting a sentence that added no value to the article and introduced comical comparisons of cancer here. I was Even reverted for doing an edit that that WAS agreed by consensus Here and reverted here. Now, These were most of my edits except for the Blue marble image edit that is still being discussed. All of my minor edits are being reverted all the while the team and others are making edits similar to this. I do think it should be discussed if thier are problems and I am doing that. And once agian my recent revert is being discussed. AdenR (talk) 07:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right now an editor just recently changed an edit that is being discussed without getting consensus here...How is it that others are allowed to do this but anything made by me is reverted for ridiculus reasons. It seems I am being attacked just for agreeing with skip on some edits. AdenR (talk) 07:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also been attacked over and over agian by Sunray. He never talks about the subject and talks about me being a sock puppet which is not true. [77] I have asked him MANY time to please stop. Even when I only stick to content him and GT still talk about it. Also, he has stated he doesn't pay attention to anything I bring up about the article HERE because of his opinion of me. AdenR (talk) 08:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aden, you continually reintroduce your and Skip's preferred version of the lead, knowing that this significant change is disputed by every other person actively editing the page. Since the beginning of the month, you have reverted to yours and Skip's version of the lead: here, here, here, here, here, and here. This is not including other disputes and reverts. Several people on the talk page have asked you to stop doing this, and yet you continued doing so. In fact, your edits are so similar to Skip's that other editors have taken to treating the both of you as one voice. Given this, I hope you understand why you have been named in this complaint. LK (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The second edit you mentioned is still being discussed. That is not anything major. Also, The blue marble image is still not agreed by consensus. After only a few opinions about what it should and should not be you automatically change it to YOUR view. Without consensus by the team whatsoever. I suggest you revert yourself now. Since it seems like you are doing this to stir things up. Only SUNRAY, LK, MORPH, and myself have talked about what that edit should be. But you still took it upon yourself to speak for the team and changed it. An ongoing problem which should be dealt with in content dispute. Not in this manner. Personal attacks about me and another Impeding the progress of the article are ridiculous IMO. This is about content NOT the contributor. Also, I think it is only fair that the ability to say things like "their actions are impeding the progress of the article" can be stated in the content dispute. You guys don't know what is and what is NOT good for the article. Edit wars "i assume" occur because of content. And that IS an issue we are discussing. THis is not the right venue. AdenR (talk) 13:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the diff of the caption change (which I included by accident). That still leaves many times since just the beginning of the month, that you have reintroduced a significant change in the lead that you knew was disputed. This list does not include the other minor edit warrings that you participated in (over the caption for instance). LK (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

OK Aden, the above is a subject dispute and we should probably move it back to the talk page. At first I believed you to be a sockpuppet of Skip's, but this was checked out and came back negative. Your own editing history is, as you point out, not grounds for a ban so unless there is other proof that you are the same person I can't see how a topic ban on Skip should be widened to include you.

Can I change my vote to Support topic ban on Skipsievert for incorrigibly disruptive editing as per evidence above.--Travelplanner (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

However, as the clerk noted in closing the sockpuppet/meatpuppet investigations, Skipsievert and AdenR edit in tandem.[78] The MO of both accounts is relentless hashing of the same points in an aggressive and disruptive manner. So whether we call it "tandem editing" or call it "puppetry," it is just semantics as far as I can see. I have said to AdenR several times that if he does not develop a separate identity from Skip they are likely to be treated as one entity. There has been no change in behavior so they need to be treated as one IMHO. Sunray (talk) 20:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that won't work Sunray. If you have problems with it then reopen the case and do whatever you have to do if you think I am a sock puppet or what have you. Until I am "convicted" of something you need to quit with the personal attacks and remarks. They do NOT address anything I bring up concerning the article. You have been shown to lead the discussion into personal attacks/remarks instead of talking on content on the talk page. You and GT specifically. Such as saying things like I am not surprised you side with skip. Or thanking other editors who have personally attacked others on the talk page. Such as this, you could have talk about content but didn't. Same here for GT. You guys constantly do this, which has added to the madness of the article and talk page. Therefore I do not think I nor Skip should be topic banned. Skip has already said he will take time off. I think he has learned his lesson. But still the editing styles and personal remarks if applied to skip should be applied to the other editors as well. AdenR (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can I point out that this dispute over Sustainability is one of three separate disputes in which Skipsievert is engaged at this moment, involving largely separate groups of editors. There was also a Mediation with WikiProject:Economics which broke down on Skip's withdrawal and an AFD on one of his POV-pushing Technocracy articles. In each case, his conduct is similar. I'd suggest that a block is needed so he can take some time off from Wikipedia and return with a more constructive approach.JQ (talk) 20:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest we move over to RfC for user conduct, citing WP:Disruption. We should ask for a block as it's clear that the actions of this user(s) are disruptive, and leading to a lot of wated time and effort on the part of other editors. LK (talk) 02:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true, as to disputes I am involved in according to JQ. How is it fair to call my involvement in an Afd. a Pov-pushing article and a dispute? I am getting sick of that kind of banter, here is the Afd, and there is no dispute going on there just normal debate. The mediation your speaking about stopped because of Lawrence Khoo from the sustainability article sign up team [79], and yourself making a very negative appeal for people to pile in here which they did. This is sometimes referred to as canvasing, and it was blatantly negative. I am not involved in any disputes currently, except maybe defending myself here, because I am not agreeing with what I would term a political pov and a wrongly given definition to a word, on the Sustainability article. I also volunteered not to edit the article page for a few weeks as a good will gesture. Now I see the article still having problems with me not around it also. Could we stop the attack blog approach now? skip sievert (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User: PassionoftheDamon

User PassionoftheDamon is making very disruptive blanket edits that have the effect of deleting a lot of well sourced materials without any discussion on the talk page of the articles. He rarely uses edit summaries, and is displaying WP:OWNership issues. When I leave comments on his talk page, he deletes them without responding, and he rarely responds to comments or questions posed on the article talk pages.

Miami Hurricanes

• [80] removing discussion of graduation rates, gender equality and sports team costs
• [81] - again
• [82]. ("rmv nonsense")- again

Miami Hurricanes football

• [83] ("rv") - deleted 30 years worth of history section

University of Miami

• [84] - deleting the Forbes Magazine ranking without explanation
• [85] - again
• [86] - again

Previously, as noted in an October 13 ANI he has been removing {{copyvio}} and {{POV}} tags unilaterally while disputes are pending. in this June 2 2009 ANI he had the same problem with User:Patrick Whelan MD. There have been complaints noted about his non-communicative editing style on the article talk pages. Please help. Racepacket (talk) 17:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've notified PassionoftheDamon of this thread. EyeSerene^talk 17:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has also removed sourced information with the claim that it is unsourced, which I find unacceptable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are many more examples, because he kept going from there: [87], and even today where he deleted sourced material that had not been discussed on the talk page with an edit summary that read, "stop trying to force edits that were rejected over and over on talk." Racepacket (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Both parties (Racepacket and PassionoftheDamon) are not right in this situation. I've requested a RFC on Racepacket, but he has yet to respond to it (he knows it exists because he posted one of his usual lengthy comments on its talk page). I've confronted PassionoftheDamon for some of his edits (the Forbes mention on the main University of Miami article), and merely because content is sourced does not mean that it needs to be covered on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There was no discussion regarding the removal of material. The user who removed it had previously claimed there was discussion.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I got a bit caught up in this for personal reasons, and edit warred. I shall now distance myself from this article, and not touch that button again. However, I expect the baseless sockpuppet accusations to be retracted in light of WP:NPA, in that, the accusations have no supporting evidence.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What does this apology have to do with the discussion at hand? I don't see any sockpuppet accusations here that this would be require.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It has to do with my edit warring. That aside, the user baselessly called me a sockpuppet, if you will simply check the history of the articles above. As to why none of them are here, that is because the user has yet to respond to this ANI thread.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that I post comments on the article talk page and edit summaries, but User:PassionoftheDamon does not respond, even to direct questions. A interesting complication is that most of the active editors are either students or graduates of the University of Miami, so there are real conflict of interest problems that may cloud editorial judgments. Racepacket (talk) 04:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of disruptive bad faith edits, while User:PassionoftheDamon has been repeatedly deleting the Forbes Magazine rankings from the University of Miami article without explanation since October 8, he added it to Cornell University. He then bragged about his violation of WP:POINT on his talk page:[88] See also WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. By the way, I don't object to his adding Forbes rankings to other college articles, just his adding it to some while arguing against keeping it in UM. Racepacket (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sceptic_Ashdod talking uncivil

After some edits between us, I asked to return to civilism, and got back from Sceptic_Ashdod: "Isn't it time you make an application to the Human Rights Council" etc to me here. This is directive (again), and thus not civil. Is there a list on this associated with this editor? Is it a regular transgressor? Are there more abused editors? -DePiep (talk) 00:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of civility, says an editor that puts this in his profile page: "This user has the impression and the rational experience that on Wikipedia Israel-related articles are not well-balanced, because of organised, agendised Hasbara", and than asks me not to talk "paternalistic". Whoever is going to review this, I don't think you'll find other 'violations' by me. I also think that such statements as above are exact opposite of the good faith approach. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 04:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Does not look like uncivility to me, but I do wonder if someone who apparently holds the view that "criticism of Israel is antisemitism" is able to maintain sufficient neutrality in his/hers edits. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read what ANI (this page) is for, it is not for this type of issue. Post at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts if you think an editor is being uncivil. Aboutmovies (talk) 10:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

a) Although you did contact the editor first to discuss your issues as is required, you didn't like his answer b) WQA should have been the correct forum for civility issues, however c) What he said was clearly not incivility d) As noted, your own civility/non-NPOV is clearly stated on your userpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Re Saddhiyama: where did you get the quote from? Something is upside down.

Re Bwilkins: a) "you [I]didn't like his answer". Right. Because the answer was out of limits. That's why I am here. I do not expect an editor who is losing "his" case to become sarcastic afterwards. Could be WQA - OK, but the point is to be made. c) "cleary not incivil"? - objection. It is incivil. d) My userpage NPOV??? A userpage!!! What does it say about anyone else's behaviour? The behaviour of Sceptic Ashdod is wrong, and cannot be justified by something else (what could be right or wriong in itself). -DePiep (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Saddhiyama was apparently talking to me. And just to be fair, DePiep observes correctly - there was no such statement. If you'll allow me to quote, "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction -- out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East -- is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest:

To be precise, I didn't lose any case - I said either remove everything related to the findings or keep my edit about legal value of them. DePiep chose the former and that was fine. About my sarcasm, yes it was intentionally directed towards the editor, and in other circumstances me myself would have singled it out as quite distasteful. However, as noted above, this editor places a bizarre statement in his userpage that I personally find quite repulsive. So in the end I don't have a problem being reprimanded - but not by this very person. It's exactly like Israeli-criticizing resolutions are being passed at UN Human Rights Council, that were approved by human-rights champions like China, Russia, Egypt etc. --Sceptic from Ashdod ^(talk) 06:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

DePiep: I inferred it from the link you provided in the OP: "Isn't it time you make an application to the Human Rights Council, I guess they too believe that criticizing Israel is not antisemitism." The only logical conclusion from that statement must be that he means criticising Israel is anti-semitism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Iranian nationalist disruption of human rights articles

Arad (talk · contribs) and Xashaiar (talk · contribs), an editor with a long history of Iranian nationalist POV-pushing, are repeatedly disrupting Human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and History of human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) with the addition of unsourced, POV, factually erroneous material while attacking sourced material as "original research". The material was written by another Iranian nationalist editor, Arad (talk · contribs). A consensus of uninvolved editors on the article's talk page agree that the material breaches a range of policies, including WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. The material being added promotes a fringe theory originated by the late Shah of Iran and subsequently promoted by his supporters.

Xashaiar has responded aggressively on the article talk page. He has done little but attack myself and other editors (see Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder), despite requests to tone it down. He has edit-warred to restore the problematic material [89], [90]; also see [91]. He has attacked material properly sourced to an academic work published by a major academic press as "original research", apparently because he doesn't like it.[92] He shows no willingness whatsoever to follow even the most basic of Wikipedia's content policies. It's POV and OR all the way.

Arad has tag-teamed with Xashaiar to repeatedly add or restore material that consists of unsourced personal commentary.[93], [94], [95]; also [96].

In addition, Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs), another editor with a long history of Iranian nationalist disruption, has repeatedly copied-and-pasted huge chunks of material from an external (non-reliable) website in plain violation of copyright, despite requests and warnings.[97], [98], [99].

In view of this disruptive behaviour and apparent total rejection of basic editing rules, I'd suggest blocking these three disruptive editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

A block of Arad is certainly warranted, and possibly Xashaiar as well. This is nationlist POV-pushing at totally offtopic articles, pure and simple. Moreschi (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

But the people whom ChrisO has reverted are not restricted to Arad and me. There are three other non-Iranian editors who did add Cyrus Cylinder and ChrisO reverted. Please see my comment below. Xashaiar (talk) 22:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

What makes it worse is the fact that they're aware of the content policies (NPOV, V and the rest) - they simply don't want to follow them. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, some highly tendentious editing here. (The copyvio was a quite blatant copy-and-paste even down to the oddities of commentary on the website). --Folantin (talk) 21:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

1)

In defense of myself against the accusations of ChrisO. An uninvolved admin can look at my wikipedia record and compare it to ChrisO who lost his administrationship for constantly violating wikipedia laws. I have edited Wikipedia for a long time and do not have a single block. ChrisO has blocks and actually lost his administrationship. So his characterization of me is at least suprising.

2)

As per the false accusation of copy right violation. I simply quoted many books.

A) Frye, Danmadayev, Plato, Talbott, Curtis , Woods, Laursen and most of those quotes are not in the website. Approximately 70-80% of these quotes are not in the website

B) The website is quoting books and those books do not belong to the website. I might not have a complete understand of Wikipedia copy right laws, but if a website quotes couple of sentences from a Book, and I mention the same book, does that book belong to the website? C) These quotes exist outside the website. The website has no copy right over them. They are from books, some of them even passed their copy right dates. Quoting some sentences from a book is not a violation of wikipedia copy right. Since when does a random website gets copy right over books? No such thing was mentioned in the website that the article has copy right over the books it is quoting.

D) Not a single sentence from the author of that website is mentioned. Only some of the quotes he has used were also used by me. There is no proof I am quoting him or he is quoting me.

E) We can find exact wikipedia articles in many websites.. does that mean it should be deleted.

The actual quotes are here[100]

As far as I can tell, I did not copy sentences from the author of that website. And if this needs to go any further, I have complete copy right over that website since I know the author and he has granted me rights to use any information on his website that I feel like using. I'll be happy to CC the relevant admin or even give them the contact of that author to verify this. However, I only used 5-6 quotes from the books that were quoted by that author and that author has no copy right over those books.

3) ChrisO has threatened several users with banning them. This is at least harrassment.

4) To re-emphasize, I did not even once edit the article. I am just quoting WP:RS sources. The article needs simply mediation from an uninvolved user. Thanks. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. You simply copied and pasted material you found on an unreliable web-site verbatim. --Folantin (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You can repeat the same thing. However: A) As mentioned, that author has given me permission to use the material.

B) Most of my quotes were not from that website. Plato, Frye, Danmadayev, Talbott, Laursen and many others.

C) I copied the same sentences quoted in the books quoted by that author in that website, but quoting those same books is not a copy right violation as far as I know, since those books do not belong to the authors. It is no different than quoting google books. That is searching google books for a specific book and quoting couple of sentences from it. The author of that website has no copy right over those books just like no one in wikipedia has copy rights over most google book searches, but they are quoted. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Also using the term "Iranian nationalists" is racist as the author is trying to oppose the viewpoint of others by simply labeling their background. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Bull. You and others are simply repeating an Iranian nationalist meme dating back to the Shah. The others I expect no less from but you know better. You also know better than to cry racist, which I deeply resent. Moreschi (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)So where is this permission? Unless we have it in writing here it doesn't count. Not that it's a reliable source in any case. Plus, you clearly never read the original sources because you never noticed how they had been edited tendentiously. And "Iranian nationalism" is an ideology not a race. Such ideologues certainly exist on Wikipedia. --Folantin (talk) 22:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To Moreschi: No sir, generalizing all Iranians who disagree with some of point of view and then calling them "Iranian nationalists" is racist. The author above constantly refers to my ethnicity and calls me "Iranian nationalists". I do not feel comfortable when someone keeps pointing to my ethnicity when they write negative messages. Do I constantly refer to his background if I disagree with them? Note some of the users ChrisO r.v.'ed were not even Iranians. Plus if I clearly stated that Cyrus Cylinder is not a charter of human rights as it is anachronism. If my patriotic feeling overwhelmed my unbiased reasoning, then I would not make such a statement. So I feel uncomfortable for someone to constantly refer to my background when making negative reports. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

@Folantin: 1) If any moderator is concerned, I'll be happy to share that website's owner phone number and they can contact him directly and will be happy to give my name , so they can ask the website owner. 2) Some of my quotes are the same that website, but those those quotes were made available before that existence of that site. 3) The books mentioned are not owned by the website. Just like quoting google books is not a copy right violation, then quoting books mentioned by websites is not a violation of copy right. . If they are, then please provide me the link where it says: "One may not quote books that are quoted by websites". And give me a moderator's name, two or four, or whoever you trust, we can email the owner of that website in a CC with the discolure of my name and ask them if I have permission to use his material. Again though, there is no copy right violation, since the website does not own those books. Also please read the title of the thread. The user does not say: "Users uphelding Iranian nationalism" and some of the people he reverted were not Iranians....--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)--Nepaheshgar (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

(out dented)There are few points that the editors should consider

1. giving the title "iranian nationalist" is basically what wikipedia ask not be used so often. That is called "ad hominem" and considered PA. (chrisO has done this in the talk page PA+AD HOMINEM)
   1. even so, the question is: is it true that the inclusion of Cyrus Cylinder in the article on Human right an Iranian nationalist act? I do not think so. The reason: The sources we have provided (cf. the talk page Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder) are non Iranian. It is very difficult for me to see those non-Iranian writers as Iranian nationalist POV. (non-iranian opinion of Ann Mayer and others).
2. the accusation "Arad has tag-teamed with Xashaiar to repeatedly" is just strange if not ridiculous. The reasons: 1. The meeting on the talk page of Human right is the first time I see him. There is no single other ocasion that we have edited together. 2. I made the following point: Cyrus Cylinder is worth mentioning there because of A1: the texts of document itself. A2: there are numerous sources, especially authororities of human right organisations and legal experts, that mention that.
3. the user ChrisO is doing "admin shopping". He invited two other users to that page and they were not involved at all before the discussion. After this he made the falsification that WP:CONS had been reached. How when in the talk page at least 5 people already involved said: "they agree with incusion but with less emphasis". Isn't wikipedia supposed to work honestly?
4. what I suggested was: Let us remove the entire ancient history section. But ChrisO did some OR and added Akbar the Great and removed Cyrus the great.(the beggining of ChrisO edit war (against not me, not arad, not any iranian, bur against jagged85), ChrisO removes jagged85 edit, addition of his OR, removal of Arad edits, and so on).
5. I am not sure if I can be called Iranian nationalist, but I am sure the editors involved and have add Cyrus Cylinder to the article are not Iranian nationalist and therefore this accusation based on nationaism does not work. (Note jagged 85 added the materials and he is not Iranian, this person too).

I am not sure if anybody has doubts that ChrisO has a certain POV and it is almost impossible to discuss the matters with him... Xashaiar (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that you're not disputing that the material which you and Arad have repeatedly added is unsourced personal commentary, or that you've repeatedly been asked not to add original research or unverifiable material to articles. There is no POV involved in asking editors to follow basic content policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Look you falsified WP:CONS and edited with the edit summary (according to cons) and you do accuse me and arad on being teamed when you asked uninvolved editors to come in and agree with you. Even worse you have reverted at least 2 other non-iranian addition of cyrus the great and instead you ask the adimns about me and arad because we are pushing nationalist pov? what about others who disagree with them? And one more thing you should not PA. About sources "we have non iranian sources that discuss Cyrus cylinder and none of them are Iranian" why cant we include? You know better that everybody that sources are ready for incusion but "YOU DO NOT ALLOW CYRUS THE GREAT IN THAT ARTICLE" but "DO LIKE TO SEE AKBAR THE GREAT". ARE M. Leney, Ann Elizabeth Meyer, ... not enough sources? your POV pushing and very strange PA and eurocentric view (see the talk page of Human right) is beyond understanding. And quite interestingly Josef Wiesehofer who is by no means Iranian has mentioned and sumarized the traditional view of people (not necessarily himself) on Cyrus the Great and the role of Cyrus Cylinder in this view by

Many scholars have read into these last sentences [of Cyrus Cylinder] a confirmation of the Old Testament passages about the steps taken by Cyrus towards the erection of the Jerusalem temple and the repatriation of the Judaeans, some even going so far as to believe that the instructions to this effect were actually provided in these very formulations of the Cyrus Cylinder. In any event, the clemency Herodotus ascribed to Cyrus, the aptitudes Xenophon saw in him, his mission according to the Old Testament and his piety as described in the Babylon inscription – all combine in the eyes of many observers to form a harmonious character study of the first Persian king.

— Ancient Persia 2001

Now compare this and the ChrisO interest in adding Akbar the Great. If using this quote and traditional view is not allowed and OR then ChrisO edit about akbar the great is even worse. I also note what Ann Elizabeth Mayer said "..although it does not use the language of human rights, the ancient cylinder comprises ideas that are related to modern concepts of rights" (page 8 (this is legal point of view and directly involved in human rights academy)," Now it might be said that she is not ancient Iranian expert, right. But I offered ChrisO to let these be mentioned and he can add the view of A. Kuhrt who criticizes the traditional view. I am not able to understand why so many sources and well established traditional view should be negleted just because some modern scholars call "cyrus cylinder" a propaganda document. Having said these, I would like to ask the admins to give ChrisO a topic ban for A: His PA and ad hominem (PA+PA+PA+...) B. His POV pushing almost constantly on Cyrus Cylinder (see Cyrus Cylinder history page. More recently on this subject: He made quite a story on the word "emperor" because he says "cyrus was not an emeror") C: Disagreeing with many editors and reverting 5 people (Only me and arad seem to be Iranian but ChrisO claimes that the incusion of cyrus Cylinder is "work of we Iranian nationalists" for example 2 non-Iranian editors did add Cyrus Cylinder: edit at 20:25, 17 October 2009 by User:Pfhorrest and older edit at 19:44, 28 September 2009 by User:Jagged 85 and probably more if we see the history page of Human rights) and call their edits "iranian nationalist edits". D. Falsifying WP:CONS (here) E. Doing admin shopping. Xashaiar (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:ChrisO violating 3rr and threatening to ban users

Resolved

 – Nothing more that can usefully be said, per Wehwalt. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

A) The user has reverted 5-6 time in one day.

1st, [101]

2nd, [102]

3rd, [103]

4th, [104]

5th, [105]

He has been blocked before violating 3rr, so is well aware of the rules. B) The user has threatened banning other users (without the appropriate medium).

Can a user threaten another user with a "final warning"? [106]

Here he refers to a banned user and threatens the same: [107]

I find it ironic to have to report ChrisO, because when it comes to inserting unreliable nationalistic content into Wikipedia (like calling the Cyrus Cylinder as a charter of the 20th century concept of human rights), I commend users. However I believe this does not give people the right to violate 3rr or threaten other users with a ban. No one is above the law. Since I'll be taking a wiki break, it is unfortunate I had to do this report at this juncture but no one is above the law and the law for breaking rulers should be applied.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I will leave this to others to decide, but the issue at hand is the removal of wholly unsourced personal original research, which your fellow nationalists repeatedly added despite being asked not to. You have not denied that the material was unsourced POV OR, violating every basic content policy. Repeatedly ignoring basic content policies is grounds for blocking, as I pointed out to you. The same material was removed for the same reason by Folantin [108], [109] and Moreschi [110]. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your personal viewpoints. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree.. Wikipedia is not a palce for WP:OR (although I am not confirming or denying any OR). However violating 3rr and threatening users with a ban is unacceptable behaviour. Also I did not even edit the article once, but you reported me. This behaviour scares other users from participating in the talkpage itself and creates an atmosphere were if there is a disagreement, they will be labelled by their ethnicity. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it certainly might have been better if Chris had come here and asked for help rather than reverting so many times. Unsourced is an exception to 3RR that only arises in BLP issues. I'm not sure the rest of what Chris says is a defense to 3RR. Not that the content is very wonderful. And 3RR is kinda a bright line here.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

3rr is a law and this is not a WP:BLP article. I accept fair enforcement for anyone that breaks the laws of wikipedia. Even Jimbo himself (no disrespect to Jimbo of course). --Nepaheshgar (talk) 23:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm minded to agree, I'm just being cautious in case there is something obvious that I missed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I accept that I might have overstepped the line inadvertently there, for which I apologise. I can only say that I lost track. But is anyone going to do anything about the disruptive behaviour of Arad, Nepaheshgar and Xashaiar? Repeatedly and wilfully adding unsourced original research and violating copyright is crossing an even brighter line. They were asked not to do it, they were notified of the policy requirements, but they did it anyway, repeatedly, and they show no sign of acknowledging their error. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

On the issue that ChrisO says "[nepaheshgar] which your fellow nationalists repeatedly added despite being asked not to.." is wrong. Because Jagged85 is not iranian nationalist, but did add cyrus cylinder, and chrisO reverted and the other user Pfhorrest who is not iranian but added again Cyrus Cylinder and ChrisO reverted. Still he claims "xashaiar and arad are nationalists who add this". Interesting. ChrisO you have reverted many and only two are Iranian. Xashaiar (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

See here:

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.

So, if sticking to 3RR would do damage to Wikipedia you can ignore it. It must, of course, be the case that almost no reasonable editor would disagree with the "damage" that is being repaired. If you make that judgement and you get referred on the basis of 3RR violation then it should be a reasonable defense to say that you reverted damaging edits provided that the nature of the reverted edits is not in question. Count Iblis (talk) 23:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I am reluctant to apply IAR to 3RR, because the exceptions have been thrashed out and routine use (and this is routine) of IAR would gut the rule. I'm minded to consider a short block.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that there is no dispute, even from the editors concerned, that the material in question was unsourced personal original research (and I might add that the first version of that material relied on a hoax translation). I would hope that nobody would dispute that the addition of such material is damaging to the project's credibility. The article in question is top or high-importance for five WikiProjects and is part of the content that we are distributing to schools, so it should be treated with some care. This is not simply a content dispute: it's a question of whether editors should be allowed to add their own unsourced personal views to high-profile, high-priority Wikipedia articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

But darn it, Chris, you've been around here long enough to know that there are other ways of handling it. We do have a few admins still, even with your no longer having the bit. You don't have to save the world yourself, let others help.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To Chriso: you said above "the material in question was unsourced personal original research" this is wrong. you do not let any source be added look at the section on it. There are sources that indicate view in favour of humanitarian aspects of Cyrus Cylinder and YES there are views rejecting that. The point is that 1. You push only for you POV which is "to reject the former view" 2. You did PA several times. 3. You did violate 3rr. 4. You did "ad hominem" and call all edits adding Cyrus Cylinder "Iranian nationalists disruptive edits" (when 3 out of all 5 involved are not Iranian). Xashaiar (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And how many of those admins have done a single damn thing in the thread above? Nepaheshgar has posted his usual wall of text, and everyone else has - as usual with this individual - said "tl;dr" and moved on. AN/I is useless for this sort of thing. This thread demonstrates that point. An accusation of 3RR gets everyone running around. An undisputed report of serial OR-pushing, POV-pushing and copyright violation gets the sound of crickets chirping. If nothing else, it shows where AN/I's priorities lie. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, blocks are not supposed to be punitive. ChrisO did not count his reverts, something that happened to me a long time ago when I was reverting a few sceptics on the Global warming page. I was referred here, but I was not banned. I explained how it happened and I also offered not to edit that page for a few days. Thing is that when I was referred here people knew about the problem, so others could keep the page in the watchlist. In this case, ChrisO could focus on other wiki articles while others could take a look at the problem articles ChrisO was dealing with. Count Iblis (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Edit warring is not excused in a content dispute, even when you are right. Please don't use reverting to solve problems. For good faith disagreements, seek third opinion or mediation. For bad faith issues, file a request at arbitration enforcement, as that article is covered by at least one ruling, if memory serves. No block is needed because ChrisO has agreed to stop reverting. Jehochman ^Talk 00:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

May I suggest that we block the whole bunch for edit warring. I know, that is a less bright line, but how often has it been in and out? Or is this warning enough for all of you to leave the unsourced statement out (so blocking either of you is not necessary as you will not damage the article further) until consensus is reached on the talkpage (something you clearly do not have)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No you cannot block users who have not even edited the actual article. if that was the case then other users (5-6) have edited the article.

Note to the moderator. ChrisO states: " But is anyone going to do anything about the disruptive behaviour of Arad, Nepaheshgar and Xashaiar? Repeatedly and wilfully adding unsourced original research and violating copyright is crossing an even brighter line. ". I did not edit the main page of the article once. I just entered the discussion page today and have no intention continue. As per copyright, I just quoted books that the owner of the website has mentioned, and he has no copy right over those books. I do not see it any different than quoting google book texts, since I am not quoting the text of the website outside of those books. However, just to end this accusation. The moderator can email me, I will be happy to give the phone of the owner of the website and my full name, and they can ask that owner via phone if I have the right to use his material. Either way, the material is not currently in the webpage and I did not further engange in restoring it. So I restate, the copy right violation is false.

However, I would be happy for a clarification. If a website quotes some books (say 5 books), can I also quote those 5 books (few sentences)? The website has no copy right ownership on those book. How is it different than using google books which also has many books and people constantly quote it? However as I stated, no one is above the law. ChrisO broke 3rr and content dispute is no reason to break 3rr. There are other mediums that needs to be followed if the user thinks someone is breaking WP:OR. Rfc and mediation is recommended. I have been through many debates but my record in wikipedia is clear. Because one thing I do follow is the laws of Wikipedia. Thank you.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Chris for 12 hours, which I consider a bit of a slap on the wrist, and seems quite willing to do it again, thus it is hopefully preventative of the next time. As I am about to leave here and may not be back at my computer until the morning, if he appeals, I waive any need for the reviewing admin to confer with me. Now, someone look at what the other users were doing there, I'd say.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Again I expect that the laws of Wikipedia with regards to WP:3rr be fully enforced. Why does a user that has violated 3rr before get 12 hours and not the standard 24 hours? Users who violate it more than once get at least 24 hours. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for. It takes at least two to edit war. Three reverts is not an entitlement. If a team of accounts works together to trap a lone editor offsides, the team members may be blocked for edit warring. Jehochman ^Talk 00:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I did not even edit the main page of the article. However based on normal patterns, I have noticed users usually get 24 hours for 3rr. If they have repeatedly violated it before, it is at least 24 hours. I have no personal feelings relative to how long ChrisO is blocked, but it does bother me a little that users get different length of punishments for the same violations. However it only bothers me a little, since Wikipedia is not real life. However, hopefully in a just society, everyone is equal in the eye of the law. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked ChrisO. Like Jehochman says, it takes two to edit war, and there was just one who crossed the red line. Nepaheshgar, what you are asking for is punishment. Please be aware that you were warring as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not edit war. I did not even edit the mainpage. If someone else did, it is their responsibility. But if a user is given only 2 minutes for break 3rr (or in this case 5rr), then that is really unfair to all other users in wikipedia. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not some online game with strict rules. Count Iblis (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not surprised there's confusion by now - the usual wall of text posted by Nepaheshgar hasn't helped. To summarise:

• Arad (talk · contribs) and Xashaiar (talk · contribs) have tag-teamed to add unsourced POV original research, promoting a fringe nationalist theory, to Human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and History of human rights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), despite being asked to follow basic content policies: [111], [112], [113], [114], [115]; also see [116], [117]. Neither shows any willingness to even acknowledge the existence of WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:OR.
• Nepaheshgar (talk · contribs) has repeatedly violated copyright by copying and pasting a tract from an unreliable third-party nationalist website, despite being asked to follow basic copyright policies: [118], [119], [120]. He does not acknowledge that copying and pasting the entire contents of a third party web page is a likely copyright violation.

Moreschi (talk · contribs) concurs above that a block of at least Arad and Xashaiar is required. There is every indication that they simply do not accept Wikipedia's fundamental content requirements and are therefore likely to continue this behaviour if they are not given a clear incentive not to do so. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Please note that I have indef blocked arad, Xashaiar and Nepaheshgar for their disregard of WP policy and their concerted efforts to have ChrisO blocked for attempting to apply policy in their contentious editing. I am content for any and all sanctions to be lifted or varied upon the above parties agreeing to conduct themselves appropriately in this matter. I will also take any brickbats for acting in this manner. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  I was rapidly coming to the same conclusion on reviewing this situation. All three of them are behaving ridiculously, and while ChrisO did violate 3RR it was in combatting some particularly egregious policy violations. ~ mazca ^talk 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

  Isn't indef a bit harsh for Nepaheshgar? The user has been editing since March 2006 with no other blocks on record. Equazcion (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Brah. Vo. I'm going to email LHvU a beer as the only one with the fortitude and good sense to cut through the crap. To the rest of you -- shame on you for prioritizing blind adherence to policy over the credibility of Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking blocks were needed too. That said, I think it's inappropriately unhelpful to make an inflammatory comment like "the rest of you - shame on you for prioritizing blind adherance to policy over the credibility of Wikipedia". Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ncmvocalist as regards the comment by Short Brigade Harvester Boris. The duty of administrators is to enforce policy neutrally, not to decide content disputes with their tools because they decide that a particular version of an article is best for the "credibility of Wikipedia". That's called abuse of admin tools, and people are being desysopped for this, as they should be. (I'm not saying that any such abuse occurred in the present case.)  Sandstein  06:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I note that the level three and four user talk templates concerning original research, unsourced material and the deliberate introduction of errors does warn editors that they can be blocked if they persist with such edits. This isn't simply a "content dispute" - it's about whether editors should be allowed to repeatedly add unsourced, factually erroneous personal commentaries into high-profile articles. That's a policy not a content issue - it's disruptive by definition. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad ChrisO finally got some support to help protect WP against destructive elements. I'm baffled that anyone actually did block him. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 11:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I would comment that Chris could have handled this better, since he is not the only editor on Wikipedia. Posting here at AN/I would be far better than a gross violation of 3RR. His recent comments are post hoc rationalizations which put into question his statement of apology that got him unblocked. He for certain should not be commenting on Nepaheshgar's block, which raises WP:BATTLEGROUND issues, he is far from blameless here, by his supposed own admission, and should not post as if he were otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I did post here at AN/I and nobody took a blind bit of notice until Nepaheshgar started complaining about 3RR. Far from being "post-hoc rationalizations", my comments relate to what Jehochman has pointed out just below my own comments - "This matter has been festering for well over a year. Many warnings and much advice has been given." Nepaheshgar is an editor with a long history of problematic behaviour. The fact that admins have up to this point either not got involved or chosen to look the other way does not mean that there is no problem. Unfortunately I think an arbitration case is now inevitable, which will be a further waste of everyone's time. There is no WP:BATTLEGROUND involved; this is purely a case of a collective failure to deal adequately with aggressive nationalist POV-pushing. -- ChrisO (talk) 12:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm just an uninvolved admin; that may be so. But still, you should have asked for help. Judging from the response here, you are not a voice crying in the wilderness.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Chris. This failure to deal with tendentious editing has been going on for far too long. --Folantin (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just been reading the ArbComm decision that caused ChrisO to resign as an admin and during which he was desysoped anyway. The thing is, his behavior here fits the pattern that lost him his bit perfectly. Cowboy actions, only he can save Wikipedia, etc. This is a collaborative enterprise. I don't know whether Chris has any plans to ask ArbComm for his bit back or not, but as they would certainly look at the circumstances surrounding his block by me, I will say this: I see nothing that indicates he's learned a thing from the experience. I regret that and hope it will change. But he had no business coming close to breaking 3RR given his history, let alone grossly exceeding it. If the edits from the other side are problematic, get someone else to look at it. If Chris figures this out, then maybe sometime the cowboy will get his spurs and his badge back. Just a suggestion.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no intention of asking for the return of the bit and I wouldn't accept it if it was handed to me on a plate. It got me nothing but threats and stalking on and off-wiki, abuse by malicious individuals, and all too often disinterest from admins who prefer to walk past on the other side of the road when problems are raised. This thread is a perfect illustration of that. No uninvolved editors here took a blind bit of notice of the problems that I raised here with Nepaheshgar et al until they started complaining about 3RR. One lesson I learned from five and a half years as an admin is that unless something involves a bright-line issue like 3RR or obvious vandalism, most admins either don't want to know, aren't interested in helping or think it's too much trouble for them to get involved in it. It's that kind of thing that has led to entire areas of Wikipedia - such as our Iranian articles - being taken over by aggressive nationalist POV-pushers who get away with atrocious editing, off-wiki stalking and threats of violence because nobody wants to get involved. If you spend your time on Pokémon articles you'll probably be fine, but if you try to deal with systematic bad editing in a contentious article which few people care about you learn pretty soon that you're largely on your own. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've said my piece and obviously we disagree here. I suggest we mark this thread resolved and move on with building an encyclopedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Good idea... -- ChrisO (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"I've just been reading the ArbComm decision that caused ChrisO to resign as an admin..." Well, actually, that's kind of where you went wrong, since that decision, as it approached Chris and another similar editor, was a complete joke and travesty. I wouldn't suggest reading that to learn anything except why ArbCom needs an extreme makeover. Heimstern:Away (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Block of Nepaheshgar

I'm coming here from CAT:RFU after reading Nepaheshgar's second unblock request at User talk:Nepaheshgar#Mistake. Like Equazcion above, it is not very clear to me from the above discussion what Nepaheshgar has done that warrants an indef block. ChrisO, above, says that he "has repeatedly violated copyright by copying and pasting a tract from an unreliable third-party nationalist website, despite being asked to follow basic copyright policies: [121], [122], [123]." I don't consider these talk page edits to be copyvios, rather, they are selective quotations from various sources to support a contested edit. No matter what the actual merits of the edit may be, that is surely allowed under fair use, and actually good talk page practice. Are there any other grounds for a block of Nepaheshgar?  Sandstein  06:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if it were a copyvio (and I agree that it's not -- he only posted material to the talk page for consideration), I don't think this one instance of frustration is indicative that the user would continue being a problem in the future. It's not like he's suddenly turned into a vandal. Considering his editing history, a temporary block (if any) seems more appropriate. Equazcion (talk) 07:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The material that Nepaheshgar posted was copied-and-pasted verbatim from this web page on the Rozaneh Magazine website. That most certainly is a copyvio. It was pointed out repeatedly by Folantin (talk · contribs), to no effect.[124][125][126] To be honest, an indef block is overdue for Nepaheshgar - his block log does not reflect the quality of his editing, as he has been getting away with bad editing and tendentious behaviour for a long time. I first came across this editor when writing Battle of Opis this time last year. He behaved then in the same way that he is behaving now - pushing Iranian nationalist POV, promoting original research, misusing sources by quote mining, using unreliable sources, distorting policy, and posting great walls of text in support of tendentious arguments. He suffers from a chronic case of WP:IDONTHEARYOU. You can see something of this behaviour above, lots of it at Talk:Human rights#Cyrus Cylinder and more of it at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-10-06 Battle of Opis. Note in particular this comment by Akhilleus.

Nepaheshgar usually gets away with this because (a) he largely confines his depradations to Iran-related articles and (b) his wall-of-text approach means that people usually give up arguing with him ("tl;dr"). Unfortunately the nationalists appear to have largely taken ownership of articles about Iran/Persia. During the course of this affair I have received several e-mails from editors who (in the words of one) are "sick and worn out dealing with the Iranian nationalists" and I'm aware of at least one editor, whom I trust, who has received physical threats by phone - i.e. someone went to the trouble of tracking him down - after trying to intervene in this topic area. Nepaheshgar is a bad editor and an arbitration case waiting to happen, but he appears to be only the tip of a very ugly iceberg - at least as bad as the current Eastern European arbitration case and quite likely worse given the apparent willingness of some editors to threaten or imply physical violence. Note this comment from Nepaheshgar: "I am not here to waste my time and neither I am scared of any threat. Trust me I lived during the Iran-Iraq war and what happens in Wikipedia is a joke relative to that. And you are free to come to my house and see my exercise equipment and general fitness to understand that I do not fear threats." [127]

I strongly advise against unblocking him. Nothing good would come of it. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If any administrator has doubts about the block, ask Less for an explanation, and wait for an answer before acting. If there is a unilateral unblock, I will recommend arbitration. This matter has been festering for well over a year. Many warnings and much advice has been given. Jehochman ^Talk 09:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jonathan, I did note on my block rationales that if a reviewing admin wished to vary or lift the sanctions imposed they need not require my input. However, while I will of course provide a detailed rationale if requested, my primary considerations is that these are indefinite, as in may be removed sooner rather than later and were designed to stop a campaign to get another party blocked in what is a content dispute (and by reference to that party's history - a desysopping - to smear them, which is something that does not sit well with me). When a blocked party agrees that dispute resolution, per policy, and not attacks upon other disputants is the appropriate process to follow then they can be unblocked with my blessings. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked. The user has apologized and indicated he will not do what he did again. There is no justification, then, for keeping the block in place, since such blocks are not punitive. I assume GF, and consider also the previously clean block log.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, suggest you request arbitration or arbitration enforcement to deal with this tendentious editing. Don't let matters fester any longer. Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a much better road than 5RR.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Which arbitration case would cover this for enforcement purposes? -- ChrisO (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. If you can't find one, request arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 18:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Simply disgusting

As one administrator put it: [128]. The whole thing disgusts me, having read it again. It gives ammo to those who say that Wikipedia is run for the benefit of a favored few. Thank you for throwing some sanity into the mix. 1)

ChrisO has a long history of attacking me. Here is an example of a personal attack [129]: "If Nepaheshgar is involved, that's an instant warning sign that crank fringe theories are being pushed somewhere... -- ChrisO (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)"

2)

In my first edit to the talkpage of the article I called for RfC and mediation! Look here:[130] "I am not going get involved more, but I hope Xashiyar or Arad can first list some of the 30-50 sources [4] (not about the Cylinder necessarily but Cyrus himself) (also use other search words instead of "human rights") and then call for a general Rfc or mediation."

Indeed I never got involved in the mainpage.

3) One user brought up a firovolous charge of violating copy right violation! This was false because: A) 70-80% of what I had was not the same as the website. B) I copied the quotes from books that are quoted in the website. But that website has no copy right ownership to those books. It is no different than quoting google books. C) However if there is a problem with A) and B), I have fully copy right to the article in that website and I told the user he can get three admins or more, they can email me, I will provide my name and also the name and number of the writer and owner of that article. They can call him and confirm if I can do what I want with regards to his article. However as noted I did not copy the article but books quoted by the article and no more than 3-4 sentence from each of those books quoted by the article. Of course the user that made this frivolous charges just repeated the same thing. But admin Sandstein expressed doubt about the charge as well. And another admin agreed: "Even if it were a copyvio (and I agree that it's not -- he only posted material to the talk page for consideration), I don't think this one instance of frustration is indicative that the user would continue being a problem in the future. It's not like he's suddenly turned into a vandal. Considering his editing history, a temporary block (if any) seems more appropriate"

Note on the "vandal" comment, I did not even edit the mainpage.

4)

The other was obvious favioratism by some of the admin and it goes back to simple corruption and favors and etc. Which is not supposed to take place in Wikipedia. If a user calls me an Iranian nationalist (I do not want a user who has been accused by others of racism to refer to my ethnicity as it has nothing to do with editing), then it is okay for me to label him "X supremacist"? I told him before I do not appreciate such labels. Exactly what do I need to do from users abusing their privilidges and labeling other users based on their ethnicity? If he is allowed to label, then I am allowed to label him a "X supremacist"? Even if (assuming) I believe he holds such ideology, am I allowed to label them?

5)

Up to now I had a clean record in wikipedia but I was given a permanent ban for refering to a users past behaviour. The reason I made this reference is that the user falsely tried to make a past record for me, when I had none. I had argued with the user before but I agreed to Rfc and mediation and accepted the results. That is how wikipedia works. In my first edit to the talkpage, I also called for RfC and mediation. Yes we went to a content based mediation before. Content-dispute based mediation is exactly the way to solve problems.

6)

Unlike what one admin claims, the user who does not have admin power threaten to ban people. This is in direct violation of wikipedia law. Here he refers to a banned user whom he has dealt with before and threatens the same: [131]

What does a former ban user have to do with me and why should that be evoked? That is creating an atmosphere of intidimation (which I am not intimidated the least).

7)

The user tries to link me to some Iranian nationalist whom he claims has made a threat to someone unknown person! That is no different than me relating him to the people that practiced apartheid. This is racism, because he is implying that I am the type that makes these threats. One can say : "User that has the opinion of nationalism", but to directly attach ethnic labels to negative reports and negative sentences is not in the spirit of courtesy but more like WP:Battle. Specially if one does not know the person in real life. I am not a racist nor a nationalist in the sense that ChrisO implies.

8)

Overall, as the neutral admin put it, it was disgusting and it showed favioratism. An indefinite block for users who are not in the "crowd" is a disgusting example of such a favioratism. Another person called me a vandal. Sir I did not even edited the article, how could I be a vandal? I made 0rr to the article yet I was given an indefinite block! My first message was about RfC and mediation! Ultimate source of corruption for any government, organization, society, online community and etc. is when favioratism occurs (for whatever reason including the case of probable common friendship or ethnicity or etc.). Eventually if is not stopped, the corruption can reach the highest level. So when the neutral admin states: The whole thing disgusts me, having read it again. It gives ammo to those who say that Wikipedia is run for the benefit of a favored few. Thank you for throwing some sanity into the mix.

He is totally correct. This sort of damage is much more than a silly content dispute which I asked for RfC and mediation.

Conclusion:

Despite all these and false accusations, I ask any unbiased person to go read my contributions to the article on human rights (I am sure out of 16000+ edits I have not been perfect but we are discussing a single article and if there is an arbcomm, I am sure out of the thousands of edits by the other side, they have not been perfect), I did not edit the main page nor violare 3rr or even 1rr or even 0rr. If they can show me exactly were I made a mistake, that would have been okay.

I just commented based on some scholarly sources and my first message was RfC and mediation! However due to favioratism (or possibly other biases) I got the short end of the stick while the only one that actually broke a wikipedia guideline got 2 minutes! Favioratism, lying and abuse of admin power is disgusting. I rather not see an arbcomm though due to unchivarlous behaviour behind a vga monitor. Big deal, it is all bits and bites (not physical ones), but this would be a waste of my time in real life. However if ChrisO goes that route and initiates an arbcomm, then obviously abuse of power and favioratism will be addressed and already two unbiased admins noted this abuse of power and favioratism. And in the end, the whole thing starts by blocking a user who has not even made a single contribution to the main page and actually agreed that CC is not a human rights charter, but there is not much difference between mentioning CG and Akbar Shah and in his first message called for an RfC and mediation!

Another user that edited the article has been around since 2005 (with a clear record) and did not violate any wikipedia guidelines that merited an indefinite ban. He has been in wikipedia for four years and has not been blocked [132]

The user who constantly made the false accusation of copy right violation (and I can get even that website owner to give a call to each of the arbcomm members if necessary although I did not violate any copy right violations), and etc. will be involved. This would be a grand waste of time, and I won't be the only loser. The biggest loser will be the admins that abused their power and users that have been in previous arbcomm. However, I rather move on and eventually someone else will deal with the same sort of favioratism and will not let go as easily as me. Life is good, I am publishing papers, I have a lovely wife, and life is too short to waste behind a monitor. I'll take a good (possibly permanent wiki break), but eventually anything that is corrupt (favioratism as shown here) is digusting and will fall apart and that refers to a group of users proxying for each other and coming to support each other with comments, abusing admin power. So lets let go of the whole episode and close this thread. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

TLDR. But a hearty agree to closing this thread. Equazcion (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Usually when I read a paper to see if it is good, I read the first and last paragraph. Anyhow, lets move on. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• I do not believe that ChrisO, Moreschi, Folantin, LessHeard, or Jehochman can be considered anything but involved, and their actions as such are highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Too long, didn't read. This noticeboard is not for posturing, battling, or seeking to get a rise out of other editors. I recommend that blocks be issued should Nepaheshgar or Ottava Rima continue with their disruptive posting. Jehochman ^Talk 17:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• We can consider that as part of ChrisO's arb case he was supposed to start, can't seem to find it. In my view, such an arb case will have the biggest caliber pointed-backward gun since Alger Hiss sued Whittaker Chambers for defamation ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think it is obvious that for the calls of my block for my "disruptive posting" when I have made -1- post that merely points out that Jehochman is involved and not neutral is verified by the above and the above is further proof that he is acting disruptively. Jehochman, do your self a favor and stop involving yourself in these matters before you are finally banned for these actions. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for fair admin or clarification on wikipedia guidelines

Resolved

 – Policies are not laws, and blocks are not punitive. Poster has been indef blocked for semi-related reasons.Equazcion (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported User:ChrisO for violating 3rr and threatening to ban users The user has reverted 5-6 time in one day.

1st, [133]

2nd, [134]

3rd, [135]

4th, [136]

5th, [137]

He was given a 12 hour ban, but then the ban was lifted after two mintues. [[138]]

I am suprised because a user who has violate 3rr before usually gets at least the minimum 24 hours. However in this case, not only was the ban demoted to 12 hours, but then from 12 hours it was demoted to two minutes. I am wondering which wikipedia guidelines allows such break of laws of Wikipedia? Do all users get such a treatment? Imagine if one is to run a country like this and some people are more above the law, than others. That would be totally chaotic. So further clarification is requested because I thought users who have violated 3rr usually get more than a 2 minute block. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are not meant to be for punishment. ChrisO acknowledged the mistake before he got blocked. He then promised to not do it again, so what damage are we stopping? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know from Nepaheshgar what "law" he is referring to, because I have never seen any laws on Wikipedia. Only policies and guidelines that arent meant to be strictly enforced, and are meant to be used with common sense and discretion. As Beetstra pointed out "blocks are not meant to be for punishment". We dont have "laws" that if you "break" you are "punished"; we have ways of doing things generally, and if you dont conform to them then the Community decides what is appropriate to make sure it doesnt happen again, there is no set punishment for a set law. Am I the only one who thinks that way, did I miss WP:NOTSTATUTE being removed?Camelbinky (talk) 03:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As previously said - "while ChrisO did violate 3RR it was in combatting some particularly egregious policy violations" - that it the reason his block was lifted so quickly. If someone violates the letter of a rule while obeying the spirit of what Wikipedia is about they are much more likely to be treated sympathetically. Exxolon (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Procedural note - the originator of this thread is currently blocked Exxolon (talk) 03:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, in which of those diffs did ChrisO threaten to block anybody? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO isn't an admin, so he wouldn't be able to block. User:LessHeard vanU did the blocking, as a result of the thread above, "Iranian nationalist disruption of human rights articles". Equazcion (talk) 05:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO gave the editor a standard level4 vandal warning, in which the language refers to the possibility of a block - the editor then took this to be a threat, or has presented it as such. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

To answer your question, OP, quite honestly the "not punitive" argument is used much more liberally with administrators, former administrators, and well known community members than with others. Even if said editors are blocked, it is a useless venture as they will be shortly unblocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the ogre. I should also note that Nepaheshgar obviously used the wrong terminology. I think it would have been more helpful had editors responded as if he had used the right terminology (guideline instead of law) instead of contenting themselves with pointing out the mistake.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, editwarring, disruptive editing and personal attacks. Possibly 3RR and GAMING the system

Jiujitsuguy (talk) Last unprovoced personal attack and false accusation made me decide to take action at this side.

16 oct 04:37 "Incidentally, I just want to add that we (all editors) were playing quite nicely in the sand box together until Mr unsigned Anon came along, reverting like a madman and tossing and mixing paragraphs and sentences as though this article was a salad. The edit wars began with him and unfortunately, protection status was instituted becuase of him and his inability to work with others"[139]

First, my last edit on Gaza War before articleprotection was 6 Oct 06:17[140] self reverting

Jijutsuguys part of editwarring. Proving he was a, if not the, reason for the need of protection of Gaza War

• 8 oct 06:13 more complaining on admins talkpage and accusations "There are a few of us who are only trying to restore some balance into the artice" [141]
• 8 oct 04:12 Complaining on admins talkpage (who protect page) complaining over reverts (His own editwar, Possibly violation of gaming the system).[142]

• 8 oct 03:58 [143] editwarring, revert RomaC, last before protection and version during the protectiontime.
• 8 oct 03:10 [144] editwarring, revert Sean.hoyland
• 7 0ct 20:58 [145] editwarring revert Dailycare [146]
• 7 oct 20:52 [147] editwarring, revert Dailycare[148]
• 7 oct 20:42 [149] Editwarring, possibly revert Blanchardb indiscriminate [150]

Here are all his edits on [Gaza War] the days before, showing his combative editstyle.

• 7 oct 15:27 [151] Added "indiscriminate"
• 7 oct 01:57 [152]
• 7 oct 00:36 [153]
• 6 oct 20:43 [154] revert Mr Unsigned Anon [155]
• 6 oct 20:19 [156] editwarring revert Untwirl, no RS, posibly BLP violation
• 6 oct 19:50 [157]
• 6 oct 19:41 [158]
• 6 oct 19:36 [159]
• 6 oct 19:34 [160]
• 6 oct 03:39 [161] Possibly editwarring lead section
• 6 oct 01:14 [162] editwarring revert Nableezy
• 5 oct 06:41 [163] editwarring, revert Mr Unsigned Anon,
• 5 oct 03:08 [164] editwarring revert Sean.hoyland
• 5 oct 02:48 [165] editwarring, revert Sean.hoyland

Disruptive editing and personal attacks

• 16oct 04:37 "Incidentally, I just want to add that we (all editors) were playing quite nicely in the sand box together until Mr unsigned Anon came along, reverting like a madman and tossing and mixing paragraphs and sentences as though this article was a salad. The edit wars began with him and unfortunately, protection status was instituted becuase of him and his inability to work with others"[166]
• 8 oct 06:13 "The most vile of the bunch is Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) who was already warned that he would be blocked for persistent vandalism to this site. Please go to his talk page to see what I'm referring to "[167]
• 6 oct 15:57 "The article was shaping up to be pretty good, though when it comes to Middle East, no one can be entirely satisfied. But comes along Mr Anon Unsigned and starts reverting like a mad man with out regard for any etiquette or decorum. "[168]
• 6 oct 14:29 "This fella has gone crazy with reverts and will not even entertain discussion" [169]
• 6 oct 01:24 "The reasons for attacks against civilian had been stated in the lead for a while undisturbed until anonunsigned went crazy with reverts. I could't even respond to him becuase his English was so poor I had no idea what he was talking about" [170]
• 5 oct 19:54 "Unfortunately, work obligations prevent me from dedicating more time to this nonsense and dealing with these abusive censors. It seems that they've adopted a tactic of coordinating their reverts and come at you in swarms and try to overwhelm and exhaust you "[171] answer to Stellarkids 'list of edits'[172]
• 5 oct 08:10 "Revert to your heart's desire just don't call it the Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it." [173]
• 5 oct 07:00 "They don't even bother hiding their anti-Israel bias, By the time their through with this article, it's gonna look like a Hamas recruiting poster." [174]
• 5 oct 02:35 "I must say that you've taken what was shaping up to be a pretty decent article, somewhat balanced, fact-intensive and gramatically correct and turned it into garbage. Just another example of how a perfectly good Wikipedia article can be single handedly butchered by a lone, rouge "editor" "[175]
• 5 0ct 02:05 "Your English is barely understandable so it's difficult for me to respond to your incoherent, illogical arguments. Again, I suggest you take a two-year English course and come back when you can articulate a coherent thought" [176]

His personal attacks was up at Wikiquett [177] but it was met with more attacks and case didnt come to a resolution.

There is more problems around Juijutsuguy about POV-editing and I can probably dig up advice from other editors telling him to stopp that he neglect. But I think my presentation of diffs should be enough for administrators to take action after checking them.

Reservations for errors with the editdiffs but I hope all are correct.

Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 10:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Unsigned Anon

Sigh. It seems that Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) has filed yet another complaint against me. Honestly fellas, I work for a living so it's difficult for me to spend an inordinante amout of time compiling "evidence" of the sort my friend seems to have compiled. However, I did make a short list of some of Mr Unsigned Anon's gems:

• Come on Wikifellows. His IP says he is from Brooklyn USA. Why on earth can one believe a guy from Brooklyn working for the Israeli Goverment. Just look at all nice areas and etnic... Borough Park... Wait! Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Finally I found that recruitment office. Now where is jiujitsuguys bankacount so he can get that recrutbonus? Lookie new bombwest. Wonder what happen if I push this red button. Oh shii.... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just trying to grind up a solution, no accusation involved. But BashBrannigan suggestion is a middleway. No bold text and no Cast Lead. And thats just the first part of lead. Damnit, there is more diputed. But without you and Nableezy agrea this will take long time. I understand he will drop the bold text if Im right. Cant you accept BashBrannigan:s? Its attractive to me as 'Cast Lead' is, even kind of abstract as I never been in Gaza, a name splattered by up to 926 civilians blood. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC

• Yes, November 4 shit started... Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• If you are a Israeli or American jew I like to discuss some tings with you. Because there is some things i dont understand and you could help me with it. But first I think you should stop edit articles about the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 09:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Never mind, hope the weather is good in Brooklyn. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 17:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

His comments, in addition to using inappropriate foul language, are laced with a racist undertone based on ethnicity and demographics. I believe that his invective toward me stems from the fact that his last complaint against me was found to be without merit and fell flat. Indeed, it backfired on him and he became the subject of scrutiny and criticism.

My only regret was poking fun at his spelling and grammar and I have already apologized for that. It actually did not come out the way I meant it but I really had difficulty understanding him, making any meaningful dialouge and exchange of ideas difficult.

Since his last complaint against me, I have refrained from addressing him directly lest I be accused of insulting him again and have asked him not to post on my talk page. He has difficulty comprehending instruction as he still continues to post messages on my page.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps what upsets me most is that (based on his first comment) he assumed that I lived in a certain geographical location and based on that assumption, he presumed that I belonged to a certain ethnicity.Because of that presumed ethnicity, he assumed that I held certain pre-disposed beliefs. He is wrong on all three counts. But I needn't justify myself to him. I am just presenting the facts to you.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The message below was left on my talk page by another editor who encountered similar problems with Mr Unsigned Anon (talk)

I don't know what to make of it or do with it but I analyzed Mr Unsigned Anon's contributions. I can't believe this can be seen as productive, collaborative editing! He has been here for just over a month and worked almost entirely on the issue of the Gaza War. There are few (if any) positive edits, all seem to be editing from a strong anti-Israel bias (POV) and consist mainly of removing material that has been added, with quite a lot of discussion on the talk page, but little or any of it actually calling on Wikipedia policy.

90 total edits since Sept 24, 2009 - 27 of these on just two articles (Gaza War & International Law and the Gaza War) and virtually all of the rest on their talk pages : of the 27 actual article edits, some 15 -over half of all edits were removals of (mostly substantiated) material or reverts.

# [178] -rvt

1. [179] -- moved material to lede
2. [180] rvt
3. [181] rvt
4. [182] rvt sourced material
5. [183] rvt sourced material
6. [184] rvt
7. [185] rvt
8. [186] rvt
9. [187] rvt
10. [188] removed material
11. [189] removed material
12. [190] totally reworked article called it "restructured section"
13. [191] removed sourced material "removed israeli[sic] side exlanation [sic] that it is undue weight in lead"
14. [192] removed sourced material "remove superfluous opinions fron not involved parts" [sic]
15. [193] removed sourced material

I didn't even know there was such a thing as Wiki etiquette alerts, but anyway, that is the only other place besides your talk page and Roma's that he has "contributed" besides the Gaza War. Somehow I find something not terribly polite can be seen in the results of the above analysis. Again not so sure what can be done about it, but maybe something.? Stellarkid (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that this message was posted on Oct 5. Since that time, Mr Anon Unsigned has reverted back to his usual unilateral ways, reverting sourced material without doing any original research of his own. It is truly a frustrating experience to watch your research and sourced edits go down the toilet by someone who's trying to push a non-neutral POV.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Second time that list of editdiffs is up. It was used as an incorrect accusation then and so now. It is second time Jiujitsuguy respond to complains of personal attacks with countercharges [194], and this by his friend stellarkid badly compiled list. Last time it led to a vandalizingwarning by uninvolved editors, later removed "I hearby remove this warning. As, according to the edit difs it doesn't seen like vandalism. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 10:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)" [195] I hope you admins dont let Jiujitsuguy bring you out of focus with this mostly nonsence counteraccusations and really out of context claims. The importent thing shown here is that he have no intension to stop, or change his behavour and I have to ask you to ban or topicban him. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If that's a bad list I want to correct it. I somehow must have copied something other than the diffs, like "previous" or something. I did however check every one when I wrote it up and they were reverts or removals. So please scatch that list if you would and I will put up a corrected one. Not sure what happened but I am sorry if it is wrong as I said earlier. I want to recheck each diff and to find the correct link. Something went screwy if it is wrong. Stellarkid (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand how jiujitsuguy could post it the second time well knowing of its inconcistnsies and faults. Or the first time without checking it. Or just adress my complains in first case. But no... Here we start wars Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> There were mistakes in that list and for that I do apologize to Mr Unsigned Anon. I am not sure how it happened, but I take full responsibility for those mistakes and again am sorry. The list ran from Sept 26-October 5. Most were not real reverts. Just a couple. Two were duplicates of each other. One was a proper revert of (anti-Israel) vandalism. One had just moved stuff around so much it seemed disappeared. Here are the ones that I do feel are relevant and that demonstrate that Mr Anon is removing (sourced) material based on POV rather than NPOV:

1. [196] Not a revert, but wholesale removal of well-sourced material from a certain perspective -- including removal of JPost, The Economist, Amnesty Internation (Cant understand why the lead is filled upp with pov stuff even if ballansing out eachother. Start a section or continue to use the reportin other sections. I put the stuff I cut in talk for use els)
2. [197] not a revert but a POV removal
3. [198] not a revert but removed huge amounts of sourced material, edit summary {International law: removing opinion and views better discussed in the main article} However the material maintained the opinion of Hamas
4. [199] removed sourced material appears to be a revert -(Edit summary "views, comments away")
5. [200] rvt straightout revert , no comment
6. [201] rvt straightout revert
7. [202] totally reworked article called it "restructured section"'' Removed considerable amount of sourced Israeli POV
8. [203] removed sourced material explaining Israel's reasons for "destroying mosques, houses, medical facilities and schools" -- which was that (according to Israel) they were being used by combatants. This was very POV to remove. (edit summary: "removed israeli[sic] side exlanation [sic] that it is undue weight in lead"
9. [204] removed sourced material "remove superfluous opinions fron not involved parts" [sic] Superflous because it presented an opinion (Cordesman) that could be seen as favorable to Israel.
10. [205] removed sourced material edit summary: "removed the Marc Garlasco stuff) This is arguable, although it might have been less POV to have removed some parts of the material until they could be discussed instead of using a butcher knife.

Again I apologize for my errors. I hope I have not made any in this corrected list. If I have I please ask for you to point them out so that I may correct them Stellarkid (talk) 05:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

So you take full responsibility for this. Start explain why you posting this list and to what purpose. This is ANI. Make a complain accusation or requst for admin action. You edited in Jiujitsus text. Am I supposed to edit aditional analyses in your 'list' ? Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Further, this list surfaced here [206]19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC). Why? What was your intension for creating it? You didnt respond when I asked you to elaborate. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your way of teaming[207] up with jiujitsuguy raise conserns, early on by making the list. And this show you are not unawere about your lists intent to be used against editors not supporting your POV [208] Same spirit as Jiujitsuguy. The list nonsence, and the making of it, tells about a mission. Importent enough to keep list on supposed opponents editing. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, you was the one Godwined yourself!

• 5 oct 08:10 "Revert to your heart's desire just don't call it the Gaza War or Operation Cast Lead. Call it a recruiting poster for Hamas and don't forget to throw in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" while you're at it."

Note timestamp, and stopp insinuate racism. As you remember from Wikiquett that was not your first , what you call "gem". Wikiquett is a problemsolving, not action taking by anyone. Your counterattack made me back off after understanding you are not reasonable. I dropped it. Two times. This is diferent. Adress my first complain. This one:

"Incidentally, I just want to add that we (all editors) were playing quite nicely in the sand box together until Mr unsigned Anon came along, reverting like a madman and tossing and mixing paragraphs and sentences as though this article was a salad. The edit wars began with him and unfortunately, protection status was instituted becuase of him and his inability to work with others" Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 04:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr Anon, I had to go look up what it meant to "Godwin" oneself. Jiujitsuguy was perhaps over the top with the remark about Protocols but it was not a direct personal attack. Antisemitism and the Nazi treatment of Jews in WWII is no joke or game, especially in an environment such as WP and editing of articles in relation to Israel and Palestine, where there is a need for sensitivity on both sides of the fence. Remembering that the European Union's working definition includes using a double standard when discussing events controversial issues such as is inevitable in an article such as Gaza War. I am not a "friend" of Juijisugy but a colleague in the Wikipedia endeavor, as I am your colleague as well, and I read hints of ethnic profiling in your remarks on his talk page. Perhaps it would have been better to discuss your real intent or meaning when you noticed he was sensitive to your remarks rather than dragging him to a wikicourt and making jokes about "Godwining" himself. Stellarkid (talk) 18:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about in Jiujitsuguys place? And why? I find this a strange answer to the request above. Mr Unsigned Anon (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Filed an Arbitration case see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gaza_.22Wikipedia_Edit_War.22 --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions) 21:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mr unsigned Anon's attempt to bait and goad me into an edit war

This is the latest, just posted message left on my Talk page by Mr Unsigned Anon baiting and goading me to engage him in an edit war. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jiujitsuguy#Gaza_War_3 This last post should make it clear to you who's at fault here.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC) It is specifically for this reason and other reasons involving racist undertones, that I had in the past informed Mr Unsigned Anon not to post on my page. Make no mistake, he will come across as apologetic and naive but he is well versed in Wiki rules and regs more so than me. He knows exactly how far to push the envelope without going over, though I think in this instance, he certainly did go over the line.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unhelpful and irrelevant comments by Mr Unsigned Anon

Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_War#POV_tag for Mr Unsigned Anon's latest "helpful contribution" to the Gaza Discussion page. Instead of adding something that someone can genuinely respond to, he spews at best, incoherent gibberish and at worst, another profanity.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC) It is extremely difficult to respond to this type of comment as it adds nothing and gets us nowhere. I sincerely hope that some sanction is imposed against Mr Unsigned Anon.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of Alzheimer's Research

Resolved

 – All content deleted, NormanAJ (talk · contribs) blocked indef.  Sandstein  06:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Censorship of Alzheimer's Research possibly libelous? Should it be speedily deleted?--RadioFan (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Not libelous, just silly soapboxing for some agenda. I've nominated it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Censorship of Alzheimer's Research.  Sandstein  15:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've speedy closed. The 'article' was simply soapboxing a particular point of view, and acting as a coatrack for a request for people to contact an advocacy group. The title is grossly inappropriate, and the AfD is already snowballed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

NormanAJ

I don't know what should be done about NormanAJ (talk · contribs). This user has been posting long, incoherent rants about Alzheimer's on his userpage, user talk page, two user subpages, and in article space (Alzheimer's disease Theory, Censorship of Alzheimer's Research) as well as the already-deleted 20 Trillion reasons for Alzheimer's disease. In just one day, his userpage has become flooded with warning after warning, and he has made no attempt to communicate with other users. There are absolutely no useful edits among this user's contribs. I have no idea what this user is trying to do, but it's clearly not beneficial to the encyclopedia and may warrant a block. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 15:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur that a block is appropriate for being a soapboxing-only account. I've declined your CSD request of User:NormanAJ/test because it does not clearly meet any WP:CSD, but if we get consensus here that this user and his rants are not welcome, that should be a sufficient basis for deletion.  Sandstein  16:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The Google cache of Safe Food also shows unambiguous promotion of a nonprofit with no web presence at all. At a guess, it probably consists of this one person. I would guess the user is never going to be a positive addition to the project. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You need consensus for an indef block? Okay, support. Honestly, this should be a no-brainer. But I also think nationalist POV pushers should be indeffed, so what do I know? Auntie E. 16:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for this kind of soap-boxing. An indefinite block is appropriate. There is no indication that this is accidental nor the actions of a inexperienced newcomer.--RadioFan (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm strongly inclined to believe that the 'articles' created were indeed the work of an 'inexperienced newcomer'. His actions certainly don't demonstrate significant Wikipedia-related experience. The articles were under remarkably nonstandard titles, no inline wikiformatting was used, he made some test edits in the sandbox, in some cases he put duplicate text in the article and associated talk pages, and so forth. He's got a conspiracy theory, he's shaky (I'm being charitable) on the science, and he's desperately trying to publish The Truth — but I don't think he's a returning editor. That said, while I see no evidence of bad faith – he isn't doing any sort of SEO spamming, or damaging our existing articles, or being abusive to other editors – I doubt that this particular individual will ever be in a position to make a beneficial contribution to the project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with TenOfAllTrades and am indefinitely blocking the user.  Sandstein  06:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since no one else has commented about -- "long, incoherent rants about Alzheimer's". It can truly be a sad thing when one's mind is going. -- llywrch (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me! This one I'm using is second-hand, with one careful owner and several careless ones. Remind me tomorrow, perhaps. Rodhullandemu 23:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Leveque

Resolved

 – Blocked for three months

Leveque (talk · contribs · logs · block log) appears to have no interest in contributing to Wikipedia other than to promote himself against WP:COI and harass anyone who intervenes when he does so. He's been blocked for spamming against his conflict of interest and using sockpuppets to avoid the blocks. See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_36#User_Leveque and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive564#Sockpuppet_of_blocked_editors_Leveque_and_Loulou_50.

Since returning from his latest block, he's decided that once again he will use his userpage to promote articles he's written in violation of the very policies, guidelines, and consensus for which he's been blocked previously. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet incidents go at sockpuppet investigation and this should go in intervention against vandalism. _Nezzadar_☎_ 17:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV is the link, if you want to follow the above user's suggestion. Equazcion (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Taking it to AIV, since no recent sockpuppet activity. --Ronz (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV still isn't the appropriate forum for something like this. It's better dealt with here. Master of Puppets 22:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the AIV entry. The situation is much more than simple vandalism and spamming. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Leveque returned on October 11 from a one-month block for Spamming links to external sites, block evasion, vandalism of Ronz's user page. This was his third block during the month of September. Now that he has returned to editing he's busy restoring links to all his promotional material to his user page. This is not as bad as re-adding that material to articles, which is what he was formerly doing. If he were an otherwise-productive editor the user page links might be informative, but so far they merely suggest that his attitude to Wikipedia has not changed, and he is not here to help. One option would be to notify him that if he resumes self-promotion in article space, he will be indefinitely blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted his spam linking on his user page again. Wikipedia:SPAM#External_link_spamming clearly states that such links are not allowed. I believe he has been notified on this? Meh. Netalarmtalk 02:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for three months by Kafziel. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Blogs used as references

For the last 2½ weeks or so, editors have been trying to remove links to a blog used as a reference in an article. The blog in question is http://mentalblog.com/ , an apparently defunct, anonymous blog, and the article is Menachem Mendel Schneerson. I brought the issue to WP:RS/N (see Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com), where it seemed the consensus was pretty overwhelming in favor of removal, but two or three movement members are insisting on the article Talk: page that the blog is nonetheless reliable as a source for Schneerson's will, based on their personal knowledge of Schneerson's signature etc. They refuse to allow links to the blog in references to be removed, and revert any such removal within minutes. Since article Talk: page discussion and WP:RS/N discussion appears to have made no impact, I've brought the issue here for wider review. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The assertion made by this editor is incorrect. The main argument is that there is no consensus to remove a source which contains what I and other editors know to be genuine copies of the original. I have explained so in a reply to this editor on my talkpage, please see there as to whether his removal reflected consensus. The blog source removed by Jayjg and restored by me and others is just a PDF copy of two pages from a book. I and others have seen that book, and it is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability. Several editors have reversed his removals and protested against them on the talkpage of Menachem Mendel Schneerson, but Jayjg insists he is right and keeps seeking other venues inside Wikipedia (first Wikipedia:RS/N and now WP:ANI) that would justify him, and is overly zealous on this subject (see the length and time frame of the discussions), which is also no appreciated by other editors. Debresser (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you've seen the book, why not source the book instead of the blog? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Debresser's post above is a perfect example of the issue; the blog is a reliable source because "I and other editors know [them] to be genuine copies of the original." In the same dispute, Debresser has refused to give page numbers for "the book" in question, though he has inserted it as a reference, explaining that he read it years ago, but is sure it contains the material somewhere. His co-members of the movement have insisted—based on their personal assessment of "the book"— that "the book", published by little-known rabbi on an unknown press, is more reliable than books published by a university professor-subject matter expert, on reliable presses. Debresser and a couple of others have refused to accept that Wikipedia is guided by WP:V and WP:RS, not their personal assessments of source reliability. See the RS/N or Talk page discussions for more details. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let me lift the relevant part out of the previous paragraph for easy reading: it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Your lifting words out of context is not appreciated. And nobody has refused to accept any Wikipedia guideline as you assert without any proof. It is just that editors disagree with you as to the reliabilty of certain sources. You seem to have a problem with that. That is not good on Wikipedia, which is based on consensus. And that is the real issue here with you. You just don't have consensus for your removal, as I explained to you on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPS says that blogs are not reliable. Please explain why the defunct, anonymous blog mentalblog.com is exempt from this rule. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to enagage in this content-related dispute for the third time. You have had your answers on the talkpage and on that noticeboard. Now please calm down and accept the fact that people disagree with you. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"Calm down"? Please don't speculate about other editors' emotional state. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Stick to the issue please. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about reliable verifiable sources, not what you know to be the truth. Find a suitable source for the information, otherwise it should come out. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We have heard that before. You completely ignore the subject. Which, BTW, reminds me that I do not think this is a post for WP:ANI, since this is subject related. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a behavior issue, since you have ignored the consensus at WP:RS/N, and continue to edit-war the blog link as a reference into the article.[209][210] Jayjg ^(talk) 23:02, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

People should have the decency not to revert in the middle of a wp:ani discussion. Not after being informed of that, at least. Debresser (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. So stop reverting. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

As I told you before on my talkpage, your so-called consensus is disputable. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, three members of the movement say it's reliable, 7 uninvolved editors say it's not. Not much that's "disputable" there. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a factual untruth, and ill becomes you. It is sad you have decided to resort to such methods. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I said it wasn't reliable, as did Fiflefoo, Itsmejudith, Squidfrychef, Dlabtot, Slp1 and Nathan. That's 7 editors who say it's unreliable, none, as far as I know, involved with the Chabad movement. Against that we had you and Zsero saying that the blog was reliable, and Bongomatic wouldn't opine on the issue, saying it was the wrong question/board. So, I don't think my math was that far off, was it? Which part was the "factual untruth"? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The part omitting Count Iblis here, Bongomatic, who is clearly enough in favor of keeping the blog, and Yehoishophot Oliver on the talkpage. Squidfryerchef and Itsmejudith are not clearly against on the noticeboard, as far as I understand. All of this are things you conveniently do not mention or alter. Debresser (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no involvement in this whatsoever, as I've never even heard of the article prior to this discussion. But I am absolutely flabbergasted that a well-respected editor such as Debresser would even consider trying to claim that personal knowledge is an acceptable source. Blogs are not reliable sources for such material, period, find a reliable source. How difficult is that? Edit warring isn't the way to deal with a sourcing dispute. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please follow the thread. I said "you have ignored the consensus at WP:RS/N". Count Iblis didn't comment there, nor did Chabad member Yehoishophot Oliver. As for Bongomatic, fortunately we are able to read his exact words on: "A primary source (such as a will) is appropriate in various cases—I am not opining on whether this is such an instance." I have no opinion in this particular case. As for the rest, the words of the individuals are plainly evident from the links I provided. So, yeah, 7 uninvolved editors said it was unreliable, 2 movement members said it was reliable, and 1 editor wouldn't give an opinion. All done here. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And rightfully so. That is why am I so happy I have not made such a claim. Please read my words carefully. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Gentleman, what you're missing is that while personal knowledge is not a valid source for facts, it is certainly a valid source for the reliability of sources. What "reliable source" do we cite for the proposition that the NYT is a reliable source? We don't, and we don't have to. The only personal knowledge Debresser and I (and others) are claiming is that the scanned page does indeed appear in the book. -- Zsero (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, since Jayjg has forgotten to do so, I posted at Talk:Menachem Mendel Schneerson that this discussion is taking place. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors, please read everything carefully, and understand what the issues are. Has any of you had a look at the disputed footnote already? Debresser (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayig is ignoring one crucial fact: the blog is not cited as a source for anything. The will itself is the source; it is a primary source, cited for nothing more than what it says, and for that purpose it is the best possible source. (Secondary sources are only needed for interpretation, not for direct quotes or description.) The blog is simply a URL where a scan of the will can be found, for the reader's convenience. If the will were not to be found anywhere on the web, it would still be just as valid a source, but the reader would not be able to personally verify that it says what the article describes it as saying; linking to the copy at the blog solves this.

The scan itself is obviously genuine, which can be determined by anyone familiar with the subject's signature, which thousands of people are. It is also known to be genuine because it appears in the book which is cited as a source; that's where the blog scanned it from in the first place! Removing the link to the blog cannot possibly make the article better or more useful, and therefore is against the prime WP rule: to make a better encyclopaedia. -- Zsero (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me see if I've got this right: 1-"anyone familiar with the subject's signature" has now become a reliable source. 2-"it appears in the book which is cited as a source", except the cite is to a blog, not to the book, which for some reason the proponents are reluctant to source to. Is this correct? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the third time: it (the book) is mentioned in the article as a source together with the blog. The blog is kept mainly for easy accessability Debresser (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you had that look at the footnote as recommended? Debresser (talk) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Coming late to the discussion here, but we don't use "convenience" links. We site the reliable source. We don't provide unreliable sources to hold the information as "convenience" because we can't trust that the unreliable source is holding the correct information. You might assert it is, but no other editor can trust that. They are after all, an unreliable source. That means that we sometimes have citations without weblinks and that is fine.--Crossmr (talk) 23:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. This is the point - the book exists, and will not be changed. The scan may be accurate now, but it may change later. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

How can any .pdf file, which can be created by anybody with minimal forgery, be used as a reliable source? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We must have 100-250-500 thousand PDF sources on Wikipdia, as you well know. So your point of view is untenable. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

PDFs found on reliable sources are considered reliable. PDFs found on blogs are not. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have the book and can supply the page numbers required for the source. To be sure the blog is not being used as a source, the source is the book. The question now is if we may link to this blog (which itself is undoubtedly not a reliable source) just for convenience sake. Is that a problem? there are actually many references in articles which link to blogs and private websites, should these also be removed? can we finalize what wikipedia's policy should be for these links (or has it been done already)?

About the book Heshbono shel Olam: It is written by Binyamin Lipkin and published by "Mechon Hasefer". Avraham Alashvili is the head of this Mechon (organization). Lipkin has written another book I know about callad "Al Hakavenet" about the Brooklyn Bridge terrorist shooting and the aftermath. This second book is published by " Hostzaot Toras Chayim" which I believe is well know publisher in Israel. Shlomke (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

All that is in the article already, apart from the precise pagenumbers. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. In general, blogs are not acceptable sources. You'd have to give specific links as to whether or not the blog is a reliable source. If you have the book, if you sourced the claim to that, it would solve this entire mess. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. we have heard that ad nauseandum already. Debresser (talk)

And yet, for some reason, you are refusing to do the bare minimum needed to end this contretemps. Is it just a matter of bullheadedness, and that it has to be your way or no way? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Talking about "bullheadiness". For the fourth time: the book is already there as a source. Please leave this discussion... Debresser (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Without a dispute about statements made in the source, it is not ok. to remove the source, even if it is a type of source that you would prefer not to use in general. Count Iblis (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand which side of this discussion you're endorsing here. But I'm out of this discussion, I don't like beating my head against a wall and it's clear that nobody here is interested in trying to resolve this, they're just interested in getting their way. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me help you. He says: "keep the blog". As have many before him. Which is my point, that there is no consensus for its removal. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You have it exactly backwards. Zsero added the blog link on October 1. There was no consensus for its addition. There still is none. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the beginning there was chaos, then... How far do you want to go back? Debresser (talk) 23:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's go back to when the link to the blog was first added. I believe that was on October 1, 2009, by Zsero, was it not? And it was reverted in the very next edit, was it not? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the clear question here is as follows: Why does the blog need to be cited if the content exists in an identical fashion in a book already cited within the article? 100 words or less please.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

For the same reason why I included preprints links in this article and in many other articles: accessibility Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And how do we know that the material on this defunct, anonymous blog is an accurate representation? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The blog is not anonymous, he has stated his name many times: Tzemach Atlas living in the Boston area. Shlomke (talk) 23:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And what is the problem with it being defunct? Asimov is also "defunct": he is dead. Debresser (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I have now inserted the page numbers of Lipkin's book. Those are the same copy's. You and anyone else can check them. I hope this this solves the problem as Who then was a gentleman? suggested.Shlomke (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

One would hope, but I have no doubt the blog link will soon be back. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if the issue has been resolved, why shouldn't it? Shlomke (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Because it has been resolved by providing a (somewhat) better source, so there's no need for the irredeemably unreliable one. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The link to the blog is a copy to what both sources are discussing, it's not being used as a source, it's there for accessibility. Shlomke (talk) 00:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review the discussion at WP:RS/N. Aside from the fact that WP:V and WP:RS specifically exclude these kinds of sites as reliable, the concern raised by seven editors there (and several other editors here) is that we had no reliable source indicating that blog pdf was an accurate representation of anything. Wikipedia editors, btw, don't count as reliable sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, I've been in similar disputes before and my experience is that what you are doing here is unnecessarily causing a conflict. I think this is as far as you could take it. You could temporarily add the "dubious" tag and then try to get hold of the book or try to contact people who have the book to verify if the PDF file is bona fide. As I understand it, Shlomke has already done that. The problem with remove the link to the blog is that no one has raised questions about about the contents. This will then cause anger. It is a bit similar to how not sticking to AGF causes anger. You are a priori treating a valuable source of information as unreliable, even though it may well be 100% accurate. Count Iblis (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you review the consensus at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com, which was exactly the opposite of your position? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You've won me over. Although I do not doubt these particular scans since I'm able to compare them to the book and I see them to be the same, as a rule if this practice were allowed, there would be many fakes on WP as anyone can make any image they want, put it up on a website or blog and claim it is a primary source. I will wait for this discussion to finish before editing. Shlomke (talk) 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jayjg, from a pure Wiki Law perspective you are right. But then Wikipedia is not based on rules. In this particular case, your objections to the blog link based on only Wiki Law has raised tensions. You can imagine that allowing the blog link for pragmatic reasons here and perhaps in other articles on similar grounds may lead to new rules for potentially unreliable sources. This case is exceptional because we have an editor who has verified that the blog link gives accurate information. Count Iblis (talk) 02:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, what you may not know is that even the source this material is allegedly copied from is not reliable. It's a book published by a nearly unknown publisher, written by a rabbi whose only other claim to notability is that he apparently at one time edited a small weekly haredi newspaper. And neither source is even necessary; the article already has links to a reliable book that contains all the necessary information, so there's no need for either the blog pdf or the book it allegedly comes from! So, tell me, what's the point in including them? We already have a reliable source for all the information, so why put in the unreliable ones too? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

About reliability of of Heshbono shel Olam: As pointed out above, it is published by "מכון הספר" ("Mechon Hashefer") a publishing organization run by Rabbi Avraham Alashvili. When doing a google search for "מכון הספר" 289 results come up. There seems to be another org. with this same name that is not connected, but there are still plenty of results for this books publisher. I have a book published by them called "Hefsek B'Tefila" written by Rabbi Yoav Lemberg. The Agudas Chasidei Chabad Library lists them as a publisher in a listing of publishers. About Binyamin Lipkin, I see another book by him called "Al Hakavenet" as mentioned above, printed by Hotzaot Toras Chayim 52,800 results. 40,600 for בנימין ליפקין. No question about reliability. The question is if this source is necessary, especially since we have an English source. But the English source does not have copy's of the will's, which the Hebrew one does. So if an editor is insisting on inserting it, then why not? Shlomke (talk) 04:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "No question about reliability"? Is "Mechon Hashefer" a vanity press? Is it the personal enterprise of Rabbi Avraham Alashvili? Does it have a website? Is there any third-party information about it? Just publishing a few books doesn't immediately make this a reliable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Bali ultimate

Bali ultimate is reverting on Menachem Mendel Schneerson, even after he was informed that this is the subject of a wp:ani discussion. In fact he removed my comment rudily from his talkpage. Debresser (talk) 23:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose warning this editor that this is unacceptetable. Debresser (talk) 23:33, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And you keep reverting him in turn. Do you propose warning yourself too? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't have to add here every ill thought through comment that pops to mind. Really. Debresser (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

In particular, I was reverting to the version from right before this thread, and only his uncvivil edits. Uncivil in that they mix into a discussion. Debresser (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether it's the subject of AN/I discussion or not, there is no reason to suspend editing of the article.   pablo_hablo. 23:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I consider it a lack of decency not to await the outcome of the discussion. Perhaps you mean other edits, that are non related? That I agree with. Debresser (talk) 23:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

And it seems everybody else considers leaving it against our policy. Grsz¹¹ 23:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not considering your personal standards of decency, nor would I, just normal editing practice.   pablo_hablo. 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked for 24 hours for reverting while knowing full well an attempt to resolve the situation was being made here. In my opinion, that is clearly edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. the same will happen to anyone else who reverts, while knowing the situation here (after this message). I will happily unblock Bali is he agrees to join the discussion and stop reverting. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

More tendentious editing

Here's an example of the kind of tendentious editing that I've been faced with, right in this very thread: I made a comment at 21:22 GMT, referring to "Debresser's post above..." A couple of minutes later, Debresser moves that post below another post of his. Well, of course, at this point my comment "Debresser's post above" no longer makes sense, since it's below a different Debresser post. Despite my moving it back, he moves it under his again, and even changes the indenting, so that it now definitely looks like I'm responding to the second comment, not the first! I try to put it back where it make sense, even explaining in an edit summary that the "Debresser's post above" I refer to is *not* the comment you inserted *after* mine. Nonetheless, he moves my post again, while claiming that I have "no right" to remove his post from its relevant place. This is the kind of topsy-turvy tendentiousness I have to deal with. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's not start a second edit war. Debresser just leave Jayjg's comment where he placed it or I'll have to block you for edit warring. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. But he is mistaking. There was an edit conflict here, and my reply ended up below his, and out of context. I tried to fix that. Debresser (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You are both correct in that both of your posts refer to the post "above" and thus don't make sense out of order. Unfortunately one has to be out of order and yours technically came second because of the edit conflict. I have added {{ec}} to indicate this, which I suggest is a much better may to "fix" things like this in the future. :) That said, it is not something either of you should have been edit warring over as any intelligent person could figure out which post you guys were referring to form the context. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is a blog?

A blog is a (generally non-notable) person's personal opinion, posted on a self-published site where the author is the the sole "editorial control". Thus, they are primary sources. When the blog author is an expert, blogs may be used as primary sources, within limits articulated in other policies. Likewise, when a blog belongs to a newspaper or other traditional media who exercises editorial control over the blog, then the blog is acceptable.

In this case, it appears that a PDF copy of a published source, hosted on a blog site, is being criticized solely because it's on a blog site. That's just silly.

• Would the reference be acceptable without the PDF? Sure seems like it.
• Does linking to the PDF help understanding? That seems to be the argument.
• Is there any editorial control exercised by the poster of the PDF? It seems not.

Thus, the real issues seem to be

1. Is this PDF hosted in violation of copyright laws? If so, it should not be linked... but the fact that it is hosted on a blog site has nothing to do with that.
2. Is the PDF a copy of a vanity press book, rather than an RS book selected and edited with appropriate editorial control? If so, then it should be limited to use as an unreliable source.

And yes, ANI is a silly place for this. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, what would make the blog author an expert? Shlomke (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone who has been cited and published as such. If an individual is constantly cited or interviewed on a subject, they can be considered an expert on it. We let reliable sources determine who are experts and who are not. Their self-published sources are usable only in the context of what they are an expert on. So someone who is constantly interviewed about military policy might be an expert on military policy but if he wrote a post about how his Toyota is a piece of crap we couldn't cite him on that.--Crossmr (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If they are a recognized academic expert in a field, who has published in third-party reliable sources on the subject. Deborah Lipstadt, for example, who is an expert on Holocaust denial, has a blog, which one could cite (with caution) on the topic of Holocaust denial. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do they have to be an academic to be an expert? I think not. Shlomke (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they have to be published and recognized as such. Their personal qualifications are immaterial if reliable sources are referring to them and using them as experts.--Crossmr (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have no evidence that the person hosting that PDF hasn't altered it or won't alter it in the future. That is why we don't link to it. An unreliable source holding "reliable" information isn't usable. Cite the reliable source. We don't use convenience links because we can't trust them. They can cite it without the blog link and its perfectly fine.--Crossmr (talk) 02:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Then should every Google Books link to content be removed? After all, Google isn't a reliable source. Your argument assumes bad faith on the part of the non-RS, that it would falsify material. If the blog site claims to reproduce a verbatim copy of a copyrighted RS document, the primary issue is copyright. If it's fair use, it would then fall to the person who challenges its veracity to demonstrate that the offline RS doesn't say what a (potentially) unreliable RS says. Your interpretation would provide the torturous outcome that I can claim an offline RS says XYZ and not be subject to challenge except through someone going to get a copy of the offline source, but that someone else can claim an offline RS says XYZ, cite a PDF of an allegedly verbatim copy on an unreliable website, and the document link can be challenged, but not the content of the assertion. That's just silly. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think falsification is the suspicion standing behind the policies. And this has been mentioned on the talkpage before. That a suspection of falsification is not acceptable as an argument, unless there exist specific reasons to suspect so. Debresser (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the blog isn't reliable is enough to make the copy suspect. A source which isn't reliable is unreliable by wikipedia's standards and we simply cannot link to it in a citation, because it isn't the source. The book/original document is the source.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this can be an interpretation fo wp:rs. I find it hard to agree with this interpretation though. And with me other editors involved in this discussion. Debresser (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really want to compare Joe blogger to google a public organization? The problem with the document link isn't whether or not you or I believe the document has been falsified, its that the average reader of wikipedia has no way of knowing who this blogger is and where these pages came from. It becomes a crutch and it misleads the reader into thinking the reliable source is the linked documents and not what is actually being sourced. Google is a public company and depending on what goes on behind google books, there could be a case made to consider what they scan and publish on to be reliable sources.--Crossmr (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jclemens, it's silly this ended up here. It started on the article Talk: page, then moved to the RS/N board, where 7 people said it was an unreliable source (against the two editors who kept inserting it). When those two editors insisted that there still wasn't really a consensus against inserting it, it moved here, because that's pretty much the next logical step. While one could argue that it was initially—in part—a content dispute, once the RS/N consensus was clear, it became an issue of inappropriate behavior; see Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Signs of disruptive editing, which describes this behavior pretty exactly (particularly "Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability" and "Rejects community input"). Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he's looking for a wider audience (sometimes denigrated as "forum shopping"). I've seen far too many "we can't cite blogs" rote arguments, without understanding the basis for such an argument in the actual policies like V, N, and RS. I am not speaking to conduct issues, but failing to take an unreasonable answer and walk away is not disruptive editing. Frankly, I'm unimpressed with the responses in this section. You may all be ticked off at the guy for bringing it here, but calm down, have a nice cup of WP:TEA, and think through the policy bases for the exclusion of such a link. It's not as strong as the level of consternation would imply. Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The one forum shopping is Jayjg, who started out on the talkpage, met unanymous disagreement, continued on the noticeboard to get support, and now came to WP:ANI to get it enforced. Isn't the talkpage where it should be decided what should and should not be in the article in this specific case? I find it interesting, that on the talkpage all editors apart from Jayjg want to keep the blog, while on the noticeboard almost all are against keeping the blog (counting again Jayjg with those against and the people who came from the article talkpage as in favor). It does suggest to me that those who know what they are talking about have a better understanding of the issue than outside noticeboards (that are notorious for being frequented by their respective hardliners). Debresser (talk) 06:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any forum shopping. It is perfectly reasonable to go to the reliable sources noticeboard for the review of a source. And no, the talk page of the article is not where it should be decided if a source is reliable or not, as not many editors would see the discussion, and it is prudent in such a discussion that uninvolved editors are present for the obtaining of consensus. Lastly, seeing as how you are so steadfast in refusing to abide by WP policy regarding reliable sources, he brought the discussion here for enforcement. Perfectly reasonable.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Going there is reasonable in general, but in this case, where there was unanymous disagreement on the talkpage, that was forumshopping. Then trying to enfore his opinion by coming to WP:ANI, even though there was no clear consensus (although I agree a certain majority shares his opinion) was incorrect. I'm unwatching this discussion. If there will be any things that concern me personally, please contact me on my talkpage. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 10:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

By "unanymous disagreement on the talkpage", you must mean the three Chabad members who seemed to be unaware of or uninterested in WP:V and WP:RS. Taking an RS issue to the WP:RS/N board is not "forum shopping", it's recommended procedure. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• We have two issues. #1 is the book reliable? Bring it to the reliable sources noticeboard. I suspect it is not. #2 is a link the to blog of a copy of the page unacceptable? Assuming that the book is found to be a reliable source, we have often linked to scanned copies of a page. Often. I'd say cite the book and provide the link. If the book isn't a reliable source, it might be reasonable to mention the book if a RS has discussed or at least mentioned the book. Otherwise, out it goes. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just put it in external links. Per WP:ELMAYBE, external links can include, "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Really, you're not trying to use it as a reference, because you already have a reference (the book). So put it in an external links section. Assuming that the copyright issues mentioned are found to not be a problem. -- Atama頭 22:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, although if the goal is to let people find the will that might make it a bit harder. Ah well, it seems reasonable and within our guidelines. Hobit (talk) 23:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I already brought the book to the RS/N noticeboard. Unsurprisingly, the consensus of uninvolved editors there was that it was not reliable. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
      • The consensus at Wikipedia:RS/N#mentalblog.com was mainly about using the blog as a reference (vs linking for accessibility which we are discussing here), not about the book. I've added additional information above about the reliability of the book which I think would make the book pass. Do you suggest I put that information there too (even though that was not the intention of that notice, as the name suggests), or perhaps start a new discussion? Shlomke (talk) 03:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright

Jclemens touched on a good point above that no one seems to be discussing. Ignoring the fact whether this blog should be used a "convenience" for a WP:RS (which I personally think is ridiculous), if copies of pages of the book are copyrighted, we shouldn't be linking to them. Period. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• We link to material that is under copyright all the time. Sometimes to nyt.com. Sometimes to archive.org or googlebooks. As long as the selection we are linking to is legal (under the fair use doctrine) I think we are fine. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is whether the blog is a violation of copyright. In that case, we wouldn't link to it. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Aye. For example, we might link to an official site with a film trailer on it; we wouldn't link to a site with a pirated copy on it. Black Kite 20:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but we might (and do) link to other sites that (for example) make fair use quotes of copyrighted material. And we often link to archive.org for copyrighted material that is no longer available on the original site. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the blog would not be in violation of copyright, because the will's in the book are not the original work of the author, they are copy's of the Rabbi's will's (perhaps public info?) Shlomke (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Above when giving some detailed facts, you wrote "why not?". It seems to me that Jayjg and everyone else should ask this question. It's time to write up a new wiki policy WP:Why not?, an extention of WP:IAR. Count Iblis (talk) 23:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not? becuase linking to this blog does several things, it gives the impression that the blog or the author of the blog are some kind of reliable source, it also drives traffic to a random blog. Allowing these kinds of links would not only imply credibility to unreliable sources they would end up being used to host content just to get traffic from wikipedia as holding convenience links. We currently don't have anyway to differentiate between a reliable source and a convenience link and I'm completely against putting any kind of unreliable source in a position to masquerade as a reliable one.--Crossmr (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. There's a reason we have WP:V and WP:RS. Heck, we're not even supposed to link to blogs as external links; see WP:ELNO, number 11. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

But it's not a link to a blog, is it? It's a link to a document being hosted at a web site that also hosts a blog. Now, I agree that the blog itself isn't a reliable source, but a link to the document should be allowable per WP:ELMAYBE if it's not being used as a reference. -- Atama頭 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can host anything on a website. Is that website a reliable source? Its not a citation unless its being hosted by a reliable source. Otherwise we're giving credibility to random websites, blogs, etc.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, my comment "why not" above was not about linking to the blog, it was about using the book "Cheshbono Shel Olam" as an additional reference. See above. I'm basically in agreement at this point with what you and Jayjg are saying. I would like to see what the final consensus is on this issue and apply it to similar situations in the future.Shlomke (talk) 02:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, okay. If the talk from RS/N is properly quoted, then it would seem like the majority support not linking it, which has in the past been the agreement I've always worked under.--Crossmr (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

user:Noleander and antisemitism-related articles

Resolved

 – Article at AFD

This] article, which seems to be largely if not wholely written by him, seems to be a thinly disguised pretext to bring out the anti-Semitic slur of Jews controlling the media. I find this personally offensive and I consider it a real embarassment to Wikipedia. The article on anti-Semitism can itself cover such "controversies," or articles on individual people who may have been accused of anti-Semitism, or, if I can figure out what makes this article "balanced," accused (yuch) of being Jewish. What next? Controversies related to the prevalence of Italians in organized crime? Controversies related to the prevalence of African Americans in crack- houses? Hate is easy once you get started. Slapping the word "controversy" on it does not make it go down any easier, and it certainly doesn't convert it into an encyclopedia article. How many racial stereotypes are we going to parade around at Wikipedia? I realize I could put in for an RfC but it is my hope that the disgraceful nature of this is evident to enough others that we don't need a prolongued debate. But what kind of person would even think to create such an article? I view it as an attack against me. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto on everything said by Slrubenstein, word-for-word it is also my opinion as both a Jew and an editor of Wikipedia.Camelbinky (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, that article is a disgrace. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to weigh in on the question of anti-semitism as I do not know either user:Noleander or user:Slrubenstein. However, having looked at the article and some of the sources, I have sent this to AfD here and will let the larger community make an appropriate decision. I do think that some caution needs to be exercised whenever an accusation such as this one is made as it may violate WP:NPA by making an accusation about a user that may not be true. Frmatt (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I was in the middle of sending it to AfD when someone else beat me to it. Black Kite 20:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of antisemitic accusations --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I didnt see a personal attack, and that definitely was not my intention by dittoing what slrubenstein said. I saw the lead of this thread asking the question if that user was a bigot or not, a very valid question because that user may indeed have such a history of being one here on Wikipedia and someone might be able to answer. Anyone reading the article can clearly see that it does seems to be intended as a slur. Nobody said that the user was indeed a racist or that he did intend it as a slur. I am sorry if someone thought it might have been an attack on the contributor (creator?) of the said article, but when for 4000 years your family has been attacked verbally and physically maybe the skin gets a little thin and tolerance for such slurs on your family gets old.Camelbinky (talk) 21:09, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what remaining objective is all about. I'm not defending the author, but I think it's more important to judge the article alone, rather than the person, and do so based on Wikipedia's standards rather than personal feelings (as much as is humanly possible). Equazcion (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't accuse anyone of a personal attack or of violating WP:NPA. I was simply counselling caution about using phrases such as "anti-semite" which make a judgement on a person's character. I don't want good editors to end up blocked because they used phrases such as that one. Frmatt (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to confirm what Camelbinky wrote - it was a question. But I asked it because I felt attacked. In my mind anti-Semitism is an action, not a quality of one's character. I cannot comment on anyone's character, only on their actions. Put much more simply, I am asking other people with experience here if I have grounds to feel attacked. As to the others who have focused on the article and who have nominated it for deletion, I just have to thank you for taking action. Since I felt attacked, I hesitated t nominating it for deletion myself, as others could accuse me of self-interest which actually is kind of frightening also). Slrubenstein | Talk 21:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Cameron Scott seems to have found another article this same user has contributed to significantly and/or created. I know two articles doesnt make a pattern, but well, can someone take a look at Noleander's contributions and see if there seems to be a pattern of vandalism or disruption to existing legitimate Jewish-related articles or if there are more anti-semitic articles that this person has created? For those two articles alone there should be a strongly worded warning posted on the editor's talk page I would think. And IF there is found to be a pattern perhaps more action than just deleting the articles and posting a warning on the editor needs to be done so the editor learns this isnt acceptable. I am just wondering if an admin is willing to take some time in looking into the editor's background?Camelbinky (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The user appears to be engaged in canvassing, and as the user has been here for years, should know better. -- Avi (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein and Camelbinky, if you believe the article(s) written by Noleander are problematic, take them to AfD, please, and not to ANI. Asking these sorts of loaded questions on ANI, and thereby accusing another editor of racism - a very serious allegation where I live - is a violation of good faith and our policy against personal attacks, and I strongly advise you not to do it again unless you have many and very persuasive diffs to back it up. (This comment is, of course, not an endorsement or defense of any actual anti-semitic disruption that may have been going on.)  Sandstein  06:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I still have an open mind on whether the article itself should be deleted or massively rewrittten. But this thread seems a textbook case of the phenomenon being discussed. Of course it is possible to suggest that such accusations are misused without oneself being an antisemite. RolandR 07:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I share Slrubenstein's concern, although I have toned down the thread title[211] as being needlessly accusatory. Further, although I won't re-open a thread closed by an administrator, this is a potentially viable AN/I matter should a single editor continue in the longer term to create ethnically-charged articles that are deleted after heated debates as unencyclopedic. I don't know where we are on this in terms of ongoing conduct, edit warring, incivility, and other things that usually go along with non-mainstream POV bias, but the articles presently under discussion are indeed troubling and strongly indicate a broader issue that could cause unnecessary strife if the long-term approach is playing whack-a-mole with individual articles. I do note that the editor appears to be civil if opinionated in the deletion debates. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a position on the subject, but I just came across this article and it struck me as being pretty pointless as it's practically an individual's interpretation of a printed work (see notes at the end of the article). --uKER (talk) 18:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've never been involved in an ANI before, so I apologize if I dont understand the protocol. Just a quick history: I like movies, and I like the documentary "An Empire of Their Own". So I created an article on it, and - since it could be perceived as antisemtic - was careful to ensure that the article consisted mostly of quotes from the book, so as to remove any hint of bias by the the editor (me). As I wrote the article, I noticed there was no article on the old bigoted canard that "Jews control hollywood". I wasnt too familiar with the Antisemitism family of articles (and on hindsight I should have investigated the Antisemitic canard article more thoroughly) but I jumped in and wrote an article on "canard that Jews control Hollywood". Once again, I figured that the article could be very offensive, so I (1) mostly just quoted notable sources on the topic; and (2) made the title a softer title that wouldnt be so offensive ("Controversies about prevalence of jews ..."). Never in my wildest dreams did I think that those articles would be perceived as antisemitic in themselves (after all, there aleady were dozens of existing articles on other antisemtic canards). Finally, writing those articles got me thinking about antisemisitm, and since Im a big fan of Ralph Nader (due to his consumer activism .. I voted for him twice) I stumbled on the topic of "Antisemitism accusations are levied too much", which was also a point made by Noam Chomsky, another of my heros. I looked, and there was no article yet on this topic in Wikipedia, so once again I wrote a new article, using mostly quotes from primary sources to avoid any hint of bias from me, the editor. The fact that all 3 articles got suggested for AfD caught me a bit off-guard. I thought that the goal is to improve articles on notable topics, not to delete them. I do shamelessly admit that I think Wikipedia is overly censored, and suffers from too much political correctness, and that certainly influenced why I chose to write the latter two articles. I continue to believe that all 3 articles are notable, and deserve to be in this encyclopedia. Can they be improved? Absolutely .. and I'll be the first to help do so. --Noleander (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to agree, at least somewhat. I was rather disgusted by the response this particular article got. We're supposed to be the enlightened ones, yet we jumped to calling someone antisemitic for writing articles about antisemitism. I hope this experience hasn't soured you, Noleander, cause Wikipedia needs people willing to make the effort to write articles. Equazcion (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll let you know if it "has soured me" next week after the AfDs are finished :-) --Noleander (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • See, we can take this at face value rather than accusing editors of being antisemitic. I think the intention was quite the opposite. It's easy to upset people when one stumbles across racial/ethnic/religious stereotypes. Things that come off at offensive aren't usually meant to be. Some are upset that the "Jews control Hollywood" thing gets covered, and some were equally indignant when the category "Jewish-American musicians" (or something like it) was deleted. Stereotypes usually have origins in real-world customs, circumstances, or cultural traits. They get perpetuated by the group, its supporters both humble and chauvinistic, and its detractors both critical and bigoted. Cultural myths arise, books get written, films get made, jokes get told, and then there's a question in how to organize our coverage of it in a way that doesn't pay too much, or too little, or the wrong kind of, attention to ethnicity. That's not a question for AN/I, but I do think this is a great reminder to assume good faith, and I'm a little bit humbled that I slipped off that wagon a bit here. I'm still against these articles as a content matter, and think that essay-like coverage of stereotypes is the wrong way to go, but sorry to question the motivations for writing them... - Wikidemon (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Okay, so lets leave it there with the understanding that nobody intended to violate WP:NPA and if it was violated, that it was accidental and not intended to offend anyone...and...that the articles were created with the best of intentions, not to promote one particular POV. So, let's allow the AFDs to run their course and go about our editing, sound good? Frmatt (talk) 21:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If you're talking about closing this discussion, I'd prefer to leave it open for a while. There was a broad AGF violation here, so I don't think it should be swept away quite so quickly. Allow the lesson to sink in a bit, and leave the door open for public apologies, if anyone else has any. It's of course easy for me to act holier-than-thou right now, having not given in to the bandwagon in this particular instance, but I hope that when I do screw up in the future along with a host of respected editors, others won't be so quick to sweep it away either. Equazcion (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:80.177.99.30 at Earth Song

• 80.177.99.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been disrupting the Earth Song article since July. He reverts my edits simply to be disruptive, not even looking at what he is restoring: factually incorrect information, grammatical errors, original research, unreliable sources and links to copyright material. He has been warned numerous times (including one following a previous report to ANI), but fails to heed them. Pyrrhus16 20:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a clear case, he's reverting all of your edits. Support blocking of the IP, or Topic ban if that's possible with IP users.--SKATER ^Speak. 14:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's now reverted another editor from a different IP. I agree with the above suggested block, or semi-protection of the article. Pyrrhus16 18:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Likebox and tendentious re-insertion of original research

I apologize for the length of this post; the incident has been on and off for several years, so a thorough description is necessarily somewhat long. Brief summary: this is essentially a case of "I didn't hear that" regarding WP:OR. Discussion has been attempted several times to no avail, and so I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to review the situation.

User:Likebox (talk · contribs) has, in several incidents since 2007, inserted what he calls "modern proofs" into the articles Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. These were removed because they give original interpretations of the material that cannot be sourced to the literature on the subject. Likebox acknowledges that his motivation is that he feels that the literature should have been written in a different way:

• [212] "There is nothing wrong with the proofs, except that they are different than the usual textbook presentations."
• [213]: "I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake."
• [214]: "The modern "literature" is textbooks, which are written by a different process than research papers, and are not generally very well written."

These arguments are parallel to the arguments he made in 2007, such as [215] "Wikipedia is a place where certain questions need to be resolved. What constitutes a valid recursion theory proof is one of those questions. ... Textbook proofs are reworked by secondary authors, and they are, as a rule, the worst proofs in the literature."

Numerous attempts have been made to resolve this via discussion. Some of the older discussions are at:

• Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems/Archive 3 (November 2007, starting with the section "modern proof")
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Formal statement redux (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#What Is A Rigorous Proof? (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Likebox edits (March 2008).

Likebox acknowledges that, when he inserted this material before, it did not gain consensus [216]. He now says he is making the edits to make a point, to press his case for a proposed guideline [217] .

When Likebox inserted the material again this month, the matter was raised at

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Halting_problem_and_Likebox
• Wikipedia:NORB#Halting_problem_and_Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Several editors in these two discussion pointed out that the novel proofs should not be added [218], [219], [220], [221] (not counting those who said this the last time it was added), and consensus is against including the material that Likebox has added. Nevertheless, Likebox reverted his edits again today [222]. Likebox has said he plans to continue doing this [223].

Because the consensus against adding this material that developed both in past discussions and in the more recent discussions has failed to convince Likebox to stop adding this material, I would like to ask some uninvolved administrator to review the situation. Likebox appears to be a productive editor apart from these two pages, so perhaps a topic ban would resolve the continued disruption he brings to those pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is exactly the problem with including a novel derivation that is more accessible (apart from it violating the usual wiki rules)? Novel derivations, albeit usually quite simple derivations, are given in many wiki physics and math articles. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC

The issue here is not that Likebox is expanding or rewriting proofs from the literature in his own words. The problem is that Likebox is simply ignoring the literature, and rewriting everything the way he wishes the literature was written, As I said, this has already been discussed at great length, which is why I am bringing this here, since Likebox has apparently ignored numerous explanations of WP:NOR over a period of years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what Likebox is not doing is modifying the standard proof that is in the article, he is adding a new section for a "modern proof". At least that is what I see here. The way this is written suggests that this actually is the modern proof, while in fact it is Likebox's proof. To me that would be the main problem with the text and not any OR policies (I've violated OR on similar grounds in many articles).

If it were up to me, I could live with a rewritten version of Likebox's text such that it is immediately clear that it is an alternative proof that can only to be found here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right: the text suggests it is the modern proof, while it is really simply Likebox's original interpretation of how the theorem "should" be proved. But if this alternative proof can only be found on Wikipedia, then it violates WP:V and WP:NOR. This has been explained to Likebox by numerous people, which is why I opened a thread here. Simply pointing out that the proof is not permitted because of WP policies has not discouraged Likebox from adding it over and over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, Iblis? That would make it a textbook case of WP:OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CMB, I think Likebox would argue that the whole point of the proof is to make Gödel's theorem verifiable from first principles to interested Wikipedia readers. The proof itself is then not the main subject, it is merely an argument that shows why Gödel's teorem is true. That's also how I have defended including original derivations in other wiki articles. But you can make the proof itself to be the subject of the article that then has to be verifiable itself from citations to the literature.

I agree that a consensus needs to exist among the editors before this can be done. An alternative could be that Likebox creates a Fork of the article. He can then write up his proof there, but then in such a way that it is clear that the article is an accessible self contained proof that is not similar to what can be found in the literature.

JoshuaZ, In practice we do allow original derivations in wikipedia even though, strictly speaking, this violates OR. I raised the problem a few times on the OR talk page and I was always told that I could invoke IAR. The OR policy was not going to change any time soon to legalize what was going on on a small number of pages. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if we were to allow OR in this case there's nothing resembling either a consensus to do so. Indeed, all the regular math editors who have weighed in don't want this included. As such an individual who has not weighed in let me add that I agree. Indeed his presentation if anything obfuscates what is going on in Godel's theorem. The primary issue that we should be discussing in this thread is what to do with this user not whether the content should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We could tell Likebox to put his proof for the moment on a subdirectory of his talkpage so that he can work on it to make it acceptable from a purely mathematical perspective (disregarding OR). That would solve the immediate problem. The OR issue can be dealt with later. Count Iblis (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Count Iblis, 1) Wikipedia, including Wikipedia user space, is not a venue for developing original proofs of anything (some synthesis from published proofs is necessarily accepted, but that's not what we're talking about here). If Likebox wants to publish new proofs, that's what journals and textbook publishers are for. 2) As CBM says, Likebox's attempts to insert his own research into those articles has been going on for years, so a compromise involving writing them in userspace doesn't sound likely to hold up. 3) The basic problem with Likebox's "proofs" is that they are bogus (see the RFC response from 2007, particularly Hans Adler's remarks) in terms of both content gaps and presentation.

See also the declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and yourself) just a couple weeks ago [224] where User:OMCV, a knowledgeable chemistry editor, proposed a long term block against Likebox. Likebox is highly intelligent and is fairly small fry compared with Wikipedia's worst problem editors, but he disrupts several specialized areas whose editors really have better things to do than deal with him. Some kind of editing restriction definitely seems to be in order. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The "declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and [OMCV]) just a couple weeks ago [225]" was declined because an amicable resolution was achieved. Likebox's derivations are useful and no different from hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael, if Likebox and OMCV have worked out their differences, that is great, though I'd be more assured if OMCV said so directly. Likebox's derivations are not the same as "hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Wikipedia"--can you identify a single other proof in Wikipedia that so radically departs from published proofs of the same fact, in both substance and style, and has been rejected repeatedly by consensus of knowledgeable editors, but has still stayed in WP? It's true that math editors often (sensibly) go along with it when a math article says something that isn't in a textbook, as long as what is said is correct and is generally fits the standard approaches. That doesn't even slightly describe Likebox's "proof", whose basic motivation (that the textbook proofs are no good) is fundamentally wrong, in addition to the proof itself being mathematically wrong, and whose presentation in the article was just plain ugly, and was found by consensus to not be appropriate for the article. The proofs of the incompleteness theorem found in logic textbooks are perfectly good, and they are studied and understood without undue trauma by many thousands of undergraduate math and philosophy students every semester. Their only problem is that Likebox doesn't like them. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- As an involved administrator I wish to make a point. This is not an isolated incident. Likebox has been doing the same type of thing in a totally unrelated article called History wars. Another article where he has expressed a strong opinion on the, and rather than attempt to compromise over the issue and work through the edits he would like to add sentence by sentence, he has resorted to re-adding the text every so often with comments on the talk page such as

• "This means we need to have a big change, and go on from there. I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks. Likebox (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)" (see Talk:History wars/Archive_2#Large Changes/Incremental Changes, Talk:History_wars/Archive3#Large Changes, Incremental Changes,)
• "Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"[226]
• "Again, there is no point in talking to people like you. You must be put down by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"

No only has he made these threats but he carries them out by periodically making large changes to the article: e.g., and by insisting that large amounts of material that he has written to the talk page is not archived but each time is copied back to the start of the talk page, [227], he is disrupting the usual development of new conversations on the talk page.

These two disputes on articles about very different subjects are not about content, but are about how Likebox fails to handle consensus building and is disrupting the project. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Rossnixon also behaves in a similar way on the Global Warming page and perhaps also on other wiki pages. But he is not editing there very frequently, so it is not really a problem. No one is arguing that he should be banned. He is not behaving like Scibaby, neither is Likebox. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Likebox seems to be a very nice guy and generally seems to have very reasonable opinions. (Which doesn't mean that I always agree with him about everything. I don't.) He just seems to be a bit too stubborn when he realises that he is pushing against a consensus. But he is open about this and I haven't seen him use any dirty tricks. Hans Adler 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-nagging

Since some people are talking about my edits, let me try to explain. There are three accusations above about my nagging:

1. Godel's incompleteness theorems/Halting problem
2. History Wars
3. Quantum mysticism

3 was resolved by a fork, and everyone seems to be OK with it for now. OMCV has said "I can live with this text" on the forked quantum mind/body problem page. So that's done with. No more nagging.

2 is a big issue. Wikipedia needs to be mindful of racially offensive historiography. On U.S. history pages, this is dealt with reasonably well. On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources. I only do it when they archive the discussion, because the issues are not resolved. The nagging is just to alert any interested editor that if they wish to contest this historiography, they will find at least one supporter.

1 is the main issue, and it has come up before. Why do I keep nagging here? One reason is that I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs. This is the third time I've put it up. The first time, it stayed for months. The second time, it was deleted, but at least people understood it is correct. This time, the issues have been clarified to the point where I know everyone's position.

I don't like this consensus, not because the text I wrote is so great, but because I am pretty sure that if Wikipedia can't give a simple proof of Godel's theorem, it's going to be a problem for other logic articles. There are a ton of proofs in the literature that are more obscure today than they should be, because the language has not been properly modernized. The method of injury/priority is by now over 50 years old, and still is obscure enough that people are discouraged from using it.

The only editor who pretty much fully understands the text and strongly opposes it is CBM. His position is that text on Wikipedia should follow the consensus of textbooks. Needless to say, I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. Other editors have opposed the proof for other understandable reasons.

I do agree that there might be a some issues with the proof as written. The reason I wrote it in exactly this language is mainly because I have been "talking" this proof to people for many years, and it has ossified in my mind, but also so as to prove the Rosser version of the incompleteness theorem easily, which I don't know how to do easily in other ways. As Michael Price has said, the real issue here is that the proofs in the literature are never self-contained. They always refer you to some other theorem, and some other theorem, and this is a disservice to someone who wants to learn the proof quickly.

In these cases, the policy of WP:ESCA suggests that text that only fills in intermediate steps in a proof is OK, so long as the statement of the theorem is OK, the main idea is sourced, and the intermediate steps are verifiable from first principles. This is true of the proofs I am suggesting. I could place them somewhere else, but there is no guarantee that they will stay up. Also, I am hoping that someone who likes the proof can speak up. There used to be supporters in the past, who have drifted away (also opponents).

I believe that this issue will be resolved one day, when a clear proof of the theorem is up. Until then, I nag a little bit, very infrequently, to keep the issue alive.Likebox (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox, your statement "I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs" presupposes that people don't understand the proofs now. That is bogus: 1) if your proofs are so hard to understand, what business do you have claiming them to be better than the textbook proofs that people do understand? 2) Your notion that people other than CBM don't understand your proof is wrong. I'm sure Hans Adler understands it. I understood it (the 2007 version, I haven't bothered looking at more recent ones). I'm sure plenty of other editors involved in that article understood it too, and found it unsuitable for the article. If your proof is so great, why don't you send it to (say) American Mathematical Monthly, and if they publish it, Wikipedia can cite it? The issue here is not that you have bestowed on us a new and wonderfully clear proof foolishly rejected by Wikipedia's hidebound bureaucracy clinging to stupid rules. Wikipedia's more active math editors are smarter than hell and they are quite capable of ignoring rules with the best of them, when that's the right thing to do. This is not one of those times. There are other online encyclopedias like SEP, which don't have Wikipedia's policies against original research, because they rely on recognized expert referees to make content judgements similar to how a journal does. I don't think SEP would accept your proof, so I don't think Wikipedia should accept it either. If you submit it there and they accept it, then we can revisit the issue. Otherwise, stop beating the dead horse. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Incivility by anon

Resolved

 – Blocked for incivility, but reduced to time served after further admin input. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to having willful/substandard edits reasonably cancelled, and believing they were done out of some sort of personal grudge, this anon editor needs a lesson in manners or a civility warning (see edit summary). Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Go find yourself, was my advice, now reiterated. 94.192.38.247 (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • You can find yourself over the next blocked 24 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • TY for your prompt action. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
• Bad abusive block. There was some mild incivility on both sides. A simple warning would have been finde. This looks like a ridiculous one sided response to what is at its core a content dispute, not to mention the usual biting attacks on a anonymous editor. Very discouraging. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I reviewed the second unblock and declined. The edit summary was incivil, but in my honest opinion, a warning would have been a better initial option given how trivial the edit summary was -- Samir 07:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I would urge that this user be unblocked, a 24 hour block for something this minor without an indication that the user was going to escalate the situation seems excessive. What was needed here was someone to come in and have a friendly chat with this user and urge that they focus on their positive contributions and continue those, rather than a block which now creates a more adversarial sentiment. kmccoy (talk) 10:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Per Samir and Kmccoy, reduced block to time served. I don't think it was a mistake, since the editor was making disingenuous claims as to the meaning of the edit summary and possibly edit warring on a couple of articles, but it was excessive. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible Legal Issue

Resolved

 – Legal threat block Toddst1 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved

 – User has produced version of article with redacted name, see below. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Justin.merhoff‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Justin.merhoff‎ made the claim that he represents Chad Dukes of WJFK-FM radio fame. While not a legal threat, it appears the user is trying to pass himself off as a lawyer, which is a little odd since lawyers at know to work at 1am EST on anything. Could an admin looking into this? Thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just got a message on my personal facebook (not sure how they found it) that reads:

private email message

"I saw the message that you sent to me. I am not his lawyer, but I do his PR. If a lawyer needs to be involved, I will notify his lawyer first thing when he gets into his office. He has had his identity stolen in the past, and that is why he wanted it edited. If you could please edit it out, I would appreciate it, but if I have to, I will go the legal route. Justin Merhoff Representative of Chad Dukes The Chad Dukes RodKast in HD TheFukerton.com [phone number redacted] [email redacted]

Now that seems like a legal threat. Also seems like offline harrassment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe it does. Too bad, I had just left a note as to how to deal with this on the editor's talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll give a WP:3O that the bar for removal of uncited personal information from a bio page is incredibly low and WP:BLP defaults to removing it. I can't believe editors are so insistent on reinstating this statement in the article and escalating now rather than spending time finding a source. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

People need to realize that we are not their press relations services. just because they dont like it means nothing. the information has been sourced and if the user persists a LEGAL block will need to be made, but the information is accurate. β^_command 05:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

gah, addition of source edit-conflicted with my writing. It's sourced (and I just verified it in that ref), so it's valid. If source is wrong (per [228] edit-summary), all he would have (had) to do is provide the cite to the correction in that publication. DMacks (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

PLus I am getting comments from Mr. Merhoff on my personal (not wikilinked or connected) Facebook page. So this is real fun. If it keeps up, I will be contacting CBS Radio (which owns the station Dukes is on) tomorrow. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK, according to User:Justin.merhoff‎, who has been in contact with me via Facebook (copies of the conversation will be given to admins as necessary), the user has given a copy of the redacted version of the source given on the page. Even though my personal Facebook address is out there, I am willing to work with the person on this. I this, for the moment, we should redact (not oversight) the name and as I have stated with the blocked user, he should contact Mike Godwin to see how to proceed further as I am not sure if we can completely remove a name from a page without it still being seen by admins. That would be something Godwin would have to decide on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:Justin.merhoff has a WP:COIN issue here and should not be editing the article at all. Another case of a "celeb" wanting to control what is written about them on Wikipedia i.e. it they can't control it, they don't want it to appear. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has requested an unblock and I am willing to back them up on this one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No objection to unblock. However, if his legal name is verifiable by a RS, then it should be in the article whether or not the subject wants it to appear. Mjroots (talk) 08:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That is why I pushed this to Godwin to get his insight on the whole thing. I personally believe if the DJ doesn't want it there and requests it gone (via OTRS or Godwin) then it should be gone. Just how gone is up to him in my opinion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• To be clear here, if you suspect that somebody is a representative of an article subject and has issues with the article, and if they look like climbing the Reichstag or need to use real names, then the best course of action is probably to point them at OTRS. This is not a get out of jail free card, OTRS volunteers are quite capable of telling people politely that they have no chance of getting what they want, but it is usually better than the banhammer as a way of resolving issues related to identifiable individuals. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We blocked a user for "legal threats" that were made off-wiki and don't appear to be legal threats at all? Don't we have a policy about publishing private correspondence here? I suggest that we unblock the user, remove the email, and deal with this in a less confrontational way. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And just to add insult to injury, it looks like there's been a slow edit war to keep the name in the article, completely unsourced until now. It could have been removed at any time per WP:BLP's guidance on unsourced info. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I see two issues here: the information itself, and the response to its removal. Regarding the former, perhaps Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information applies; we're talking about a name, not a DOB, but it's a similar case and a similar argument. I only see one reference providing the name; as the article is sourced right now that doesn't rise to "widely published" as stated in BLP. That is wiki-lawyering at its worst, I know - but we are talking about real people here. (No opinion on the block; I wish it hadn't come to that but I do think policy is pretty clear, so I'm on the fence on that one.)  Frank  |  talk  12:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User Not One Killed

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked.

Notonekilled (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on the Holocaust denial talkpage, asserting that Not One [person was] Killed in gas chambers during the Holocaust[229] and that he shouldn't be deemed a hater for disputing the holocaust. He also advocates that the article should be deleted.[230] As my grandmother is a holocaust surviver who lost her entire family to the Nazis, I believe said editor has crossed all lines, both in said word and in suggestive username and should be removed from the page. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 09:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC) add diffs 09:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is rare for me to agree with Jaakobou; but he is absolutely right here. This is a single purpose account, with an offensively POV name. It is apparent that this editor has only one intention here, and that is not to improve Wikipedia or to add to our understanding. We have enough difficulties here, without adding Nazi apologists and holocaust deniers to our ranks. RolandR 10:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocked. We don't need this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring or archiving

Talk:Denialism#Nomination of article for deletion

See these edits:[231], [232]. Neither of the editors who are placing text inside template seem to dispute the point that "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." (see the guideline WP:refactoring). The accept that I object to it, but argue that it is not refactoring it is archiving. I think they are wrong as Wikipeida archiving is usually considered moving text from a talk page to an archive page, while refactoring is "It is a stronger term than copy editing and can include removing superfluous content, summarizing long passages, and any other means that alter the presentation of information."

I think that in this case we should follow the refactoring guideline on this issue and remove the template, particularly as the comment in the header shows that the person adding the person adding had a strong opinion on the subject.

It is silly to edit war over the content of a talk page. It seems to me that the best way to solve this issue is see what the consensus (by disinterested editors on this page) on whether what has been done is archiving or refactoring. If the former then leave the section as it is now, and if the latter then revert to the edit before the template was added. -- PBS (talk) 11:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The usefulness of that thread had ended, as it was merely repeating other threads on the page and in the achieve, and the user that started the thread was advised how to nominate the article for deletion properly (which was the purpose of the thread). They apparently chose not to nominate it for deletion. You are free to do so if you would like. This also happened quite some tie ago and you have been active on the page since, and you haven't attempted to discuss this with me. Verbal chat 11:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin abuse by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise against me

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, no admin abuse; RBI. Horologium (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am philosophy student of thinking and Wikipedia newbie who wanted only correct technical errors in Greek alphabet series as follows. I used my name in two account forms, singular and plural to preemptively avoid confusion with other users. For my good contributions, I was only immediately banned by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise who prefers to have certain technical errors uncorrected in Wikipedia in long term for unknown reason. He is even proud of his admin abuse on his user page. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise accuses me for being sockmaster unrelated to me, User:Hriber/User:Hribers. Please restore my technical edits badly reverted by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. Thank you. 89.238.153.19 (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that every single one of your edits broke the image at the top of the Greek letter infobox. Look. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to be fair, he was making another edit to the template that would have fixed that breakage, partly. But there were other reasons to revert that change too. Anyway, he's a banned sock and these are open proxies he edits through, so, nothing to see here, move on. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Outlaw motorcycle club

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) is repeatedly reverting legitimate edits to Outlaw motorcycle club on the flimsy excuse of some unspecified "formatting" problem.[233], [234], and [235]. After long discussions at the article's talk page (and more), the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, and then here at ANI (for outrageously deleting talk comments), several editors agreed that this information belongs in the article, and that the only question was one of what the wording ought to be.[236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241].

Delicious carbuncle ignored every request to offer any compromise wording or to collaborate in any way, Instead, they stonewall. Today, Delicious carbuncle is simply reverting edits, and has refused multiple requests to specify what the formatting errors are, or to simply go ahead and fix the supposed formatting problem.

What this comes down to is an editor who refuses to get the point. Bluffing about formatting errors is silly, childish, and disruptive. I'm requesting that this user be banned from Outlaw motorcycle club for a reasonable period of time as a means of encouraging Delicious carbuncle to edit constructively and to respect the consensus reached by other editors.--Dbratland (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And can this be reverted back to the way I left it without me also being dinged for a 3RR violation? Thanks.--Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at the recent history of the article and talk page will show that Dbratland has completely misrepresented the situation in his comments above. Formatting is not the issue, as Dbratland should be very well aware at this point. This diff and this diff should shed some light what is really happening. I've grown rather tired of Dbratland's tendentious methods, so I'll likely not comment further unless compelled to defend myself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Four separate statements about formatting problems: Here it says that my edit made"...no attempt to format them correctly." Then here you called my edit a "text dump;" i.e. there was some phantom problem with the of raw, unformatted text? Note that the edit summary says they don't wish to edit war; within an hour they violate 3RR. Again "text dump." That was a reference to my fifth offer of a new revision, and Delicious carbuncle again did not try to constructively offer any changes. Here, for the fourth time they said "There is somewhat more to this than the formatting..."

But now formatting is not the issue? You can't collaborate with an editor whose bluffs have be called on the Administrators' noticeboard just to get them to take half a step towards working constructively. --Dbratland (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be continued differing opinions over sources. Disruptive is a mischaracterization, though both editors need not edit war. Consensus (if there is any) isn't justification for warring. Grsz¹¹ 21:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a reading comprehension problem.

Delicious carbuncle read WP:TALK and apparently believes somewhere in there it says he is allowed to delete talk page comments. It makes no impression how many editors tell him you can't do that, and WP:TALK does not say what he thinks it says.

When told these three edits [242], [243], and [244] are a violation of 3RR, he simply denies and denies.

It goes a long way to explaining why he clings to the belief that I'm biased and trying to slant articles to make motorcycle gangs look good. I have this editor disputing with me what sources say, but this person will not listen to anyone who points out his reading of the words is mistaken. He decides it means what he wants, and then digs in and will not listen to anyone else.

That is why a ban is called for. Discussion does not work with Delicious carbuncle and consensus means nothing if it doesn't agree with him.--Dbratland (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dbratland, I suggest you drop the whole "deleting talk page comments" accusations. There are legitimate reasons to remove other users' edits on a talk page, I've done it multiple times. DC thought that he was right to do so on that talk page, others disagreed, and he hasn't done it since. Bringing it up over and over again makes it look like you're just stirring up trouble to punish him, which isn't going to strengthen your claims. You're both edit-warring, and the way to resolve this is not through administrator action, but dispute resolution. -- Atama頭 22:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm bringing it up to point out how many times he had to be told he was wrong about WP:TALK. I can put up a half dozen diffs of how many different editors it took if that will help. My point is that I'm being told to work out my differences with a person who does not listen to sense. What am I supposed to do with him? I offered many variations on how to word the article, and it made no impression. I went ahead and made my changes without his input, and he reverted. We've had 3rd opinions five or six times. What's left? Can you talk to him? If you or anyone can make him be reasonable, I'll be happy. But again and again and again he has shown that he won't listen.--Dbratland (talk) 22:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'll get involved, I was going to suggest you take it up with WP:MEDCAB but since I volunteer there anyway I guess I can just give it a try. I can't help but feel there's a way to compromise without having to escalate this further. -- Atama頭 23:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC

I would appreciate it if you would like to try.--Dbratland (talk) 23:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Dbratland has evidently decided to continue to edit war even while this is at ANI and no further discussion has taken place on the talk page. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Even replacing one fact tag with three solid citations is a problem for you? Have you even looked up "Hollister riot" at Google books or the Google news archive? Ever? Books, articles and documentaries that say the so-called riot was sensationalized are a cottage industry. They quote a half dozen living eyewitnesses who say it was not a riot. Would you like 20 citations to support this single statement? I can do 20. Can you find even one source willing to defend the reporting of the incident? Even the SF Chronicle and Life magazine don't even try to make excuses for their abysmal coverage back then. I'm beginning to think you are totally unfamiliar with this subject and have not read the sources that go with it, which calls into question what business you have accusing me of bias or making blanket revisions to sections of this article. This is going beyond absurd.--Dbratland (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit War on Anita Dunn

Resolved

 – semi-protected an hour ago

Please help with the edit war on Anita Dunn. Thanks in advance. HyperCapitalist (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The article's already been semi-protected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sorry -- didn't see that. HyperCapitalist (talk) 17:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Scoobie111/PissedOffStudentCollectiveofHSU

What is the best way to deal with a page like the above? It's basically just a rant against UC/CSU system, with no hope of ever becoming a valid article. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MFD? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, see here. Tan | 39 17:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Headsup on possible off-wiki COI

Um... Team JNL need YOUR help! JNL is featured on Wikipedia, but the article is way incomplete!... thanks to Nihiltres for this headsup, via twitter. Is it going to be a problem? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I might AFD this, given Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Nicole Lee. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I love the "referances" listed on that page. If those aren't reliable sources, what could possibly be? Deor (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Nicole Lee (2nd nomination) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this is going to survive the RfA, but the spam level is making editing annoying. Please semi this, someone? A kind individual with leet search skills has dredged up sources and I am integrating them, but it is like trying to swim in a washing machine. (It isn't TOO bad, just annoying)- Sinneed 20:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Second the request for protection, semi at least. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since most of the spammers are simply copying from a copyrighted site, I am just going to murder the junk as it is added.- Sinneed 22:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• For anyone who sings in and adds to the article, you will receive a ANY JNL digital product of your choice! Simply email us at [redacted] what you added to the article, making sure you cite an internet reference to insure that your addition is posted, and what JNL program you would like to receive as a free gift!

FWIW, the issue of Wikipedia's policy or guideline covering paid editing is still being debated. Interested editors should join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Paid editing (guideline).   Will Beback  talk  23:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• True. However. Most of the editors spamming in the *cough* content *cough cough* from the promo page were brand new, and simply pasted the junk in... it wasn't even "paid editing", just "induced spamming". :) I wanted to write the spam-inciting-address and say "Hey, some of us here did real edits for you for free, and Wikimedia foundation is hosting it for free, and you made it WAY harder than it had to be, so why not donate a set of each of your DVDs to the nearest 3 shelters in the name of Wikipedia?" *ducks to avoid the wp:talk police* - Sinneed 04:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ali Muratovic

The user Ali Muratovic (talk · contribs) keeps creating articles about individuals and organizations with no WP:RS coverage to verify their meeting the WP:BIO criteria, such as:

• Ali Cerimovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ali Fehmi Džabič (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Deer Park Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ismail Abdurrahmanović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Maribyrnong Greens Football Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

They do not appear to understand WP:N. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

it is quite possible that one or more of these will survive if some attempt is done at referencing. I've left him some appropriate advice. This really didn't need to come to general community attention. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps … my evil twin just got frustrated and wanted some backup. :-) Thnx fer the intervention. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeff V. Merkey

Can we get some more eyes on Jeff V. Merkey? There seems to be some tag-teaming going on to remove maintenance tags and insert self-promotional info. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The IP has been warned for 3RR violation and has refused to AGF as indicted by the comment above. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a sockpuppet account of the SCOX trolls. Leave the photos in the article is better with them. People need to know all sides of me, not just the opinions of the Merkey-hating trolls from Yahoo SCOX. The whole point of biographies of living persons is to enhance the content of an article. PLEASE. Thaknk. Jvmphoto (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Where are your sources, Mr. COI? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what should be asked. Why did you delete the sources and content? QuackGuru (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What sources? I didn't see a single source in your edits. Never mind, I didn't see the primary sources at the bottom; that section is decet. Still, is there a reason why you're editing your own article again? And adding an unsourced DOB, unsourced spouse, unsourced unsourced unsourced? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You did delete several sources including sourced text. For example, you did delete this reliable secondary reference. "United States Attorney Press Release Mooney indictments".

Why are you saying I am editing my own article. Please strike you comment or run a checkuser. QuackGuru (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Evidently Jvmphoto (talk · contribs) is Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is indefinitely blocked. Unless something has changed that I'm not aware of, Jvmphoto should be blocked on that basis. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I did some cleanup of the article, unaware of this discussion and JVM being indef blocked. --Ronz (talk) 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat, protected

Subsequent to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry's block and FisherQueen's decline, Jvmphoto posted "everytime you block me or post more of these lies, you are violating a Court Order.", which seems to me to be unambiguously a legal threat. So I've protected his talk page (but not blanked it; another admin may choose to do so) to prevent further threats. Evidently he's au fait with the arbcom, Jimbo, and the Foundation, so he knows where to go to ask for an unblock, and he should be doing that on his main account anyway. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oh FFS. Jeff always talks that way. He's also pretty much incapable of working with the Wikipedia community, so I will send him email asking him if there is any error of fact that needs correcting. He's not evil, actually he's a great guy with many good and steadfast friends in the tech industries who really respect him, but he is very passionate about some things and he has been royally trolled because he rises so readily to the bait. Oh, and that photo is the same as the one on his FaceBook profile, so is probably OK even if it was a joe-job (which it probably wasn't). Guy (Help!) 22:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock please

99.165.105.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 99.139.220.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 99.139.220.238 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 99.139.231.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) seem to be the same anonymous user editing from the same IP range. This user has a pattern of adding an unsourced store directory to Washington Commons and then throwing a wikitantrum when I remove it, including random undoings of my edits. 99.139.220.238 got blocked by Jéské Couriano on 10/16 for very vicious attacks (see ANEW archives). Just today, 99.139.231.245 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made a random undo of my editing, and not only re-added the store listing again, but also added "Kiss my a** 10 inch weiner, you're not god and you've been breaking the rules on here" in comments. This definitely warrants a rangeblock to get this @#!*$ away from the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

If you include the first IP listed there, the range is way too big. Is semi-protection an option? Tan | 39 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say just go with the 99.139 IPs if you rangeblock. Semi-prot isn't out of the question, but I think blocking would get the point across more clearly that this user is not helping things. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Could we try semi-prot first? I'm happy to do so, rather than rangeblocking, which causes all sorts of problems for people. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jéské is handling the semi-prot, and he just blocked the IP. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

"Before I give you a midnight wake up call" Is that a death threat I hear?--SKATER ^Speak. 20:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've semi'd for one week, but given this guy's modus operandi, I'd keep an eye out for any IP in the 99.139.xxx.xxx vicinity suddenly appearing on an article to undo TenPound's edits. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:29, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Brews Ohare's right to collect evidence

User:Brews ohare was the subject on an arbitration case. He feels that he was not treated correctly in this whole process. The precise details are not so important. The point is that many people involved in this process have to some degree behaved in an uncivil way, but only Brews and David Tombe were punished. Whether that's correct or not is irrelevant for this particular discussion. My point here is that Brews does have the right to build his own case for an appeals process or just for the record. He is, of course, not allowed to launch personal attacks.

Brews made this subpage to his userpage. Brews is now blamed for launching a personal attack, while all he is doing is quoting Physchim62 when Physchim62 says that Brews is nuts (he suggests that Brews believes in a giant conspiracy). I believe that the title of the page is to be interpreted like that.

The question is if other editors who have had problems with Brews can just accuse Brews of launching a personal atack, if Brews is just quoting what someone else (who was also involved in the arbitration case) has just said. Count Iblis (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just added {{db-attack}} notices to four pages:

• User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: Is he nuts?
• User:Brews ohare/Physchim62
• User:Brews ohare/Dicklyon
• User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: A typical discussion

These pages have nothing to do with collecting evidence for an arbitration case that is near to closing, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light. They serve only as a collection of (very recent) satements which Brews ohare (talk · contribs) does not seem to agree with. In the case of the pages concerning me, they are extracted from a discussion which is still active on my talk page, as anyone can see. These pages should be delted forthwith as serving no purpose for the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

While I initially deleted all four of those pages, I later restored the last per Brews' request on my talk page. However, I admonished Brews to be civil in his discussions with Physchim62. With this post, I also strongly admonish Physchim62 to be civil as well. I am not taking sides on this dispute because 1) I do not know all the facts of the ArbCom case and 2) I am not a science major. Willking1979 (talk) 22:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I request redeletion of User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: A typical discussion, simply because of the title – it is not a typical discussion – because it would be recreation of otherwise speedy deletable content contained in User:Brews ohare/Physchim62: Is he nuts?, because the material is available on my very own talk page (Brews ohare simply took a few paragraphs) so the page serves no purpose except to attack me. Physchim62 (talk) 22:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I was involved in the initial deletion of the pages--and the subsequent restoration of one--I will abstain from any other actions regarding them. This ArbCom case is too complex to digest and interpret in a brief period of time. Again, I urge the editors to be civil during the case. Willking1979 (talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a bizarre comment that material quoted directly and verbatim from PhysChim62 without additions or deletions or any editing of any kind, taken from PhysChim62's talk page somehow demeans him. By putting this material on my own page I insure that this content will not be lost due to further edits by PhysChim62, who apparently finds his own remarks do not reflect well upon him. Brews ohare (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(redent) My comments are there for all to see, on my talk page, but in context. Failing last minute surprises, with 22h to go on the motion to close, Brews ohare (talk · contribs) will be banned for twelve months "from all physics-related pages, topics and discussions, broadly construed" due to his disruptive editing and "engaging in tendentious debates and soapboxing" [245]. Would an admin like to quietly delete this material, or must I take it to WP:AN/AE? Physchim62 (talk) 00:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no missing context: the comments and replies are self-contained. Brews ohare (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the first line? "A verbatim dialog with Physchim62 illustrating a failure to follow simple discussion:" Finell (Talk) 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Judge for yourself. It is certainly typical of his interaction with me. Brews ohare (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Contact the case clerk for guidance, but my advice is for everyone to cool it. Don't create material that serves no constructive purpose, don't feel obligated to read it.--Tznkai (talk) 01:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is disruptive to bring matters under arbitration back to this board. I recommend deleting the evidence gathering pages; the case has been voted on and will close shortly; such pages serve no useful purpose. Other admins are cautioned to steer clear. This matter should be handled by the clerks, and this thread should be closed. Jehochman ^Talk 01:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• • I was asked to swing by this thread as someone thought I was clerking the relevant case (I'm not - Hersfold is). Regardless, the above comments by Tznkai and Jehochman above are well worth heeding. Manning (talk) 05:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit notice request

Resolved

 – Editnotice in place. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As per a long series of vandalism on the article Malthus (demon), I would like to request that User:Ryulong/Sandbox/Malthusnotice be moved to Template:Editnotices/Page/Malthus (demon) such that a better warning be placed on the page (rather than the self referential text I have added to it currently).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Done. Hope it helps. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio image

Resolved

 – Deleted by User:Crum375 Frmatt (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Could I please have an admin delete File:Mallary Hope.jpg? It was uploaded with a "found on a website somewhere" tag and has been tagged for seven days; it's a fair use image of a living person and shouldn't be kept around. The last time I saw such an image, it sat in the queue for nearly a whole month, which is inexcusable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Deleted. Crum375 (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. Just like with anything else pertaining to country music here — if I don't say anything, nothing ever gets done. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

someone please review my block of User:Raffasucks

I deleted a nonsense page created by this user, who was also reported by the name watcher bot at WP:UAA. They vandalized my user and talk pages, apparently both while logged in and as an ip. I blocked them. I feel it was a good block, but normally you don't block someone who is messing with you personally so if somebody could just review and either endorse or undo the block I'd appreciate it. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with that block, he's only edited twice, one of which was your page. I would of waited for 4 warnings then sent him to AIV so an uninvolved Admin could review.--SKATER ^Speak. 04:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And I would have said "would have." Where the heck did anyone ever get the idea that "would of" is correct? :-P Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:30, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not correct. The correct form is "woulda". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Screwing around with an article; making a personal attack; and choosing an offensive username. Three strikes. He's out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Endorse - the "sucks" name gets a block for WP:U.  7  04:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you could see his deleted contribs, it's more like 4 strikes actually. In spoken English "would've" is a fairly common expression, but as TPH says it means "would have." I never knew you were a grammar nerd on top of everything else. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I are. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Also when you factor in the logged-out vandalism that was obviously the same user, it's about 6 vandal edits in total. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)