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

DBpedia spamming infobox templates

There are apparently several users acting in concert to shove the Template:DBpedia Template template (created by, unsurprisingly DBpedia (talk · contribs) throughout all of the infoboxes on Wikipedia. This template is being used by DBpedia as part of its "live-extraction" project, apparently out of some attempt to make it easier for their own website to extract content from Wikipedia (rather than doing it on their own systems). Jens Lehmann (talk · contribs), SebastianHellmann (talk · contribs), Aklakan (talk · contribs) are ones that have been identified so far. From DBpedia's page and what I saw on Meta[1], I do not see anything that supports this as being a valid effort by, nor did I find anything on DBpedia that either encourages or requires this. There are far too many edits being done for just one editor to deal with, and at this point, I believe administrative intervention is needed. Jens Lehmann has already been blocked, but if there are three, there are likely more. They have already infected hundreds of templates. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked Jens Lehmann and Aklakan indefinitely. Of course, if it turns out that this is legitimate, I'll be happy to unblock them. However, these mass additions of template pages should really be discussed first. TNXMan 15:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, I wonder if this is the same user or different users from the same project. TNXMan 15:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

A short notice, would have been enough. We take the concerns of Wikipedians very seriously, so we will stop editing now. We have discussed to include the Template Annotations at the doc pages for months now, especially with Brion Vibber and Daniel Kinzler form Wikimedia. I also talked to about a dozen Wikipedians, who did not subject to this. I will post some more in a minute, but please do not act so fast and listen to me first.SebastianHellmann (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide links showing these discussions? TNXMan 15:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) It appears to be multiple users. Two are the names of people listed as contributers to DBmedia. Hellmann is claiming this was done with permission and after talking with two people, but I could not find anything on Wiki to support this claim. The only thing I could find was that they were given access to the live data stream, but not permission to create and flood infobox docs with this template or their links. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you unblock the users, there are mybe 4 or 5 total, no more editing will happen until the matter is resolved, but at least they can discuss here.SebastianHellmann (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The user which I previously blocked have been unblocked. However, I left them a note that they may not add any more template pages until consensus regarding the issue has been reached. TNXMan 17:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I also informed themSebastianHellmann (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Subject has been moved, please discuss here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#DBpedia_Template_Annotations SebastianHellmann (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will start collecting the links, please wait. In the future there are plans that DBpedia will directly contribute to the Wikipedia tool server soon. There are many other uses and it is not just any project. It is driven by Universities (Leipzig and Berlin) and it has gained quite some renown and serves as the backbone for the LinkedDataCloud see http://richard.cyganiak.de/2007/10/lod/ , which consists completely of open and freely available data sets. SebastianHellmann (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

here: :Links: [[2]] and [[3]] and [[4]]

On the last one there is a talk about using it for the tool server. More talk about this issue was done with Christian Beckr, especially about geocoordinates.

Here is a private correspondance with Daniel Kinzler [[5]], it is in German, but we discuss the place for the template annotations. Brion Vibber provided us with the live stream. The use of the Template annotations is quite obvious and are not DBpedia specific. It just unifies the meaning of template properties, so that you can map birthplace, birth_place, bornin and all the other variants to a single meaning. The templates are made to look nice, but the annotations make the machine readable. They are directly comparable to microformats, but as our policy is to ba as minimally invasive as possible, we didn't try to change the templates directly. Although, we discussed it quite long now, we maybe just didn't address the right people. The section with the annotations in the template doc pages is intended to cause as few attention as possible only findable by people who already know where they are (really who looks at a template page?). So the accusation of any form of advertising or spamming does not really hold. If there are any ideas where we could better place these, we are open and will move them somewhere else. Also a place to discuss the further collaboration with Wikipedia and DBpedia would be nice. Some users(e.g. andrew dunbar, hippietrail) from the Wikitech-I list where quite enlighted, by the possibilites.SebastianHellmann (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for a link giving you permission to do these templates. The meta discussions were specific to Meta and only about the onthology pages there. Neither discussion mentions nor gives any implied nor expressed permission to create the templates and put them on every infobox page on Wikipedia. A private correspondence with a single editor in German is also not any kind of permission nor validity for the actions taken. There is no collaboration between Wikipdedia and DBpedia, so claims otherwise do not hold. Getting access to the live stream is not uncommon, and like any one else, DBpedia is free to parse Wikipedia's data. Expecting that anyone would be allowed to modify Wikipedia for your exclusive use to make it easier on you, rather than you properly adjusting your programming, is not something that should be done without extensive community discussion AT Wikipedia. As it is, it appears you are simply promoting DBpedia through these actions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

We will ask explicit permission, would it be enough if we post it at village pump or do we have to post it somewhere else, also? SebastianHellmann (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Subject has been moved, please discuss here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#DBpedia_Template_Annotations SebastianHellmann (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Strikes me that this is a topic for village pump. I cannot, however, imagine that Wikipedia would allow templates on Wikipedia articles to permit an external agent to expressly pull data. Obviously, the outside project has to write their application to do things correctly, and not require Wikipedia to conform to theirs. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DBpedia is not a website, but a community effort to enrich the encyclopedia Wikipedia with structured data. The resulting datasets are available to everyone under the same license as Wikipedia and currently used by thousands of users, e.g. for data integration purposes, but also by Wikipedia authors to identify inconsistencies and incoherences. The strategy of the DBpedia live extraction, was discussed with Daniel Kinzler and Brion Vibber. In order to support the DBpedia live extraction, Brian e.g. also granted us access to the Wikipedia live update stream. The addition of special DBpedia infobox templates to Wikipedia was only done to enable the Wikipedia authors to better employ DBpedia for increasing the coherence of Wikipedia. --Soeren1611 (talk) 16:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It's clear what you are trying to do now. The best place for this discussion would either be at the technical village pump or the village pump (proposals) (as BWilkins mentioned). I would be much more at ease if there were explicit permission given somewhere to allow the creation of the template pages. TNXMan 16:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "village pump (proposals)", but you linked to WP:VPP, which is WP:village pump (policy). Did you mean WP:VPR? Chrisahn (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Subject has been moved, please discuss here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#DBpedia_Template_Annotations SebastianHellmann (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick warning since there has already been some miscommunication: The communication seems to be happening primarily with Germans. My limited knowledge of the German Wikipedia tells me that they are much more open towards standardisation and uniformisation of articles and connections with external databases. For matters involving the English Wikipedia directly DBpedia should take care to discuss here first. Almost nobody reads Meta, and the German Wikipedia has its own culture and is basically irrelevant to us. Hans Adler 16:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Once the commmunication glitches have been ironed out, I think this is something that has the potential to help us enormously. Sharing structured information between language wikipedias is an obvious way to get this information to more readers mor efficiently and more reliably.--Kotniski (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

DBpedia has been extracting Wikipedia data for years. Until now, we used local configuration files to specify which infobox properties should be extracted. These new templates are not meant to make our job easier. (In fact, they make it harder - reading the configuration from them is much more complex than reading it from local files.) The main goal of these new templates is to allow Wikipedians to change the way DBpedia extracts infobox data and provide instant feedback.

Subject has been moved, please discuss here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#DBpedia_Template_Annotations SebastianHellmann (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The subject has not been "moved" rather you started a new discussion there. Please be more clear about that. I also doubt this is a technical issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these changes are 'spam', they were never meant to 'promote' DBpedia. But we certainly should have used the proper channels to ask the community about them first.

In the interest of full disclosure, Echera (talk · contribs) is also a member of the DBpedia team (at the Free University of Berlin) and has made similar changes as the users listed above. Maybe we can leave these edits while the discussion is going on, but if you want me to I will revert them. -- Chrisahn (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for identifying them and I ask that you do revert them. They are NOT appropriate, have absolutely no consensus, and are purely intended to help DBpedia. They do nothing for Wikipedia. As you said, DBpedia has been extracting data for years, the same as many other folks. It needs to stick to local configuration files, not try to modify Wikipedia to match their software. This is exactly what you are doing, which is nothing that improves Wikipedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Fake ESCA "guideline" spamming

Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is spamming his new Template:ESCA onto many physics article talk pages; the template falsely portrays his essay Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles as a guideline and insists that editors follow it. He has reverted my removals of the template from some articles on my watch list where I took it out. This essay arose during arguments with Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor now banned from all physics-related articles and discussions, and whose side Count Iblis took in these disputes, in an attempt to tip disputes in favor of editors with good arguments from first principles, as opposed to arguments supported by reliable sources. He has not had a lot of support in turning this essay into a guideline, so should be stopped from spamming it around and portraying it as one. Dicklyon (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:Editing_scientific_articles#new_ESCA_template_being_spammed_across_physics_talk_page and User_talk:Count_Iblis#ESCA_template. Dicklyon (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I have warned the user. Pushing an essay as something more is disruptive, pure and simple. The fact that this is coming on the heels of the Rfar is not promising. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

This essay has absolutely nothing to do with Brews Ohare and the speed of light Arbcom case. I note that Dicklyon was heavily involved big edit wars with Brews Ohare and he simply cannot think objectively about this essay (apart from him being wrong about the origins of the essay).

I have added the template to thise few articles where sticking to the guidelines is absolutely necessary for very good reasons. The template can be removed if there is no consensus for it as apparently happened on the special relativity page. I request Dicklyon to stay out of the article on the Scharnhort article, because precisely there a new text is going to be added in the near future which requires the kind of discussions that Dicklyon apparently does like (see recent speed of light talk page discussion with him about the Scharnhorst effect in which he was too lazy to even read the relevant source).

In conclusion, I'm not spamming rather only including the template on those few pages where it is essential to stick to the guidelies. E.g., I added it to the entropy talk page, because I'm writing a new verion of that article off-line and I forsee discussions on the talk page which, given the history of that page, requires precisely these guidelines. Count Iblis (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a guideline. That you think it is important to stick to is all well and good, but it's an essay. Unless the talk page community agrees that yes, there should be an essay linked to on the top of those articles, you shouldn't be edit warring to keep them in. You can't order or request other editors to stay off pages. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, we can change the wording "guideline" to something else. I think though that Dickyon has been behaving in an aggressive way here, by calling what I did "spamming", even though it was added to a limited number of pages and by also removing it from pages where he is not directly involved in. Count Iblis (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors are – or should be – encouraged to openly discuss how they believe that Wikipedia's goals can be accomplished (and its policies best followed) in the context of articles which may fall within their own areas of expertise. I have no quarrel with that, and there's no harm in editors writing essays (userspace or not) which distill, encapsulate, or generalize their advice and experience. Furthermore, it's generally legitimate (and often helpful) to refer to such essays in talk page discussions. Essays serve the dual purposes of offering a clear presentation of principles, and of avoiding the need for repetition of similar concepts across multiple talk pages.

That said, one thing that editors shouldn't be doing is what we find in the usage of Template:ESCA. It's not appropriate to privilege the opinions of one, or a few, editors in a talk page hatnote ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]), nor is it appropriate to imply that an essay has the force of a widely-accepted and -endorsed Wikipedia guideline. The hatnotes should be removed from the talkpages, as they portray an importance and an authority that isn't rooted in any Wikipedia policy, process, or practice.

Where relevant, Count Iblis is welcome to announce WP:ESCA in an ordinary talk page comment, in a new section at the bottom of the talk page, just as any other editor is free to do. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Would it be ok. to add the template later on a talk page if most editors there agree with that? That's nore or less what I argued for on the NOR talk page. Basically my thinking here is that the regulars on the policy pages are more concerned about what happens on the politics pages which are far more prone to edit warring. This stops progress in policy development that would benefit the science articles. This means that an essay like the one I wrote can never become part of official policy. Therefore we need to think in the direction of "local policy making". Count Iblis (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As an additional point, it's definitely not a good idea to edit war to add one's homebrewed hatnotes. Count Iblis is up against the edge of 3RR at Talk:Scharnhorst effect: [13], [14], [15], [16]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:17, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

{{ESCA}} needs to be removed from the article talk pages that it has been transcluded to. Is there any reasonable use of this template ? if not, it should perhaps be taken to WP:TFD. Count Iblis and others are free to refer to the essay in their talk page comments, when relevant. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It has been, except at Scharnhorst effect where the edit warring is occuring (and it has now been removed from there again) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply to TenOfAllTrades: I'm not going to revert any more. The only reason why I reverted there and not on other pages had to do with the nature of that page (first principle discussions absolutely necessary).

Reply to Abecedare: Sticking to the guidelines is abolutely necessary on technical wiki pages, such as Relations between heat capacities. I understand that the regulars on the policy pages do not appreciate this and that as a result you cannot propose the necessary policy changes. But this then calls for "local policy making". Count Iblis (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, I have no objection to you writing an essay and presenting it as your POV; however presenting it as a policy, guideline, or even "local policy" is deceptive, and not an acceptable alternative. Please see WP:Policies and guidelines for the accepted use of those terms on wikipedia. If we each start defining our own meanings for such terminology, we end up talking past each other and collaboration becomes impossible. Abecedare (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

All else aside we should not be putting messages to our editors at the top of the article, that is what talk pages are for. Chillum 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, Iblis was placing his hatnotes at the top of the article talk pages, not the articles themselves. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't all of this taken care of by a simple Wikipedia notion that if you make an edit to an article, and it is reverted, you should seek consensus on the talk page if you want to put it in? --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. The editing history on the affected pages shows that except on the special relativity page, inclusion of the template has the consensus of the involved editors. It was removed by uninvolved editors who reacted to this AN/I discussion or the TFD discussion.

Note that on the Scharnhorst effect page, Tim Shuba, Dicklyon and TenOfAllTrades have made no contributions toward editing that article nor in the discussions on the talk page about editing that article. The only active editors there are Michael C. Price, BenRG and me. The articles to which I added the template were (with the expeption of the two relativity related pages) similar articles where the active editors would welcome it. Count Iblis (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a contentious essay that, when its two or so authors have their way, directly contradicts policy. Please stop spamming it onto article talk pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As I just pointed out in the template deletion discussion, that is hardly surprising. This began life as a personal essay. I don't know when I first referred to it but that is all it was. I disagreed with it then but ignored it: as a personal (singular author or plural) essay you are free to write what you want within reason. That doesn't mean that when you find you don't have objections it can be portrayed as having a consensus behind it. I suspect I am not alone in deciding that it was not worth debating with you over a simple expression of your personal views. The difficulty arises when you alter its status to a propsoed policy - that requires a much greater level of scrutiny. CrispMuncher (talk)

The real problem

The real problem is that Wikipedia's policies are ignoring precisely those pages that are considered to be the most reliable and that are consulted quite often: The pages on technical scientific topics. These are mostly written by experts and are mostly free of the vicious disputes we so often see on politics pages. So, here on AN/I you almost never hear about these pages. The real important problems are therefore the problems that occur on these pages w.r.t. mistakes (and not (necessarily) w.r.t. editing disputes). Example: For a few years Wikipedia readers were led to believe that in thermodynamics the relation between internal energy changes, volume changes and entropy changes is given by the inequality:

dE <= T dS - P dV,

rather than the equality:

dE = T dS - P dV

This was a huge mistake made not just in one thermodynamics page, but systematically appeared on many pages right until early 2008. And there were many more similar mistakes.

I corrected these errors and also completely rewrote some thermodynamics pages. I also suggested changes in policy at that time last year but I was met with strong opposition. Then, recently I wrote up WP:ESCA which lacks the support to get official policy. On the NOR talk page I suggested that in the absence of a Wikipedia-wide consensus, one could perhaps proceed with policies that are valid on a local level. That's what led me to add the template to a few pages that would benefit from the WP:ESCA. Perhaps that was a bit too provocative. However, I have to note that the opposition to this action was not really motivated on any pragmatic grounds. Instead the same destructive forces that affect the politic pages are at play here. We can see this clearly when we read what Dicklyon wrote above, as I'll now discuss in the next section.

Dicklyon's mistaken complaint

Diclyon wrote:

"Fake ESCA "guideline" spamming"

His choice of the words "fake" and "spamming" are unecessarily provocative. Im not interested in fooling people to stick to guidelines they would not support, that can never work anyway. The guidelines are meant to be adhered to voluntarily. Also, there was no "spamming". The template was only added to a few talkpages.

Let's see what he wrote next:

"Count Iblis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is spamming his new Template:ESCA onto many physics article talk pages; the template falsely portrays his essay Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles as a guideline and insists that editors follow it."

I don't think "requesting" is the same as "insisting".

"He has reverted my removals of the template from some articles on my watch list where I took it out."

I think on only two pages, one of the pages there was more or less an agreement to stick to these guidelines to settle a minor editing dispute between BenRG, Michael C. Price and me, in which both me and BenRG wanted to remove a text but Michael C. Price objected invoking ESCA and we have agreed that the text should be debated further. Dicklyon was not at all involved in this debate. Also, this is an example where there would be nothing suspect about me putting the template in the talk page.

Dicklyon then continues:

"This essay arose during arguments with Brews ohare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an editor now banned from all physics-related articles and discussions, and whose side Count Iblis took in these disputes, in an attempt to tip disputes in favor of editors with good arguments from first principles, as opposed to arguments supported by reliable sources."

That's complete and utter nonsense. I strongly disagreed with Brews in the disputes that were about the speed of light. I only agreed with him that the matter should be settled using discussions from first principles. Such discussions unfortunately never really materialized (despite a few attempts to do so). Also discussing from first principles does not mean that we do not use reliable sources anymore.

Another deeply disturbing thing is the fact that Brews, who is an engineering professor, was banned from all physics pages. This proves that something is deeply wrong with Wikipedia. Brews did make mistakes. Not only was he wrong about his position he took regarding the speed of light, he also dominated the talk pages to get his way. But there was also harassment by Dicklyon against Brews on other physics pages. In these cases, it was not really Brews who was in the wrong.

Brews has made many outstanding contributions to physics articles. But Arbcom decided to treat Brews as some crank editor, banning him from all physics pages. Even the worst edit warriors on the politcs pages are treated better than that. E.g., if you make a lot of trouble on Obama related pages, then you'll likely be banned from only the Obama related pages, not all politics pages, despite the fact that you are just Mr. Nobody, and not some political science professor from whom we have seen and can expect many good edits on other politics pages. This is because the Admins have different political views and the right wing Admins, while recognizing that you've been disruptive, will support you somewhat. In case of Brews, the Admins presumably knew nothing about physics and it was presumably easier for themn to think that Diclyon was always correct as his conduct is usually consistent with Wiki Law.

Finally Dicklyon says: "He has not had a lot of support in turning this essay into a guideline, so should be stopped from spamming it around and portraying it as one."

It is correct that I did not get the necessary supprt, so I proceeded in the basis of local consensus. I accept that I wasa bit too provocative. But then Dicklyon was also wrong to revert the inclusion on the Scharnhorst talk page where the guidelines were invoked just yesterday and are now very relevant.

Dicklyon: You are rewriting history here. WP:ESCA was a creation that long predates my awareness of it. I contributed a bit about multiple meanings of technical words that arise in multiple technical arenas. There is no connection whatsoever to the "disputes with Brews" and dragging this point in is simply defamatory excrescence. Brews ohare (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Brews, this proposed guideline was started on Aug. 9, by Count Iblis who had by that time taken your side in disputes several times, saying that you should be allowed to put things into articles based on your logical reasoning, when I was complaining that your idiosyncratic approach was not supported by reliable sources. It's possible that I misinterpreted his intent, but my sincere impression was that he was trying to write guidelines with the idea of making your approach more acceptable, and weakening WP:V and WP:NOR. It doesn't really matter when you became aware of it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Conclusion

We have seen that my efforts to propose guidelines for science articles suffers setback after setback, primarily because Wikipedia's policies are too much focussed on settling disputes on politics pages. This complaint by Dicklyon about my actions was itself motivated by similar ridiculous polemic reasons. I do recognize that adding the template may have been provocative on some pages. I willl now proceed by asking the editors on each page first before adding the text. Count Iblis (talk) 00:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As I have just commented a little more specifically at Wikipedia talk:Editing scientific articles: If editors generally understand what is happening, people working on any subject are unlikely to allowed to establish a local consensus to ignore the core principles. Sufficient editors who do not work primarily on physics do understand the technical articles well enough to understand this direction of argument, if not necessarily the details of particular controversies. You probably ought to discuss it in the framework of the proper way to interpret the core principles in your subject field. Provided you can explain how your interpretation is a special but compatible case of the general principles, people generally may perhaps find themselves to some degree in consensus with you. If a proposal that each subject area could establish its own local consensus without the acceptance of the community were presented to a more general audience than here, it would be laughed out of court: the overlap of subjects and the interdisciplinary nature of many articles would result in the inability to produce a coherent encyclopedia.

It is true that editors in all sorts of special areas have gotten away with using their jargon and their idiosyncratic writing and argumentation, because nobody from outside was willing to pay the necessary attention. It's time this were stopped, not canonized. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I and others have debated the relevant issues on the NOR talk page, a year ago, months ago and just a few days ago. Tuically you are told that it's not a big deal, that you can just invoke IAR if you need to etc. etc. OIn the NOR talk page there is even a dispute amoung the reugulars there if ESCA violates the NOR guidelines or not. Carl seems to be saying that it only violates NR in the most pedant reading of it.

I think the way to "canonize" things is precisely to first raise your problem at the highest level. This is what has been done. Then you can work at some lower lever, like writing a new essay and trying to get support for it. Because that will then aslo get the attention of a lot of edotors who are not involved in the areas where you are working. That is what I did when I wrote ESCA. Then, lacking support, you can try to advertise the fact that it is in fact de-facto policy. That is what I did using the template. It was added mostly to those few physics articles containing a lot of first principles mathematical derivations written by me and a few other articles where the editors already knew about ESCA and I could expect some support.

If this is not allowed, then things will proceed in a way it always has: ESCA will be the de-facto policy on may pages, but uninvolved editors will know nothing about this. So, in each step where editors have rejected changes in policies from high up to the local level, they have lost influence. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

ESCA is not "de-facto policy" on any pages. The fact that a couple of editors have been able to insert original research into some articles does not mean that ESCA has suddenly become policy, or that WP:NOR no longer applies there. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Many articles have been and are edited according to ESCA, which means that the articles are protected against OR being inserted. What is your definition of "de-facto"? Count Iblis (talk) 02:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You can edit Wikipedia articles according to whatever personal standard you like, so long as it doesn't contradict the content policies, WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. Wherever ESCA doesn't contradict WP:NOR it's fine to edit by it. Unfortunately, however, the "only point" and "whole point" of this failed "policy" is to circumvent the OR policy for scientific articles. An editing standard whose sole point is to create a loophole for OR cannot possibly "protect against" OR. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Debate on WP:ESCA

The proposed ESCA guideline is ridiculous and appears to be supported primarily by ne'er-do-wells. I participated for a while in the ESCA talkpage discussion but quit when 1) the dispute that brought me there was resolved; and 2) it became evident that the guideline proposal wasn't going anywhere and that ESCA would stay an essay rather than become something more dangerous. I haven't dared look at it again since then, figuring that the stupidity there was self-contained enough to safely ignore. It's not good at all that it's spilling to article talkpages. Count Iblis says there were no pragmatic grounds for opposing, but I gave ample pragmatic grounds on the talkpage: despite still having essay status, the proposed guideline already started being used to support ramming inappropriate OR into mathematics articles that had to be beaten back by a multi-day crap-fest across perhaps a half dozen different venues. As for Count Iblis's entropy equation, the correct equations are available in about 83 billion gadzillion thermodynamics textbooks and there should be no trouble citing one if somebody makes an issue of it. If someone put in an incorrect equation, just fix it and put a brief explanation on the talkpage; and if they give you grief about it, back it up with a citation. Arguing about it from so-called "first principles" is precisely what the OR policy was designed to prevent.

Somebody might like to put this link on the ESCA talkpage, to illustrate what we're up against. It contains links to 54 "solutions" to the P=NP problem, each one justified from first principles. The ESCA proponents are encouraged to figure out which of those solutions are wrong (hint: they're all wrong) and point out the errors in each of them with sufficient clarity to convince the type of person who writes such "proofs" that they need to go back to the drawing board. That road leads to total madness and is why the OR policy was developed in the first place. We're simply not in the business of reviewing original proofs--even if we have the expertise for it, unlike a journal we don't have the authority to reject a submission once and for all and close discussion on it if the person can keep arguing for acceptance on grounds of (claimed) correctness. So we simply don't accept correctness as grounds. We only accept verifiable citations.

I have serious doubts of the competence of some of the ESCA editors to be working on physics articles unless they're following published presentations very closely. I'd like it if someone like Mathsci were to look at their contributions and advise ANI about whether some kind of further intervention is needed. It's quite possible that the Speed of Light arbitration didn't ban enough people. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As on the ESCA talk page, you are again totally wrong. E.g., on the entropy page, I had to remove "sourced" edits, because they were wrong. Of course, I could have cited another source, but then the discussion would degenerate into one about whose sources are better. That's besides the point, because it is easy to argue based on thermodynamics itself. All that ESCA asks the editor to do is to make sure the edits are consistent with the current scientific undersanding of the topic. The moment you do OR and write u a proof that "P = NP", then that clearly violates ESCA. The guidelines are very similar to the COI guidelines in that it asks editors to please be careful.

And please keep Mathsci out of this, he has a known POV against Likebox and the last thing we need here is engage in polemics. But, note that the whole idea of letting an expert review contributions of editors seems to be in the spirit of ESCA :) Count Iblis (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Another thing, I now remember that a few weeks ago here on AN/I, you were arguing about Likebox alleged problematic behavior and you then went over to the ESCA talk page, and voted against the proposals without reading what ESCA was about. You based your entire argument on the polemics of that AN/I debate. Count Iblis (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

All of this is a little too verbose for me, but this isn't the first or last time that a well-meaning editor "spams" the encyclopedia with an essay that they wish to promote into a guideline, or a template they wish to remain on talk pages as an editing suggestion for a family of articles. Sometimes you do have to nudge, cajole, and advocate a new proposal to other editors because for the most part editing advice does not promote itself. In this case it looks like the effort is a little too ambitious and is meeting some resistance. My advice here would be to go a little slower and less aggressively, to accept wider input from other editors, and perhaps to narrow the scope, e.g. to the hard sciences. The basic premise of the essay makes sense to me, and speaks to a wider point that is true in nearly all articles, that "verifiability, not truth" should not be taken to the extreme and that sometimes what we want is "verifiability and truth". Truth-testing verifiable statements is fairly helpful because some sources suffer from errors, interpretation, the vagaries of language, differing explanatory contexts, and so on. That has to be done carefully to avoid original research, or over-reliance on primary sources. Another reasonable claim is that sourcing requirements, and editing methods, should be adapted to fit the subject area of the article. Technical scientific articles surely work a little differently than articles about politics, entertainment, or current events. There are some overarching epistemological (or perhaps I should say encyclopedic) similarities, but also some specific differences. It makes some sense to write an essay about this, and perhaps even to encourage enough editors to abide by the essay that it does become a guideline and/or is well enough accepted to add to a talk page template. A good measure of acceptance would be whether it can be added without people objecting or removing it. Nobody objects, for example, if someone adds the "calm" template to politics articles, the "BLP" template for living individuals, or the "current event" or "recently deceased" templates where appropriate. By that measure this essay isn't quite ripe yet. Whether it will ever be ripe or not is a matter for the editors interested in the subject matter to decide, IMO. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll say it more succinctly; editors often find that they want exceptions to the content policies (particularly WP:NOR) for their own area of interest. When they have difficulty getting it, they try to change policy. This is a more interesting way of attempting to do that; writing an essay that contradicts policy, and then trying to promote it to guideline status through the back-door of a template. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:ESCA says among other things:

Check non-trivial statements you intend to insert into an article. Determine whether your statement could be invalid under some circumstances. To find out, you may need to study the entire source in which the statement is made, or look in other sources. The validity of a statement made on some particular page of a technical book may well rely upon necessary conditions mentioned many pages earlier, or even in another source. If you find that the statement is valid only within a specific context, you need explicitly to include that context in the article.

I don't think this is useful ammunition for edit warriors. Count Iblis (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That section may not be useful ammunition for edit warriors. But this section:

It does not constitute WP:OR to provide the logical connection between sourced premises and sourced conclusions, when the arguments are well understood by experts in the field. Remember that “Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing.”

certainly does provide good ammunition for edit-warriors to claim an exception to the WP:NOR rule. In fact, that's what it is clearly and openly intended to do. That's also the most contentious part of your essay, and the part you and Likebox have persistently edit-warred back into it.[17][18][19][20] Indeed, Likebox makes it quite clear that "this is the whole point of the policy". The rest is just window dressing. And the reason why Likebox wants to loosen WP:NOR is also clear, from this: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive573#User:Likebox and tendentious re-insertion of original research. He kept trying to insert his own novel proof of Godel's incompleteness theorem into the article, and was eventually sanctioned for it. Now he's try to do an end-run around NOR policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It clearly says "when the arguments are well understood by experts in the field". Now, since the Wiki-Project Math editors did not agree that Likebox argument is something that is "well understood", Likebox cannot put his proof in the article. All that the proposed guidelines allow Likebox to do, is put forward his argument and debate on the basis of it. Of course, not endlessly or disruptively, we've other wiki rules that deal with that problem.

Now, as I tried to explain here, disputes like the ones in which Likebox or Brews Ohare were involved in are not very typical of the sicence articles. And these disputes are not relevant, because even if the ESCA policy were to be used by some edit warrior to better argue his point, then that will eventually be seen to be disruptive. Just think of the topic ban that Brews received for arguing the same point over and over again on the talk pages.

The policy is intended to deal with all those other technical science articles where there are no editing disputes. In most such cases there is only one editor active. Count Iblis (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, who were those "experts" who didn't agree with Likebox? Oh, right, "the Wiki-Project Math editors". Sorry, no. The actual experts are the peer-reviewed or properly edited articles/books, per WP:RS. If they say something, then we can use it. And, if there are "no editing disputes" regarding an article, then exactly what "problem" is ESCA intended to solve?Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

← This particular essay seems to be quite nonsensical and contrary to wikipedia core policies. Not using textbooks or journal articles to write WP articles is the very opposite of what applies in mathematics or physics. The idea of arguing from first principles makes no sense at all. Mathsci (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Where on Earth did you get the idea that ESCA says that you do not need textbooks or journal articles? Arguing from first principles is or can be essential for editors to get the correct understand of the topic as presented in some ournal articles or textbook. E.g. on the Helmholtz free energy talk page I explained to an anon in detail why his simple argument that dF = 0 fails. Also to another anon why the article does not include a statement from Feynman's book. These sorts of arguments were useful there, as it lead to me include extra explanations in the article. Also, the anons did not edit in what they thought was correct in the article.

If you were to simply say that they are wrong because your book says so, the atmosphere on the talk page would not be so friendly. The other editor could then also invoke some wiki rule giving him the right to present his equation from his book in the article. And before you know it, you have a full blown edit war. So, even if you are an expert who knows everything there is to know and you can easily cite sources to back up what you're saying, you see that debating from first principles in the talk page is very useful. Count Iblis (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You insist you don't need textbooks or journal articles to draw conclusions. In fact, you insist that ESCA is required because textbooks and journal articles don't actually draw those conclusions, at least not explicitly. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Jayjg. I read this part of the present essay "If you find yourself in a dispute with other editors about a technical point, then discuss the issues as much as possible from first principles using the underlying theory and/or from the empirical evidence. That approach often brings out the needed context, which often is the source of the dispute. Do not simply appeal to direct quotes from textbooks or scientific articles, as then the proper context may be missing." Textbooks or journal articles in mathematics or mathematical physics are rarely ambiguous. This is not what the quote implies. If a WP:RS has been used to write a passage for an article, I don't see how this kind of dispute can ever arise. As I wrote, this particular quotation from the essay just seems to be a recipe for disaster (as far as standard mainstream content is concerned). I have no idea what people would feel from other disciplines such as chemistry, biology or medicine. Do "first principles" make any sense there? Mathsci (talk) 07:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, and you should know better. Count Iblis (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I want to be clear that Likebox wasn't one of the physics editors who I was thinking of when I suggested Mathsci look into things. I don't want to reference the Likebox incident except in the most general terms, since Likebox received a rather tough editing restriction and after that happens to a user, I think it's best to not dwell further on the user's past problems unless they cause new disruption. It's better to just welcome good editing from them moving forward. But I didn't just swoop by the ESCA talkpage and drop an "oppose" based on some unrepresentative impression. I stayed around and engaged several proponents and confirmed that their interpretation of the proposal actually did support what Likebox was trying to do. That is: I opposed the proposal because it had already had a serious and undistorted test, and it failed massively. Also, as for ESCA being about "hard science", remember that the dispute was about applying the proposal to mathematical logic, compared to which even physics is "soft". 69.228.171.150 (talk) 06:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition: it's fine to discuss stuff from first principles on talk pages. The big ESCA dispute of a couple weeks ago involved someone trying to use it to justify inserting stuff based on "first principles" into articles. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read the ESCA proposal, you see that it doesn't advocate putting texts in articles based on original research at all. It emphasizes talk page discussons. If ESCA had been officila policy, it would not ave changed the outcome of the Likebox/Gödel episode. Other dits feel that Likebox proof is not consistent with the current mathematical understanding of the topic, so it is not going to be edited in the Gödel article. All that ESCA does is that it allows a debate to proceed about this on the talk page. Of course, not endlessly or disruptively. And in fact, even without ESCA being official policy, such a debate happened. Count Iblis (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue for AN/I

Why is a debate on the desirability of Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles as a guideline being in the preceding subsection occurring here, on AN/I? This is not where, or how, Wikipedia decides on policies or guidelines. Count Iblis turned Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles into an essay because consensus was strongly against adopting it as a guideline.

What is relevant here at AN/I is the issue that User:Dicklyon brought here: Count Iblis's inappropriate, disruptive behavior in plastering a template on physics articles' talk pages telling editors to follow this failed guideline proposal. It was especially inappropriate in Iblis's original version of the template, which misrepresented this failed guideline proposal as a guideline. —Finell (Talk) 03:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The persons who have been disruptive here are you and Dicklyon for deliberately misrepresenting the facts here. The template was removed from articles where there is consensus for keeping it, because of the lies told by you and others.

Fact 1: Tim Shuba changed the status of the proposed guidelines himself to "failed proposal" immediately before going to TFD and there saying that it was a failed policy. That is simply an unacceptable move. What I did was change the status to essay. Criticize that as much as you like, but the suggestion that it should be changed to essay was made some days earlier, and there I agreed and no one objected. It has now been put back to proposal status by SlimVirgin and voting has resumed.

Fact 2: Finell only mentions me changing the status and is silent about Tim Shuba.

Fact 1 and Fact 2 alone should disqualify Finell's judgement about me.

Fact 3: I added the template mostly to pages where it would not be controversial to the editors who are active there. Only on the relativity related pages did I misjudge this. On all other pages the inclusion of the template has the consensus of the active editors.

Fact 4: The template was removed from all pages, there wasn't much of an edit war about it. So, while there is consensus to keep it on most pages, univolved editors reading the nonsense written by Diclyon, Finell and others removed it. I, Likebox, Michal. C. Price are tolerant enough to accept that the Nay-sayers with no editing history on the relevant pages can keep the template out of the articles that are edited by us.

Fact 5: Finell sees that things are not going his way, comes back here to re-argue the same points that were debunked earlier.

Put all the facts together, and you see that Dicklyon and Finell are intolerant editors who are not shy of making false statements to get their way. This is simply disgusting, utterly disgusting. Count Iblis (talk) 04:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes, when a bunch of editors are being "intolerant" of your editing behavior, it might be good to re-examine what's true and what's false. Dicklyon (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you start examing yourself. I have already admitted that on the specal relatvity pages addition of the template may have been provocative. But your behavior on pages where you are not an involved editor is just abominable. Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As an outside party, I have to agree with Dicklyon. Iblis, this is never going to be policy, nor a guideline, as it stands. It's just too much in conflict with WP:OR. At this point, I suggest you drop trying to get it adopted until you can rewrite the essay to be more in standing with OR, then propose it on the village pump. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is absolutely not in conflict with NOR policy at all. Also, like it or not, it is already the de-facto policy on many science articles, albeit an unwritten one. The essay strengthens the NOR policy by giving advice on editing technical science articles. On the NOR age itself, writing anything about editing articles with a heavy mathematical content is taboo. Count Iblis (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And perhaps it should be suggested that any further attempts by anyone to pass this off as a guideline, a 'local policy' or whatever are likely to result in a block for whoever carries it out. In the meantime, I presume all the offending templates have been removed from article talkpages? Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The template appears in invisible form on many science pages. All I did was to make it visible. There was a knee jerk reaction from uninvolved editors, so it has been made invisible again. We are going to stick to the analogue of the "don't ask don't tell policy" so as to not provoke anyone here. Count Iblis (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Neuromancer

User:Neuromancer has a consistent pattern of disruptive editing and talk page-inappropriate discussion, most problematically at HIV and Talk:HIV, and as another editor has stated, has "violated nearly every behavioral policy this site has". This user has repeatedly demonstrated an agenda of disrupting HIV-related articles with fringe viewpoints with no substantiation in RS. Despite extensive policy explanations and warnings from other editors, Neuromancer continues to pursue this course, including creating POV forks (HIV dissent, later re-directed, and Alternative HIV viewpoints, currently at AfD) containing synthesis, BLP violations and other problems. The user has been blocked previously for WP:3RR and given multiple warnings at the user talk page and on article talk pages by a large number of editors.

Neuromancer has also contributed several copyright violations, cutting and pasting from copyrighted sources without quoting or citing. This edit contains nine paragraphs copied verbatim from avert.org and a sentence and references copied from another website without citation. Warnings and explanations (Talk:HIV#Copyright_violations_by_Neuromancer, [21]) were ignored, with the user later performing another unreferenced copy and paste from a copyrighted website.

Neuromancer, after threatening to wikistalk ("However, I will be sure to peruse EVERY edit to EVERY article you have contributed to, just on the off chance you have somehow detracted from those articles as well"), has begun to make good on this threat by becoming engaged at Magnetic water treatment (an article on my watchlist), Cancell (an article contributed to by User:MastCell, [[22]) and Medical uses of silver, following talk page interactions, including an accusation of censorship, with a regular silver editor, User:Hipocrite. Each of these editors has warned Neuromancer about a variety of behaviours in the past, with invariably hostile response. The diversity and scope of Neuromancer's disruptions suggests that intervention could be appropriate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my voice, as an involved editor/admin, to the request for some outside eyes here. Neuromancer (talk · contribs) has been active in pressing an AIDS-denialist agenda across numerous articles (representative edit). Issues include:

• Persistent edit-warring (block log)
• Canvassing potentially sympathetic editors ([23]), [24], [25], [26]).
• Most of his non-HIV-related edits seem to be based on Wikihounding; as Keepcalm points out, they're drawn from the contrib histories of editors with whom Neuromancer has been in conflict (followed Hipocrite (talk · contribs) to Dennis Ketcham ([27]), etc).
• Creation of numerous POV forks, including Alternative HIV viewpoints and HIV dissent.
• This sort of thing - not that I'm fussed about having my IQ questioned - it's probably barely above room temperature anyway - but it's a bit grating coming from someone who's constantly accusing others of personal attacks and failure to assume good faith.
• Constant references to a "WP:HIV cabal", by which Neuromancer presumably means editors who hold the "POV" that HIV causes AIDS.
• Very basic WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - despite extensive forum-shopping, and hearing a universal rejection of his proposed edits, Neuromancer keeps repeating the same arguments (see the last 5 or 6 threads at Talk:HIV for examples). He's indicated that he's "not going to stop" just because a "cabal" opposes his edits.
• He's cut-and-pasted a long section from an AIDS-denialist website, and then complained of having "hours of research" erased when this was reverted (will find diffs).

I would like some outside eyes on the situation, if anyone's willing. I don't want to be melodramatic, but these are the sorts of challenges that Wikipedia needs to handle effectively if it ever hopes to achieve its goal of becoming a serious, respectable reference work. MastCell ^Talk 21:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the diffs, talk pages, and assorted miscellany included here, this looks like a case of POV-pushing, with some intransigent statements by Neuromancer. I fear that this is just a continuation of a problem we've seen several times here over the last few weeks (and probably longer) where people with a strong, but minority or fringe POV feel like they are backed into a corner by consensus against them. While I'm not sure that their behaviour is indicative of a block, is there someone who would be willing (and more knowledgeable than I in these particular subjects) to work with Neuromancer to help them understand why their view is fringe and that this isn't personal, its just community consensus that happens to disagree with what they believe? I would also appreciate hearing from both Neuromancer, MastCell, and Hipocrite about their opinions.

On a semi-related note, how do we allow users such as Neuromancer to feel like they have been given an adequate opportunity to have their point of view heard and discussed and not simply swatted out of the air (not that this has happened here...but can happen very easily). While their points of view may be fringe, and not follow community consensus, how do we continue to honour their contributions while maintaining the integrity of WP, and without driving them away?

I'll return to this conversation a little later...its supper time! Frmatt (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that Neuromancer has been resistant to guidance, and has been very confrontational at times. The exchanges on Talk:HIV have been lengthy, but I do think some have been constructive - they've dealt with substantive issues, and resulted in edits that improved the article (only incrementally, though). I have not followed the activity outside Talk:HIV, but those diffs are disheartening. The WP culture takes some getting used to, and plunging into HIV was probably a mistake for a new editor. I'd like to see Neuromancer get some guidance, to understand the difference between disagreement and conspiracy. It's tiring and disruptive when an editor insists that others formally prove numerous well-established concepts that are already supported by reliable sources. -- Scray (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who's interacted extensively with Neuromancer on Talk:HIV, I agree most with Scray's characterization. Emw (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who has interacted, discussed, argued, and usually reached something of a consensus with both Scray and Emw (both of whom I have come to admire for their ability to semi effectively deal with me), and whom I have had much more interaction than anyone else involved in this discussion, I would like to to put out there than I am more than open to discourse of policy, disagreement and conspiracy.
• Additionally, I would like to point out that I do not believe there is a conspiracy to get rid of me, or I would already be gone. My references to the HIV cabal are due to this post on my talk page, and is mostly an attempt at humor, not an impassioned belief that "you are all after me..." Thank you for your patience, and I agree, perhaps HIV was not the place to jump into the Wikipedia as I have. But I am here, and trying to make the best of it. Neuromancer (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As the guy who posted that, it was really in response to Mister Hospodar who happened to post some paranoid kind of stuff on Neuro's user talk. It is supposed to be a smidge humorous; it's actually a rather long-standing joke turned wisdom on wiki. However, I chose that link of all the essays on non-existent cabals to highlight that there is no cabal conspiring against you unless you created it. I guess it didn't take the desired effect as Neuro began referring to cabals afterward, rats.

I full well admit that I took and ran, more as humorous jab back at you, and a few others, than anything serious. I don't think there is a cabal, HOWEVER, there are a group of you who very adamantly defend and revert edits on a number of similar pages. After reading your posted words of wisdom, I thought it humorously appropriate to throw it back at you in kind. My references to a cabal have never been more than half-hearted humor in an attempt to lighten the situation. Seeing as how you are the only one who got the joke... Well, crap! Neuromancer (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh, well, good to know now then! Thanks for clarifying. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, here are my words on the subject. Neuro isn't the only fellow who's made himself heard towards AIDS denialism on talk pages over the years. In particular though, there has been a lot of passion from him that is very accusatory, and this more than anything began sparking contention.

I really tried to steer the conversation as much as possible to specific constructive discourse about articles in question [28], but largely this opportunity was not taken advantage of. Instead, in response to his broad debates, there have been several clear, spelled out arguments highlighting the faults in the particular angle he takes on AIDS denialism ([29], [30] to name a couple i did). The AfD for the content fork of AIDS denialism alone should be a pretty clear wake up call.

I think he hears and sees them but is still trying to game policy/guidelines in his favor, such as omitting "although content may be shortened or moved if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below." to the WP:YESPOV quote in his response below, etc. There has probably been a bit a wikistalking, and cries of censorship/this must be heard/you can't erase history kind of brew-ha-ha, but I like keeping editors more than loosing them so I would love to see mentoring or fostering of better habits than blocks. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears in regards to his below YESPOV quote with relevant (e.g. oppositional to his motives) info omitted, his response is this: [31]. A fairly by-the-book WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It could be that mentoring/fostering isn't an option after all. JoeSmack ^Talk 09:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Offtopic part, my bad. - JoeSmack

Oh, and I'd like to respond to Frmatt above because I think it is a step we need to discuss too. For one, I would say that there has been so much effort by AIDS denialists over the years to bend NPOV of HIV/AIDS articles that it has left a somewhat bitter taste in the mouth. I've been patrolling for about four years now, and the last conflict that was this big was Special:Contributions/Sci_guy. Every effort since has felt like a rehash that gets a little tired, thus this tends to be my first kind of question towards the reprise - [32]. So, somewhat WP:BITEY, I would say so, at least for me. Can someone not previously involved in this incident maybe provide how they'd deal with it better? JoeSmack ^Talk 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Oooh..."Specious" and "Spurious"...I'm impressed by your vocabulary! lol

In all seriousness, though, I will admit that after four years of that type of thing, my response would probably be very similar. In response to your question, I think that you were surprisingly civil, not overly bitey and all in all gave an appropriate response. I wonder if there might be a solution in creating a subpage that is permanently linked to the talk page...something like Talk:HIV/Other Claims with the notation that this page would contain discussion of other claims about HIV that have previously been discussed, and been excluded as a result of consensus...including the appropriate sources that were considered. This would allow users to see the arguments that have already been made, what the consensus was, and how the consensus was achieved. This would also allow users the option of adding new information and sources that may have come to light recently and provide a talking area that wouldn't necessarily clog up the main talk page. I know that as a (relatively) new user, I would appreciate that, especially in some of the articles that I edit which contain some controversial topics. It may also give new users (at least to that page) the knowledge that there is a place for them to express their points of view and to see what the consensus about them is. Frmatt (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm no expert on AN/I, but my sense is that we should be focused on the concerns raised here about Neuromancer's editing, rather than a side discussion of how to make it easier for new editors of HIV (even though this is very constructive and well-intentioned). -- Scray (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true, and I've added it elsewhere.

Brought this offtopic, my bad. Frmatt, that is one idea but i'm wary of having subpages as they tend to get abandoned, and subtalk pages do even more so. I'll look at the username project link you provided, thanks for the feedback. Ok, i'm gonna whisk this into a collapsebox. JoeSmack ^Talk 17:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Knowing that ANI is not necessarily the place to propose any type of restrictions, I would like to ask Neuromancer if they would be amenable to having an uninvolved editor work with them to help them understand the policies? Specifically, that when Neuromancer finds themselves in an edit/content conflict, that they would invite their mentor/coach into the conversation as someone who is relatively impartial and working to ensure that they understand the policies about WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, WP:POV, especially when they find themselves in conflict. Frmatt (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Response by Neuromancer

I assume that I can weigh in on this conversation?

• First and foremost, I have edited in good faith, with the intent to better the Wikipedia in general.
• Secondly, I am not trying to push a fringe POV. This is my understanding, please correct me if I am mistaken...

• Wikipolicy requires at WP:NPOV that “All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” It further requires at WP:YESPOV that “Article content should not be deleted solely on the grounds that it is "POV"" and that "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints.”

That being said, I have also reviewed WP Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which states:

• Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

I fully understand that there are those who think that questioning the science behind HIV is ridiculous and worthy of censoring, however, there are those in the scientific community, who have published peer reviewed papers, questioned many aspects of HIV, AIDS, and the connection between the two. While the cabal[33] currently editing the HIV and AIDS denialism articles claims a NPOV, and that they do not have to give equal eight to fringe POV, a simple review of their resistance to the inclusion of balanced information, whether it be in those articles, or in separate articles, seems very clear that they are not willing to be neutral on the subject.

As far as "Wikistalking" as Hipocrite has accused me of, I cannot even begin to express how petulant that statement is. While I will admit that I have reviewed other editors contributions, and even weighed in on a couple of the articles that they have been involved in, I am not now, nor have I ever, edited an article simply to "frustrate" another editor. This accusation was posted to my talk page by Hipocrite just this morning. While I do tend to have an interest in alternative health treatments, such as HIV, cancer, etc, I have also edited such articles as the Fort hood shooting. I think it is an unfair characterization to say that I am stalking anyone.

When it comes to canvassing... I fail to see how mentioning to another editor that a discussion is taking place that they may be interested in, is somehow a bad thing. I in fact copied this practice from such editors as Verbal and Hipocrite, who routinely post messages on one another's talk pages requesting input regarding a particular topic of debate throughout the Wiki. I have not requested that they take a particular viewpoint, merely that they have expressed interest in the topic in the past, and may be interested in the current conversation. Here is the most recent example I can readily find [34], or Nunh-huh, JoeSmack, TechBear.

I have not cut and pasted long sections from denialist web sites. I did take a list of factors known to cause false positive HIV antibody tests, which had 64 references, and use it in the site, and the original compiler was given credit. The references did not have any DOI or PMID information, let alone being suitable for Wiki formatting. Each and every one of those references was researched, updated, verified to be on point, and formated by me. I would call that hours of research.

As far as the "creation of numerous POV forks... I cannot agree with that. I have created 3 articles here. 2 on the topic of HIV. Initially, I un-forwarded HIV dissent and created article content there. That was nominated for deletion, and reverted back to a forward, the next day, prior to a discussion or consensus being reached. So I then created a new namespace, Alternative HIV viewpoints, where I published relatively the same article, which has also been nominated for deletion. Again, prior to the AfD discussion closing, the article was wiped and forwarded, and for trying to prevent this, I received a 24 hour ban. How is consensus and discussion supposed to take place when there is no article to discuss?

So, salient points:

• Always in good faith...
• Been Bold
• Ignored all rules, except for personal attacks. (Never have I personally attacked an editor)
• Modified behavior as users have brought potential violations to my attention.

Neuromancer (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone realizes that it is highly coincidental that a user who has edited what - 5 mainspace articles has somehow overlapped and edit-warred against people he has disagreements with on 4 of them - and those 4 are in totally disparate subjects, with the note that he has expressed an interest in a 5th, totally disparate subject here. How far does AGF go? Hipocrite (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I became involved with Dennis the Menace because I was following AfD, not you. When you nominate an article for delete or merge, it is common courtesy to allow the discussion to take place for the requisite 7 days. Blanking and forwarding is just rude, and makes any discussion difficult. Neuromancer (talk) 00:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Colloidal Silver has been used in Alternative HIV and Cancer treatments. It is not, as you say, "disparate." I have not intentionally edit warred with anyone. After it was brought to my attention, I changed my behavior. I have been involved in edit controversy in HIV and Alternative HIV Viewpoints. If there is another article you think is relevant, please list it. Neuromancer (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate WP:OWNing of an article by User:William M. Connolley

I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at this. WMC stating he is just going to wait for other editors to get fed up and stop editing. WMC refactoring other people's talk edits. WMC telling other editors to leave. WMC telling other editors to leave, again. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I think that this was ill-advised, and I'd encourage WMC not to do it again. The other edits do not appear problematic; perhaps slightly less civil than is optimal, but nothing beyond what's normal in heated talk page discussions. Steve Smith (talk) 21:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. ---Irbisgreif-(talk | e-mail)-(contribs) 21:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The complaintant may be violating WP:POINT, but WMC has been WP:OWNing the article for some time, continually removing tags without consensus, and reverting attempts to change the article in any way, or even to clarify inclusion criteria. He has had consensus for some of his edits. (I admit to arguing for deletion in the AfD, and have been opposed to WMC in some disputed edits, but agreeing with him in others. I don't consider him agreeable, but WP:CIVIL is not in question here.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Harassing and WP:POINT violations by Irbisgreif

The above complaint needs a bit more context. About two weeks ago, Irbisgreif nominated List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming for deletion for the 4th (sic - the article was nominated also under a previous name) time . He/she claimed POV and BLP violations. All previous nominations failed as clear keep, this one failed as no consensus. The article was taken to DRV, where (s)he again claimed BLP problems with the article multiple times. The DRV was closed as an endorse. Shortly after that, his/her BLP concerns seem to have vanished, and (s)he created Category:Scientists Opposing The Mainstream Scientific Assessment Of Global Warming and populated it with a large number of people, in clear violation of WP:BLPCAT. WMC and I removed the unsourced categorizations, and I nominated the category for deletion. Now Irbisgreif has initiated a completely spurious sockpuppet case against WMC involving several long-term and established editors. I have to say that my good faith has been stretched beyond breaking point... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep, this is utter drivel on Ig's part. Having tried and failed to delete the article, Ig now wants to fiddle around with it, or create an entire categrory around it, or who knows exactly what. But improving the encyclopaedia doesn't seem to be one of Ig's goals. The only thing Stephan fails to note in the above is that the DR was an abuse of process and done on entirely spurious grounds William M. Connolley (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that addition is not the case. There had been a change in the deletion policy, to make "no consensus" in a BLP matter default to "delete", instead of to "keep". There is clear consensus that the article is about living persons, although not for or against the statement that there are any prsent BLP violations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there has been no such change. A much weaker change is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Default_to_delete_for_BLPs and clearly rejected by the community. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

In a bizarre coincidence, Ig has left the building [35] William M. Connolley (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty weird. Maybe he "disappeared down a rathole?" Flying Jazz (talk) 14:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Please give it time and return to bickering and battling in a week.

I'd like to thank Steve Smith for discouraging WMC from blanking out talk page comments (particularly, mine). Other than that, I'd like to encourage administrators to ignore this mess. These editors are all passionate about their viewpoints (as am I), and we're all suspicious of each other (and some of us have more reason to be than others), and we're all cranky (including me). My view is that Irbisgreif shouldn't have formed the category recently. I agree with WMC; that was weird. Don't know what got into him. My view is that WMC and KimDabelsteinPetersen shouldn't have blanked out my talk page comment. That was beyond weird. Don't know what got into them. Irbisgreif also shouldn't have started that sockpuppetry case. That was really strange. You've been a naughty group of very naughty, naughty editors, and I don't think any of you have clean hands (except me, of course). Maybe you're all really the same person and you're acting in such overtly bizarre ways in order to scare away anyone rational (like me, of course). By the way, I do agree agree at the moment with basic premise of this AN/I notice. I think WMC and the "group" referred to in my blanked talk page posts really are violating WP:OWN in addition to WP:BATTLE. However, I'm willing to admit to the possibility that my view may be influenced by recent events during the AfD and deletion review, like WMC's unfounded accusations of bad faith when I contacted him on his talk page. That was weird. In summary, I hope administrators do nothing and editors keep away for a week and try to de-weirdify. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

block review

I have found it necessary to block an editor for 48 hours for repeatedly adding a defamatory link to multiple pages. The rationale for doing so is on my talk page, at [36] & the link in its edit history. a few edits before that. I have asked two other admin to check my work, and their supporting comments are on the user talk page . Since the editor involved persists in considering me prejudiced, I mention it here. If any admin so considers it , they are at liberty to remove the block. Alternatively, any admin is also welcome to extend it, if they agree with me that this editor's conduct here has become a personal vendetta against the subject of the article involved, based on off wiki events . DGG ( talk ) 22:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems OK to me. You gave fair warning and they didn't stop. TNXMan 22:30, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at his edit history--he's been here since 2007, and virtually all of his edits have been to the Joseph Schlessinger article. He was warned as early as his first month here, and still kept it up. I'm not only endorsing this block, but extending it indefinitely, as I don't see any prospect of him ever getting it. Blueboy96 03:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

fine with me--the one-subject concentration will easily indicate what's up if it resumes under another name. I agree ghat this is the sort of enmity that is unlike to die down with time. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING violations by User:Sir Floyd

Frankly I'm tired of some users and their banned IP buddies revealing my personal information, threatening me, and stupidly "mocking" me about my age (I say "stupidly" because if I really am a "kid", then they all think they got banned by a "kid" :). With his edit of 4 November 2009, User:Pantaleone, the latest sock of User:PIO, posted the following on Talk:Republic of Ragusa (addressing me, of course):

• "PIO, Luigi, Bruno, Giovanni, MacLot, Miranovic, Babic, Sir Floyd and.. they can organize a syndacate for you and your compliance admins! Goodbye troll" [37]

He then proceeded to have a chat with User:Sir Floyd, during which they both "mocked" me calling me "Junior" (LoL :) and revealing my identity. I honestly did not want to raise a fuss out of it all, since I'm supposed to be busy with my studies, so I just warned User:Sir Floyd, pointed out that he is in serious violation of WP:HARASS, and advised him to read that policy [38] (even though I was/am absolutely positive he knew about it full well). I assumed he'd stop. He however seems to feel my warning was "insulting" and has decided he shall continue to to patronize me and reveal my name/personal information on his talkpage [39], and I'm not willing to overlook that no matter how busy I may be. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left Sir Floyd a courtesy note informing him of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Off2riorob. I would've done it myself if he didn't feel so passionately about me editing his talkpage. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I was expecting this. If I have offended the Direktor, then I apologise. He himself is no angel and has been giving me grief for a very long time. Please take this into account. Concerning the block editors who frequently visit my talk page, I have no control over them or their comments. Please do an " Ip user check on me". I am from Australia and my IP user number should confirm that. I sincerely hope this is not turning into a witch hunt. Regards Sir Floyd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Floyd (talk • contribs) 02:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I'm sorry too, but since I am actually receiving threats against my person, since this is by no means your first such attack, and since I did actually warn you as politely as I could, only an idiot would take your apology seriously. Lets just stay focused on this issue, none of your standard sidetracking of the discussion pls. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"He himself is no angel" is not a motive for your behaviour, Direktor Sir Floyd. You are the master of your own keyboeard. -DePiep (talk) 03:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Direktor you have been very abusive towards me over and over again. What do you expect is going to happen? Does one just lay down and take it. At one stage you threatened to delete everything I wrote. You write in a condescending language and keep coming up with accusations that are way over the top. Maybe we should just agree to a cool off period. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Corrected angel behavour (see stroke above). Sir Floyd, if there is a problem, please start your own thread. Behaviour X does not allow behaviour Y. -DePiep (talk) 03:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not my nature to go around doing Incidents Reports. I really don't see what I have done is so wrong and why I should be punished. Sir Floyd (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Case in point, Direktor wrote "Goodbye troll". Now where I come from, that's a huge inslut. You don't go around saying to people "troll" without expecting a reaction. Troll is something used when you really want to hurt someone. So how does one react? Those samples of coverstion that Director provided look innocent to me, compared to troll. I really hope that this is not a witch hunt and that there is good will here. (Editors have been debating over articles on Wikipedia since day one)

What is outing anyway? This is the first time I have seen this on Wikipedia, I guess I will have to research it. Also, I'm thinking that I will just put up a sign for the Block Editors to leave me alone. Sir Floyd (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts at sidetracking this discussion are not gonna work. I obviously never called you a "troll". The transparent "innocent newb" act is also something only an idiot would buy. Not only were you completely aware that it is against policy to reveal personal information, I also warned you and showed you the policy. So please, I know you're clever, but you're not kidding anyone. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

............and your compliance admins! Goodbye troll" please that was about me! I do not know anything about the above. When did you tell me that, please show me? If you did I'll admit that I was wrong, because I have no memory of it "What is outing anyway?". Furthermore your agressiveness towards me is unwarrented. There are a lot worse things to worry about. Time could be spent on more constructive things. Is it because we don't see eye to eye on things. One could be more respectful of other people's differences. Please stop insulting me and I would appreciate you not writiing in a condescending tone. Sir Floyd (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop talking about the edit made by User:Pantaleone on Talk:Republic of Ragusa [40], and start talking about your repeated violations of WP:HARASS. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok! Firstly I appreciate the last interaction on Talk:Josip Broz Tito, I'd much rather debate sources & references than what is happening here. I say lets bury the hatchet. Concerning the violations, I apologise (but what did I do?), if you are not happy with my apology could you please present your concerns in point form and I shall address them tomorrow in an orderly academic fashion. This old dog can still learn.Sir Floyd (talk) 14:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A few things are clear just from looking at this thread (which now appears to be another forum for you two to argue so I'm not really sure it's getting anywhere. Basically:

• Sir Floyd, you asked 'does one just lay down and take it' and the answer is yes, absolutely an abusive editor thrives on your rising to their insults, if you don't rise to them they'll stop doing it. Anyone can continue an argument by acting immaturely in response to immature actions but a good editor deals with it correctly, warnings, reports etc. If it's not in your nature to raise reports and deal with issues properly then maybe your nature is incompatible with what is expected on WP and you should consider addressing that?
• From what I can see here neither of you are what I would consider particularly good editors. Even after you requested admin assistance, Direktor, you continue to engage in petty arguments and Sir Floyd you continue to do so even when somebody has raised concerns about your behaviour. Both of these are, in my opinion, signs of editors that are not acting in a way that the WP community expects and therefore maybe you both need admin attention to correct this.
• Finally, the case of posting personal information. Sir Floyd, this is totally unacceptable and I agree with it being raised on this noticeboard (though you can probbably tell not how it has transpired from there) you have absolutely no right to post any personal information about any user on WP, regardless of whether they're the most respected editor or the worst vandal. There's a reason we have strict policies in place governing this and I strongly recommend you stop doing it.

In summary I think you both need to take a long hard look at your actions on WP and the way you relate with other editors, your argument on this board alone should set alarm bells ringing as to your ability to adhere to the norms of this community. Please don't have a go at me, these are just my observations. RaseaC (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RaseaC, pardon me all over the place for not being 100% flowery polite - but I'm getting genuine threats of violence here. And not for the first time, either. How's a guy supposed to behave Wiki-like when these guys get together and chat about how I should be "got rid of". Not that that's some indicator of quality in and of itself, but I have well over 20,000 edits on enWiki, I'm fully committed to this place, and I at all times strive to improve WP, its sources, and its neutrality. I frankly resent being talked down to when I report a person who has twice infringed on Wikimedia privacy policy (in spite of warnings), and that person getting away completely clean in the end because I failed to be 100% polite with threats and mockery being directed against me. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Direktor, any inaapropriate response by any editor (new or established) is unacceptable. You are an established user, I know that, and therefore was even more surprised that you rose to the bait, if you like. I will happily leave a note on Sir Floyd's talk explaining what the problem is and suggest that further discussion isn't really necessary on account of it just seems to spiral into argument. Off2riorob made a good point in a previous discussion between you two when he said that you both seem to work together when you don't cross tracks so maybe, assuming Sir Floyd understands his mistake, you take Off2riorob's advice and try and avoid eachother? The next time you get a threat of violence get a block request in and remove the text, if you give up acknowledging them they'll give up annoying you. RaseaC (talk) 14:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi RaseaC. I'm losing the thread of conversation here. I agree with you RaseaC, almost in total. I can be a bit of a hot head, but I am prepared to learn. Sir Floyd (talk) 14:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this thread is getting anywhere. I think my post on your talk covers the major issues raised by all parties so maybe we're done with discussing it here. How about everyone goes off and does some good work on wiki? The amount of time wasted on this argument is really starting to mount up. RaseaC (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I Sir Floyd agree as an act of good faith, to not contact Direktor and not edit any article that Direktor is actively editing for one month. Sir Floyd (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User Sir Floyd is posting this (I have moved it from his talkpage) in an attempt to placate this situation. Would this be acceptable to User Direktor? Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I Sir Floyd agree as an act of good faith, to not contact Direktor and not edit any article that Direktor is actively editing for one month. User:Sir Floyd|Sir Floyd 15:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

96.36.28.60

Resolved

 – IP Editor blocked for 1 week by User:MuZemike

96.36.28.60

Persistent incivility and edit-warring by the above user on Twinking, its talk page and edit summaries. He was taken to task about this some time ago at Wikiquette alerts but the discussion was inconclusive. That discussion details the original instances of incivility and edit warring and itself contains extensive incivility against the uninvolved editors who took up the discussion. While that discussion was taking place, he continued to post uncivil, inflammatory comments towards uninvolved editors on the Twinking talk page: e.g. here. He has again begun edit warring on the Twinking page, reverting with spurious reasons e.g. [41] and trolling the talk page [42]. He also seems to have used a sockpuppet, Stormrider99 in the Wikiquette alerts discussion. Propose a block. bridies (talk) 04:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be an uncivil editor who reacts negatively when someone tries to inform him of the policies in a polite and civil manner. Endorse a block. Frmatt (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit [43] would seem to indicate the IP does not understand our WP:OR,WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY and WP:RS policies. Exxolon (talk) 04:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

IP Blocked 1 week for edit-warring, blatant incivility, and sock puppetry. MuZemike 04:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you suppose this [44] is an unblock request? Can't see it working myself. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I try and do my best to make sure nobody is trying to take advantage of the system in place here. I'm open to a review of my block by an uninvolved administrator (given that I just recently messed up on one earlier today). Jeez, already. MuZemike 22:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Not criticizing you here Mike - nothing wrong with the block here. I just happened to notice it - wasn't sure if it would constitute ranting, talkpage abuse or a request for an unblock (if the last, I wouldn't think it has a snowball's - editor very apparently Hasn,tGotIt) Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, wasn't directed at you. MuZemike 00:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:12.239.22.131 and User talk:75.141.100.115

12.239.22.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
75.141.100.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
137.164.95.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Puzzling situation:

User talk:12.239.22.131 claims to be the same person as User talk:75.141.100.115 and repeatedly tries to re-direct what he claims to be his/her "old" talkpage to the new one. Even more puzzling is that the 75IP was blocked yesterday and the corresponding userpage was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:75.141.100.115, and (apparently in response to the deletion) the 12IP left this message at User talk:Doug...

What the heck is that about? Anyone smarter than me could explain to the IP or IPs what the situation is? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at it, and it makes my head hurt. If nothing else, it shows that the IP wasn't static, and the page should have been deleted. Dayewalker (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec):A quick geolocate trace (the one at the bottom of all ip pages) shows that 12.239.22.131 ip is in Carollton Texas, while the 75.141.100.115 ip is in Pendleton Oregon some 1900 miles apart...I'm pretty sure that they're not the same person. After having looked at this user's contributions...I'm not entirely sure what is going on here, they seem to have some idea of what they're doing, but refuse to have anybody leave them messages except under the strictest opinions, and don't seem to be the nicest person in the world. Anybody else have an opinion? Oh...and somebody should notify them about this thread. Done. Frmatt (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

addendum - It could very well have been a change to a different ip address due to the dynamic ip, but wouldn't they stay within at least the same block of numbers? Frmatt (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The 12. ip address is aware of this thread...they just deleted my notification! Frmatt (talk) 06:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Iuno... this is really too weird. It cannot be that one IP now gets to mess with the page of another IP, and all that's left to do is take their "I'm the same person"-claim at good faith... from Oregon to Texas. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think at this point the best option would be to soft-block both IP addresses (soft block means they can still create an account, right?), delete the user and user talk pages for both (as well as any other pages) and let them start over again...I'm not sure there's any other option right now... Frmatt (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Soft-block at the least (this is the first time ever that I suggest a block)... the 12IP seems unwilling to talk at all. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unwillingness to talk? Then they don't deserve to be part of this community. We work by collaboration, and communication is often a must. Make them register if they want to edit. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to be quite as harsh, but...yeah. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There are ways to IP hop, as I've found through long and bitter experience with certain sockpuppeteers that I won't dignify by naming here. That IP is up to some sort of shenanigans and needs to be blocked if he won't explain himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I left a 2nd invitation about half an hour ago. Still no response. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

My opinion: WP:DUCK. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And that third IP, 137.164.95.15, from California, also seems to be connected. He's also under a block for separate reasons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the second IP's talk page looks very much like the first IP's... even if they were to be two separate users, that's just a bad idea. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked both the 12.239 and the 75.141 accounts for one month, no editing of talk page, account creation and registered users not blocked. I intend to blank both talk pages (someone above mentioned delete, I disagree, almost never for talkpages) and leave a message explaining the situation shortly. It is remotely possible the user moved. I've had numerous relatively static IPs at the various locations I've been. But I don't think even this would change the outcome based on the conduct of the IP.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Blanking would be the way to go. I was amused by an IP address posting "rules" on how others may use "his" talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here based on an edit on one of the two talk pages. As always, users can't own IP addresses because they can change even if they don't move out of state; IPs can shift, and another user may end up receiving the IP, and in case of redirecting pages, the wrong user may receive a certain message. If I behaved like that as an anon, it would result in ownership of 32767+ pages because of the number of times my internet connection drops. If they want to have their own permanent page, they can create an account. As for the edit, I was removing a speedy-delete tag that the user re-added via a revert. --Sigma 7 (talk) 16:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I initially nominated the first ips user page for MfD after they came to my attention because of some very odd requests for page protection that didn't make a lot of sense. I strongly suspect from the nature of some of their posts that this is a returning banned or blocked user. They specifically sought out certain experienced admins, including asking User:Gogo Dodo to create a page for them, as well as asking "what culture are you from," and repeatedly trying to get User:Jdelanoy's user page unprotected. The whole thing smells of sleeper socks, and communicating with them is nearly impossible. I think I made five or six postings to their talk page, which were all blanked, and the only response I got was this message [45] informing me that I do not have the right to comment on either their user or talk pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, I'm not aware of this having come up before and couldn't find any specific policy dealing with it, but since ips have even less "ownership" of their talk pages than other users, should all the obnoxious formatting be permitted? The talk pages are hard to follow as a result, and when thip is re-assigned the next user would probably be very confused by it... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be legitimate grounds for running a CU on these IPs and nailing the butt(s) of the user(s) to the wall with a big indef spike if that hasn't happened already. Such disruption, timewasting and gaming the system shouldn't be tolerated. Wikipedia isn't a playground for such teasing, pranks, or worse. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree with the intent of your remarks, what could Checkuser tell us in this case since we already know what the ips are? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It would tell us if any registered user(s) stand behind those IPs and are gaming the system. Then the registered user(s) could be taken to task for socking and disruption. That's a very legitimate use of CU. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pardon my intrusion (I'm not an administrator), but while I agree with your remarks' intent, like Beeblebrox, I fail to see how a CheckUser in this case would be anything but fishing. After all, there's no known sockmaster... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a type of fishing expedition that isn't allowed, but here we have known disruption, and the IPs are part of the evidence. It is pretty obvious that a CU in a case like this wouldn't be an improper fishing expedition where disruption has already been established by known IPs. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

MoonHoaxBat

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moonbatssuck/Archive

MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Although he possibly should have been blocked, the stated reasons are bogus:

1. He shouldn't be blocked as a sock puppet, as he admitted the previous names, which had been blocked for user name violation. He claims to have checked the name with User:Jehochman.
2. Unless there were some deleted contributions, he didn't misuse his talk page. I can't tell if he misused E-mail, but he should certainly be allowed to E-mail ArbCom to appeal.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his specific contributions yet, but his previous names were a built-in editorial, and this one also hints at it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a single-purpose account, that purpose being to demean 350.org. That fact is reinforced by some of his comments on User talk:Jehochman where the current user ID calls opponents of his viewpoint "Moonbats". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I still think he should be given an opportunity to select a proper name. The block reasons given are still only a user name violation, which usually results in a request to select a proper user name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a very new account indeed, and he HAS tried in good faith to change names. I'll have more to say in a moment, but Baseball_Bugs, are you sure about the comments? I don't see him using the phrase "moonbat" in that way, but if you have a diff that would help. He has modified his name to suggest a link to the moonbats of the Great Moon Hoax of 1835, and has disavowed an association with "liberals". If you have dif that shows otherwise, I'll certainly reconsider! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This edit [46] tells me everything I need to know about this guy's approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In all sincerity, I do not understand your reaction to that edit. It actually looks very constructive to me. He is saying that his use of "moonbat" was not intended about liberals, and should only be offense to the moonbats of the Great Moon Hoax. That's why he uses MoonHoax-Bat, and had been doing so for a week before that edit. He suggests trying to find compromise. A number of other edits suggests he is completely sincere about the compromise. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 08:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

He says anyone who found his previous usernames offensive must be a Moonbat themselves. Hardly a constructive comment. Meanwhile, if he is actually a sock of an indef'd user, he can't be allowed to continue the same stuff, no matter what his ID is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Um ... he said that only moonbats of the great moon hoax should be offended. He said this because he has explicitly made his name MoonHoaxBat, not MoonBat, and this is in line with previous comments on his choice of names. I think you have plenty of room to assume good faith here with that edit. I absolutely agree with your point about being a sock of a banned user, but I have so far seen no indication that this is actually the case. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be a sock for a banned user based on his initial edits. My guess is RJII. The Four Deuces (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That editor last edited under that name in summer of 2006, but had recent sockpuppets. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

RJII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RJII/Archive

The user MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) has been changing their user name on the explicit advice and direction of other administrators. The final name chosen appears to have satisfied Admins working with this user. See the following exchange:

(An extract from this revision of User_talk:MoonHoaxBat at 16:28, 29 October 2009, before blanking:) Tried! User:Loonymonkey beat me to it. Once again, my two previous usernames were banned for being offensive to liberals. There was no way for me to edit again without creating a third name. The admins who blocked my previous name know about this. I could have sockpuppeted and been anonymous, but I took responsibility and was open about my previous names. --MoonHoaxBat (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC) That's an accurate representation, though the issue is not "offensive to liberals" as much as "likely to cause disruption and breach collegiality". It's best not to label editors at all. We're here to write neutral articles. We should all try to check our personal opinions at the door, and pick them up when we leave. Jehochman Talk 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This user was previously advised, in an earlier incarnation, that they are abusing multiple accounts: WP:POINT, and they were told to pick an appropriate username, and stop WP:BAITing and WP:BATTLEing. See the block message on User:Idetestlunarbats. They then picked the third and current name, and have been using now for a week. The extract above suggests it was acceptable to Jehochman, who was the one who advised getting a new name. The users edit history is as follows:

1. As Moonbatssuck (talk · contribs), 34 live edits from 20:31, 27 Oct to 20:42, 28 Oct.
2. As Idetestlunarbats (talk · contribs), 11 live edits from 21:03, 28 Oct to 21:42, 28 Oct.
3. As MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs), 115 live edits from 00:21, 29 Oct to 01:34, 8 Nov.

It seems to me that we have a new user who is in a catch-22 situation. They got off to a bad start, but they did want to start over. They did attempt to pick a new user name when directed. The attempt to start over is going to run into trouble with sock puppet investigations, but it is clear from the dates above that there was no attempt at sockpuppetry here... only an attempt to move to a new user name when directed. I've looked over the history a bit, and the name problem seems to be blown up out of all proportion. (I might be wrong, but that's my current impression.) However, it is always a bad idea to pick a user name that might be perceived by others as trying to make a point. Every edit then becomes also an implicit message about this point, and I think that is disruptive, and in violation of the spirit of WP:POINT. I suggest we try a new username yet again; one that can't be offensive or confused with the epithet moonbat.

1. Try using something that is plainly just a name. "Fred" is available.
2. Try using "Man-Bat". If it makes people think of anything, they'll think Batman; and furthermore the term man-bat was indeed used in the hoax of 1835. See this extract: Further observation of these curious creatures, [...] dubbed the “Vespertilio-homo, or man-bat,” followed., taken from Great Moon Hoax of 1835

—Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. He's using "MoonBats" as a metaphor for liberals. I could use "Nazis" as a metaphor for conservatives, except they might not like that, except maybe the banned user Axmann8 who called himself a conservative but actually was a neo-Nazi and proud of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any diff to indicate that he intended to use moonbats in that way. Again; if there is a dif for this, then I shall reconsider in a heartbeat, but I would like to see evidence. He seems to have been pretty consistent in all incarnations that the moonbats of his username are the man-bats of the Great Moon Hoax of 1835, and not a reference to liberals at all. I have never seen him use "moonbat" in any other way. I'll keep looking, but if you have an actual dif, it would help. Otherwise I still see no reason not to assume good faith in this. I can be persuaded on this, but I do need evidence. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 10:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In all three cases when the administrators refused to unblock they indicated disruptive editing as well as the account name for reasons not to unblock. Editors should not set up new accounts when they are blocked for disruptive editing. Moonbatssuck's first edits show evidence that he is not a "new user". His first edit was creating a new section with internal links and external references that show a level of experience.[47] His second edit was to revert back to his text[48] and his conversation shows an awareness of WP policies. His editing style seems very similar to RJII and his suspected socks. The Four Deuces (talk) 10:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Previous discussion is here. Jehochman did approve the name, with some reservations. The stuff about the moon hoax of 1835 is a ridiculous stretch. Moonhoaxbat ("Moonbat hoax") is an expression of global warming denial, insinuating GW as a hoax put over by moonbats.. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Broad agreement with the filing statement here: it is true that Jehochman OK'd this username after blocking the other accounts, and that no misuse of talk page privilleges appear to have occurred. At minimum, this suggests talk page access should be unblocked. Even if The Four Deuces suspicions are correct, nothing suggests RJII should be disallowed from on-wiki appeal to ArbCom if preferred. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have come round on this issue. I've been looking over his edit history, in all three incarnations, and I believe he is disingenuous. The first reference to the Great Moon Hoax of 1835 that I can see was as "Idetestlunarbats" in this edit where he requests the unblock of that second name choice. He says: "I picked this one to clarify that I dislike the fictional lunar bats of the Great Moon Hoax, not liberals." That fails a basic sanity test; how can you dislike fictions man-bats of a 1835 hoax? This is a clear attempt at plausible deniability, and I withdraw my earlier comments about the name. The current name "MoonHoaxBat" is a better attempt at getting plausible deniability, but not enough. If he is allowed back at all, it should be with a completely new name with absolutely no relation to any variety of moon-bat.

Some of the comments he had made in some places, including WP:WQA where I first got sucked into this, looked very positive at first, such as his offer to withdraw from the page on 350, in this edit. I suspect now this too may have been disingenuous, and made mainly to try and force Ratel into a position of withdrawing as well, which was not appropriate.

His "apology" to Ratel was also insincere. It appears in this edit, as "Idetestlunarbats", in which he claims to be sincere in thinking Ratel would join him in a campaign to deal with "unofficial literature", and then this edit where he objects to be called on it and labeled disingenuous by Tanthalas39.

All told, there is enough circumstantial evidence for me to withdraw any support for the guy. Whether he is a sockpuppet or not, the edit history suggests letting him back will only lead to trouble.

As I said before, the three user names were attempts to change name, not sockpuppetry. I have no view on the suggestion of a link to earlier sockpuppets. Precisely what is appropriate in terms of strict justice, I do not know... but I'm withdrawing since pragmatically I suspect he's better not part of the project and I'm glad you guys are here to deal with this kind of stuff, so I can leave it in your hands. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Duae Quartunciae - we'd simply be asking for trouble by letting this user edit. Apart from that, it looks like moonbat is attempting forum shopping and trying to make threats. Recommend revoking talk page access and email access. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that I have ever made any threats. If I did (since this was your basis for disabling my Talk page), please provide a diff.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This was what I saw going on in the SPI case. I saw a user, Moonbatssuck, rightly softblocked to change username. The person then tries to change the username to Idetestlunarbats and later to MoonHoaxBat. Including what was amounting to disruption on the 350.org pages, which as indicated above WP:POINT and WP:BAIT, I had to hardblock all three accounts. IMO, we can split hairs over whether this is considered sock puppetry (besides the fact that it popped up at SPI), but I felt the blocks I made were appropriate. I don't think the user was interested very much at all in being constructive. There's likely another sockmaster here (I don't know of whom), as Moonbatssuck's very first edit [49] indicates some good wiki-knowledge, including adding references, wikilinks, etc. MuZemike 17:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Now if the community wants to give the user a good faith attempt to come back (which I will honor if that is achieved, then the user can request unblock with the {{unblock-un}} and request a username change before considering unblocking him. MuZemike 18:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Since my talk page was blocked (for nothing), this is the only way I can communicate. I am willing to go with this name instead of anything having to do with the man-bats of the 1835 hoax, which apparently have a very strong lobby here. As a registered Democrat, I find all these insinuations about hating liberals to be laughable. I must be a real lib-hater, having voted for Carter/Mondale! There are no diffs to back any of it up. And then you're accusing me of being someone who last edited in 2006? Seems rather paranoid. It is possible that in the course of three years someone else came a long with a similar editing style. I agreed not to edit the 350.org page and did not do so again. Again, any diffs to the contrary? Then I was blocked. Blocking my user talk page is equivalent to telling a defendant that he can't defend himself. I wasn't even allowed to submit defending comments on the noticeboard in the minutes between the case being opened and closed. I have been constructive under the previous name and edited several articles, not just the 350 one. I was not DISRUPTIVE, anymore than Ratel (a massive POV purveyor)was disruptive. All I am asking is to be allowed to edit again. And before you bite my head off for being a "sockpuppet," ask yourself, how else can I appeal something if you've gagged my other name? I AM in a catch-22. I have offered many attempts at finding compromise at the 350 page, as you can see by my edits. I was the one told that I have Asperger's, was a Jihadist, Mujaheddin, etc. by RATEL. No discipline there? Isn't that kind of comment both more disruptive and offensive to our actual colleagues with Asperger's or of Islamic faith? Doesn't that created a hostile environment for certain users, by describing Muslims as stubborn nihilists and people with Asperger's as "unable to play nice?" I HAVE NEVER insulted liberals, environmentalists, global warming supporters, or any other group. Those are all projections based on a mistaken interpretation of my username. You have no evidence to support your prejudices, but you block me. You have pursued and bitten a newbie who has tried to make right off his earlier mistakes. I want to appeal this to ArbCom. How do I do that? Out of respect for the spirit of the sockpuppet rule, I will not be making edits unrelated to my appeal. I suppose you will all block me again, because there can be no appeals allowed for this Wikipedian. Banishment forever seems to be the preferred method of correction here.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only MoonHoaxBat had talk page access revoked (which I didn't do). Creating new accounts to state your appeal is not the right way to go here, I'm afraid. MuZemike 18:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Then forgive me, what IS the right way to state my appeal when my (MoonHoaxBat) user talk page was blocked? That's all I am trying to figure out.--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you seemed to have been able to create a username that does not indicate disruption, so I don't think that is a problem. As far as the other issues I saw, I have to defer to what everyone else thinks should happen. MuZemike 18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. But I'm still unclear about how I should contact ArbCom. There is something on their page about sending an email, which I did. But I don't know what to send, etc. Is there a form or something that I fill out? I both want to appeal my block and ask for them to remove Ratel's prejudicial and hostile comments about people with Asperger's and Muslims. I am not looking for any discipline on that matter. Thank you,--FredUnavailable (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should voluntarily refrain from any edits in any wikipedia articles except your own user space, and this discussion, until this discussion is complete. If you do make other edits, I would recommend a new soft block on your new account; not as punishment, but just as a way of avoiding disruption to the project until this is sorted, as provided in WP:CLEANSTART. You should not edit the encyclopedia while there is a block in place, and your block does legitimately restrict you on the basis of disruption, all consideration of identity aside. I'll comment some more shortly. I think we may be able to get this sorted and help you get a new and more constructive start. But you should be patient. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood. As I put earlier on my user page, I won't edit outside here or my user/talk page. I'll participate here (if permitted) and wait for the outcome. Thanks,--FredUnavailable (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(out) This group of accounts shows a lot of similarites with RJII and suspected socks. The following is a summary of behavior that is usually shown by these accounts within the first 100 edits. (Compare for example with recently blocked account User:Default013|Default013]]). I am able to provide examples of this if required.

• Edit political articles about American liberal/conservative topics.
• Enter highly controversial material likely to draw immediate reaction.
• Edit war including violation of 3RR despite warnings
• Use dispute resolution, e.g., RfA, WQA, 3RR, involving maximum number of outside users.
• Extremely argumentative on talk pages.
• Pointy edits.
• Defend actions with ideosyncratic interpretations of WP policy.
• Defend errors as due to inexperience.
• Numerous appeals of blocks.
• Failure to use "Preview" button resulting in numerous consecutive edits.
• Lobbying of administrators.
• Statements that actions are intended to "avoid edit wars".
• Obvious mistakes rare even for new editors sometimes cited as evidence of inexperience.
• Highly persistent.
• Sometimes creates controversial usernames.

Since these accounts were clearly created by an experienced user and have been disruptive, I think we should determine whether they were created by a banned user. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we get a clear set of events here.

• This user had two names blocked because of the name, then hit on Moonhoaxbats, which Jehochman did indeed say was acceptable. So "abusing multiple accounts is not accurate as a block reason".
• Inappropriate username is not accurate either.
• The user then did do a lot of commenting on Talk:360.org. Was any of this blockable? I can't see any diffs suggesting it was, but maybe there are some and, if so, they should be provided.
• The user does not appear to have edited the 360.org article, as they agreed not to
• The user's talk page at Moonhoaxbats was then locked, for abuse which appears to be attempting to explain this [50]

Unless someone has some more information, this is a terrible block. If any user name containing the words "moon" and "bat" are really that unacceptable, then I would argue that Fred should be allowed to go on editing from the current username.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both the above comments. If this is a return of a banned user, then the ban should stay. The evidence seems a bit circumstantial to me, but the fact that the user is clearly familar with wikipedia should be explained. It is conceivably possible that the user has become familiar by using an IP, although it seems unlikely. A formal checkuser might be appropriate; I do not know the procedures. Can you simply ask the user how he knows so much? Can his answer be trusted? I note that he has been disingenuous under the most recent names so I am not inclined to give much leeway here.

On the other hand I also agree that the most recent ban was dubious. It isn't sockpuppetry with the three accounts actually named. There was a clear declaration of intent to change name, and it was done at the direction and awareness of an administrator. It is definitely not appropriate to block for sockpuppetry simply on the basis of "Moonbatssuck" and "Idetestmoonbats", and the case for a link to earlier accounts is so far rather a bit thin. A short block for disruption might have been legitimate, but this is not how it was recorded.

The user declares that they wish to raise formal complaints about user Ratel. I think the user should be instructed to do no such thing and to leave Ratel severely alone. No complaints, to anyone. Just drop it. Joining up just to pursue disputes is a terrible idea, and thr prior history with Ratel pretty much disqualifies the user from being a person who should make such complaints. Forget it. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 21:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I will not file a formal complaint in this case. I have faith that other Wikipedians will take up the issue of getting the offensive comments removed. As I've stated all along, I have no interest in "reporting" Ratel for the purpose of him being punished. I just think it is deeply disruptive to the project to have anti-Asperger's and anti-Muslim slurs left up on a Talk page. But I leave that up to others. I have no interest in engaging Ratel, and since I've withdrawn from the 350 page, I don't anticipate that happening.--FredUnavailable (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless somebody else comes up with something else that I'm currently unaware of, I'm fine with it. Please accept my apologies, Fred. MuZemike 22:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am lurking on this thread. Could somebody with knowledge of RJII ask a checkuser if FredUnavailable == Moonhoaxbat == Default013 == RJII ? Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If checkuser is run it should be between the recent four accounts and the three most recent suspected socks Introman (blocked Sept. 28), Dupledreux (blocked Oct. 14) and Default013 (blocked Oct. 22). The Four Deuces (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am fine with any sort of Checkuser. I just read up on the process and I'm not really sure what it does beyond comparing IP addresses. I don't know if the user in question has a say in whether a Checkuser is done, but if so, I'm all for it. The only RJ11 I know is the old phone line kind. I just checked out the RJII pages and I'll admit that my Talk style is uncannily similar. The main difference, of course, being that I don't have any plans to start pages on "Jewish conspiracies." Sheesh. This places does attract some crazies. I don't want to be associated with any such user. Now I realize why you are all so concerned about me being him.--FredUnavailable (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin actually commented on RJII four years ago.[51] And here is a lengthy discussion where Arthur Rubin opposed RJII in a lengthy dispute about a template that RJII had created. [52] The Four Deuces (talk) 05:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have made a checkuser request at SPI.[53] The Four Deuces (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The block log of MoonHoaxBat (talk · contribs) will need to be amended - talk page access will need to be granted back either way, while whether the block reason needs to be changed to username block (as opposed to sockpuppetry block) will depend on the results of that SPI. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at WP:AIV

Resolved

 – both blocked for edit warring. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Two different IP addresses are slugging it out. One of them might be a sock of a named user who's in on the discussion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely AIV should be indefinitely semi-protected, to stop this sort of thing happening? ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 10:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't call me S... oops, wrong movie. :) Maybe a good idea, except if an IP actually needs to report a vandalizing user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Cost-benefit, that surely happens very rarely? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 10:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If they even know it exists, that raises suspicions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It happens legitimately all the time. Collectively unregistered editors are responsible for fixing a whole load of vandalism, and some are more competent than most autoconfirmed users. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

+1. As AIV is on my watchlist I see IP's reporting vandals frequently. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 14:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with zzuuzz and NeilN - IPs contribute a lot of valid vandalism reports. There are enough editors (and admins, obviously!) who watch the page that any problems can be dealt with pretty quickly, so semi-prot isn't necessary (obviously, if there is intense vandalism of that page, then it might need semi-ing from time to time for a few hours, or a day or whatever). -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 15:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Ben & Jerry's flavors

Awhile back, Chunk Champion (talk · contribs) moved List of Ben & Jerry's flavors to Ben & Jerry's flavors and List of discontinued Ben & Jerry's flavors‎ to Retired Ben & Jerry's flavors. In response I opened a thread at WP:RM and there was agreement that the articles should be moved back to starting with List (discussion was here). The user just went through and did a manual move on both articles to the names without the List. Rather than start another thread at RM, I thought I would open a thread here about this. Can an admin move the articles back and lock them against moving? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be undone - they haven't used the "Move" function which breaks the GFDL requirments. Exxolon (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Procedural note - Chuck Champion notified about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Histmerged both articles, move protected the resulting "List of ..." articles and protected the redirects to stop it happening again. Black Kite 16:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow! That takes me back! (Please pardon this moment of nostalgia. I will go back to my copyright violations now. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha, glad to see you're still around, Moonriddengirl. And thanks for taking care of this, Black Kite. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If you guys are so set on destroying the flavor page then do it. You wont find a better reliable source once I'm gone. --Chunk Champion (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

If your that reliable a source, I'm sure someone in the real world would love to publish your research. At which point other editors can then use said article as a WP:RS for the article here. Simple. Elegant. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Chunk, this thread is about discussing the page names. How is using the standardised "List of" names (since the articles are, after all, just lists) "destroying" the pages? — Huntster (t @ c) 00:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It is unnecessary for someone to make a redundant duplicate page. We had a flavor page and there was nothing wrong with it. The only reason the flavor page exists is because Ben & Jerry's has so many flavors that people didn't want one really long article. But it is still part of the main article. Look at the Haagen Dazs page. That is much more of a list and no one makes a fuss. --Chunk Champion (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh two people Agree and one Oppose..I oppose too. Thats not exactly consensus. Born2cycle explained it perfectly.--Chunk Champion (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat

My fellow Wikipedians, I have just come across this suicide threat in the Sandbox. Not knowing the appropriate procedure, I am submitting it here. Should a Checkuser get the IP and report this to the local authorities? Basket of Puppies 16:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Some time ago User:Aervanath created a template for this situation: Template:Suicide response. It may be helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax saying that a ban will lead him to suicide but probably not worth taking a risk, similarly that template would probably do more harm then good. You need to respond to a cry for help with help, not 'piss off and use this site'. The checkuser/local authority route seems the most appropriate. RaseaC (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You read that template as far more hostile than I do. To me it seems fairly straightforward and informational. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:SUICIDE says to "Treat all claims seriously; Contact administrators; Block user, lock pages; Contact local authorities; Contact the Wikimedia Foundation". GiantSnowman 17:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and it also says, "The template {{Suicide response}} is available as a standard response to such posts." (For background, it was created in response to this older ANI thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive176#Suicide threat.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, don't get me wrong, I wasn't suggesting that your template suggestion was wrong or anything! I was merely making people aware of the standard sequence for responses in such situations. GiantSnowman 17:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I thought from the threading that you were talking to me. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha no, I was just talking into the ether...GiantSnowman 17:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While that essay can certainly be followed by anybody who chooses to, let's not pretend like it's an official policy or guideline. -67.164.37.179 (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a point to make about the advice there, or are you just concerned that somebody in this thread has overlooked the handy box at the top of that essay? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:09, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a concern that people think that if they act as if an essay is a policy or guideline, it will become a de facto policy or guideline. I have no problem with the advice as advice, but I think it would be disastrous for Wikipedia to require its editors to take such an action as a "standard sequence for responses" as suggested by GiantSnowman. Is it okay with you that I have such an opinion? -67.164.37.179 (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure! It's even better with me when you explain it. :) Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't reccomending a particular course of action, I was merely making people aware of one potential avenue. GiantSnowman 20:05, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

When you call something the "standard sequence for responses," I feel that you are going beyond simply making people aware of a potential response, and implying that it is the correct, if not mandated, response. I accept that this was not what you were trying to communicate, but intentions aside, it still required clarification, in my opinion. -67.164.37.179 (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(←) Let's cut to the chase. I will report this to checkuser.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 02:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Serious BLP violations

Testosterone_vs_diabetes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making a series of edits on multiple pages which constitute serious personal attacks and BLP violations. I have notified the user that I am reporting them for these infractions. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it to be the same user as this one

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

Brangifer (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the account for 3 days, because of its disruption and edit-warring across several articles. Abecedare (talk) 17:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What about the IP? While it appears that the username was created after the IP stopped editing, the IP has also been used disruptively. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The IP hasn't been active for over a month. Am I missing something ? Abecedare (talk) 17:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The user's current IP seems to be 158.194.199.13 (talk), and that should be autoblocked for now. If Testosterone_vs_diabetes uses IPs to sock or evade his block, they can be blocked and his block extended. Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks good. The old IP may not be an issue, but the newer one being used as an IPsock isn't a good omen. We need to keep an eye on the IPs and the user. Thanks for your help. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Webzu and Lorena Bobbitt

This user has just added a link to the Lorena Bobbitt article providing contact information (business website including telephone numbers, work address, etc) for a similarly woman identified by the editor, without any sourcing, as Lorena Bobbitt. Whether it is her or not doesn't matter; if it's not, the link is inappropriate; if it is, tracking down onetime, now-private former celebrity and posting exact contact and location information is a grotesque invasion of privacy. I'm going to delete the link from the article. Could someone, as quickly as possible, remove the relevant edits from the edit history and take appropriate action regarding the editor. A warning from a no-status editor like me just won't cut it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you want to take that to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight to have the edit removed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there a quicker process allowing an admin to delete and recreate the article with the inappropriate edit/link removed from public view? This feature RevisionDelete Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

'Poor admin's oversight' is done.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. There's a headnote on the RevisionDelete page saying that the "Oversight" process has been "superseded"; was I interpreting that right by coming here to begin with? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Oversight is still alive and well but may take more time than this. What I did was only hide the revision from non-admins. It does not hide it from view or remove it as oversighting would. I'm not sure what they mean when they say the extension:oversight has been superseded, but I think there is a dichotomy between the name of the software, and the name we call the process here. In other words, even if oversight is no longer being done using the same software that had "oversight" in the title, what they're doing is still called oversighting until such time as we change what we call it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

This took 73 minutes. Although oversighting sometimes takes three or more hours, the median response time is 28 minutes, so regular oversight probably would have worked fine here.--chaser (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

de:?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing this. Look, admins at en: have no authority at de:. Perhaps a discussion at meta: would be more appropriate, but this is not the venue for this problem. There is nothing anyone here could do EXCEPT make the problem worse. --Jayron32 04:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Hi, I am never cared about admin status, so I think I'll let you guys know. For those that have not heard, there is a bit of a war going on on the German WP. Ask anyone who has heard, they are bound to have an opinion (warranted or not) on it. It is pretty major-scale, has already spawned publich debate meetings and flamewars in blogs etc. So I primarily speak to those with real higher up status on WP.

Things are getting a bit out of control. I have never contributed much to the de:, because its "karma" never felt right (does this really conform with the spirit of WP:5P?). But I have observed its development, translated a fair bit (it's my native language); I have in the last 3 years or so never seen it be so bad.

So you guys – Jimbo et al. might ponder to, IONO, threaten the banhammer – or however you call it here – if they do not get their act together and make this stop. It is not good for the reputation, reliability, respectability and general conherence of the project, and they seem to be locked into this nonsensical policy war.

"Ponder", not "do it". But I think ponder you should, because eventually you might have to. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Er, admins on Wikipedia have nothing to do with the German Wikipedia, and can do nothing about anything going on over there. If you want to appeal to Jimbo, you could probably get a better response through e-mail rather than posting on a noticeboard for people with no power over outside projects. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

(unhelpful answer) I don't speak German. If I did, though, I'd be pretty offended by the idea that administrators on English Wikipedia outranked administrators on German Wikipedia. I love my language, but I don't think that being born in an English-speaking country makes me boss of the world. I realize that some Americans feel differently about that than I do. (real answer) German Wikipedia is entirely unrelated to English Wikipedia; no one here has any official or unofficial authority at German Wikipedia. Problems there have to be solved by the users there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I can add to this that some editors at the German Wikipedia go ballistic if you even so much as mention the English Wikipedia. Admins from here fanning the flames is about the last thing they need now. By the way, I have not found the location of this dispute on the German Wikipedia itself, although I have of course seen the media reports. Can someone point me to the current centre of the dispute at de? Hans Adler 20:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on my basic German, which I haven't spoken for over 5 years (!), the German Wikipedia equivalent of this page looks to be this page, so I would advise you try there instead. Regards, GiantSnowman 20:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's the .de equivalent of WP:AN. The .de equivalent of WP:ANI is de:Wikipedia:Vandalismusmeldung. Incidentally the link the original poster provided was to a help page titled "Wikipedia:Be brutal"! Funny title, sort of the equivalent of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. It would have been a lot more helpful if the poster had provided some links clarifying what's allegedly going on. He seems to think an appeal to the Foundation is required (and perhaps coming here instead of Meta due to traffic volumes), but that should surely be discussed on .de. Rd232 ^talk 20:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• I Googled German Wikipedia dispute, the first hit was this. It looks stale to me... Guy (Help!) 21:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be ludicrous if English 'pedia editors were canvassed thus and trooped over there to post in broken or machine translated or half-remembered German their initial postings on the German 'pedia on some half understood policy controversy. Edison (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, though if we can't figure out what the issue is, it's kind of moot anyway! Rd232 ^talk 01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure this is the right thing, but apparently one of their top editors put an opinion piece at the top of the "Kurier" (their version the the Signpost) that stated that all scientists who write blogs are second-raters. Looie496 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Doubtful - the original poster mentioned a "policy war". Rd232 ^talk 01:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Andy Scott Harris

Andy Scott Harris is an autobiography or a biography created by the subject's mother, SPA Dharris1844. It was properly tagged with the COI template, which the Dharris1844 removed. Dharris1844 then voted twice in AfD to keep the article. I suspect that Dharris1844 does not understand Wikipedia's rules, but her conduct is very disruptive. Please help. Racepacket (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure admin intervention is needed at this point. — Jake Wartenberg 00:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este AFD and related articles

Hi. I'd appreciate if someone could take a look at the Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este AFD and the edit histories of the nominated articles, Archduke Christoph Franz of Austria-Este. Archduke Fulvio Marco of Austria-Este and Princess Maria Louise of Brunswick-Lüneburg with particular attention to the edits of the IP editor 68.36.205.151 (talk · contribs). I also think that the edits of that IP editor on articles on Hapsburg-related articles, other than those mentioned, would need attention. Putting my head over the parapet here, but the edits are either unsourced or dubiously sourced and (in full realization of what I am saying here) generally dubious.

I have already made my views known on the sources used, in a forthright manner for lack of a better description, and I think that my involvement at the AFD would preclude me from taking any other course of action. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Anti-Nationalist, accusations of anti-Semitism

Here, Anti-Nationalist, formerly PasswordUsername attacks me as an nationalist anti-Semite:

1. "When you start caring about content and stop claiming that "unless you were Jewish, the Soviets were the worse of the two evils in Eastern Europe"";
2. "that "Jewish Bolshevism" is not a standard anti-semitic slur but "an objective observation of the role played by numerous Jews""; and in particular
3. "or insisting that Jewish scholars shouldn't naturally be seen as objective on the Holocaust because they're Jews"

Briefly:

1. The Soviets mass deported and murdered Baltic citizens. Hitler brought the Holocaust to the Baltics and Eastern Europe. Jews suffered far more under Hitler, but most others suffered more under Stalin. This is not an opinion, it is simple numbers. I should also mention that Jews suffered more under Stalin's deportations, proportionally, than any other ethnic group.
2. "Jewish Bolshevism" has its roots in historical events. (Latvians, I should add, were also prominent in the early days of Bolshevism.) In Poland between the wars, Jews (not practicing, of course) were the proselytizers of communism in jails (this per western scholarship, not in any way associated with nationalist sources). To contend it is only a slur with no basis for existing other than to be an anti-Semitic slur is not responsible editing.
3. I regret Anti-Nationalist has seen to paint me as a rabid anti-Semite, citing a conversation on my user talk page as proof. I invite you to read the entire thread. You will note that most of the thread consists of Boodlesthecat insisting I am making anti-Semitic contentions and putting words into my mouth to that effect. (This was the offshoot of an arbitration going on at the time.)

Now Anti-Nationalist is making the same grossly libelous mischaracterizations of my past statements. I find this disturbingly similar to my interchange with Boodlesthecat here where he associates me with "anti-semitic nationalist bigots."

My best friends starting in kindergarten were Jewish (that is, as soon as I started speaking English). I participated in Seder. I held the chuppah at my best friend's wedding. I will not tolerate being smeared as an anti-Semite. PasswordUsername's new attack-moniker was already an open, taunting affront, but I was willing to let that pass. This, however, is way over the line.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk 

I didn't call you an anti-semite (that's a conclusion people can draw for themselves if that's how they interpret your pattern of activities). Nothing like that was said, and you have fabricated this whole case based on your false claims. I simply said that you were a nationalist in response to a relentless pattern of WP:HOUNDING me, now being investigated by the Arbs looking over WP:EEML. Point 1. Ask any number of Poles, Belarusians, Czechs, or Gypsies, about the Third Reich, which you see as the better of two evils in the Baltics, if you really believe that "unless you were Jewish, the Soviets were the worse of the two evils in Eastern Europe." Point 2. It is now sourced that "Jewish Bolshevism" is an anti-semitic slur. Point 3. Better stop. Already addressed. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You went out of your way to find diffs and to mischaracterize my position and statements in exactly the same manner Boodlesthecat did. You most certainly called me an anti-Semite except for not using the word. Don't split hairs. It was your choice to introduce your complaints on a talk page with accusations, it was your choice to then introduce diffs as to my anti-Semitism in response to my comment to you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Anti-Nationalist looks like a possible username violation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This has been brought up several times before. What is the proper venue to address this?radek (talk) 00:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Username policy. GiantSnowman 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Seriously? What about usernames like User:Nationalist 555–and what's the whole deal with the anti-nationalist / nationalist / communist / socialist userboxes? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• You realize that example you cited is indef blocked, right? — Jake Wartenberg 00:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Of course: for his sockpuppetry, not the username. I've seen tons of usernames far worse than "Anti-Nationalist", frankly. But if being anti-nationalist is morally horrible, just what's the real deal with userboxes like these? The userbox section for fascism under Userboxes/Politics offers a grey user box with message "this user identifies as a Fascist" (see it right over here and over here, folks)–but I guess the priority is on paying attention to anti-nationalists. (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment And my Jewish grandmother would probably spin in her grave if she only saw what "Anti-Nationalist" has to say about me on wikipedia: as a content editor, Termer is an ally of a bunch of hardcore Eastern European nationalists, currently being investigated for their harrassment...--Termer (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Very nice story, brosif. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Uh, what's the point of linking to the definition of "brosif" here, except as a form of taunting? Am I missing something?radek (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Termer is from a foreign country, mightn't know the meaning, and doesn't assume good faith. That's an explosive mix, Radeksz. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Termer is from a foreign country? That was another interesting thing to know about myself. Please keep it coming, in the end I might find out a lot about myself from you, something that I had no glue about before. So for now I've seen from you that Termer is "from a foreign country and is an ally of a bunch of hardcore Eastern European nationalists, currently being investigated..". have you ever heard of comment on content, not on the contributor? FYI, I'm not investigated by anybody, I don't think I'm from a "foreign country" and I'm an ally of anybody who edits Wikipedia according to WP:RS.--Termer (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"Termer is from a foreign country" - foreign to who exactly? Surely everyone is from a foreign country when compared with everyone else...? GiantSnowman 01:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GiantSnowman for spelling out the self-explanatory. how however anybody being from a "foreign country" is related to editing Wikipedia was what I was talking about.--Termer (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I want to note that this isn't the first time that PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist has tried to smear his content opponents, and people he doesn't like in such a way. Here he accuses an anon ip of

1. Being a sockpuppet of User:Jacurek
2. and accuses Jacurek of using the anon IP in order to engage in "Holocaust denial", "Holocaust revisionism" and sock puppeting with the ip in order to avoid being "associated with a Polish ultranationalist POV"

He also tried to "associate" me with the anon ip and the supposed "Holocaust revisionism" as well (as can be seen on Jehochman's talk page link above). He continued to insist on this even after denials by Jacurek.

Well, a few days later the anon ip registered as User:Sourcelat0r and explained to PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist why his/her edits were not "Holocaust revisionism" or anything of the kind, but just the opposite. PasswordUsername/Anti-Nationalist then apologized to the anon ip/Sourcelat0r but has steadfastly refused to apologize to Jacurek for either 1) accusing him of sock puppetry or for 2) accusing him of engaging in "Holocaust revisionism". This shows that:

1. PU/A-N is very quick to use this tactic to smear people with (when he thought it was Jacurek he jumped to (wrong) conclusions, when he realized it was someone else, he took it back)
2. PU/A-N doesn't see anything wrong with the tactic, as long as it's directed at someone he doesn't like (no apology for Jacurek).radek (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My congratulations to Radeksz for showing up so quickly. This is another member of the nationalist WP:EEML list being investigated for coordinated attacks on content opponents. Interesting how soon before the whole WP:TEAM shows up to oh-so tendentiously support Vecrumba in his false accusation that I called him an "anti-semite"–which I've never done even once. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 00:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The fact that I have AN/I on my watchlist is beside the point. I thought the whole incident with Jacurek, where you tried to smear somebody in a very similar way, then refused to apologize, was relevant. Do you think it isn't? If so, please explain. Or do you deny doing any of the above? Starting with the ad-hominem's against myself doesn't "magically" change the way you've acted, as the diffs show.radek (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this look more like a smearing campaign against Anti-Nationalist... He never called Vecrumba any name, he just pointed out some of his positions that would be characterised as fringe my mainstream Western scholarship, and which Vecrumba himself saw as indicative of anti-Semitism (strangely, only when someone quoted them, not when he first wrote them). If Anti-Nationalist feels that those comments (some of them in mainspace) are adequate to demonstrate to an uninvolved party the less obvious editing POV of Vecrumba, he should be free to do it. After all, he didn't misrepresent Vecrumba opinions, he just quoted him, and Anti-Nationalist can't be blamed if Vecrumba and maybe other editors find those quotes as characteristic to anti-Semites.Anonimu (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Way to turn this upside and make it do push ups while standing on its head Anonimu. So apparently smearing people with offensive labels isn't *smearing*, it's when someone complains that they have been smeared that they're doing the smearing. Right, Newspeak much? Wacky wacky world of what Wikipedia has become.radek (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What offensive labels? The only thing close to a label in Vecrumba's diff is "nationalist", which, according to his views, actually is "a term denoting patriotism or love and interest in one's heritage and history" (from his user page). Anti-Nationalist didn't request Vecrumba to consider his own words as conveying anti-Semitism, Vecrumba did it on his own (I'm not saying he was wrong). And yes, requesting administrative action for your personal interpretation of you words, which you attribute to another user, is certainly a form of smearing.Anonimu (talk) 02:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You well know that my definition of "nationalist" is not how it is used on Wikipedia. On WP it is purely a term of derision. Anti-Nationalist did not "quote" me, he misrepresented me. Period.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  02:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

But still, you complained here about a non-existent accusation of "anti-Semitism", trying to denigrate Anti-Nationalist. Aren't all the blue fragments part of your edits on WP? Did Anti-Nationalist somehow succeed in hacking the Wikimedia servers and inserting incriminating edits under your name?Anonimu (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How did I "misrepresent" you? All I did was quote your words (and link to WP:EEML at the page of someone you complained to about my supposed POV) in order to get across the point that your comments about me should be considered as part of a long-running nationalist vendetta. (Since you'd attacked me as a POV pusher, following me to a talk page I'd visited for the first time.) In response to that, you came to AN/I just now, Vecrumba, falsely accusing me of calling you an "anti-semite." Aren't you (and your buddies from WP:EEML) really just pursuing the same old battleground mentality against other editors. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 03:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a sad statement on affairs here that when I first started reading this thread, my reaction was not "hmm, who has a convincing argument" nor even "ho hum, more drama at ANI" but "I wonder which side of WP:EEML is represented by which of the participants in this thread". —David Eppstein (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, people are going to line up in the way you expect them to. But that's because there's a reason for it. And the reason (PasswordUsername smearing people) stands, regardless of who comments on it.radek (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the more ridiculous ANI complaints that I have seen. Most well-formed ANI complaints start with diffs that show that the editor complained about has done something wrong. This complaint against Anti-Nationalist starts with an easily missed single diff showing that Anti-Nationalist has drawn attention to three problematic edits by the complainant Vecrumba, followed by commented diffs of the problematic edits. The diffs prove anti-semitic tendencies by the complainant Vecrumba, which would make it plausible that Anti-Nationalist called Vecrumba anti-semitic. But it appears he didn't. (He did use the word "racist", but without a Jewish connection.) Yet Vecrumba seems to be complaining that that's what Anti-Nationalist meant.

Unless there is a longterm pattern of anti-semitic tendentious editing by the complainant that needs examining, it appears that this thread is resolved. Hans Adler 08:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

If i might add my two cents, and without having any further opinion on the case : any defense agains accusations of anti-semitism with the argument "some of my best friends are Jewish" (or, in User:Vecrumba's own words: "My best friends starting in kindergarten were Jewish") is bloody akward, to say the least.--RCS (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Without going into the larger dispute, I agree with Hans that this diff is not very problematic, and that diff in itself does not warrant an ANI. --Soman (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:IronAngelAlice and Abortion first sentence

IronAngelAlice has participated in the long, detailed consensus on the Abortion first paragraph. IronAngelAlice has consciously gone against that because Halfdome recklessly altered it. It has been a long time since I've used Rollback on the abortion article, now I've used it twice recently. The user was warned for being a possible sock. I don't know what happened with that. - RoyBoy 01:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 04:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

My first impression is that you misused rollback. AniMate 04:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Pattern of disruptive editing by Pedant17

Pedant17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has persisted in edits degrading the quality of a WP:GA article - despite a completed WP:RfC that did not support his "copyediting" changes. His most recent edit summary acknowledges the archived RfC: copyedit; especially in the light of archived talk-page discussions.

Would appreciate another administrator looking into Pedant17's actions at this particular article - and also this pattern of behavior of slow edit-warring in general, and take action here. Cirt (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Archived RfC

Talk:Outrageous_Betrayal/Archive_1#RfC:_Recent_wording_edits_to_article

At the RfC, Pedant17 continued to comment, seemingly ad infinitum, despite unanimous consensus against him that his changes were not productive and degraded the article's quality.

Prior edits by Pedant17 on the article

Here are prior edits on the same article by Pedant17 that are not supported by the RfC (compare with above edit):

• 08:24, 4 June 2009
• 01:40, 24 April 2009
• 04:07, 12 March 2009

These edits show a pattern of slow edit-warring by Pedant17.

Pattern of behavior

• Bogging down talk page discussion at Talk:Alien (film), [54]
• PelleSmith (talk · contribs) described Pedant17's actions as disruptive POV pushing at the article Mind control. In a previous comment, PelleSmith pointed out that Pedant17's edits degraded the quality of the article under the guise of "style" edits.
• PelleSmith agreed that edits by Pedant17 to the article List of groups referred to as cults or sects in government documents were not constructive; these "style" edits were of same nature as above. [55], [56]
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pedant17

---

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem seems to be Pedant17's fundamental misunderstanding of WP:SILENCE, which he appears to interpret as "if a disagreement falls silent, the last editor to have spoken has consensus" - I can see how this confusion might seem like a fair rationale for slow-edit-warring, and an incentive to keep posting disagreements at the end of a thread. The reason he rejected the RfC comments on Outrageous Betrayal was that the editors who'd commented hadn't responded to his rebuttals and "evolving consensus there appears (per WP:SILENCE) to support my case". He also tells another editor that "if you do not respond to my arguments, I assume that they have convinced you".

A similar slow-edit war has been going on at Talk:Dell#Lead_sentence_structure, where Pedant17 recently edited the article to his preferred E-Prime version on the basis that the talk page disagreement over E-Prime tailed off with - despite three editors vocally disagreeing with him - nobody responding to his final rebuttal, and that "silence denotes consent". --McGeddon (talk) 12:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Tendentious editing?

Could someone please review the recent edits and talk page comments of User:Som123. I am concerned we have an excessively passionate campaigner for The Truth!!! and they have been removing referenced material from articles they don't agree with, [57] and leaving threatening messages on talk pages [58] and [59]. I honestly know nothing about the topic at hand, but had noticed some section blanking while on Recent Changes Patrol, and browsing through this users editing history raised some red flags. He may have valid points, or he may be completely wrong, but either way his behavior is interfering with anyone from working collaboratively on the articles he has been frequenting, and I fear that the articles will suffer from this sort of tendentious editing if it continues. --Jayron32 06:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

proof this user has been notified of this discussion --Jayron32 06:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Excessively passionate campaigner for The Truth has been page blanking for some time (2 dozen times approx.) in the Nair article. He is actually removing sourced data which he suspects is against his own political orientation (Communist Party). If you cross check the references, you can see that they are unbiased and truthful as per the Wiki policy. Also, please look in to some of his other edits, like this one. I have no idea how an exit poll by a well known and respected news source such as The Hindu (Don't care about the name, the daily is actually a very left-leaning one politically) can be biased as per the Wiki policy. I think we should stick to writing the truth rather than bending it for political correctness. However I am willing to remove any content if it offends anyone. I purposefully left out controversial issues like the forceful circumcission of Nairs by the Muslims in 1789-1791 period just because of this. And finally, the user has been using his IP as a sock with 164.100.1.17. Axxn (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikistalking by Quotient group through anonymous Bristol IPs

• Quotient group (talk · contribs)
• 213.48.162.2 (talk · contribs)
• 213.48.162.4 (talk · contribs)
• 213.48.162.5 (talk · contribs)
• 213.48.162.12 (talk · contribs)
• 213.48.162.17 (talk · contribs)

During a recent SPI report Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Quotient_group, Quotient group (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted that he has recently edited without being logged on using the above IPs. Apart from a few trivial edits to mathematical articles related to group theory as Quotient group, all his edits have been following my own edits. I have actually been on wikibreak since the beginning of October because of a finishing Ph.D. student and a trip to the US that ends tomorrow. This break has mainly affected my namespace edits (any big articles have been placed on hold).

This user has followed me to three large articles in WikiProject music on the organ music of Handel and Bach, has made 2 postings against me on WP:FTN with several of the above IPs, has followed me to AfD's, and to a discussion on the user talk page of User:Varoon Arya on Race and intelligence (he has never edited this article or its talk page). All the diffs appear in the recent contributions of the IPs. The evidence of wikistalking is clear from all the contributions above. I hope this disruptive behaviour can be stopped.

Although this is only a hunch and actually not that important, I suspect that Quotient group might be a new account of A.K.Nole (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because of his editing patterns and particularly because A.K.Nole, shortly before he disappeared, was found to have wikistalked me in this discussion on ANI. Quotient group has not so far denied being the same user as A.K.Nole [60]. His manner of self-justification is very similar. In particular he claims that mentioning that the IPs he has been using come from Bristol counts as WP:OUTING. A.K.Nole made one edit when logged off using an IP in nearby Cheltenham and similarly claimed that mentioning this was WP:OUTING, a remark repeated by Quotient group, who shows a little too much familiarity with the workings of wikipedia and history of A.K.Nole for a new user.

At this stage, it is completely unimportant whether this user is A.K.Nole or not, provided he can cease making wikistalking edits when logged off and think that this is acceptable behaviour. Mathsci (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Account is definitely smelly. Shows up with obvious experience (account's 2nd edit) and then starts griefing over youtube links in the Bach/Handel articles. Quotient's math-related contribs struck me as possibly more mathematically knowledgeable than Nole was, but I didn't have that good a sense of Nole, and your judgement on this is probably better than mine. There was another editor a while back who also struck me as a possible Nole sock, but if nobody else noticed at the time, I may have been imagining things. I may look a little more closely and add to SPI report if appropriate. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Ongar the World-Weary

Desperately need some eyes on this...so much vandalism and threatening language that this editor has retired because of it. RFPP put in, and am trying to figure out some way to get a message to the user, AIV probably won't be much help because the vandal(s) is/are ip hopping or there's some serious meatpuppetry happening here! Frmatt (talk) 06:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly disturbing, that is. I'm checking through the IPs used for the harassment to see if there's a pattern, none of them appear to be proxies so far. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mudkipzss posting the same threats now.  7  07:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Left a note on your talk page as well...if you look at Ongar's recent history, they seem to have reverted vandalism by these users on separate pages just before they were threatened and posted the retired notice. Frmatt (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We'll try for the good old RBI now, hopefully they get bored soon. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting that this is the second time that I've brought this here...I'm starting to wonder if there is something more going on here than just simple harrasment... Frmatt (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection is useless now. They've achieved their goal. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(Undent) - I have sent an e-mail to the user telling them that there are some extra eyes on their user and talk pages, and hoping that they will return soon. Frmatt (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC response to Seb) We'll hope not permanently. Unfortunately, you do run across some bizarre and disturbing stuff while dealing with some of these things, sometimes it is a bit of a shock and requires some time to deal with. Regardless, however, I'm not about to let someone be harassed just because they're not currently actively editing. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an attack from some off-line forum. It's an old trick of just one editor making the first edit (User:Bluefalcon916 here), then posting it to a messageboard linking to the old page with the attack on it. Random readers come along, click the link and save the page for the lulz. Grawp does this via /b/ all the time, or at least he used to. To slow down the messing about, it helps to delete the original edit and semi-prot the page for a while. I'm just going to revision-delete the first attack edit in a sec here - Alison ^❤ 07:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC times 4!!!)They've moved on to my page...can you please indef-protect? Frmatt (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• A pity this happened to you, I have indef-protected your userpage for now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Just left a message on your talk page saying the same thing, but thanks for the protect, and I'll contact you in a couple days and get you to un-protect it then. Frmatt (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think some other IPs are targetting Alison's talkpage now. I realize that blocking for two weeks without warning looks very harsh and draconian, but coordinated attacks with different IPs require strict and swift countermeasures. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have semi-protected Alison's talkpage for one hour. I know she unprotected it a short while ago (and I realize I really shouldn't be wheel-warring on another admin's talkpage), but four attacks with 4 IPs is too many. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for that :) We clashed on the prot! To be honest, I couldn't give a rodent's red patootie about the anon vandals & these ones are, like, particularly lame. Prot, ignore and move on. My talk page is almost constantly semi-protected and I really don't like doing that but it seems that any time I lift the protect, it only takes about an hour before the time-wasters appear again :/ Oh, well .... - Alison ^❤ 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect the abuse filter may also be of some use as the text does not change much if at all. Guy (Help!) 11:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• I believe this should be a serious concern. Grawp seems to be using /b/ to attack non-admins, and now newer editors. This can have the effect of driving away said newcomers, as it did to Ongar. We need to take some sort of action now to prevent this from happening again. Until It Sleeps ^{Happy Thanksgiving} 14:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for intervention/ block/ protection

This is a formal complaint against Hullabaloo Wolfowitz and a a request to have him blocked from the page "Amy Grant" (reasons below). Wolfowitz is a user who has exhibited a longtime pattern of destructive work clearly in violation of the purpose and mission of wikipedia. Specifically, he has recently repeatedly made erratic, destructive changes to my work on a wiki page, "Amy Grant".

His User Discussion page has over 140 sections of complaints against him and his/her work on wikipedia. Yes- over 140. This is a clear, obvious pattern. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz

The complaints are too numerous to mention. The user even admits that he has had trouble following wikipedia policy and has been hounded by editors for his erratic and destructive edits to pages. A quote from his User page: "Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is back after a long absence. And after a longer period of silence. I do not know how long I will stay this time. The last time I did what I could to follow policy. But I was regularly hounded by aggressive editors because they did not want to. Perhaps things will go better this time. I have watched discussions and arguments for months."

I request that H. Wolfowitz be blocked from editing the Amy Grant page.

Here is the Amy Grant History page with the latest of the attacks on my work: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amy_Grant&action=history

I am a professional journalist, and this User is running me away from wikipedia. I feel his work is damaging and destructive to wikipedia, to the fine editors and volunteers who create wikipedia, and to its purpose and mission. He is vandalizing pages and apparently is not even willing to discuss these things. I have asked repeatedly to discuss edits with him to no avail.

Thank you for your assistance. I also edit under the name Relax777 (and if that is a problem, I am glad to delete that account and stick with this account.) Dougmac7 (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, so I'll address the Wolfowitz situation shortly, but so you don't get yourself into any other trouble, go read WP:SOCK and get your accounts in order. Frmatt (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Having taken a look at the accounts and edits in question, I have two comments...First, when I made the comment above, I thought that you had pretty much retired the Relax777 account...but you haven't. Therefore, I would recommend at this point that you be blocked for socking until you figure out which account you want to use and go through the appropriate process to do that. Secondly, I would suggest that you take the content dispute back to the article talk page and sort it out there. If you have concerns about a specific user, you could consider starting a Request for Comment/User (RfC/U). Oh...and I'll notify Wolfowitz for you. Frmatt (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And because you continue to edit under both accounts at the same time, I'm on my way to WP:SPI to report you as you obviously didn't read WP:SOCK or else you don't understand it. Frmatt (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to utilise crazy stuff here, like common sense, but is there any evidence Dougmac has actually seen your posts here? His last contributions were before you started posting. Perhaps it would be good to say, give a new user more than twenty minutes to see and become familiar with the socking policy before you start asking for blocks? Honestly, this is WP:BITE to the extreme. Ironholds (talk) 12:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And additional, he hasn't "continued" to edit under both at the same time. His last edit on this one was before your posts, his last edit as Relax was yesterday. Are you seeing something here I'm not? Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats against the subject of an article

I don't know if this falls under WP:NLT, but Realcaptainfantastic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be threatening to sue Elton John with this edit. It doesn't seem serious at all, but I thought I'd point it out. --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandalism account. TNXMan 14:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Chillum 15:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Resolved

Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism - Backlogged. User:Mohamed3tiea needs to be blocked especially. He's been repeatedly reverting CSD attempts on an Arabic attack article (written entirely in Arabic). The text he keeps reverting to translates as "Sun Samir is a lie invented by some Aljulat and Almtnakin Almhabiyl Algerians who do not have corn in their brains with a view to deceive the mind Egyptian newspapers such as the Meso member fabricated news of Sport and siphon some of the newspapers publish the news Berber retarded and would love to know that the story Berber Almtnakin Mvqosh because the Egyptian and intelligent features non-Bshiye exist for a reason most of the Algerian". User has also moved the page to attempt to circumvent deletion. Equazcion (talk) 12:01, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)

He's now moved the article twice. Equazcion (talk) 12:08, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)

User:Closedmouth has blocked this user and deleted the pages. AIV is still backlogged, however. Equazcion (talk) 12:26, 9 Nov 2009 (UTC)

Unbacklogged. TNXMan 14:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

RS / edit war problem - Wessex Institute of Technology‎

Resolved

I have a user, User:Aww40, who is edit warring on Wessex Institute of Technology‎, inserting information taken from a self-published source. The information she/he's adding has been discussed at length on talk:Wessex Institute of Technology‎. The user is ignoring friendly advice posted on her/his page pointing to WP:RS and the WIT Talk page. I don't want to get into a edit war ... would anyone fancy taking the problem on? thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Much obliged to Black Kite for getting involved & issuing another warning. I'll come back if that warning does not work. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page as well. That's enough warnings, I will block them if they re-insert the material, especially as it's defamatory. Black Kite 13:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over moves of New states of Germany

Resolved

 – Pages move-protected, translation needs to be discussed on the talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have been bold, and merged two reports into a single report with a new title that does not refer to editors, but to the page New states of Germany (or whatever name it is at present) which has been the focus of disputed moves. Two edits each reported the other over this. The two initial reports are here as subheadings. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Urban XII

The user Urban XII repeatedly and arbitrarily moves pages without any previous discussion and disregarding consensus.[61][62]--Nero the second (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no consensus on anything as far as I'm aware. You are just being disruptive, insisting on titles that are not correct English. Urban XII (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The pages have had their respective names for months before the user moved them without asking anyone's opinion.--Nero the second (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Untrue, you moved the page yourself on October 15 to an incorrect term (the previous title that had been used for years was actually better). For starters, you should make yourself familiar with our article on States of Germany. Urban XII (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

History of Germany since 1945 had that title for years, the other page I moved after I rewrote it, and the previous title was in German. So?--Nero the second (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have provided my rationale for moving the history of Germany page at Talk:History of Germany (1945–1990). You have not commented on it. This is essentially not an article about German history after 1990 and never was, it was an article almost exclusively dealing with cold war history with a short "Germany today" appendix. Urban XII (talk) 13:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course, you just deleted a 4,000 bytes "short" section about the 21st century. Someone, better if uninvolved, needs to revert that.--Nero the second (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

As the article was 74,261 bytes long, 4,000 bytes was a short section. The lead section dealt exclusively with Cold War history, not modern history, which is appropriate, since the article also almost exclusively dealt with this period. Using a title that suggested this was an article about modern, post-reunification history was misleading. The main article on Germany contains a much longer summary of German post-reunification history. Eventually, we will have a separate article on History of Germany since 1990 (similar to de:Geschichte Deutschlands (seit 1990)) where the text that was removed from the 1945-1990 article may be included. Urban XII (talk) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The article suggested it was what it was, what you did was changing the title and trashing what didn't suit you.--Nero the second (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Who and when decided that? Where is the discussion? Wikipedia is not a dictatorship!--Nero the second (talk) 14:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. You are just being disruptive while other editors are writing an encyclopedia. Also, stop vandalizing this page; adding false signatures by other users is a blockable offence. Urban XII (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you two please now stop fighting out your content disagreement here on the noticeboard? You clearly got off to a bad start with each other over this issue for some reason. Can I suggest you start afresh and just go to the article talk page to discuss calmly which title is best, without recriminations and accusations? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to continue this discussion at the respective article talk pages. I didn't start this, I think WP:ANI is a bad place to sort out disputes. Urban XII (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

That could work for New federal states, but I don't see how any discussion about History of Germany since 1945 is possible unless Urban XII agrees to bring back the whole section he unilaterally deleted.--Nero the second (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Nero the second

User:Nero the second is repeatedly making disruptive edits, including moving articles to incorrect titles like "New Federal states" (sic) despite being told this is not proper English. Urban XII (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC) 

The dispute over moving a page

I strongly suggest further discussion proceed by looking at the dispute and all persons who may have been involved. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 13:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV reports

Each editor reported the other at AIV. I've removed the pair of them from AIV, as any action that needs to be taken against either of them can be done via this board. No need to have this in two places at once. Mjroots (talk) 13:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've move-protected the article. Please discuss this calmly on the talk page. I suggest you make a list of all the versions that have been suggested so far, with a brief paragraph of pros and cons for each, and then see if you can get independent outside comments. You may want to advertise the discussion through RfC and/or notices to WikiProject Germany or similar places. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work. The page is for Former East Germany, and there are many redirects for different ways it might be described. As FPaS says, any move should be discussed at the talk page before being enacted. The protect solves the war over moves, for the time being. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 14:05, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Now, I did open a discussion when I first moved it from its german title a month ago, and in doing that I provided evidence that that is the only common and unambiguous term for eastern Germany used in English. Urban XII did none of these, and still wants to move the page, even when he doesn't even know where is should go, since he moved it to "New states" (being immediately reverted by another editor), "New states (Germany)", "New states (German geography)" and "New states of Germany" which is the last title the page had before it was pagemove protected.--Nero the second (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)