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

Ongoing accusations of conflict of interest

Very reminiscent of User:Twoggle, isn't this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.96.227 (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of conflict of interest are being leveled by TickleMeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Aspartame and Talk:Aspartame. I am one, but not the only target. Several months ago, TickleMeister announced a departure the article with accusations of conflict of interest and received advice to "Avoid casting aspersions regarding the motivations of others..." ([1]). The return to the article was heralded by an implicit accusation in the edit comments ("You don't build an encyclopedia by removing facts that you think may hurt it sales stats"). Talk page comments have gone from implicit ("must cleanse this, it's bad PR", "a deliberate attempt to cover this up. I suppose it's to be expected with a product like asp that has sales of around ONE BILLION DOLLARS a year") to fairly direct ("...I'm not being paid by a corpoaration to do this crap.", "So who wins this one, the wikipedia volunteer editors or the PR men?").

This is not the first time. Prior efforts at dispute resolution have not resulted behavior changes: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive88#TickleMeister. There have been several requests on the talk page for the behavior to end: [2], [3], [4].

As a final step, I invited a redaction of the comments and indicated the COI noticeboard was the place for COI accusations ([5]). Past COI accusations on this noticeboard indicate a familiarity with procedure: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629#Aspartame articles. At the time I post this, there has been no reply to my message, but a subsequent post indicates that he will continue to accuse on the talk page ([6]). At this point, I believe reasonable measures have been exhausted and this is the appropriate forum.Novangelis (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Anyone reading the talk pages at Talk:Aspartame and Talk:Aspartame controversy can see blatant evidence of COI, where we have determined editors hell-bent on not allowing facts about this chemical onto the pages. The latest incident is with the fact that aspartame is made from constituents produced by genetically modified organisms. This information comes from newspapers and published studies. It is an unequivocal FACT. Yet a small phalanx of editors, of which Novangelis is a prominent member, are utterly determined that this fact should not be mentioned in the aspartame article. This is blatant censorship that threatens to disrupt the very purpose of wikipedia. Wikipedia is at the mercy of megacorporations that threaten to sue anyone saying a single negative things about aspartame (for example, the court case against Asda in the UK because they had the temerity to remove it from their store-brand foods and call it a "nasty", the threat they issued to The Independent for publishing the fact that aspartame is made by genetically modified bacteria, the propaganda websites they run to promote the use of aspartame, the scientists they hire to go on speaking tours all over the world to promote aspartame, etc). So here we have a huge corporation that we know is intensely active in defending and promoting this billion dollar chemical. And yet when I make the obvious comment that this corporation clearly has people at work editing the aspartame pages and suppressing information, I'm immediately hauled before an admin tribunal by one of the chief perpetrators in a sickening and farcical abuse of procedure. Novangelis has done this on numerous occasions too, accusing me unsucessfully of sockpuppetry, and forum shopping against me whenever the opportunity presents itself. In summary, the aspartame articles are being held to ransom by a small cadre of editors determined not to allow a full picture to emerge of the chemical. Taking action against me for speaking the truth is like beating the little boy who called out that the Emperor has no clothes. TickleMeister (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I've just read Talk:Aspartame for the first time, and you're right, the situation is very clear - that practically the whole page consists of you and a couple of other editors calling out practically everyone else for somehow being corporate shills for aspartame, whilst they - usually - patiently try to explain to you such concepts as WP:RS, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. I would strongly suggest to you that you concentrate on the subject at hand rather than attacking other editors without any justification, because that behaviour is likely to lead to a topic ban. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Per Black Kite, I have also read the talk pages and also the article Aspartame controversy and agree with his comments - the sum of the articles reflects the reliable sources available, and the correct application of WP policy. That is not to say that your general opinions about the product and its manufacturers are untrue (or, importantly, true) but that it is entirely inappropriate regarding deprecating the motivations of those editors who are conforming with WP editorial practices. They are not obviously "shilling" for anyone, they are complying with the rules. Your issues are, rather, with the lack of authority and weight of those references that support the accusations made against the product and its producers and the preponderance of good quality sources for the current majority opinion upon them - and that is beyond the remit of Wikipedia or its editorialship to address. Whatever, your comments upon the integrity and competence of other editors for following policy and properly conveying the available references can not be tolerated. I am going to issue a general NPA warning on your talkpage, and insist that you desist from this behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• If one were to use Ticklemeister's thinking against him/her, one could make accusations that TM worked for the sugar industry and the manufacturers of all products related to the treatment of diabetes. Fortunately we're sensible enough not to do that....;-) I'm sure that if anyone did so, TM would be the first one to object. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to concede that I am wrong on this issue IF anyone here can explain to me why a large corporation with a very profitable yet controversial product would not employ people to massage the wikipedia page about the product, by creating a pro-corporation yet false consensus on talk pages. The wikipedia page on aspartame comes up top of a Google search for the product. Use Occam's razor, fellas. I have to be right. If you study the aspartame talk pages from the very beginning, you'll see a clear pattern of information suppression and censorship. I am by no means the only editor who has tried to broing balance to the pages. On the Aspartame controversy page, one side of the controversy is largely removed, which flies in the face of MEDRS's recommendation to air both sides of any controversy. To see just how much information is censored from the articles, compare to another wiki's page on aspartame here. I suggest other wikis will become more prominent as Wikipedia's success attracts more and more corporationsTickleMeister (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• So much for AGF. With this attitude of refusal to abide by this fundamental policy, you can't be trusted here. You don't understand our sourcing policies or MEDRS, and show no evidence of a positive learning curve. I suggest you change your attitude or be topic banned / blocked.
  BTW, how much are the sugar industry and diabetes industry paying you to edit and disrupt here? Do you get my point?!! One would think that by now you would understand that AGF cuts both ways, and that when you insist on assuming bad faith, you are making a bed in which you may be forced to sleep. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer, this is the second time you've threatened to block me. The other time was on my Talk page. Is there some policy that allows non-sysops to make these threats, or is this a violation? TickleMeister (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand....again. It's an option / suggestion for any admin, if they so desire. It's also to let you know that you're skating on thin ice when you refuse to follow our policies. If it were only a single instance it wouldn't be a big problem and I wouldn't mention blocking, but you've been warned repeatedly by many very experienced editors. You then refuse to accept their explanations and cautions. That's recalcitrant behavior. There is no positive learning curve. We should be seeing that by now, but we aren't. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You carefully phrase your threats so that inexperienced editors could conclude that you are threatening to block them. I'm astonished that admins tolerate that. And I am still waiting for someone to deny the possibility of the situation I outline above, IOW that it is highly likely that there are hundreds, if not thousands of people paid by large corporations to edit wikipedia articles and establish whatever consensus they wish. This is a glaring flaw in the wikipedia model. TickleMeister (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are anything but inexperienced, but you are also not learning. Many editors, within far fewer edits than you have under your belt, have learned the basics of our policies and learned to collaborate. They learn with each edit they make. With each of their edits that are reverted, rebuffed, and modified, they learn to adapt their behavior. You don't do that.

As to your concern about COI editors, sure, we know that they exist, but as long as they edit within our policies they are allowed to edit here. It's not who the editor is that counts, but whether they follow policy. Focus on the content, not the motives or identity of other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you have come part way to meet me here. Now all I need from you is an admission that it is very possible for any corportation (or any well-funded concern) to manufacture consensus on any Talk page by deploying multiple PR people to that page. Is this or is this not possible? Actually, your agreement is hardly necessary, because it is obviously possible, and obviously occurs. This is where the Encyclopedia Brittanica model, where there are gatekeeper editors for all information, is superior. TickleMeister (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That it's theoretically possible is irrelevant to the point, and even if they did, if they violated policy their edits wouldn't last. They would get changed. No, the point is that you can't go around making such accusations about other editors. That is a policy violation. You MUST AGF unless there is absolutely clear evidence to the contrary. If you have such evidence, then start a case against the individual editor on a noticeboard, not on talk pages. If you try such a thing without clear evidence, then you will be guilty of misusing a noticeboard, so be very careful. If it involves the real life identity of an editor, you must not out them. In such a case, it would probably be best to contact an ArbCom member by email and discuss what to do. Note that the owner(s) of Monsanto could even edit the article, and be allowed to do so, as long as they don't violate policy. It wouldn't necessarily be a good idea, but it's not totally forbidden. It's all about policy and content, not the identity or POV of editors. You really need to study and understand the following about personal attacks:

• "*Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." From: What is considered to be a personal attack?

Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"if they violated policy their edits wouldn't last. They would get changed" — Not necessarily. What's happening on the aspartame pages is much more subtle than policy violations. People who edit wikipedia professionally don't make silly errors like that. But be that as it may, I think the situation here is clear to me and to many others, and no further purpose is served by me accusing people of editing with intent. So I will not do it again. All of this does nothing to assuage my disappointment over this issue though. TickleMeister (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by a registered user

The user Catsclaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuously removing content of some articles that I have edited. He insists on deleting information that is not favorable to the Dutch in naval warfare articles, although these informations are based on reliable sources. ElBufon (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things; firstly you have not notified the user of this discussion - as prompted by the orange/yellow banner just above this box (and noted at the top of this page). Secondly, do you have diffs of you notifying the editor of your concerns? - presumably on the concerned article talkpages, since when I checked for the ani notice I saw that the editors talkpage had not been used for several months. In short, have you attempted to resolve this content dispute before bringing it here as a behavioural issue? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

the user has in fact been notified of this discussion but as yet to presente himself for questioning. its hard to fix an edit conflict if the other user is nonresponsive. User:Smith Jones 16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Be very careful; Amending your edits to make it appear that they were previously warned is not going to help your cause. Better to say "Whoops, will fix!" next time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

i apologize and take full responsiblity for those typographical errors i was merely trying to avoid sanctions on ElBufon for a procedural error in his part and dont want him to have been let out to the herd that he was the one who made that mistake and not me, who was the true errorer. User:Smith Jones 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that intentionally trying to create a false history of a situation was now called 'typographical errors'. An often made error by relatively new editors is easily overlooked. Your actions were deliberately bad. What possible reason do you have for thinking that faking conversation and signing someone else's name to it could even remotely be considered a good idea? --Onorem♠Dil 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already tried to discuss with him on two occasions leaving messages on the discussion pages of some of the articles in question, but with no success. I'm going to notify him in his talpage. About the diffs, see this or this, or the article about the Action of 4 November 1641 versus the article about the Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1641). ElBufon (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ElBufon, i already took care of it. Ive been watching this user myself since I also edit naval warfare articles (albeit, not the same niche as the Netherlands editor here) and It was only a matter of time before someone called in administrative action!

Do you have any diffs of you attempting to resolve this, on a talk page, and the other user being non co-operative. Admins cannot intercede on content disputes, other than as other editors, but only on behavioural grounds or policy violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks along political lines

I just noticed these unbelievable tirades on User talk:LAz17 [7][8], including deliberate insults ("quite arrogant"), political attacks ("commie"!), and threats ("Direktor's in for a hard time"). This is all after he was informed that I am not a "communist", and warned against trying to badmouth me to other users. Quite frankly I would like to see him blocked for this. I'm still trying to believe that someone openly writes pamphlets against other users on Wiki and gets away with it.

The user only recently got back from a month-long WP:ARBMAC block [9] after ignoring his topic ban on WWII Yugoslavia. Upon his unblock he arrived on Requests for mediation/Draža Mihailović (an ongoing RfM on the WWII Yugoslav resistance), rejoined the discussion he was topic-banned from by immediately ad hominem attacking other users so that Sunray was forced to remove the comment [10]. It is also interesting to note that upon being reminded of his ban (and the fact that he is not a mediation participant), the user simply requested the topic-ban removed [11]. (I have been "solemnly forbidden" to post on his talkpage so I would like to ask someone to notify him of this.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

According to attacks I've seen on you, you are both a Communist and a Nazi, which strikes me as being a pretty good trick. :) Based on the editor's blatant threats, perhaps he should be "solemnly" sent to the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Its all in the phases of the moon, you see. :) When the full moon is out I venture into the woods and morph into a Nazi, while on Tuesdays I turn into a conservative liberal Jamahiriyist... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You won't have truly arrived until you're accused of being part of a "pro-circumcision cabal". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Notified LAz17 about this thread on your behalf. Exxolon (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ty :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I was punished for writing on my own talk page. But any rate, what I said remains true. You support the hardcore communist view that only the communist forces participated in resisting axis forces. That is exactly out of the communist textbooks, that the commies did everything and nobody else did anything. Wrong.

Second, my topic ban was not for yugoslavia. It was related to any ethnic map stuff. That was quite broad - by mistake. I am working on getting that revoked. There was never a topic ban for me that included any world war two related stuff.

You simply dislike me because I do not adhere to the traditional communist rhetoric which you continually support. Now, sometimes that rhetoric has a lot of truth. But at other times it interferes with the correct picture.

And also, that block expired a long time ago. That I did not edit much since that block expired is another matter. Currently I am more involved on the serbian wikipedia, and am struggling against those who who to cyrillicize latin articles. (LAz17 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)).

Ya know, they're all commies... except me... and thee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have noted here that I blocked LAz17 for 3 months, violating ARBMAC re personal attacks, for the post above and the others noted by DIREKTOR. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok if those trolling "pamphlets" are removed? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete them if ya want. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I noted with interest that in the most recent Indiana Jones movie he had moved on from fighting Nazis to fighting Commies. Indiana Jones is a series of tongue-in-cheek, light hearted, adventure movies. Wikipedia is not. Those who feel that labelling others in such ways adds anything here have a lot to learn. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I'm a Marxist of the Groucho kind. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Been there, done that... suppressed the evidence! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, how goes your struggle with the Harpoist splinter group? :)

I hope they don't stop, its actually a source of light entertainment: which totalitarian ideology will I be labeled with today? Will it be Communism? Fascism? Chicoism? Lets watch --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should compile a list of Totalitarian ideologies ascribed to Wikipedia contributors? We could give a prize for whoever gets the most. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The UnWIKICUP! Physchim62 (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an award for it -- the "Inaugural Uncle Duce Award for Contradictory Political Bias", which I proudly acknowledge to have received in 2009, here, for pretty much exactly this same thing. Antandrus (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I came across a 'contributor' the other day that seemed to think the Nazis were Communists, so such an award might not be that difficult to acquire in one go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's telling that the "Inaugural Uncle Duce Award for Contradictory Political Bias" is about to be awarded for the SECOND time. In a forum on which I was once very busy I made sure that everyone knew in advance that I was a tree sniffing whale hugging pinko lesbian long-haired vegetarian namby pamby do-gooder new age sandal wearing hippie black armband stoned un-American pot smoking limpwristed baby boomer subversionary bearded pacifist leftie bleeding heart out of touch neolithic idealogue. Labels are important HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Without labels, you might have to consider the other guy some sort of person or something. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait... there's an award for this? Goody gumdrops! I'm sorry to have to tell you guys but I win, no competition. Its a daily thing on the articles where I'm at. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that having been called both a Marxist and a Nazi sympathiser means you must have done something right regarding NPOV. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The user is restoring the personal attacks on his talkpage. They are quite belligerent and call for users to follow me around and revert my edits (because I'm a "communist", of course xD). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Left him a note to only use his talk page to discuss questions about his block and removed the personal attack again. Any further disruption and I would recommend removing talk page access again. Kuru (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"commie" again [12]. He's not getting the picture. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

Based on this latest rant,[13] I think it's time the editor had his talk page privileges removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hector Sants

An editor with few other edits, SilverFox93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has followed in the footsteps of an anonymous editor in trying to insert a controversial section relating to Credit Suisse and Iran into the article Hector Sants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I picked up VRTS ticket # 2010112510012945 originating from a very prominent, respected and immensely credible firm of solicitors. I reviewed the sources used for the content. Here they are:

• BBC News mentions Credit Suisse but not Sants
• Reuters mentions Credit Suisse but not Sants
• The FSA mentions Sants but not Iran
• Credit Suisse is an annual report that merely names Sants as an officer of the company
• The Observer does not mention Sants at all

Not one of these sources supports the inference that the editor seeks to draw. The editor reinserted the text after I removed it and revdeleted it, in response to the OTRS ticket noting its potentially defamatory nature. I accidentally chose RD2 instead of "Potentially libelous/defamatory", I corrected that for subsequent redactions. I am of the very strong opinion that SilferFox93 is engaged in novel synthesis, I am also convinced that this is an agenda account. I note all this for review. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

SilverFox93 was indef blocked for good reason. On the other hand, the full protection of the article until 27 May 2011 seems excessive. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair reminder, I will down it to semi, now SF is blocked. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin community article probation

Resolved

 – Review completed, consensus determined against content inclusion. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Request an uninvolved administrator to take a look at a situation covered by the Sarah Palin community article probation. The particular user involved is Victor Victoria (talk · contribs).

For full background on the situation, see Talk:Bristol Palin#Willow mentioned and WP:BLPN#Willow Palin. To make a long story short, Victor Victoria wishes to add negative tabloid-type information about Willow Palin, the 16-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin, to the article about her older sister, Bristol Palin. Willow Palin, due to her age, has been treated per past consensus as a non-public figure per WP:BLP.

Consensus at the BLP noticeboard has been, I believe, to exclude this information. Victor Victoria has continued to argue for inclusion, supported by 184.59.23.225 (talk · contribs). I actually suspect the user account and the IP are the same individual based on similar editing patterns at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Bristol Palin.

Victor Victoria has been notified of the community article probation, but continues to add the mention of the younger Palin sister to the Bristol Palin article.

At the very least, would appreciate someone with BLP knowledge stepping in and making the call one way or the other whether this information is a BLP vio. Kind of between a rock and a hard place - don't want to violate the article probation by edit-warring, but I also think the consensus is that the info is a BLP vio and needs to be removed. Any help greatly appreciated. Kelly ^hi! 03:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am not User:Victor Victoria, and I welcome a checkuser to verify that. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly that this edit by User:Victor Victoria reinserted material reinserted virtually identical material to a BLP without any consensus for inclusion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this edit is not a reinsertion of anything. That quote has never been in the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Trivial error corrected.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a trivial error, and I object to the new wording as well. The quote of the apology never appeared before, and frankly it boggles my mind that a quote of Bristol Palin is being censored from her own Wikipedia article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The new wording (in my comment above) is not going to change. If someday there's a full-length multi-volume biography of Bristol Palin, it will not quote every word she's ever said; while it might perhaps include the quote you've inserted, that doesn't mean it belongs in a brief encyclopedia article. What surprises me is that you're ignoring the need for consensus to insert or restore material to a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong on two counts: 1) the point of Wikipedia is to expand. If the Bristol Palin article is "brief" (which it is not, it is much bigger than a stub), then we should grow it. 2) Consensus has to be based on policies. The current objection to including the words "Willow Palin" in the article essentially rests on WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the 4th example in WP:IDONTLIKEIT is to call something "trivia". Victor Victoria (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue really comes down to whether a teenager acting like a teenager is 'notable'. I'm inclined to think not. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Accusing me of employing sockpuppetry is bad faith on User:Kelly's part. I call on him/her to take it back immediately. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Struck - your word is good enough for me. Sincere apologies. Kelly ^hi! 04:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Now how about addressing the substantive issue. Why isn't this trivia? Would you wish to include this if this wasn't Sarah Palin's daughter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability doesn't exist in a vacuum-- IOW, it's not necessary to establish that this event would be notable had it not involved the Palin children in order to establish it's notability in context. Furthermore, something being "trivia" is not a contraindication to inclusion. The more appropriate question, I think, is "Under what policy has this assertion-- sourced to no less than nine reliable sources-- been deleted?" (I'll also note that past consensus regarding WIllow Palin's status as a WP:NPF has been mooted by her recent press releases regarding the issue.) 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If a contributor wants to include something, it is up them to show why it should be. Anyone can delete anything that fails this test. I'm glad to see you accept that this is 'trivia'. Now explain how something can be both 'trivia' and 'notable'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I never conceded that this is trivia; I simply asserted that trivia isn't antonymic to notability, which you can verify by consulting your favorite thesaurus. I also don't see anything on WP:BLP to back your assertion that "Anyone can delete anything that fails this test," although it's difficult to be certain, as you have yet to clearly articulate which test it is that you feel this content fails. Regardless, it strikes me as fantastic that any articles retain content at all were that an accurate restatement of some existent policy. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

184.59.23.225 put trivia in quotes, which you should interpret as air quotes. He/she has not "accept[ed] that this is 'trivia'." Victor Victoria (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the original post baselessly accusing me of trying to insert material about Willow Palin into the Bristol Palin article. It is Bristol herself, that tied the two of them together, not me. Now, there is a certain group of individuals that are performing absurd edits to ensure at all costs that Willow Palin is not mentioned in the Bristol Palin article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Wikipedia is a conspiracy run by the Palin sisters. You win. I give up. Welcome to Absurdistan... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:SARCASM. That sort of statement is nonproductive. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to produce anything. I was trying (unsuccessfully) to hold back a flood of trivia. I've now decided I can't win, and am resigned to drowning. Please play "Imagine" at my funeral, and then bury me face down at a 45° angle, just to confuse 25th century archaeologists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

<undent> It wasn't my intention to drag a content dispute here, and I ask all participants to please stop restating arguments they've made elsewhere. They've been restated so many times that this is well into dead horse territory, and I provided links to the discussions. Just looking for an uninvolved admin to please look into the BLP issue and make the call on consensus one way or the other. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 05:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your original post sure doesn't read that way. I read it as a complaint against me and my alleged "sockpuppet" (which you have graciously struck out). Victor Victoria (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Probation

Articles like Bristol Palin are under probation precisely so admins can offer firm guidance when nonsense like the current dispute arises. When I noticed the issue at WP:BLPN#Willow Palin, the Bristol Palin article contained some extreme trivia (see this version and search for "shit") where pointless details of how a 20 year old ranted on a Facebook page, and later issued an apology with a mention of her 16 year old sister and a rant she had made. Do we have to debate this endlessly and start WP:DR, or will someone please handle this. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gods10rules, User:KeptSouth, User:Kelly, and User:Johnuniq reported by User:184.59.23.225 (Result: ) Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP review by uninvolved administrator NicholasTurnbull

The text reinserted by Victor_Victoria (talk · contribs) is a substantial recreation of content that has formerly been excluded from the article under BLP policy. Having undertaken a consensus review for the purposes of considering this AN/I request, the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:BLPN#Willow_Palin (excluding the article disputants from the discussion) was as follows:

Willow Palin is, at the present time, considered not generally well known as a BLP subject on Wikipedia. She is, consequently, not considered a notable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia.

On the basis of this above reasoning, the conclusion of this BLP review is that the information regarding the Willow Palin Facebook homophobia exchange shall be excluded from Wikipedia by community consensus. It is my opinion that Subjects notable for only one event (WP:BLP1E) applies in this case:

"Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

Taking the spirit of BLP1E, Willow Palin could be considered mentioned in published sources only in the context of a specific event -- i.e. the Facebook exchange -- for the purposes of the current discussion. As the event is not notable enough for an article of its own, the content should not be included, especially when taken in the light of Willow Palin being a minor at the time of publication, in which the bar for inclusion of events is necessarily higher as a component of editorial discretion. One can take the spirit of the above and reason that, since the event is definitely not notable enough for an article to exist on it, the content is entirely excluded in this case. Therefore, my summation is the following:

The Willow Palin Facebook homophobia exchange shall be considered excluded from Wikipedia on the basis of an editorial decision of non-notability by community consensus[14] and its inclusion shall be considered a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons content policy. Victor_Victoria (talk · contribs), 184.59.23.225 (talk · contribs) and any other involved parties are put on notice that, in the event of reinserting content describing this event, they may be banned on sight from editing articles related to the Palin family (Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and any other future articles) under the terms of the existing article probation; any uninvolved editor may remove the inserted content.

Corrected. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Then can the full protection be changed back to semi-protection? Tvoz/talk 05:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it can be. I'll semiprotect. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

QuackGuru

QuackGuru (talk · contribs) has become slightly difficult on the article vertebral artery dissection. This medical condition sometimes results from chiropractic neck manipulation, and one gets the impression that QuackGuru wants to use the article as a WP:COATRACK for this link. I have taken the opportunity to add some uncontroversial content about the condition, trying to make whatever is written as NPOV as possible. The following things have now happened:

• Adding a tag ({{too short}}) despite my assurances that the article body would soon be expanded to match the introduction.
• Changing the header of others' threads on talk:Vertebral artery dissection without engaging in actual discussion
• Bloating the intro after insisting that it was already too long
• Refactoring my posts on his talkpage, using edit summaries to respond in the process.

Could someone have a look and explain that this is not going well? JFW | T@lk 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, my addition of {{ANI-notice}} to his talkpage was refactored also.[15] JFW | T@lk 04:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know that he has read your posts then. He is allowed to remove them on his talkpage - as long as he realizes that it's considered acknowledgment of the message (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. In the context of his other behaviours I imagined it might still be relevant. JFW | T@lk 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Could Supreme Deliciousness be given a break, please?

This is the eighth SPI done on him, the last not even a week ago,. Honestly it's starting to border on harassment at this point. Any time a new account or IP pops up that happens to edit the same article he does, the community screeches SOCKPUPPET! and reports him. HalfShadow 05:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but what can we do about it at AN/I?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Far too much attention is being paid to SD! Do I just not seem to have what it takes to be a sock puppet master?! On a serious note, yeah, it's getting silly. Sol (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Has he been notified? Basket of Puppies 05:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SD has been around for a year and a half, and Frederico1234 has been around for almost three years. One would think that if they were socks, that would have become evident before now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The focal point of user Juijitsu's complaint is the article Cave of the Ramban, and he seems to be involved in arguments with at least 3 different users there. It must be obscure, since "I" never heard of it, but as the editors in question show an interest in this region, it's more likely they would have heard of it. That observation doesn't prove anything either way. But the previous SPI's have all been either vindication for SD, or dismissal due to lack of evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin please delete the outing that has taken place at the SPI? Jiujitsuguy is revealing my location, my ethnicity and nationality, its personal information and I don't want it revealed. He links to an old account (removed) that I in the name reveal both my ethnicity and nationality, its not a sock, Before I registered this account I had that account that I used a few times, keep in mind that I didn't know anything about Wikipedia rules at that time, then several months later when I wanted to edit Wikipedia again I just registered a new account, I didn't know that I should have used the old account, I didn't think about it at all, at many websites I just register a new account instead of trying to find out the password. I never pretended to be someone else or something like that with this account. I just abandoned the other one. The problem is that I was very inactive with that account and I didn't know any of Wikipedia rules, so at one point of time I did some inappropriate canvassing when I wanted to get attention to an article problem: [16] I'm not trying to hide it, I didn't know anything about the rules here and didn't realize that I did something wrong. The problem with that account is that both my ethnicity and nationality is revealed, and I don't want to be outed, I regret revealing that personal information, and I told shuki about it at my talkpage [17] I told him I did not want it revealed. Because of the personal information. Now he must have told Jiujitsuguy what account that was and Jiujitsuguy made a post about it at Shukis talkpage, so Jiujitsuguy must have seen the conversation between me and Shuki and asked for the previous account, but despite this he is revealing the account - revealing my ethnicity and nationality. I now ask you to please delete the comments at shukis talkpage and SPI so that the link to my previous account is removed and my personal information is not revealed, and the personal information connected to my old account, and my location and nationality is removed [18]And please tell shuki and Jiujitsuguy not to continue to out me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can you pass it to another admin (SD left a request at my talk). I won't do it because I have been told by User:SandyGeorgia here that our standards for outing are those of Wikipedia Review and that if your name is available by doing Internet research, then you're out of luck on outing. Since all of this is ... somwhat different from what I learned after becoming an admin, I will brush up on my knowledge of outing before acting in such a case again. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you admit in the post just above that you are the same account as (removed), then that would have to be revdelelted, according to your interpretation of "outing", SD. Do you want a revdelete of anything that would ever tie you to the account that you are mentioning as being you? You have confirmed that the accounts are both you yet again. You cannot "out" yourself, and I challenge any editor to show me how one can without giving out truly personal information that has not been subsequently deleted. Real name, address, serial number: that stuff. "Supreme Deliciousness" is most likely not your real name... Doc talk 11:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Accounts? There is one account. I don't want that account shown to be me anywhere as it reveals my ethnicity and nationality.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"He links to an old account (removed) that I in the name reveal both my ethnicity and nationality..." It's not personal information that could actually harm you - stop it, please. You misunderstand what WP:OUTING is meant for, I'm afraid... Doc talk 11:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the SPI stuff, since Admins can still see it, it seemed safest to do that. SandyGeorgia is wrong, our policy says "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." and says nothing about an exemption if it's available through an Internet search. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia might be wrong if she had said any of that and Wehwalt were representing my views correctly. Alas and alack, not the case. By the way, Wehwalt, if you tell stories about me again, would you mind letting me know? Is it All About Me All The Time with you? Must I follow all of your posts or rely on people to let me know when you're misrepresenting me? Please, lower the focus on me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And SD, many people are known to be of a certain nationality, sex, or religious group without being considered to out themselves.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic, but the problem is that WP:OUTING goes on to define what it means by "personal information" as follows: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." I'm not sure that nationality or ethnicity fall into that definition. If I had the information on that list, I would be able to find where you live and work, steal your identity, or contact you without Wikipedia seeing it, leading to possible harm or harassment off-Wiki. Things like nationality and ethnicity (or sex) don't provide the person who knows that information any such power to harm or harass off-Wiki. I'm not saying I oppose the definition specifically in the case of SD, but just generally I think those types of information should not be considered WP:OUTING. Maybe we need something more like WP:VANISH, whereby editors would have the right to have information posted about them vanish as well. ← George ^talk 11:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bingo - but now you should revdel this whole thread, since "Jiujitsuguy is revealing my location, my ethnicity and nationality, its personal information and I don't want it revealed." "Location" has been taken care of... but "ethnicity" and "nationality", still for all to see, and within this thread. I'm also, shockingly, (removed). Actually, I'm really not. I'm Scotch/Javanese. I mean New Guinean/Luxembourgian. Eh - just revdel all this too, just to be "safe". But this is my real information: you gotta believe me! 555-1234: call me ;> Doc talk 12:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone is concerned about outing, announcing it here is not the best approach. A better approach would be to contact a trusted admin via e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly referring to someone as a "transexual Filipino" or whatever could be harassment, especially if the editor referred to is clearly distressed or has asked the other user to stop. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA already cover on-Wiki harassment of that nature. ← George ^talk 22:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that self-revealed ethnicity and nationality is covered by the outing policy, since this information is not in any way sufficient to determine identity and was in any case posted by the editor himself, but since SD objects to the name of his old account being referred to because it reveals this information, would an admin please change the name of the account to something neutral of SD's choice, so that this doesn't become an avoidance of scrutiny for the edits made by that account (such as the canvassing of multiple editors complaining that the "Golan" article had been taken over by Israelis)? We are all responsible for our edits, and there's no reason that SD shouldn't be held responsible for those edits simply because of this matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Navajo people

Resolved

 – not for ANI Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Concerning this thread: [19] an apparently new editor wants to turn this article Navajo people into a stub and start over again. In my opinion that seems excessive and unnecessary. I will appreciate any input there. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy to leave any and all information in the article if it can be sourced. However, a lot of the material is unsourced, and at some of the information is incorrect, such as that "brush" is used for building hogans. Some of the articles linked to such as this one, is sourced to a "personal interview," and other sources which leave his notability for Wikipedia in severe doubt. So it looks like the whole complex of articles may be in need of pruning and discussion. But at the very least, the main article on Navajo people should not have tags stating it is unsourced since June 2010 or April 2009. This is a major article. I'm not here to destroy, but with these things you have to be bold or no one does anything. I don't have access to the sources myself. Atneyak (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are another couple people which seem to be non-notable: Emmi Whitehorse and Melanie Yazzie. Atneyak (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

. . .so you want to start the article anew because some of the sources are incorrect/not RS? Sol (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I was incorrect to say it should be stubbed. I was looking for inline references, and didn't notice at first that the article uses another form. That still doesn't mean that I should be told to tag and move on, as I just was on the article talk page. That's already been done. I'm just trying to take the next step. Of course that isn't nice for the authors, but again I'm not trying to destroy wikipedia. Atneyak (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And while it shouldn't be stubbed, there is quite a bit of material which should be removed, and as I said above some of the stuff included is lists of people who aren't actually notable... it's a big project to clean this up :P Atneyak (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

An unenviable task, yes :P But you might find it easier to pull out the offending information/find better sources and leaving in the remainder as having to find the sources all over again would more than double the work load. Sol (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'll do that. Writing it is half the work like you say, and anyway they seem willing to work to find sources. I really didn't expect anyone to care, considering how long the tags have been on. Atneyak (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat suspicious of this user's agenda. He asked what was appropriate action with the lists of famous Navajo, which includes a number of entries which are not bluelinked, not redlinked, and not sourced. I offered advice on identifying members of these lists which appeared to be notable. In the next edit, Atenyak proposed instead the removal of a bluelinked article, as he argued it was 'not notable'. An odd thing to focus on, given that the unsourced list probably violates BLP. I have voiced this same doubt on the talkpage, so I'm not coming here behind the user's back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Cross posted from talk page:Of course you should be suspicious of my agenda... if I'm wrong about what I'm saying and not open to suggestions or ignoring Wikipedia policy so as to skew the encyclopedia to a non-NPOV state. However, I urge you to read WP:NOTABILITY. Yes, we need to get rid of some of the non-linked people, but also many of those with articles just don't seem meet the standard for inclusion unless much better sourcing can be found. I'm not focused on the article but really on the whole complex of articles. Again... if I'm wrong of course you need to be suspicious. But if I'm right, I would suggest you focus on the content of my edits rather than on what "agenda" I might have. Atneyak (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you think it violates BLP, let's discuss that, and maybe you can help get rid of any violations. I don't know of any, I just notice they sometimes aren't well sourced. ......Uh, which is a violation right there, I forgot. So then what's the problem with focusing on them? Atneyak (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Emmi Whitehorse and Melanie Yazzie seem to pass WP:N. What are the specific problems you have with these two pages? Jarkeld (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

They may be, but Yazzie barely seems to make it with the sources given, if she does. Emmi Whitehorse seems to have only one source which isn't self published or insignificant, "Reno, Dawn. Contemporary Native American Artists. Brooklyn: Alliance Publishing, 1995:183," which I think is probably less than "significant coverage," maybe just a mention. IOW, if she's notable, it seems just barely. However, this may be because good sources aren't given, rather than that they aren't notable. Here's another that's iffy Irvin Morris Atneyak (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK — why is this at ANI? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This was brought here to avert an edit war and to create a better working environment at the article; it seems to have worked as several issues are now being worked on, looked at and discussed as opposed to simply deleteing, reverting ad infinitum...Modernist (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Let it be noted that there was no edit warring... there were a few edits by me and Modernist reverting. Since I didn't even revert once, bringing it here to prevent and edit war.... Atneyak (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

User:The Globular Mass

- - User:The Globular Mass added nonsense to the Serpentor article yesterday, and restored it after it was removed. IPs 69.210.253.143 and 69.210.241.145 also became involved, restoring it several times[20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. The Globular Mass was warned, but removed the warnings. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked The Global Mass following a review of their edit history, prompted by their removing of the above report previously. This action, and their edit warring over the complained edits, and other questionable actions leads me to believe that they are not intent on improving the encyclopedia. I welcome further review of my and TGM's actions here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. A third IP 69.211.8.205 has now restored the nonsense as well.[25] 108.69.80.49 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman and User:Fusion is the future

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615#Arnold Reisman book self-promotion|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615 § Arnold Reisman book self-promotion]], and [[:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arnold_Reisman/Archive]]

AFD discussions for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman
• Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Reisman, Arnold

• Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ellen Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• BandGwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Fusion is the future (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The article Arnold Reisman, about a retired professor, was created by User:Ellen Reisman, and extensively expanded by User:Arnold Reisman using that account and a number of IP sockpuppets. (I believe that User Reisman confirmed his real-world identity as Arnold Reisman to OTRS, but I don't have a link for that.) After discussion on AN/I, both Reisman accounts were indef blocked for extensive self-promotion of Reisman's self-published books, which were spammed into numerous articles. Neither account has ever asked to be unblocked.

In June, an IP attempted to edit in a similar manner to User:Arnold Reisman, and was warned off, [26],[27] to be replaced by User:BandGwolf, who was also warned off. [28], [29],[30]

In September, User:Fusion is the future is created, and edits productively to jazz-related articles for almost two months, before starting to edit the Arnold Reisman article – which is totally unrealted to jazz – in a manner similar to the editing by Reisman. Once again, I warned the editor, resulting in extensive discussion in which Fusion adamantly denied being in any way connected to Reisman. [31] Fusion reaches out to admin User:Slim Virgin for assistance, [32], who examines the article and strips it, as a BLP, of all unsourced statements.

Since then, there have been numerous threads on the article's talk page and on the RSN board concerning the article. Fusion persists in attempting to add material to the article using primary sources, ignoring Slim Virgin's request for secondary sources to show the subject's notability. User:Fladrif has indicated that there are some secondary sources, reviews from reliable sources of the professor's self-published books, but Fusion has, as of yet, declined to integrate these into the article.

Uninvolved admin intervention is needed for these reasons:

• Given Fusion's attitude towards this article, his clear self-involvement in the subject, his personal reactions whenever anyone does not agree with what he wants to do, his setting up as first one editor (me) and then another (Slim Virgin) as the "bad guy" preventing him from doing what he wants to with the article, and given that the article's subject is totally disconnected from the subject area Fusion otherwise edits in (jazz), it is nearly impossible not to come to the conclusion that Fusion is in some way connected to Arnold Reisman, either as a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Arnold Reisman (the editor) has never requested a lifting of the indef block, yet has persisted in attempting to shape the article about him through socks, and this is appears to be yet now another attempt, albeit a somewhat more Wiki-sophisticated one, to do so. An admin should decide whether the behavioral evidence is strong enough that Fusion should be indef blocked as a sock- or meatpuppet of Reisman.

• Regardless of whether Fusion is a sock- or meatpuppet or not, his behavior has become an egregious case of I didn't hear that and his framing of other editors as adversaries is uncivil, uncollegial and indicates a battleground mentality. An uninvolved admin should warn him not to continue editing in this manner.

• Finally, although the article Arnold Reisman has survived two AfDs [33],[34], the most recent one in May of this year, some determination should be made of whether it is sourced sufficiently as a BLP to be kept. If so, then it should probably be taken to AfD again, since, despite over two weeks having passed since Slim Virgin asked for secondary sources, it is still based almost entirely on primary sources, and does not appear as if it fulfills the notability requirements for subjects of this type. (I'd rather not take it to AfD until these other issues are decided.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All named parties have been notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the last of your comments on the subject, my thinking is that if the article were taken to AfD and deleted then it would make much of the rest of the concerns noted moot - especially if User:Fusion is the future confined themselves to editing jazz related articles. Again, if the AfD resulted in good secondary sources being located and added then the other concerns, if not moot, would be of considerably less import. What is your rationale for not moving to AfD, precisely? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess primarily that I'm involved, and that bringing it to AfD might be perceived as a tactic rather than a good faith nomination. I've no objection to filing there, if that's what folks thinks is the best thing to do. Aside from that, I had (and have) no particular objection to the existence of the article per se. This report was provoked by Fusion's most recent comment on the article talk page, which convinced me that we were on a merry-go-round that didn't show signs of stopping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, Arnold Reisman seems borderline notable at best. There are others in his field more notable than he who still do not have WP articles written about them. Even so, I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• No objection to an AfD, but to disallow primary sources in an article is inappropriate. If I'm understanding correctly then VS is wrong in preventing them if they are otherwise reliable. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Primary sources are fine, Hobit, so long as the article is based on secondary sources. I don't know what to make of the Arnold Reisman situation. This is the version of the article Reisman himself seems to want, and has tried to insert using various accounts and IPs. Problem is that much of it is unsourced. He appears to be a former academic at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. What might make him more notable is a series of books he wrote on Turkey and the Holocaust, listed here on Amazon. But when you look at the publishers, you find they're all self-published. In addition, Reisman has written a blog post on how to use the Web, including Wikipedia, to self-promote books: "My premise is that the Web has made possible a direct relationship between a book’s author, its purchaser and or reader ... What is also significant to the author, is that it’s cost free ..." This was accompanied by someone spamming his book titles into a number of WP articles.

  So at this point it becomes difficult to know what to trust, and for that reason we've been asking Fusion to construct the article out of secondary sources. Fladrif found some book reviews and posted them on the talk page, but all we get from Fusion are long posts complaining about other editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Using a school's website as evidence that a talk was given at that school is perfectly reasonable. It's a perfectly valid reliable source unless you have evidence otherwise. I'd say it even counts (a very little bit) toward WP:N. No reliable source, primary or otherwise, should be kept out of the article if it improves the article. One can certainly argue if it does improve the article and one can very easily argue this belongs at AfD (heck, it's close enough I'll do it) but I don't think we should be keeping sources out because notability hasn't been established. Hobit (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Binksternet, before you make any further comment, I kindly suggest you read the discussions, all of them, from the scratch.

First here, than here. and than here.

Otherwise, you are hurting me with these words:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

This is to me, "Rush to judgment."

@Beyond My Ken, I am truly thankful to you, that you brought it up here, even though you still try to spread doubts about me, still, I am happy, so that uninvolved editors and Administrators alike can sort things out by going to the bottom of it.

As I said all along, my words are my honor and the basis for my credibility. I would also ask the respective admins to run an IP check on me. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• You mean you wish me to give the tar baby a good poke? No, thank you. I ran into the Arnold Reisman article a while ago, months before you created your current user profile, and at the time I searched and searched to try and unearth some solid notability reference to help the article stand on its own. I failed, something I am not used to. I do not expect that Reisman has significant new material since this discussion makes no mention of any, so I do not wish to revisit the article's sourcing problems, and I especially do not wish to engage Reisman supporters in debate. I have written more than a hundred Wikipedia articles from scratch, and improved hundreds more by adding good cites, and I have never had the kind of trouble finding good sources as I had with Reisman. I made up my mind months ago that Reisman is borderline notable at best, and possibly a candidate for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, it's now nominated, for the third time. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The behavioural evidence, including amongst other things fairly clear evasion of a simple what's-your-source question, is quite compelling at this point. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Obscure answers are something of a speciality of this user; see Talk:Atilla Engin (not for the faint of heart). pablo 12:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I hadn't read that. Ouch! There's more behavioural evidence there, including another diff that tallies with Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs) and adds another brick to the pile. The continued evasion below is fairly transparent, too. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Binksternet, I guess I was not clear enough. Okay. Please allow me to pass you a not-so-well-kept secret. The honorable and surely most defendable thing to do is to ask me directly, whether I am the above-mentioned subject or do I have any connections to him. Fair enough. Then, you get my answer. Either you assume good-faith and take my word for it, or, if you are not satisfied with my answer, you go ahead and file SPI on me. That's the right way to do it.

Otherwise, saying this will only damage the credibility of the one who says it:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

Again, please read this first, than this. and than this before you make any further comments. The answers are there, including about 15 secondary sources I found on the Internet, after a hard work, which all were rejected by Beyond My Ken. The reason of his rejection was, these references were about self-published books. When he said that, I stopped there, and never added any text nor references to support the subject's book claims. So simple as that.

And, saying "I made up my mind months ago that Reisman is borderline notable at best" is an opinionated statement.

Since I encountered this article I found many sources. Did you check them all?

You still have to assume good faith. It's about improving the articles. We can not be opinionated. Being impartial is a must. Don't you think so?

Yesterday is behind us. Today is a new day and you might be surprised when you check the sources I found. And here, the Board of Administrators, is the right place to examine these sources whether they can be used. Thanks. _{Fusion Is the} Future 12:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Uncle G

What "behavioural evidence?"

What are "amongst other things?"

And, "evation of" what? Please explain. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 12:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mclaudt requests lift of ban.

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive600#User:Mclaudt|Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive600 § User:Mclaudt]]

User:Mclaudt is requesting that his community ban be lifted. The reason he gives is, "Please unblock me. I have no time no intention for canvassing or train-wrecking Linux software discussions. I'm getting PhD in quantum chemistry and I want to be really useful for Wikipedia in that field. Also I'm happy to be an active Wikipedia donator because I sincerely support ideas that Wikipedia declares. Thanks." Is there support for lifting this ban? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not by me. The user's request does not address in any useful detail the many reasons given for his ban in the discussion that led up to it. It is therefore unconvincing.  Sandstein  22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support- it's been nearly eight months and the user has promised to behave, and I for one don't require a lengthy essay by way of apology or shameless grovelling before supporting an unblock. If the editor resumes disruptive behaviour they can be reverted and blocked again very easily. Reyk _YO! 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• weak support I agree with Reyk (which may be a first?) It's been long enough, see how it goes. Hobit (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• I feel I should point out that he also contacted me about it - which I find odd because I've got it written plain as day on my talk page that I lost the tools in July and will not have them back for the forseeable future. In any case, Neutral. I'm leery of the "I'm a *REFORMED* alcoholic" defense, and I'd like to see a bit more than vague speech. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It's been long enough, but I don't see evidence of understanding why he was banned in the first place and what he will do to avoid those issues. I also woule like to see how he wishes to be "really useful": working on any drafts first, etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Question- The guy was blocked/banned for off-site canvassing and has now said that he has no intention of canvassing again. Does this not demonstrate a knowledge of what he was blocked for? If not, what would you consider a satisfactory answer? And, if you were in his shoes, how would you explain how you'd avoid canvassing again that goes beyond saying "I won't do it anymore"? What other possible answer is there? Reyk _YO! 03:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Give him a standard offer and see if he agrees to the terms. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support lifting ban, his sincere request is good enough for me. He may have a rocky past but it's on record now and I don't believe he's dangerous to the project. -- œ^™ 10:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral comment Reblocks, following a community unblock, are easy. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support I'd prefer to see a full year go by, but I don't feel strongly about it. If he can contribute within our rules, give him a chance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Schrandit at Crisis pregnancy center

Resolved

 – No administrative action required. Please follow the steps listed at WP:DR.

I wasn't sure whether to put this on the noticeboard for vandalism or edit warring, so I thought it would be more appropriate to list it on the general noticeboard. Here's a rundown: I (Roscelese) have been making a sincere attempt in the past week or so to improve the article Crisis pregnancy center. It has NPOV issues, true, but it's more that there are significant pieces of information that are just missing, among them information about the centers' religious affiliation. I added a paragraph that contains the following facts:

• Three-fourths of centers in the USA are affiliated with Care Net and Heartbeat International, two CPC networks.
• Care Net and Heartbeat Int'l are both Christian in nature (I elaborate on this).
• Other centers are run by the Roman Catholic Church or by other church groups.
• (These statistics obviously exclude other countries; however, the USA has by far the most CPCs, and the UK's and Canada's also appear to be largely Christian. I doubt this is the reason the user in question has been continually removing information - s/he hasn't mentioned it at all - but I'm in the process of adding it for completeness' sake.)

Given the presence of this information in the article, I thought it appropriate to put in the lead that CPCs were typically Christian in nature.

Schrandit has repeatedly made the following changes:

• Typically Christian in nature to Often Christian in nature - "Often" doesn't even imply a majority, much less over three-quarters of CPCs.
• Although the vast majority of CPCs are Christian to Though the majority of religious CPCs are Christian - Over 75% of CPCs having a Christian affiliation is not a majority only of religious CPCs.
• Many require employees to comply with a statement of faith to Some require employees to comply with a statement of faith - Care Net is the largest CPC network in the USA - ie. in the country with the most CPCs - and our sources state that they are affiliated with half of all American CPCs [I either misremembered or just can't find that source again] the largest CPC network in the USA. That isn't "some."

I initially tried to assume good faith. I asked Schrandit to suggest a change to the lead (the part that contains "typically Christian") that would please hir without changing the nature of the information presented; I asked for sources that contradicted mine; I reiterated my points on the talk page and asked hir to stop making unsupported changes. Though we had discussed at length on the article's talk page, I also posted to hir user talk page before reporting hir here.

At this point I really can't fathom what Schrandit wants from my sources. They clearly state, for example, that Care Net, which administers half the CPCs in the United States, not only calls itself "Christian" but requires affiliates to comply with a statement of faith, and that Heartbeat Int'l, which administers another quarter, describes itself as a "Christian association of faith-based pregnancy resource centers," yet s/he says that it's "irresponsible" to "assume" that that means most CPCs are Christian. Does s/he think that Care Net employees are really Jews pretending to be Christians in order to get jobs at CPCs? That Heartbeat Int'l is a "Christian association" that administers Muslim or Pagan "faith-based pregnancy resource centers"?

In conclusion, the changes Schrandit has made are a) flagrantly misrepresenting the sources and b) suppressing relevant information. Given hir total lack of effort to explain why my sources do not support my edits or to find contradictory sources, I'm led to call this - in the sense of a deliberate, bad-faith attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia - vandalism. I would really appreciate administrator intervention.

Thanks,

-- Roscelese (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered/tried WP:3O or WP:MEDCAB? Sounds like a simple content dispute at this point--you've not alleged any edit warring or like conduct. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that would be better? I'm hesitant to call it a content dispute since one side is not providing any content, but I could do that. Roscelese (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Roscelese is inserting OR into this article. It could be possible that a majority of CPCs are Christian in nature but she has failed to provide sourcing that says so. - Schrandit (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:CALC/WP:NOTOR. Routine calculations - like "three-quarters is more than one-half" - are not original research. "[The NOR policy] allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." Do you disagree that "3/4 > 1/2" correctly reflects the sources? Roscelese (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the steps for dispute resolution. Ask for a third opinion or file a request for comment. There is nothing here that currently requires administrative action. AniMate 04:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments by MickMacNee

I'd like to report harassment/stalking by User talk:MickMacNee, per his comments on my talk page. I'm not sure if he's stalking me or User:Mjroots, but in either case the stalking is unwarranted. I was blocked on 31 October 2010 for "baiting Mick" on his talk page while he was blocked (Actually, I was trying to make fun of an admin, and the whole thing backfired. I learned my lesson anyway.) Anyway, I should be able to make comments in passing about someone without having to fear that they will feel the need to comment on it. In the case with Mick, he is known for harassing other users, especially at AFDs, and has been the subject of many ANIs in the past for such harassment, and other related behavioral issues. I'd like an injunction against his posting on my talk page for any reason other than gving notices reguiered by WP such as for ANIs, and ask that he be restricted in his interctions with me on AFDs where I have posted first, allowing other users to respond to me. I'll agree to the same restrictions in return, if needed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have modified the header of this section. Stalking is a real-world activity that involves physically following a person and threatening their well-being. You're not being stalked, and using that term to describe someone posting on your talk page when you've made reference to them is unacceptable. This is not a comment on the remainder of the report, but a correction in terminology that should routinely be enforced on this noticeboard; the term "wikistalking" was deliberately deprecated a considerable time ago because of this issue, and it is remarkably disappointing to see that regular posters on this board have forgotten it. Risker (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  That's a limited definition, and one I don't accept. Whether you call it hounding or stalking, it amounts to the same thing. it's a form of bullying, whatever you chose to call it. - BilCat (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  BilCat, Risker is spot-on here. I've not read any further than this in this thread, but I, too, insist that you adopt more appropriate terminology. Robert Bardo is a stalker. Mick is a chronically disruptive editor who keeps skating by being indef'd. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Such an interaction ban would seem reasonable to me. You obviously both rub each other up the wrong way or whatever. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Nothing good will come from you posting on each others' talk pages. So I'd support an interaction ban. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• In agreement, an interaction ban would do nicely. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I reserve the 'right' to comment wherever and whenever my name is being mentioned, whether that user feels they have the right not to 'fear' my input or not. If that location is on a talk page of a user who does not want me there, then I reserve the 'right' to expect that they cease bandying my name about in casually incivil conversation, safe in the knowledge that I cannot respond. That is pretty much the definition of baiting right there. Infact, while we're at it, I also reserve the right not to be called a mother fucker and a stalker in edit summaries, period, in all cases the former, and at least without evidence in the latter. This ANI complaint of 'stalking' is based on one post to one talk page, where my name was being mentioned. I was not aware of any ban of myself from that talk page, neither formal or through the expressed wishes of BilCat. Based on these facts, and the fact that this report makes various oblique references to my 'past behavior' in the best tradition of poisoning what he already knows is a very viperous well for me, I think it's pretty fucking clear who is baiting who here. Based on past experience of what he does and doesn't know about EQ, I will happilly accept the most formal and complete interaction ban with this user, who cannot it seems even file an ANI report header in a neutral, non-offensive manner, on the express proviso that I have done nothing wrong wrt the bare facts of this report, and also with the exception of his rather unusual 'me first' Afd suggestion, which can only be seen as an attempt to game me off of an ongoing notability content debate. I would note however that he is in no position to be offering to stay off my talk page save for notices etc as some sort of new bargaining chip at all, that was apparently what he had already agreed to do when he was unblocked for the aformentioned baiting of me the first time round. I had no knowledge of what was arranged in that appeal, and certainly no notifications of any related consequent obligations/restrictions on me, as I already explained here and here, and which has been clarified for him by the blocking admin here, so any and all suggestions from him that I have been baiting him, are quite false. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it should be clear that this interaction ban will be imposed on a "no liability" basis. It should also be clear that, as per usual, the interaction ban means neither party can "make reference to or comment on [the other party] anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly". --Mkativerata (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The ban is two-ways. Also, he might've been calling you a Massey Ferguson. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

From a user who uses profanity in regular converstaion on a regulkar basis, Mick's objection to being called an "m-f" is hilarious! He's called me worse names than 2 letters and a hyphen on several occasions. As to "stalking", that's why we;re here: to address unwanted attention and harassment. Note this is not the first time he has done this,, on my talk page or on others. He even interjects himself into converstations where I'm asking for advice out of frustration at dealing with him on another page - that also appears to be both harrasment and baiting, as he did at this admin's talk page today. This sort of behavior is normal for Mick, and no one else is permitted to do thses same things to him, even inadvertantly, as my block incident shows. If the community wishes to impose a direct and indirect ban on both of us, that's their choice. I won't be watchlisting his page (and I haven't been) to see that he keeps his part of the injuction, and I wouild ask he not be permitted to watchlist mine either. Let an impartial 3rd party do that if required. - BilCat (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Massey Ferguson? That's daft. MMN meant mother-fucker'. Jack Merridew 17:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I will most definitley not be abiding by any restriction if it is enacted in such a way that gives this person's complaints here anything other than complete dismissal as totally and utterly unfounded. I will accept an interaction ban only because it benefits me and stops me from having to be subjected to his ongoing slurs and attacks, both direct and indirect, and nothing else. Anyone is free to go and look at the archive of his block appeals I provided above, it shows pretty clearly that nobody was convinced by his allegation that there is some sort of disparity between his treatment and mine wrt the block button. Infact, considering his baiting occured while I was in the middle of being community banned without the being allowed to defend yourself part, whereas he was just sitting out a week long block for a pretty egregious violation, which would have been quickly reduced to 24 hrs had he not shot himself in the foot with this exact sort of baseless allegation, I think he's got some brass balls even suggesting it. This guy thinks I have admin friends, that's how off base he is. I have had more than my fill of people dragnetting ANI for old Mick threads just like this and then claiming they are evidence I do this, that or the other at arbcom and such like. This stirring ANI is what is real misbehaviour, not placing perfectly relevant replies on an admin's talk page when this user is making requests that he pass messages to me because he says it 'appears' I've done this or that. I will also not accept any form of ban that restricts us commenting on the same content/process pages like Afd/articles, with the exception of direct conversation, this is certainly not what I understand as the standard 'interaction ban'. MickMacNee (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

An interaction ban would not prohibit you from participating in the same discussions, such as AfDs, but it would prohibit you and BilCat from replying to each other's comments. Regarding "I will most definitley not be abiding by any restriction if it is enacted in such a way that gives this person's complaints here anything other than complete dismissal as totally and utterly unfounded.": the ban would not be enacted to give legitimacy to anything. It's no liability, for the purposes of preventing future problems without determining who may have been in the right or in the wrong in the past. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's as I thought, although it probably needs breaking down for him in clear terms that he can refer back to, his misconceptions over policy, let alone even his basic recollections in this issue here really are that bad from my perspective. As for liability, as long as the resolution says that in crystal clear terms, I am fine with that also. And noting that he was already banned from my talk page anyway, even though I didn't even know, would also not go amiss, to give context to the above allegations and diffs. MickMacNee (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There he goes again, misrepresenting the truth. I think it's quite clear to anyone else why I am so frustrated with Mick. He is a bully, and anytime anyone dares to stand up to him, this is what happens. As to admin friends, HJMitchell is the one who blocked me, and then disapperared promply for 20 hours *he said he had trouble logging in, while I had to endure a 20-hour block after I stated I would not comment on Mick's page again. Blocks are supposedly not punitive, but I haven't got those 20 hours back yet. HJM also unblocked Mick while discussions were underway about lifting Mick's indefinite block. (Stated for the record, as Mick brought it up this time.) I'm a good editor, and while I have a history that shows I have a short temper, I'm generally quick to admit I'm wrong. I know I haven't behaved perfectly in this matter, and have "shot myself inthe foot" on several occasion, however inadvertanly. But Mick's bullying tactics are right here on this page for all to see! This is how he treats everyone who dares to disagree with him. The recent AFD's that he and HJMitchel have prticipated in are compltes jokes. They file an AFD on almost evert aviation accidennet article that's created, and almost all of them are kept. Yet they keep doing it, they repeat the same NOTNEWS nonsense at every AFD they participate in, and nothing changes. Mick instists on cross-examining every comment that disagrees with him to the inth degre, but it's all the same thing! The really odd thing is that Mick almost never participates in the accident AFDs were it's qute ovbious that the subject is non-notable. I can't help but think they're pushing an agenda here. If they won most of the AFDs, it would be a different story, but that's not the case. I actually stopped participating in Aviation accident AFDs completely for several weeks, then stared back while Mick was indefinitely blocked. We've had little interatcion in AFDs until today, but his showing up uninvited on my talk page set me off. I admit I shouldn't let it bother me, but it does. I'm not the only person he bullies, but I am just dumb enough to think eventually it will all catch up with him. I repeat Mick's own profane own words verbatim to HJM, and HJM immediately wanrs me, but Mick hasn't been warned for the original statement yet! I know it;s easy to tell me to just grow up, tht WP is not for the faint-hearted, blah blah blah. But seriously, who else on WP hets to say point blank that WPCIVIL doesn't apply to him if the other person is making a dumb argument! (yes, I actually have the diff on that one, if someone really cares to see it.) He admits he doesn't feel bound by WPCIVIL, and yet he's still here, bullying anyone who disagrees with him. Sorry, but yes, I'm angry and frustrated, I admit that. How long will Mick's uncivil behavior on a daily basis be allowed to continue before someone says enough is enough? Help stop him, please. - BilCat (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful for either party to continue to post here about each other. We've proposed a solution that both parties seem to agree to, that will have consensus support, and that will solve the problem going forward. No-one's going to get blocked here (I hope) so why bother? --Mkativerata (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to realize this is the last time either of us will be allowed to say this here on WP, to tell our sides of the story. Give us a little space, please. No one's going to get killed, so why not let it go a bit longer? - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, even though this is ANI, this is an encyclopaedia not a place to tell your side of the story. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But this is ANI - there's no where else to go, as we're both giving up the right to take it to any other venue on WP, as I understand the terms. ANd we both hope something else will be done intstead of this solution. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No probs, keep commenting on each other (or don't - your guy's choice) until the thread is closed. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, as long as it is made crystal clear, and I mean 100% indisputable, that nothing this guy has alleged in here has been proven to be true in any way, then I'm fine diddly-ine with that frankly. Not much of what he said in this latest paranoid-delusional half page rant is even remotely true tbh. I invite anyone to pick just one of the more basic facts in it, to see if it checks out, such as the allegation that me and my best buddy Mitchell are an aircrash Afd team, and hold exclusivity in nominating any and all such articles, even the ones I also supposedly never vote in?!?!?, or even that we are simply wiki-buddies generally, or even that he has unblocked me ever, rather than just restore my talk page access once that was removed as a result of this guy's activites on it. Then you will see if it's likely or not as to whether some of the stuff that would take a bit more time to verify that he alleges, might be remotely true or not. MickMacNee (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant (to me) as to why you're both locking horns. That you're both locking horns is releveant, though. You both should reach a gentlemens agreement - to avoid each other & not speak of each other. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, BilCat voluntarily agreed not to interact with MMN as a condition of his unblocking. AFAIK, he has stuck to that agreement. MMN may well have been unaware of this. It is disappointing that BilCat has felt it necessary to withdraw from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Way Flight 4412 due to MMN's continuance of his usual behaviour at AfDs. I would urge BilCat to reconsider his withdrawal from the AfD. He has as much right to participate as any other editor does. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In the same veign as my reply to BilCat's accusations, anyone is free to go and look at that Afd, and see if Mjroot's vague insinuations here are remotely proveable (or in this case even appropriate for an admin on the ANI board) as a description of my actual contribution in that Afd. I've tried an Rfc against him to stop exactly this sort of behaviour, but it was a waste of time, and it's not hard to see where the supposedly wiki-inexperienced BilCat is learning his bad EQ habits from. I won't stoop to BilCat's level with regard to alleging who is friends with who around here, and who does what or how at Afd, but seriously, this complaint of his here was sparked by me 'butting in' to a 'conversation' between these two on his talk page about whether "Keep, just to annoy MMN" was a valid Afd vote or not? I mean seriosuly, wtf? Infact, I urge all admins to go look at that convo, you'd be hard pressed to pick out which of them was the admin, and which was the inexperienced editor. MickMacNee (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MJR. Note that I could not tell him the agreement to stay off of his talk page, and to try to avoid conflict elsewhere, as I could not post on his page. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I will not accept these terms as stated by Mick. What I have said about Mick's actions and behavior are true, and I can show the diffs - but diffs have been shown countless times at ANIs just like this one. I'll file an RFC/U if that's what's needed to be fair to Mick concerning these "accusations", though it won't be today or tomorrow (Monday or Tuesday, NYC time), as I've never doen one before. I will agree to abide by the solution until the RFC/U is filed, and let the RFC decide on the issue from that point on, even if that is to not accept the RFC. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mick is welcome to file an RFC/U agaisnt me for my accusations if he would rather do that - it matters not to me along as both our behaviors would be reviewed. (I assmume that is how an RFC works, but some things about WP are still a mystery to me!) ARBCOM has recently declined to take up a case agaist Mick (or it's stillpending, so I think RFC/U is the next step here.) - BilCat (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It would save you both alot of hassle, if yas would agree to remain on opposite sides of the Wiki-street. Pluss avoid commenting on each other. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't help the other people he's intimidating on a daily basis, though I'm not here today because of them. I'm not the only one he treats this way, nor are Aviation accident AFDs his only venue f intimidation - the British/Irish dispute pages are familiar with him too. But he does deserve "his day in court", as he beleives (publically at least) that I'm makeing false accusations against him. - BilCat (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom declined to take up the case re MMN. Partly because it was bundled in with a request to deal with the unblocking of MMN against consensus by an admin, despite several editors urging Arbcom to take up the case as it was felt that a RFC would not lead to any change in behaviour. It seems that a RFC on MMN is going to have to be made, something which I am working on atm. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do what ya'll think is best. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I will accept the terms of the restrictions, unilaterally, until the RFC/U is filed agaist Mick, as long as I'm allowed to participate in it when it is filed, or to file it myself within a certain time frame, as stipulated here. (I know Mick has seen the RFC as a threat held over his head, adn I don't ant this to be open-ended on my part.) I'll make myself availble to MJR, private communications, to help in any way that I can, if that is acceptable to the admins here. And I will unilaterally cease my comments that I ahve been making here about Mick's behavior elsewhere. Will that be acceptable? - BilCat (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no authority in this whole matter. How you, Mick & Mj proceed is entirely in your (your 3) hands. GoodDay (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to propose a ban that is indefinite, where the one and only exception is to make a single appeal every six months be it to the Community or ArbCom. If each is going to refuse to get along and put aside their differences, and each is also refusing to avoid one another altogether, then these sorts of solutions are the only things that preserve everyone else's sanity against this utter rubbish.

Let's make no mistake; Bilcat's original comment, and Mjroots continuation of it, and MickMacNee's response to it...all of it is trolling. None of this reflects well on any of the three of you, and if you aren't willing to accept such a binding restriction voluntarily, then perhaps an involuntary restriction is all that is left. The apparent compulsive need to continue to inflame this dispute as much as possible to try to eliminate content opponents is utterly unhealthy. Am I the only one who is getting sick of it? At the end of the day, the trolling needs to stop...and you should voluntarily drop the sticks and move on to better things and ways of approaching certain situations. If you aren't going to do that but are trying to make assurances which mean diddly squat in the long run, then you're going to force the Community's hand on each of you through a series of sanctions and it won't be pretty. I seriously hope that it doesn't come to that and that the polite requests will get through to each one of you...well-before the new year arrives. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You cannot brush under the carpet serious allegations like stalking, harassment, bullying and intimidation made at ANI, without a shred of evidence, with a simple wave of the magic 'you're all as bad as each other wand', or by turning the issue into something else, such as the (unsubstantiated) allegation that I am trying to 'eliminate a content opponent'. Infact, filing frivelous 'mud sticks' ANI reports is a pretty good example of what someone who was actually trying to eliminate a content opponent, would try to do. You can actually see in his original report the suggestion that I be barred from any Afd he gets to first, right? I have done nothing at these Afds except give cogent, policy backed arguments, and request that others have the common courtesy to do the same, as per the instructions. If you are really interested in sanctioning people who have made personal comment after personal comment, assumption of bad faith after assumption of bad faith, and repeated, serious, attempts to poison the well in this dispute, just like this ANI complaint, then seriously, you need look no further than BilCat and Mjroots. BilCat's vote in that latest Afd was this gem of a PERTHEM/ABF combo. I take great offence to you even suggesting that I am in any way similar to him in either Afd standards of ettiquette, general behaviour, or motive, overt or otherwise. If your broad brush summary was remotely the case by the way, why is nobody here in the least bit disturbed by the fact that one of this trio is an admin? You or the community can propose whatever sanctions it like's on me, and if the evidence doesn't support it, well, let's just say I am getting used to having to use arbitrators as my first, last, and only court of session, on this site. There is a reason why they threw out the claim that ANI is evidence of proper dispute resolution, and certain posts in this thread are a pretty good example why. I've given the conditions under which I will accept an interaction ban, BilCat is the one with the issue with it, even though he is apparently in fear of me, yet here we are, still waiting for him to substantiate this report, and with him still trying to figure out a way that he can both have me eliminated from Afd and his talk page, while still having the right to generally talk shit about me. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet, after all this text, I have not seen an actual explanation of why you made that snarky post in the first place. Ncmvocalist is right; from what I have seen you're all as bad as each other - almost in rotation. If no one can impress on all of you how annoying this little three-way spat is then it is not going to end well. The community seems to be roundly saying the same thing; quit slinging punches at each other, edit collegially - and if you cannot do that, stay the hell away from each other before the community just gets shot of you. Resist the temptation to rise to each other, go write something. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it might have had something to do with the fact that when I raised an Rfc/U about that admin's predeliction for making incivil comments and insinuations about me all over the pedia, in little talk page convos like that, and worse, even after his own multiple frivelous ANI reports against me had all ended in no action, because I had frankly done fuck all wrong, as many people of 'the community' he supposedly is here to serve, told him at the time, it was unsurprisingly turned around on me by editors just like BilCat, coming to the rescue of their good mate, and their shared outlook on content of course had nothing to do with that, oh no. As usual, you have to go all the way up to arbcom before you start seeing actual common sense interpretations of such obvious gamery like that. This is an admin who, having been appointed over a year ago, up to this month still didn't even know basic Afd procedural things like the fact you cannot just simply speedy withdraw a 5 day old Afd with tons of delete votes on it, just because the nominator changes their mind. I have frankly lost count of how many times he has been told that his ideas about what is and is not allowed wrt threaded discussion in afd's, and yet he was still acting only last month in the farce that was my attempted banning by Sandstein as if his views were still remotely supported or within policy, to the point where he even had the brass neck to propose them as unblock conditions! Frankly, out of the three of us, I am the one with the bigger right to feel absolutely fucked off at the utterly biased and underhanded campaign I am being subjected to, with an extremely questionable admin at the heart of it, for doing nothing more outrageous than not agreeing with them as to what is and is not 'clearly notable'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clear. My question was why you thought that a snarky reply was a reasonable response; you must have known what would happen. "I'm the victim, so a little snark is allowed" doesn't strike me as a particularly persuasive argument. I've no investment in this dispute; but from the outside it looks more than a little silly. Leave each other alone. period. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Being assused of stalking, harassment, bullying and intimidation at ANI seems "silly" to you? I'm glad you have such a positive and breezy outlook on life. I on the other hand know from bitter experience what happens when people lazily summarise ANI reports as 'well, they are both as bad as each other', even when that summary is accurate, which it isn't here. It will go into the file to be pulled out at a later date by Mjroots as evidence of "my behaviour", and surprise surprise, when the shit hits the fan and these two come for me again, suddenly people will completely forget that anybody had a bad word to say about BilCat or the admin Mjroots in this thread. I hope you stick around to see it, and I hope you remember exactly what you said here, as you watch the ignorant pile on as it gathers to a frenetic pace. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the community decided to sanction all 3 of you or anything else, there's really nothing you 3 can do about it. Editing on Wikipedia is a privillage, not a right. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Back to the matter at hand, is there a consensus to impose an interaction ban on BilCat and MickMacNee? I would propose something along the lines of:

BilCat (talk · contribs) and MickMacNee (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting on one another at any venue on Wikipedia and from editing each other's user talk pages for an indefinite period of time.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, this is indeed agreeable & beneifical to the 2 editors-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, not that there are not issues; interaction bans do not work. I'm more interested in the RfC/U I saw referred to above. Jack Merridew 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Given that Arbcom were split on whether they should review Mick's behaviour and the removal of the block its a much bigger issue than an interaction ban. I understand an RfC is being raised per the Armcom discussion, so its best to move things there when its set up. The responses and the language above are indicative of a much wider issue. --Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, keep them apart if they are unable to resist their attraction, interaction bans do seem to work. The RFC is a rumor and even if created will only address the issues with one side of the dispute, this is a good start. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment There has already been a RFC which raised issues with MickMacNee's editing - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots. I can confirm that a RFC about MickMacNee is not rumour, it will happen soon; although I'd rather be spending my time editing articles on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Skitole7

• Skitole7 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Banyamubeta (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• BMB LU (AfD discussion)

User:Skitole7 has seen fit to create BMB LU, an article which is going to be speedied (and may be a recreation of deleted BMB Lee, and seems to think this is Uncyclopedia, given the tone of the article written, the wholly fake sources, and the user's flippant attitude towards proper editing protocol. The user is clearly not interested in improving WP, so I ask that the account be CU'ed for socks and indef blocked. MSJapan (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I should also have added that BMB LU, BMB Lee, and Banya Mu Beta should be salted. MSJapan (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sometimes students writing silly articles about themselves can be turned around into productive editors. All deleted contributions precede the AFD discussion. Maybe the person now understands from experience that we don't want such silliness here. Any action taken here should really be predicated upon further silliness, I think. Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • They can, but I have a difficult time believing that when: a) the SPA activity on this topic goes back to July (as evidenced by User:Banyamubeta above, whom I did not even know about - good catch), b) the user refuses to act maturely or communicate properly regarding the matter, c) when the article is created three times in six months (and twice in two days), despite being deleted all three times with clear rationale, d) when said article is nonsense and has false sources, and e) when the author removes the AfD templates from the articles. I would say that instance 2 was "further silliness", instance 3 was "still further silliness", the wholly fake article is indicative of intent to insert garbage, and the exchanges on AfD and his Talk page (his response to my statement to read policies first was "But President Obama approves!") are further evidence of a lack of wanting to be a productive editor. He had that chance back in July when he created the article (the first time it was deleted). He had another chance to do so when it was deleted a second time, and yet another chance by responding appropriately to the information he was given regarding what is appropriate for WP. I think that by not doing something about this now, we are tacitly allowing a problem to occur in the future when we have been clearly forewarned on two occasions (as I'm going to let the July one go in this instance) that it will happen again. MSJapan (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

88.104.199.57 vandalism of article Glasvegas‎

Can someone please block this account. Repeated vandalism at Glasvegas‎. Bjmullan (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Now blocked by User:Gwen Gale. Thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been issued a short block for vandalism, 3RR violation, and posting its non-notable self-portrait in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL Bjmullan (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Block evaded with ease. EL EM EH OH, that was LAME, Bugs. ترجمة عربية (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) BLOCKED with ease. See'ya~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocke evader blocked with ease. It only took 2 minutes. - BilCat (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If anyone cares, his fake user ID apparently means "Translate Arabic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what the Arabic is for, "He gawn, bye-bye." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The transliteration of something close to that in everyday spoken Arabic would be kalas!. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at User talk:Toomanywordstoolittletime

Resolved

Toomanywordstoolittletime (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user got in trouble a few days ago for adding links to the website 60second Recap, about which he or she has also written the article. After WuhWuzDat (talk · contribs) warned Toomanywordstoolittletime for adding spam links, Toomanywordstoolittletime called these remarks slander. I cautioned the user about the use of legal terms such as this, and in response, Toomanywordstoolittletime has proceeded to make a more explicit claim of slander, and move comfortably into the territory of legal threats by mentioning the possibility of getting his or her lawyer to send a cease and desist letter. Note that this relates not only to the use of the word "spammer", but also to the user's contention that he or she still owns the copyright to the content in 60second Recap.  -- Lear's Fool 11:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Did he use copyrighted material to make the aricle, or did he write new material for the article that he now claims is his? Those are two different things. If the article has verbatim matrial from a copyrighted site, then that should be removed, but the article itslef can remain if it's rewritten to avoid copyvios. - BilCat (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is, they claim to hold ongoing copyright to their own contributions here, the terms of use not withstanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale is correct. I'm not sure whether anything more needs to be done, now that they've been blocked, is there any need to alert OTRS?  -- Lear's Fool 11:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice the user also created Jenny Sawyer, and then rewuested it's deletion. Should this be reviewed for posible restoration? - BilCat (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The best move might be to ask the admin who restored the 60second Recap article, to see if it qualifies. One issue with the 60second article is that others besides the author had edited it, and that complicates matters. Can't say about the Jenny article, since it's invisible to us serfs now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Going by the contrib history, they were the only author (all other edits look like sundry cleanups, taggings) and the topic in itself, a BLP, likely doesn't meet WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I just wanted to make sure it was reviewed after we know more about the situation, especially, as a serf, I can't read it either. :) - BilCat (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't much to read, it was a BLP stub with a photo. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:99.90.197.244 again

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive637 § 99.90.197.244

The user is once again making bizarre talk page comments and disrupting the main article with pointless maintenance tags. This is the same disruptive behavior that has been ongoing since January 2010 with no sign of improvement. If you recall, in September, a WP:COMPETENCE block was proposed on ANI, and the user was eventually blocked for one month due to disruption.[35] Now, the user has returned to the same pattern of behavior, this time on United States diplomatic cables leak, where this editor has been adding maintenance tags for no reason. When asked to engage on the talk page, this very weird discussion took place, leading me to believe that the user does not know why they decided to add a POV tag to the article four separate times but will continue adding it at their whim because they can.[36][37][38][39] Could someone look into this please? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• This editor has also been conducting a slow-motion edit war on American Airlines Flight 77, insisting for some obscure reason that the article specify that passengers called from the airplane "by phone" as opposed to, presumably carrier pigeon or telepathy. At first I thought it was something Truther-related, but I tend to believe now that there's an issue of general competence. Given their response to my concerns on their talkpage, I don't think they have a clue about consensus. Acroterion _(talk) 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see what's wrong with specifying "phone calls" as opposed to just "calls", which is more colloquial and could be confusing to a non-native English speaker. In fact, were they cellphone calls, or did the airplane have a built-in phone system like some airlines have or used to have? Or was it both? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • As Viritidas notes below, they know how to use scare quotes, but have refused to discuss why they believe this is a necessary measure. In the absence of any other reason, I assume there's an intention to cast aspersions on the veracity of the reported calls. I believe calls were made both by cell and by AirPhone. Acroterion _(talk) 13:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The user is adding 'phone' in single scare quotes. Look at the page history. It isn't specified nor necessary according to the consensus of editors on the page. The passengers made calls, that's it. The user has been unilaterally inserting 'by phone' into the article against consensus since September! They were blocked for a month for the reasons listed in the report at the top of this incident. When they returned, they started up again. Since you're interested, why don't you try finding out why they are adding maintenance tags to United States diplomatic cables leak. You can even review the talk page discussion. Let me know what you discover. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree that a long WP:COMPETENCE block is necessary at this point. The user seems unwilling to follow our editorial guidelines, and is merely stalling discussion and improvement of a number of articles (example). NW (Talk) 12:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't speak to the IP's other edits, not having seen them. But if he had said that the passengers had made cell phone calls (no scare quotes), would there have been a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My goodness! Why are you all making a two month long edit war out of what seems to be a perfectly simple clarification? Just turn 'phone' into telephone and you're done in one edit. You could have been done in one edit back in September. Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it could use some clarification, but it certainly doesn't need the scare quotes. I might just do that, if I can find the right reference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Not needed, as it already says phone calls in the body of the article. No hay problema. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Baseball bugs apparent bias against non-admins

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

---

Resolved

 – These aren't the droids we're looking for. Move along, move along. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I was helping admins at AIV when suddenly along comes these 2 edits both with a summary of "you are not an admin". I left them a note to which they have since replied. Last time I checked this user was not an admin either... Anyone care to offer some insight? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more he's pointing out that admins make the calls on blocking or not blocking (is this true? not sure, experienced users might be okay to remove obvious inappropriate reports from AIV). I don't think "bias" is really evident here. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm sure the user meant well, but obvious socks and impostors don't need "warnings", and in fact they had already been informed that they had been found out. It's up to the admin to make a judgment decision on whether to block a user based on the situation, not just on some letter of the guidelines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is that Bart should have looked a little more closely at the situation himself instead of blindly posting those cautions. But I would like to hear what admins think about this, as I don't think I've run into this before. Normally the one doing the undercutting on AIV is the vandal itself, not another regular editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you stop posting for a little while one can get a word in... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think Bart may have felt a bit... bitten. If I'd seen a need to do anything, I might have left an ES more along the lines of "let an admin do this, pls." GF editors tend to learn new stuff about WP every day they edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for non-admins to be undercutting AIV reports that way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't undercutting. I was (and still am) helping the admins deal with the backlog. Correct me if i'm wrong; but AFAIK there is nothing wrong with doing that! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Bart was only trying to help by copy-pasting something LvHU had posted above those reports and which he thought also fit the ones below, with some tweaking. Bart, more often than not, it's more helpful to leave those tasks up to admins, given the page is called Administrator intervention against vandalism. Sometimes, that page can look backlogged when it's not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The admins are perfectly capable of determining whether the user has been adequately warned or not. And it's their judgment to make. By posting that way, you're giving the impression that you yourself are an admin (which I had to go check first, though I thought it unlikely). And FYI, you're technically right about the one IP, which was his only edit in the last 5 days. But it's still up to the admin. There might be a pattern of abuse there that would suggest a block is needed regardless of the warning level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Personally, I don't see a problem with a sufficiently experienced non-admin assisting with clearing the backlog on tasks that don't specifically require admin rights. That said, I can completely see why Baseball Bugs might feel differently and so, to that extent, it doesn't seem fair (or AGF) to suggest that his actions reflect any bias against non-admins.--Korruski^Talk 13:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bart is interested in becoming an administrator and make a request after seven edits. I think it was under his old username - User:doggie015 - Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Off2riorob for pointing out why I got a username change early on. (The reason I gave was so that my name had less insult potential, it was accepted with no questions asked.) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That was almost two years ago, Off2riorob. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa... has it really been that long... time does fly! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with user name Doggie015? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

this might explain it. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries about a non-admin doing something non-controversial and straightforward there, I guess. I don't think Bugs was showing a bias, but rather, a GF editor felt slighted by the wording in Bugs' edit summary. Bart, before bringing something here, you might try posting to the editor's talk page first and try to learn more about what they had in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

He did post on my page first, but he didn't like my answer. I apologize for my overall bluntness. Nothing personal intended. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that an admin issued a very mild rebuke to Bart's post about the IP, and that's why I say I'm sure Bart means well, but he needs to let the admins do their jobs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, many of us have seen so many of your edits, we know you're friendly and helpful (and often funny). Keep in mind, not everyone knows that, nor would they from a pithy edit summary. It doesn't hurt, if you go into a bit more depth when someone asks you something on your TP. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Barts account has existed since 2007 but 98% of his contributions are since July 2010. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you showing this bias against me Off2riorob? I thought you were supposed to be an ArbCom candidate...? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see as pointing out facts is any bias. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to ANI. Unless someone can quickly show some policy breach which needs admin heed, I'd say it's beyond time to close this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to close. (I would do it myself but after looking up I won't be...) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

IP 119.155.58.245

This IP (one of many hundred self admitted avatars of a registered user who claims to have "renounced" their ID) has been making several edits without providing sourced (where required) or even edit summaries (where required) and generally doing what they feel like without regard to established procedure. The past self-admission means I know it is the same person making the edits, regardless of the IP used. But the fact that there are so many IPs, means trying to reason or discuss is rather like trying to nail pudding to the wall.

• The latest list of this IP's edits is here and said IP's talk page is here
• The talk page of the registered account is here

There is a bit of a a pattern and a history with this editor, a lot of which can be gleaned from the talk page. I can provide additional input if needed.
Anyone have any input on what, if anything, can be done?
Thanks, jasepl (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blatant socks, possible canvassing at AFD

I submitted three articles to AfD the other day. They are

• List of American politicians convicted of crimes
• Political scandals of the United States
• List of political sex scandals in the United States

At the AfDs, Leeroy10 (talk · contribs), an account created on the 28th, immediately voted keep on all three. Leeroy10 is a blatant sockpuppet. As all three of the AfDs have now been corrupted by a sock, I suspect other active socks may have added keep votes, or the sockmaster has also voted keep. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Leeroy10 may be a sock of Richrakh (talk · contribs). They both top posted at all three AfDs [40], and [41]... [42], and [43]... and finally [44], and [45] - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Leeroy10 is someone's sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bring in the checkusers, and maybe start a SPI? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, a number of regular eds have also posted keep. I think the nominator may be either unaware of BLP policy with respect to public figures, or trying to change it. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change a thing and I know the BLP policy. Editors can vote keep all they like, it's the sockpuppets/sockmasters I'm concerned with, poisoning the discussion and attempting to stack the vote. This thread is about socking and behavior, not whether we think the AfD is merited... Some regular editors have also voted to delete, which seems to indicate I'm not alone in my concerns. Behavioral evidence seems to point at one of the people who has worked extensively on all three of these articles, per my post supplied above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of the AfDs, Burpelson, you came here to bring up worries about a sock and it's a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwen. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Leeroy10 and Richrakh are  Unlikely to be related at the moment. The only similarity besides MO are locations, but it's a very busy metropolitan area, so even that doesn't say much. –MuZemike 18:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic screed

Inappropriate personal attack, based on content dispute. AN/I is not the appropriate forum. Horologium (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On 01:27, 5 August 2010 I posted a section on "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" titled “Random Questions” which started “I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them.” The section went on with several rethoritical questions, and ended with “As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this).” Gwen Gale was apparently assigned me as an administrator, because at 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC) she replied with: ”As the article lead says,...This said, this talk page isn't a forum for talking about personal views or questions on a topic, it's meant for talking about sources and how to echo them in the text. I say this because the article seems to already cover, with thorough citations, most if not all of what you've brought up...dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk)” By this reply it appears that Gwen Gale is NOT FAMILIAR with the work of Joachimsthaler, who I have just referenced, and thinks that I am asking a personal question, not a rhetorical one. At that time I apologized, tried to explain myself, and restate my questions. At 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I posted” If I had read Kershaw's Nemesis Chapter 17 note 156 and Epilogue note 1 I wouldn't have wasted your time. You can't get much clearer than that. Should be required reading. Perhaps someone else should read them, and possibly edit the article. Thank you for your time.99.41.251.5 (talk)” At 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I posted “I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources....The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 (talk)“ Since those posts I have posted a huge amount on the talk page, much of which Gwen Gale has disputed. Much of the material I have posted I have later deleted, often because I felt that the endless conflict between Gwen Gale and myself is counterproductive to the article. Anyone who is Wiki can probably bring back any of those posts. Was I sometimes rude and argumentative? Absolutely. Was I making legitimate points which related to the article? I thought so. Did I receive effective support and encouragement by my administrator? I think not, but you judge. My main point was that Joachimsthaler had reviewed the information, and had made a solid case for positions which Kershaw backed. I repeatedly begged anyone, especially Gwen Gale, to read Joachimsthaler and Kershaw, specifically, two footnotes, I even told the pages of the footnotes. Gwen Gale clearly had not read either source. 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the heading “Question for Gwen Gale” , the following: ”I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed...I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process.Wm5200 (talk)'" On 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Gwen Gale posted “For starters, the Russian autopsy bore overwhelming evidence he not only shot himself, but bit down on a cyanide capsule. Gwen Gale (talk)”. By this post it is clear to anyone familiar with either Joachimsthaler or Kershaw that Gwen Gale is still not familiar with either work. Joachimsthaler was first referenced by me at 0127 5 August 2010 and Kershaw was referenced by me at 17:48 6 August 2010, and I believe that they were both on the articles reference before that. Still, on 22:02 11 November 2010, Gwen Gale was apparently unaware of any of the content of either book, and was making posts as if they didn't exist. At 02:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the title “Gwen Gale’s sources”, the following: “I think the rest of us in this discussion would benefit from knowing what Gwen Gale is using as sources, which sources that are on the article and the rest of us are familiar with is she NOT familiar with, which sources she has access to, and when she last familiarized herself with the ones which she is currently using. It appears that we are talking about a person who is "informationally challenged" relative the others in this discussion. Perhaps some arrangement might be made so she has a level of knowledge that could make her be an asset. I have both Kershaw Nemisis and Fest Hitler which I will donate, if it will bring her up to speed so this article is not impeded any more.(User:Wm5200)” At 04:59, 12 November 2010 Kierzek deleted my post “per Wiki talk page guidelines”. Okay, how do I address this continued refusal to read the source material? I have offered to mail Kershaw half way around the world so that Gwen Gale can read two crummy footnotes. But my offer is not only not taken up, but is apparently not in good faith, and even “snarky”. What can I do to get my administrator to read the source material? I would like to bring up two Wiki terms which I do not understand. It appears that Gwen Gale and I have a different “P.O.V.” about the usage of these terms. Assume Good Faith. I first thought that Gwen Gale would be a good administrator, after what I have been through, would YOU assume she is acting in good faith? Original Research. I have never been to Berlin, read any original documents, or talked to any eyewitness. The ONLY information I have about the subject is what I have read in published works. How is it that Gwen Gale finds so much of my work “O.R.”? Am I the only person who has had problems with Gwen Gale? Not if you read her contribs, and certainly not if you Google her name. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS HOW TO GET GWEN GALE TO READ ABOUT THE SUBJECT?Wm5200 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Besides being massively WP:TLDNR, this is clearly a content dispute/discussion about the reliability of the source, disguised as a concern about an administrator. None of which belong here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand. The conflict is not about the content, it is about her not reading it to start with. Where should I go when the administrator responsible for the article will not inform herself about the article. Several other persons in the conversation are familiar with the content, shouldn't the administrator know the subject she is administering? Have you read the discussion, and realize how the subject is being manipulated to reflect only Gwen Gale's postition?Wm5200 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale does not appear to be using admin powers to maintain that position, thus it is not a question of Gwen's admin capability and doesn't belong here. As noted, if it is a question of source reliability, that should be taken to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, if it is a question about Gwen's discussion/participation (as a regular editor) behavior, that should go to Wikiquette alerts. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time. However, I doubt that you could familiarize yourself with the subject in only four minutes. I am trying to be polite. Joach and Kershaw (along with several other noted authors referenced in discussion) cast doubt on the "Russian Autopsy" in general and Lev Bezymenski's book in specific, yet Gwen Gale will not entertain such a thought, on 11 November she still is using an almost universally discredited "Russian Autopsy" as fact. I do not see how she is qualified to administer the discussion. Anyone who will read Kershaw's two footnotes will see the problems with her position. We are not disputing Kershaw, she won't even read him!Wm5200 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You are confused about how Wikipedia works, Wm5200. There is no "administrator responsible for the article". Agreement regarding content disputes is reached by consensus on the talk page of the article. The role of administrators is to enforce Wikipedia's agreed policies. David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:CBM, a case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING

Ever since I replaced <references /> with {{Reflist}} on Feynman point back in January [46] (which BTW led to this discussion), User:CBM is tracking my edits, and reverts all in which I replace <references /> with {{Reflist}}, or {{Reflist}} with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} (Recent examples: [47], [48], [49], [50] led to [51], [52], [53], [54], and there are literally thousands of other articles). I know there is no Wiki guideline on whether {{Reflist}} is recommended or not, and I know WP:WIKIHOUNDING is not a rule violation per se, but this is getting ridiculous. Could someone please tell him to stop that? —bender235 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

CBM has been notified. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)