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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

Unarchived (archiving comment) "User blocked indefinitely, this issue can be revisited when the user responds to the issues raised"

Earlier this year, User:SqueakBox answered an advertisement on www.freelancer.com (advert & response) to create an article on an artist. The article was deemed non-notable and later deleted as an A7 speedy. There was an ANI thread on the matter at the time which can be seen here which was scathing of SqueakBox's activity.

Now, the same user has created Beber Silverstein Group in answer to an advert on the same website - advert & response. The article claims no real notability and was sourced to primary and non-RS sources and so I have redirected it back to the (possibly) notable owner.

Previously, SqueakBox said "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing." (here), which is clearly now a lie, because he's denied actually creating this article for money - see his responses at User_talk:SqueakBox#Beber_Silverstein_Group. Opening it up to the community - any action required? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If he were being honest about it and following COI guidelines, I wouldn't think it is worth taking action. However, since he blatantly lied bout the clear evidence and demanded that the accusation be retracted, it seems that some sort of sanction is needed. I'm not sure exactly what would be effective,, but it should be more than a warning (or admonishment) and less than an indefnite siteban. Perhaps a community sanction prohibiting him from editing BLPs or articles related to corporations (broadly construed)? Also a restriction to one account seems prudent, though I do not believe he has socked. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's generally agreed that User:SqueakBox (normally) contributes productively to the project, why beat around the bush and implement these sorts of topic bans? Why not simply bar him from editing the project for pay? jæs (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a big if; I've been unimpressed by my interactions with him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't say SqueakBox has a huge conflict of interest here, as he has no relation to the subject of the article; his main goal is to prevent it from getting deleted. I'd just say if any more articles that don't follow notability guidelines are created, just delete them. -download ׀ sign! 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what we normally do to articles that are inherently not notable? In all honesty though, I think that he should be restricted from editing anything to do with paid editing and be restricted to one account (which is also something we kind of already do). I feel as though he should also alert us if he is approached to edit or create an article in a way that will involve reimbursement of some kind. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

BLPs and corporations are the most common types of paid articles. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

His conflict of interest is between his loyalty to Wikipedia and the $250 he seems to have been paid to write this article. $250 would be enough to pay my car insurance and gas for a month, so even if it wouldn't win out, even I would be tempted (and thus the interests would be conflicting). The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I find the very concept of paid editing to be a bit of a terrifying Pandora's box, but the fact remains that the mere existence of a conflict ought not disqualify anyone from editing. If they can't balance that conflict and our policies and guidelines, then it becomes an issue requiring intervention. Does the repeated pattern of creating non-notable articles for pay qualify as such a problem? Seems so. jæs (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes - creating NN articles with useless sources (i.e. both the articles mentioned above) is a clear violation of COI - "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.". Black Kite (t) (c) 20:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Note here the contrast between Squeakbox's apparently successful $250 bid and the apparently-unsuccessful $250 from Sequoyah who made the contract explicitly conditional on the subject meeting WP:N and on declaring the contract at WP:COIN. I would have no objection at all the a contract like that which Sequoyah proposed, but am also unsurprised that Squeakbox's unconditional bid was preferred by the advertiser. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

This is not what I thought wikipedia was all about. I must say that I'm surprised and not a little disappointed that editors can be paid to write articles, of note or otherwise. Quite a business. Fred DeSoya (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some people will do anything for a few dollars. Is that really the kind of editor we want on Wikipedia, knowing that future COI problems may not be as easily detected? Chester Markel (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not the money in itself; the problem is what Squeakbox did to try to get paid. The problems are that: a) Squeakbox suspended hir judgement on notability and primary sources used in the article zie created; and b) that Squeakbox did not declare the COI, which would have drawn the attention of other editors to scrutinise the article. If squeakbox had acted openly (by declaring the full terms of the contract) and had followed editing policies (by telling the client "sorry, I cannot find evidence that you meet WP:N"), then there would be nothing to discuss here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Squeakbox's disruptive behavior is seeking financial compensation without any moral scruples. This suggests that the community cannot trust the user in the future. Chester Markel (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Squeakbox ripped off his client by writing a crappy article. Beber Silverstein is notable.[1] If Squeakbox had made any effort to create a good article that met Wikipedia standards, there wouldn't have been a problem. I don't know who the A7'd artist is. THF (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"It's is a women owned Florida Certified Minority Business Enterprise,..." Ouch! I'd be pissed if I paid for that: he should have at least mentioned that it was notable for its time as a business owned by women, which is in the NYT reference. Since he is so open about who he is on the pay-for-edit site, and seeing the reaction from other WIkipedians generated by his writing-for hire projects, I would think that others would be less likely to hire him for this sort of thing in the future. You don't get the "bang for your buck", and others will seek reasons to delete it anyway. Caveat emptor Doc talk 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution: three month block

A three month involuntary wikibreak may be sufficient to convince SqueakBox not to violate WP:COI and lie to us about it again. This certainly isn't the first time SqueakBox has caused trouble on Wikipedia. Chester Markel (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary; this would be very punitive and SqueakBox is known to be a solid content contributor elsewhere. See above for my proposal of an editing restriction preventing him from writing articles on living people or companies, which account for nearly all paid editing. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Support a lengthy block; I'd prefer one month, but would oppose anything less than that. Squeakbox has clearly breached COI, twice, despite a promise not to do so again after the first time, and has also lied about the second instance when specifically challenged on it. A month is long enough for Squeakbox to reflect on the nature of trust and the fragility of reputation, and to figure out to apologise to his client for making a fool of her.

I am aware that SqueakBox has made many other good contribs, so despite the seriousnes of this abuse I would have supported a warning if it wasn't for the lie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps a restriction on writing articles on "living people or organisations, or any edits for which SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) for". Reword as appropriate, IANAL. That way, it also covers any edits which aren't BLP or ORG-related, but which are still discovered as 'paid'. At present I don't have an opinion about blocks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I support that restriction, and the wording looks fine by me. As above, I'd like to see a block as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I Support any restriction, the stronger the better, as I've always found him ... difficult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Poll

Proposed restrictions

"SqueakBox is banned for an indefinite period from editing articles about living people or organisations, or any articles where there is a reasonable suspicion that SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) in exchange for editing. If an editor has concerns that this restriction has been broken, further sanctions, including a block, may be administered after a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard." - Sound good? No blocks just yet, but this is a good starting point. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why put up with this at all? Permaban, and revert everything in sight that could possibly be affected by such COI. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Permaban on what grounds? He'll just make another account, and we'd lose someone who's otherwise a good editor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Permaban on grounds of spamming and falsifying sources, with reasonable openness towards unbanning on appeal after 6 months (or 3 if you must) on the usual sorts of terms. 3 months and automatic unblock doesn't seem like enough. I don't see likely heavy COI in SqueakBox's top 35 edited articles by edit count: Cannabis (drug): 507 edits, Javier Solana: 480, Rastafari movement: 479, Honduras: 268, Pedophile movement: 253, Haile Selassie I: 240, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero: 188, Bob Marley: 168, Spanish language: 157, Fidel Castro: 140, List of Internet television providers: 139, 420 (cannabis culture): 134, Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman): 119, Manuel Zelaya: 116, Jimmy Wales: 108, Child pornography: 107, Ted Kaczynski: 106, Gary Glitter: 97, Pedophilia: 89, List of European television stations: 89, Deaths in 2008: 85, Augusto Pinochet: 84, Deaths in 2007: 82, Tony Blair: 80, La Ceiba: 73, Video clip: 73, Crack cocaine: 72, Hashish: 72, Child sexual abuse: 70, Hippie: 69, Saddam Hussein: 67, North American Man/Boy Love Association: 64, Cannabis smoking: 63, IP address: 63, Efraín Ríos Montt: 62. On the other hand they don't seem like really tasteful choices, and it continues in about the same way. "There's no point banning that person since s/he'll just sock anyway" is usually a really bad reason to not ban someone. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. Though given his previous deception, if he's determined to carry on his paid editing antics I suppose he could sock round the restriction as well. Still, it's a start. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Something needs to be done about this since nothing has changed since I first brought this issue up over half a year ago. I've uncovered several of these paid editing articles that have bit the dust through AfD and SqueakBox has always assured me that he would be more open about this pratice in the future. He has not been open about it, calling the suggestion that he wrote his latest piece a "rash lie" despite being totally open about his connection to the SqueakBox account on freelancer.com. This would be a feasible solution to this ethically problematic practice. ThemFromSpace 13:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We should of course establish that the Freelancer account is not lying about being SqueakBox. Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

It isn't - SqueakBox admitted that the same account was him during the previous ANI (see link in my first post). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I also can't find any link which conforms this that squeakbox was the owner of the please-make-fake-sources account. It's kinda crucial, so please can you re-post the evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For background info, this particular incident was regarding the J-sKy article and was discussed on ANI here. I don't think SqueakBox was related to this case, although my memory might not be serving me correctly. ThemFromSpace 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Here's the link: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Other articles

THF above is right - the two previous articles created early this year were fairly obviously non-notable at the time, which was bad enough, but this is almost worse - if this company is notable then he's clearly just tossing out any old crap in a few minutes to earn his cash. I looked at what he's created since March, and it includes Global listings (deleted as an A7), Diamond Ranch Academy (looks possibly notable), Pressure (reggae musician) (one line BLP stub with one source), and Alacan (probably notable). I have no idea whether any of these were paid for (and asking SqueakBox is pointless if he lied about the last one) but it does seem like an odd range of interests. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but Reggae music is within Squeakbox's previous interests.   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Solicitation of fake sources

Before we close this, we should take note of the fact that the last time SqueakBox created an article for money ([Mario Zampedroni]) he went to that freelancer site asking someone to create fake sources he could use in the article. Here is the AN/I thread on the subject, and here is the request he made for the fake sources, mentioning that he is writing an "artist biography". This is the bid he placed to write the Zampedroni article, which was accepted. So, to recap:
1. A little less than a year ago SqueakBox creates an article on a non-notable Italian artist for pay.
2. On 23 March 2010, in and effort to have the article kept, he openly solicits "fake sources" for the article on freelancer.com.
3. On 25 March, he promises never to create another article for pay without being completely transparent about what he's doing.
4. On 21 July, an AN/I thread appears when someone notices his solicitation of fake sources, a thread to which SqueakBox never sees fit to respond.
5. On 3 November he creates another paid article, violating his previous pledge.
6. On 20 December he is confronted about this on his talk page. His response? "Stop talking rubbish." When shown detailed evidence, he replies "that is complete rubbish and I advise you to withdraw your rash lie. I havent received a penny for doing that article or any edits in connection with this subject." All clearly false statements. Although he continues to edit, SqueakBox has not seen fit to reply further, either at his talk page or on this thread. Apparently he thinks if he just keeps quiet it will all blow over like it did before.
I will also note that SqueakBox accepted at least one other project on freelancer.com, the nature of which is not available to non-logged in users.[2]
Conclusion: Nothing that SqueakBox says or does can be taken on trust. He should be banned. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I see no insuperable reason against honest paid editing, or honest declared COI editing of any other sort: COI is inevitable, for few people would work on a subject they did not care about. The COI from payment is no worse than the multiple other forms of coi that are in escapable at Wikipedia, and is, arguably, not as disruptive as some sorts of ideological commitment. Since we cannot avoid it, better declared than undeclared, for it can be judged more visibly and openly. I think we have a right and a responsibility to insist upon such disclosure . I think that those who knowingly & repeatedly introduce bad articles for any reason need to be prevented from continuing, and have therefore agree with the earlier suggestion for a block; though there have been many blocks for edit warring, the earlier ones were for other matters, and there have been none since 2008. therefore, a month seems appropriate. I suggest that any attempt to evade this, or to again construct equally poor articles, will be met by a discussion about a permanent ban. Additionally, any further article writing for pay must be declared; if there is evidence otherwise, we should similarly proceed to a permanent ban. The only reason I do not do the block immediately, is that this discussion has lasted for only a few hours, and at the end of a major holiday weekend; there is a tendency here at AN/I to be over-precipitate; in the absence of major harm, we need some time for consideration . For fairness, we also need some time for a response. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • We are talking about flat-out spamming. There's a big progression between "I get paid to work with computers, and sometimes edit computer-related articles (e.g. about algorithm theory)" (not much of a COI), through "I sometimes edit about products that I have used at work" (arguable COI), to "I write advocacy/spam promoting the products of the company where I work" (seriously bad COI). 67.117.130.143 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • i think the creation of fake newspapers and other fakedsources is as erious issues. i have seen many articles in my area of expersietise (science and medicine and health) where a "source" was a link to someones blog or to a Google search of random terms; i think that this is a serious issue which is being ignored in favor of teh sexier and more effervescent paid editing issue. are you allowed to solicit someone to create fake sources for you to cite, regardles of whether or not you are a paid editor or not? User:Smith Jones 05:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, obviously this is the real issue here, the open solicitation of fake sources and bald-faced mendacity about editing for pay after promising not to without full disclosure. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for explicitly noting this, Steven J. Anderson. Writing poorly sourced articles for financial gain is a problem; soliciting fraud to accomplish it is a problem of a different magnitude. I agree with DGG above both that some action should be taken and that we need due time to consider that action, the end goal of which should be both to prevent further misuse of Wikipedia and to impress upon the contributor the need to adjust his approach to the project. This can't continue. Deliberately attempting to insert fraudulent sources into the project undermines everything we stand for in the worst possible way. It is about as explicit a demonstration of "bad faith" as I can imagine. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Update comment Please see below. I can't strike anything here specifically, but I see now that there are some problems with the presentation of events here and that there seems to be no evidence that Squeakbox ever did solicit fraudulent sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Banning isn't yet the answer since he still makes constructive contributions when acting as a volunteer. The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions. I think the proposal above by Moonriddengirl is good first step. Of course if he violates this things may escalate, but we shouldn't go this far this soon. ThemFromSpace 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? In the absence of auditing every assertion and claim in SqueakBox's edits to ensure that the sources they purport to cite are legitimate, and fairly represented, a definitive assessment of his contributions would be quite difficult. While such matters are usually taken on faith, the assumption no longer applies when refuted by definitive evidence of malice. SqueakBox has shown himself to be a thoroughly dishonest and unscrupulous editor who would violate WP:COI, solicit fake sources for sneaky vandalism, and who knows what else, all for a few dollars. The only appropriate response to such an immoral user is to be rid of them. Chester Markel (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not take a look for yourself? His account has been registered on wikipedia for five and a half years. He has about 53,000 non-deleted edits of which 28,000 are to articles. Mathsci (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I would be looking for a needle in a haystack. I assume that he wouldn't have gotten away with editing for this long if he routinely misrepresented or faked sources. If any fraudulent sourcing occurred, it would have been camouflaged within legitimate edits, much like he hoped to conceal his WP:COI violations. SqueakBox knows full well that we can't audit everything he's contributed. Chester Markel (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I will say something heretical, but I think if it is a needle, then it is not such a big drama. It's not like the rest of Wikipedia is perfectly sourced or something. - BorisG (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at maybe 100 diffs by now, mostly in icky subjects (checking out a socking theory that didn't hold up). I see some mildly tendentious editing in distasteful subjects,[3] some random gnoming (not always well-considered, e.g. [4] bypasses a redirect but slightly changes the connotation of the source), some reasonable vandalism reversion,[5] occasional addition of sourced info (TMI?), some well-meaning but clumsy removals,[6][7] etc. All of his editing is in a somewhat inarticulate style[8][9] (non-native English speaker? Spanish-language ref added: [10]). I haven't seen anything I'd consider to be a substantial contribution of quality content, but there's an awful lot of edits that I haven't looked at. I agree with Chester Merkel that evaluating a history this large is quite difficult. But my basic impression is we're dealing with (among other things) someone with a borderline WP:COMPETENCE problem everywhere he edits. Turning Wikipedia into a work-at-home scam for editors of this sort is the last thing we want. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? I've edited around him for years, and I would disagree with that premise; he is a tendentious and contentious editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe his edit history is more spotty than I first thought. Should anything be done about this? I for one still support moonriddengirl's proposal above. I think it's a good first step, although others may think its too lenient. ThemFromSpace 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really qualified to answer that: Wiki seems to have an unhelpfully high tolerance for disruptive editors along with a tendency to indef the wrong editors, and our standards for indeffing, blocking and banning are increasingly unclear to me. I'm just adding background for others to decide how to handle the current dilemma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment My path has crossed SqueakBox's from time to time over the years, & while I wouldn't say I'm a friend of his -- just look at our interaction at Talk:Shashamane, which led me to take this article off my watch list (although I try to monitor all Ethiopia-related articles) & ignore any problems it might have -- I find his latest emphasis of activities not only troubling, but bewildering. SqueakBox is a self-described white Rastafarian, whose previous mentions on WP:AN/I involved his crusade against pedophiles/child molesters -- not the profile of someone I'd expect to decide one day to use his Wikipedia account to make money writing crappy articles. It would be just like, if I may make the analogy, finding THF brought before WP:AN/I for being paid to write deletion-fodder articles on Marijuana-related topics (e.g., "Joe Blow is an influential political consultant who was responsible for successful ballot referenda legalizing marijuana in 37 states.") IMHO, SqueakBox's recent freelancing is a cynical act to make some money from Wikipedia -- a symptom of WikiBurnout. And if I am correct about this, there really isn't anything we can do about him other than to indefinitely block him; he doesn't want to play nice with others here any more. But before we seriously consider this, I'd like to give him a chance to tell his side of the story; I've been known to make mistakes, but I don't want banning someone from Wikipedia to be one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

actually I had the same speculation about motivation as you, and for the same reasons. and, like you, I do not want to do an indefinite ban on speculation. Even if we are right, people have burnout, stay away a while ,either voluntarily or because we enforce it, and some return and do OK after the break. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from very strange defence of Giovanni Di Stefano on the article's talk page - and this perhaps illustrates one of the downsides of paid editing, one naturally wonders if the defence was paid for - I remember SqueakBox as a positive contributor. Paid editing, as I have commented before, is far from the worst form of COI, and the comment that we should somehow be concerned from his customers' perspective if he produced sub-standard material is laughable. The only matters that need attention here are (minor) it would be good if paid contributors acknowledge their potential COI and (major) the request for fake sources - and unless these were actually used there is nothing we should be worrying about. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm not suggesting sanctions on Squeakbox based on "his customers' perspective." I'm pointing out that, even with a COI, nothing stopped Squeakbox from writing a decent article, and that had he done so, I don't think we would have anything to complain about, even if he never disclosed his payment: a gap in the encyclopedia would have been filled, and we'd all be better off. It's because Squeakbox wrote a bad stub that was indistinguishable from spam that there's now a lot of hullaballoo. (This is entirely separate from the new, and much more serious, allegation of attempting to falsify sources.) COI is only a reason to scrutinize edits closely for NPOV and new articles for N/V/RS. There's nothing inherently wrong with editing with a COI, or even an undisclosed COI, so long as the edits comply with Wikipedia policy--edits that don't comply with Wikipedia policy are problematic even when there is no COI. And if the consensus is otherwise, we need to modify what WP:COI says. THF (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If we're doing speculation, I'll go for "economic necessity" rather than burnout. I can sympathize: the economy sucks, decent jobs are hard to find, and lots of people have to do what they can to make ends meet. For reasons similar to NOTTHERAPY, we should sympathize with anyone in such a plight, but at the same time we must not let them turn Wikipedia into a spam sewer that other people then have to clean up. Rich F: paid editing of the form "Professor So-and-So gets a grant to develop a series of FA's about astronomy or biology, announces it on wiki, and engages in discussion about what these articles should contain" is one thing; spammers should be banned. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Spamming is bad, however creating articles is not necessarily spamming. The subject may be notable but have insufficient wiki-clue to be able to create an article that lasts 5 minutes. If they pay for the article to be created, and we decide that it is notable then we have gained an article we otherwise wouldn't have. It needs, of course, to comply with VERIFIABLE, NPOV, COPYVIO etc. But this is true of any article. And indeed the discussion above shows a paid editor (or one who wanted to be) setting that out as a pre-condition of work - which is of course the ethical thing to do, as the community may (should) insist that that is the case. All Wikipedia articles are stuff "that other people have to clean up". Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

If he was doing this simply for the money, assuming good faith would lead me to expect SqueakBox to have written a far better article. He knows better than this. The article which triggered this latest thread was something any run-of-the-mill PR flack could have created -- which would have either been greatly rewritten or deleted, & the author banned from Wikipedia. And as The Wordsmith & others have pointed out, when this problem was brought to his attention his first response was to say "Stop talking rubbish" & demand the person retract "your rash lie"; it wasn't to come clean & discuss the matter constructively. One only acts like this if one doesn't give a fuck about Wikipedia -- which that is why I have suggested an indef block for SqueakBox. Because if he is that alienated from or disillusioned with Wikipedia, there is no imaginable editting restriction that will keep him from harming the project or wasting other editor's time. -- llywrch (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry if this has been addressed already, but how do we know Squeakbox wrote the fake sources post? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  See here: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  thats fair then. if it wasn an honest mistake than it was an honest mistake. i see no reason to have him taken tou back and shot over this; the reason i reacted so vhemently aeanier was because i had noticed a spring of shoddy and obviously totted up or falsifeid sources in some of the articls I edited and I was concerned that certain editors might have been doing this on puprpose. it wasnt very likely but it was possible, and it wastes a lot of valuable time trying to read through sources again and again to make sure that they arent being misrepresented or faked. since squeakbox admitted his or her erroir, there is no problem between me nad him regarding this issue of paid fake sources. User:Smith Jones 21:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks. So if I've understood correctly SqueakBox wasn't sikkant, i.e. he did not write that. I'm glad, because that would have surprised me greatly. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

TL:DR nutshell: this section seems to be misleading, and I suspect that the header and timeline should be revised. I gather from his note at his user talk page that he had responded to that individual, bidding to create an article, but withdrew it with an indication that he may not have thoroughly read the ad. Not a stellar moment, but a pretty significant difference from actively soliciting fake sources!

Evaluating the timeline

Now that I am at my own computer and looking more closely at the timeline offered in the opening post of this section, I see that it may be inaccurate in several points: "1. A little less than a year ago SqueakBox creates an article on a non-notable Italian artist for pay." Y That's Mario Zampedroni. It had not a reliable source in sight when it was A7ed in July. "2. On 23 March 2010, in and effort to have the article kept, he openly solicits "fake sources" for the article on freelancer.com." ? This solicitation for fake sources is dated from July, not March. It could be connected with this article, but according to the archived ANI thread, it's related to J-sKy, which SqueakBox never edited (though evidently he "bid" on the job and later retracted it). Is there substantial reason now to believe that he wrote the solicitation and that it was connected to Mario Zampedroni? If not, I think the timeline above should be corrected. It seems to be wrong in date, article connection and origin of solicitation. "3. On 25 March, he promises never to create another article for pay without being completely transparent about what he's doing." Y That's true; he did say that here. "4. On 21 July, an AN/I thread appears when someone notices his solicitation of fake sources, a thread to which SqueakBox never sees fit to respond." ? SqueakBox was not the author of J-sKy; that was User:Sikkant. It is true that SqueakBox did not address questions raised about his bidding on that solicitation in the AN/I thread. The timeline above should probably also be corrected to note that it was not his solictation of fake sources. "5. On 3 November he creates another paid article, violating his previous pledge." Y That's true; [11], [12].

It looks like what we have here is a contributor creating articles for pay that he should realize, based on his time in saddle, lack sufficient reliable sources to clear notability. This seems problematic under WP:COI, and it is particularly problematic that he previously indicated he would not do this and not only did it again but denied it: [13]. This is a problem of a much lower magnitude than falsifying or soliciting fake sources, but still a problem. Paid editing is often a "caveat emptor" situation, but if we know that a contributor is creating subpar articles for money and particularly one who is selling his reputation ("On wikipedia I ma User:SqueakBox and with over 50,000 edits to my name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SqueakBox I have a thorough understanding of wikipedia rules, guidelines and policies as well as being well known on the project and with success at doing these kind of jobs" emphasis added), then it becomes a bit of a black eye for us if we permit him to continue. SqueakBox needs to either abide by his pledge not to sell his services as an editor or to disclose his behavior when he does so, and he needs to make sure that any articles he does create in this fashion meet all relevant policies and inclusion guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

How about a block to tarnish his wikireputation so he can make less money with it? It seems warranted based on the above. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(a) we don't block for that reason (b) I don't think you could tarnish this block log a lot further. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

i agree that we shouldnt block him based on just damaging his reputation since that is resprsehnbile. HOWEVER, i am concerned about weather or not we are legally obligated to notify his employers about his extensive lbock history. they might be paying him with the expectiaton that he maintain a good reputation and contribute aritlces that they can exploit since they willbe around for a while. if he has presented himself as a respected editor in good standing but he has all these blocks, i am concerned that he might not be as effective at his paid editing as he could be and that we might be held responsible for weakening his efforts and damaging his work product with these blocks. is there anyway to oversight his blocks so that they arent publically viewable until he has a chance to respond to each one? User:Smith Jones 22:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Failure to respond

SqueakBox has been editing today, but has not responded on his talk page or at this ANI, which he has been informed of. I started this ANI hoping that (a) he would respond adequately, and (b) if not, some action on the obvious problems may be taken. There is a danger that neither is likely to happen as the conversation has been fragmented, especially by the somewhat spurious/stale fake sources issue. Does the community believe any action should be taken here, or not? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

His failure to respond to the issues raised compounds the problem. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Let's see: Serial mendacity (the "fake sources" stuff is particularly beyond the pale), refusal to respond to concerns, broken promises, etc... Whatever one's views on paid editing, this kind of paid editing shouldn't be tolerated. He's already demonstrated he's going to game the system. Eith block him indef, or unblock all the past paid editors and editors blocked because there usernames were obviously promotional blah blah blah (which is a lot more honest and transparent than this). This isn't even a hard one.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Has evidence been produced to substantiate the "fake sources" stuff? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• it turned out to be an misunderstanding, MoonriddenGirl. SqueakBox has since epxlained to the satisfaction what had happened and there was no tintent to deceive or present "fake sources' (whatever that means) into Wikipedia. SqueakBox is not legaly or policyly obligated to respond to WP:ANI accusations and no one can force him or control what he says on his talk page. I dont think that the spurious or fake sources issue hshould be held against him since it was blown out of proportion and taken out of context and apart from that he has done nothing wrong re: paid editing. this issue should be closed as resolved in my view. User:Smith Jones 21:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• The fake source issue is just one of the charges against Squeakbox.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think that's the point, really. Can we take action against a user for serially lying to the community? Undoubtedly his edits have been sub-optimal (i.e. the paid articles that got deleted), but is the mendacity (i.e. lying about not repeating that failure) deserving of a block or restriction? Because frankly, if that's not the case, can I unblock User:Thekohser, because the issues are trivially different? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Block. This is just not what wikipedia is for. Why should everyone else sweat blood to create good content when an experienced editor who definitely knows better is doing this sort of crap? Fainites ^barleyscribs 00:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole dysfunctional system is supposed to be built on trust. Liars are abusers of trust, whether serial sockpuppet abusers like benjiboi or this guy, who hasn't been caught socking yet but is still a proven liar. Kick him to the curb. Teh community (whatever that really is) does this every day. Not sure why it's so hard to get rid of this problem. But if he isn't indeffed, i wholeheartedly endorse unblocking every account ever blocked for paid editing.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why it's so hard to get rid of this problem. Because a person with this number of edits is an asset to wikipedia. Thus it is a balancing act. COI policy is unenforceable. The problem is not paid editing, the problem is crappy articles on non-notable subjects. Maybe he needs to be blocked until he comes clean. - BorisG (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Block for at least a month, possibly indef. It's pity that Squeakbox didn't respond to the discussion here; not because zie is obliged to, but because zie might have have offered some reason for me to reconsider my support for a block. However, squeakbox has already confirmed that zie created a previous article with an undeclared COI, at the same time promised not to do so again. That promise has been broken, no defence has been offered, so let's get on with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• has he logGed in yet?? is there any proof that he has logged into his account since all this started? DeeRD (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  Yes. See Special:Contributions/SqueakBox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• That's good then. I was hoping to get his help on an unrelated matter and he has yet to respond to me. I was just concerned that he might not be logged in and might have become preoccupied, especially over the recent holiday season and overlooked this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeRD (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Calling for his ban is inappropriate; the idea is to get him to stop this unhelpful behavior, & if all reasonable efforts fail, then he is shown the door. This is why I recommended an indefinite block: indefinite as in "can be lifted at any time", not as in "an infinite period". An indef block might just work as a clue-by-four to get his attention -- which we don't appear to have. Instead of showing him the door, we give him the choice to either start working with the community. Or find another hobby. -- llywrch (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bringing to a close

It looks like the community are in favour of a block, but I'm yet to see any solid policy basis upon which to make such a block. The problems people have brought up are:

1. Squeakbox has a tendency to make poor-quality paid-editing articles and has incurred the displeasure of the community previously
2. Squeakbox has abused the trust of both his clients and the community both by a.) continuing to make poor articles and b.) not declaring a COI (as he undertook to do)
3. Squeakbox already has a massive block log, so a short block (less than three months) probably wouldn't have an impact on his editing
4. Squeakbox isn't responding to this discussion and seems unlikely to do so

So, folks. The options, if we don't want to see this at ANI again, seem to be that we either "continue monitoring and fixing Squeakbox's edits" or we "block Squeakbox until the community can be sure he's not going disrupt the project by creating sloppy paid articles for cash". Which is it to be? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Previously I believed some sort of restriction might be the best course of action. But since SqueakBox is effectively sticking two fingers up to the community by not commenting, I would suggest an indefinite (not infinite, of course) block may be the only way to ensure a dialogue with the user. As for worrying about the "policy" behind a block, WP:BLOCK says "(blocks may be used to) deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.". Black Kite (t) (c) 16:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• this block wont interfere with his ability to comment on his talk page right? while i am uncomfortable with the idea lf blocking someone just to get their attention, it might be necessaryin this case since he wont speak to anyone about these issues. my only concern is that he should have SOME outlet to come to the table, at least on his talkpage if nowhere else, and that all discussion should be CC'd to his talkpage or redirected there to make sure that if he DOES change his mind and want to angage with us, it is at least possibl.e User:Smith Jones 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• My take on this matter has been slightly different from CMLITC's. SqueakBox was caught writing an article on a non-notable subject for money, & agreed to stop writing articles for money. Then he was discovered writing a crappy article on a notable subject for money. (And as THF pointed out above, had he written a suitable article instead, only those stridently opposed to paid editing would have cared.) When confronted with this discovery, he responded by saying it was a lie on his talk page, & since then has ignored all further discussion. Maybe there is no explicit policy against everything SqueakBox has done in this instance, & many would argue his departure would be a net loss to the project, but do we really want someone volunteering who is disrupting Wikipedia in this manner? If someone has a better solution than a block or a ban to stop his low-grade misbehavior, I'm willing to hear it. -- llywrch (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• 'comment - if his main crime her eis writing a"crappy article" that is otherwise on a notable subject is and is allowed to be on the Wikipedia, why shouod he be blocked for this? every article on Wikipeida starts out weak and stubby; that is why this is a collaborative process, because no one prson can turn out a brilliant, Encyclopedia Britannica style article on their first try all alone. i myslef have made many articles such as Jan Scholten. Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy and Manuel Bonnet that were initlally poorly written and almost on the verge of being deleted; but I was able, with the minor assistance of some other editors, to make this articles into the good and high-quality writing that you can find at those articles today. if I had been blocked simply because the very initial effort was not as good as what is there now, many articles would have gone unwriten and we would have lost an excellent editor. lets not make a mistake by BANNING SqueakBox instead of just doing a reasonable indefinite block. User:Smith Jones 19:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Block This is really beyond the pale. There are legitimate concerns being raised here, SqueakBox is hurting the encyclopedia by promoting non-notable subjects and making poor articles about possible notable subjects for money, he lied about his activities, `and he won't respond here. Block for at least three months but preferably indefinitely so that this he will be forced to engage the community in regards to this.

SqueakBox has now posted an unblock request

• The appeal is at User talk:SqueakBox#OmniPeace. I regret, because I like Squeak and have previously found him a dedicated editor, that the appeal does not address the communities concerns; that he was prepared to offer such poor quality edits for pay, and that he has not addressed the fact he had already undertaken not to make such edits previously - which undertaking he did not hold to. The fact he has not recieved payment is, I feel, irrelevant. Squeak needs to acknowledge the communities viewpoint in the matter, and give believable undertakings to address the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• While I have found a pleasant repentance in the unblock request "I wont be editing the Beber Silverstein article again or ever accept a paid contract re wikipedia again" there was also "I didnt even know there was an issue" which seems to contradict what LeeHeardvanU reports above, suggesting Squeak is not fully on board perhaps. I don't think an unblock request can be properly considered so early on. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunately Squeak has previously made undertakings. On the 25th March 2010 xe posted "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing" here. Then on 28th October the Freelancer website received the following bid: "Hi, This looks just the kind of job I specialize in. On wikipedia I ma User:SqueakBox and with over 50,000 edits to my name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/SqueakBox I have a thorough understanding of wikipedia rules, guidelines and policies as well as being well known on the project and with success at doing these kind of jobs". I agree that a block is appropriate, either a lengthy (3 month?) one or an indef to be lifted when xe accepts that this behaviour has been inappropriate. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep him blocked; he has no reason to edit, he is being disruptive and he is being paid so I vote Keep Blocked. --Hinata talk 12:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: The message is clear: never be open about paid editing. 217.235.17.209 (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• On the contrary; it is Squeak's lack of openness about the recent commission that is the problem. Paid editing is not a hanging offence. Telling fellow editors xe will be open in future, and then concealing a commission, may be. It's the concealment that's the mistake, not any openness. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I met a paid editor only this morning who, frankly, is rather a pleasant chap and writes rather good articles before submitting them for review by other people. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The unblock request seems disingenuous. He is again asserting that he was not paid for the job; this may be technically true (perhaps they didn't come through), but it's undeniable that he asked to be paid for the job and had every reasonable expectation that he would be. He also claims to have been unaware of the ANI conversation, which is implausible. He was notified that it would be going to ANI on 12/26 and notified that it was on ANI on 12/27. He edited on the 29th and 30th. Certainly, he may be very busy in real life at the moment, but it's not likely that he would have failed to check his talk page on either occasion, and there were no messages on other subjects to distract him or to trigger the "you've got messages" bar. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment If he makes it explicit that he won't ever bid on a single wikipedia-related project on sites such as elance and freelancer, than I'd be good for an unblock. But he needs to be honest about this. The current unblock request is the same wikilawyering he's always done when confronted with this. He states he "never received a penny" for the article, but he doesn't acknowledge whether he made the bid in the first place (which its obvious that he did). Oftentimes payment for Wikipedia-related freelancer projects is delayed until after the buyer is confident the article won't be deleted. ThemFromSpace 13:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Remain Blocked We should be sending a clear message to people such as Squeakbox. Editing for money is extremely dangerous to the project, as all kinds of blackhattery can occur. Phearson (talk) 16:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked, he was notified of the discussion here, and continued to edit until he was blocked. Disingenuous. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Themfromspace wrote above: "Oftentimes payment for Wikipedia-related freelancer projects is delayed until after the buyer is confident the article won't be deleted." I had no idea this was so common. If it really has become common enough that punters and editors know what usually happens, and the punters know to withhold payment to wait for AfD, then it's time we introduced some careful rules about what's acceptable so editors know how to behave. As for Squeakbox, I wouldn't want to see him stay blocked, but he does need to come here and explain. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep blocked for now. I can't see at this point how Squeakbox can regain trust, but I am open to the possibility that if zie discusses the issues, then consensus on the block could shift. I would have supported an unblock-to-allow-discussion-at-ANI, but Squeakbox hasn't requested that ... and the "I was too busy" excuse doesn't add up, 'cos Squeak edited elsewhere. On the substance of the issue, the "won't do it again promise" is inadequate when we've heard that before, and the "never received a penny" assertion looks disingenuous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• (ec) In March, it appears that Squeakbox failed to disclose a conflict of interest, was caught at it, and undertook to always make such disclosures in the future. He has apparently again failed to disclose a conflict of interest, and his unblock statement of "I have never received a penny from Beber Silverstein" has shades of disingenuity — as others have noted, this may simply mean "I didn't get paid because I got caught". While Squeakbox assures us in his unblock request that he will not "ever accept a paid contract re wikipedia again", the community seems less inclined to be trusting this time around. I would suggest a much more specific framework, if the community feels that unblocking Squeakbox is worthwhile.

1. Squeakbox will not accept compensation (broadly construed, including but not limited to cash, benefits, discounts, memberships, other in-kind consideration, donations to charitable organizations on his behalf, etc.) for the purposes of Wikipedia article writing (creation or editing) for one year from the date of his unblock. Squeakbox will not bid on contracts for such tasks on elance, freelancer, or similar sites during this time.
2. After one year of compliance with #1, Squeakbox may accept compensation for article creation and editing, but must clearly and explicitly disclose the existence of any compensation arrangements or potential conflict of interest (broadly construed). He does not need to disclose the detailed amounts or nature of compensation, only acknowledge that it exists. This disclosure must clearly and unambiguously appear on the article's talk page and on either his User or User talk page under a suitably descriptive section heading (Paid editing or Potential conflict of interest would suit).
3. Squeakbox will similarly disclose on the article's talk page any off-wiki contact he has with an article's subject, as well as with the subject's friends, associates, or agents where any discussion related to Wikipedia takes place. (This disclosure is only required if Squeakbox subsequently edits the article or its talk page.) This disclosure is required even if no compensation or consideration is exchanged.
4. Disclosures described in #2 and #3 should ideally precede the edits they relate to, but in no case should take place more than one hour after.
5. Squeakbox will disclose to the community (on WP:AN, with clear reference to these conditions) the complete list of articles for which he has received any compensation (broadly construed, as in part 1) within 7 days of being unblocked.
6. Failure to abide by these terms will be grounds for a summary block of up to three months by any administrator, subject to review (and upward or downward adjustment of length) at AN/I. The one-year timer on #1 will be reset after the expiry of any such block. Late disclosures under remedy #4 may be handled on a case-by-case basis. In general a voluntary self-disclosure – however late – that comes before he gets caught should be treated more leniently than one which comes after; nevertheless, such errors should be extraordinarily rare.

Did I miss anything? Truth be told, I don't think that framework really extends much beyond the sort of disclosures editors with a potential conflict of interest ought to be making anyway. I make no comment on the appropriate duration for Squeakbox's present block. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment When It comes to money, money wins at the end of the day. I bet you that he will just continue working on the article until he is caught again, either through this account, or sockpuppetry. Phearson (talk) 17:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• CommentThe above is too complex and unenforceable. Keep blocked until he tells his full story and then decide. There is no need to impose year-long hardship ban. Just insist on notification and/or mandatory reviews of all new or rewritten articles. - BorisG (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Interim oppose Having reviewed the discussion on his talk page, SqueakBox doesn't appear to understand what the issue is -- that he promised to stop creating articles for pay, & went back on his word. I can understand him being too busy to participate adequately on Wikipedia (I received an angry ultimatum from my wife to stay off the computer Christmas weekend), but I can't imagine any veteran Wikipedian having a quick look-in & not checking the new messages she/he has been alerted to on her/his talk page. Not acting on them is another matter; although a simple "I'm busy in real life -- can't respond now" would have avoided a lot of trouble for him.) What I want to see from SqueakBox before I can consent to lifting this temporary block is a substantive engagement with the concerns raised here, not brusque responses like "I have received no payment from Beber Silverstein" ("the check is in the mail" is not an adequate defense) or "all I want is to edit my tv and other articles" (then don't offer to write articles on Wikipedia for pay in the first place). -- llywrch (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Honestly, if there's no policy barring it, absolutely nobody here should be saying that an editor cannot accept money for editing/creating an article. That's complete bunk. I can see potential legal issues from trying to do that when you allow other editors who do paid work remain unbothered. The problem doesn't seem to be that he's paid, but that it's not disclosed. So make that the requirement - that if SqueakBox accepts a commission, they must disclose that fact on the talk page of the article in question. And then just treat it like every other article. And if he doesn't, block him for THAT reason. But saying "No paid editing for this editor, but this other one is fine" is not right. Ravensfire (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think the problem is that this editor has evidently written bad articles for pay. WP:COI is not a problem with involved or paid contributors who put the needs of the project first. An editor who writes well-sourced neutral articles on notable subjects is doing a service for the project whether he is also getting paid for it or not. Editors who take money to write content that lacks reliable sources and cannot clear notability guidelines (when I gather they should know better) are doing something else entirely. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Our policy is WP:PROMOTION. If there is any promotional intent behind the creation/editing of an article, it is in violation of our editing policy. ThemFromSpace 21:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• That is not what the policy says - it notes the issues in complying with WP:COI and the appearance of promotional content within article space, but nothing of the intent. Wikipedia:Paid editing was the proposed policy, which is currently moribund. The split in the community as regards "editors for hirer" should not be fought over the issue of whether Squeakbox is able to give believable undertakings for his future conduct. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Intent is precisely the issue. Promotional intent isn't appropriate and should not be welcomed. If that isn't already explicit within policy it should be made so. ThemFromSpace 15:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• This discussion has gone on for long enough. Please address this within current policy and pursue any changes through appropriate means, not at ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I read current policy and practice as deterring those with promotional intentions. Editors are routinely blocked as "promotion only accounts", editors are blocked for having promotional usernames, and promotional work is often deleted outright, through CSD or otherwise. Wikipedia is not a means to promote one's own interests and one's intent is key in determining whether his actions are promotional or good-faith. ThemFromSpace 22:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea of judging on intent is ridiculous; people often do not know their own intent, let alone intent of others. Promotional content is rightfully deleted but neutral and reliable content is useful regardless if intent is promotion or whatever. - BorisG (talk) 06:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

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

Resolved

 – he gone --Jayron32 03:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

{{resolved|Fluoride article semi-protected.--[[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)}}

Unresolved

 – A community ban of the reporting user is being considered below — Gavia immer (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User Yobo violated the Edit War Rule and should be blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yobol&oldid=404856495 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yobol&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.251.228 (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Formal community ban of the fluoride spammer

The above report is by the single-purpose editor currently disrupting articles on the topics of water fluoridation and WikiLeaks, and Yobol appears to have been properly reverting their unwanted additions. I suggest that we consider a formal community ban for the individual(s) behind this mess, since they have gone from spamming and disruption to, now, attempting retaliatory interference against an editor who reverted them. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support for ban. This individual (or group enlisted to help them), collectively linked to User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips, have been a real pain and waste of our time. The list of IP hopping socks is getting longer, the DUCK behavior the same, and they exhibit zero ability to learn. We're dealing with real fanatics here. All the IPs need longer blocks. 14 days doesn't cut it. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, let's be careful not to publicly describe exactly which of their ducklike behaviors give them away. We don't want them to improve their block evasion techniques. They have several identifying marks, but one is very unique. I've never noticed it before, and they do it often. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Should we start handing out rangeblocks? We've done it for less than this... KrakatoaKatie 03:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• The WP:EDITFILTER may be a better option. His tells are predictable enough for someone knowledgeable (read: NOT ME) to write an edit filter to catch him just about every time. One-note trolls like this are easy enough to filter out. --Jayron32 03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban. Thanks to SarekOfVulcan for the quit protection of the page; this editor has shown he/she has no intention of following Wikipedia norms. I'm surprised he hasn't been banned yet, with all the socks he/she's created. This section may not get much attention with the resolved header, though. Yobol (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've performed some header surgery to hopefully draw community participation here. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes I'm tired of this flouride crap going around. Revert and block on sight. ThemFromSpace 00:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I notice that the SPI has been closed, probably because of lack of use. Actually there is very much activity by socks. The latest: User:66.36.251.192, User:64.120.47.10, User:66.36.251.228, ad libitum. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - sap and impurify his precious bodily fluids. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support absolutely. KrakatoaKatie 03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Jocular Decline (read: support) - Dental fluoridosis is a major problem where I live, due to the unhealthy fluoride content in the water. And I promised to do some meatpuppeting for perfect strangers. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Incapable of understanding how Wikipedia works, or why acting like a total fruitcake is unlikely to get an argument across. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support although noted the above suggestion of adding something-or-other to the editfilter if it's practical. Also, is someone very gently trolling them with today's featured picture, which is apparently formed "from the oxidation of fluorite ore deposits" ? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Spamming is not tolerated on Wkipedia. This editor has lost all of our patience and has caused enough madness to us users. With that said, enough is enough for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I'm tired of reverting the edits. As soon as one article is semi'd, they move on to another one. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Say hi!} 06:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – do you folks realize that in addition to fluoridating water, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk ... ice cream. Ice cream, folks, children's ice cream?!? –MuZemike 08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I pretty much fail at quotes... Nakon 08:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hilarious! You hit the spot. This spammer fails to distinguish between science fiction and medical fact. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is pretty funny. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dang it, leave it to MuZemike to steal my quotes! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - The fluoride spammer. Really? Do we actually need a vote for this? No one is going to seriously oppose this, so end the charade, enact the "ban" and it's over. "Next!" Doc talk 08:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not under any illusion that there will be real opposition to this. I mostly just want to dot the i's and cross the t's so that nobody has to worry about technically being liable for edit warring when they revert this guy. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - due mainly to fluoride lowering my IQ - but also because the editor in question has clearly shown that they aren't interested in furthering the aims of the Project. Shot info (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Community ban for User:Freedom5000 and his fringe POV pushing socks. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Community Ban. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Alert. Now they are canvassing sysops for reinstatement! See contribs. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Canvassing arbcom is more like it. T. Canens (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Bye Bye! Phearson (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Wikipedia needs less cranks, not more. If all you've done is promote a fringe theory that would embarass the hell out of a birther, you're not liable to contribute anything of value to Wikipedia. (Sad thing is, thanks to the Net, conspiracy theories are a 50-cent piece a grassy knoll.) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support community ban. I strongly support this -- I've had to deal with several socks of this user in a few incidents, and it's clear that the user has no intentions of productively editing. I like how AndyTheGrump put it: "Incapable of understanding...why acting like a total fruitcake is unlikely to get an argument across". The addition to the edit filter sounds like a good idea to me, though I lack the technical knowledge to actually do it. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 06:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• support community ban. Enough is enough when we have to have a formal community ban discussion for someone. It's simple, be a POV pusher and not follow simple rules, you're not going to be allowed to collaborate and help others build a Wikipedia. Thanks for your help though. Dusti^*poke* 16:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Unarchiving discussion for purposes of formal closing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we can call this one. Do I have to slap my hand on the ground three times like they do in professional rasslin'? Consider him formally banned, for whatever its worth. --Jayron32 03:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Mathsci disrupting the SPI process

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

Mikemikev (talk · contribs) is banned by community consensus. Courcelles 04:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Mathsci (talk · contribs) has develooped an unconstructive mode of behaviour in connection with banned user Mikemikev (talk · contribs), who has been apparently been guily of sockpuppetry on controversial Race-related article. Recently an SPI case was raised against BT35 (talk · contribs). User:Mathsci judged this case and falsely found BT35 guilty without the formality of an investigation. He has displayed an astonishing zeal in labelling alleged socks of this user such as 124.115.214.202, 166.111.120.63, 128.40.189.186, 86.189.26.144, Frostbite Alan2, Frostbute Alan3, Frostbite Alan, In with the old, TohsTogNeroc, 86.189.18.110, Frank Dickman, 86.177.2.57, Juden Raus, Grinkagronk and Suarneduj. It is very nice of him to act as clerk for these SPI, but this is hardly the behaviour of someone who is anxious to disengage from the WP:BATTLEGROUND over Race articles. It looks more like gloating over his defeated enemies to me. However, it is of more concern to see that in his amateur SPI detective role, Mathsci has actually impersonated an admin, leaving a bogus block message with a fake signature here. It seems clear that in spite of his avowed intention to disengage from these topics, he is lurking on controversial race-related pages and tagging anyone who expresses an opinion he dislikes as a racist sock of his adversary. Of course BT35 may be Mikemikev irrespective of what Mathsci chooses to think. After these facts were pointed out on the relevant SPI page by 212.183.140.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Mathsci declared the IP user a sock puppet and used that as an excuse to delete the embarassing comment. This obsession with dancing on the skull on his fallen adversary is contrary to the spirit of his assurances to Arbcomm that he will stay away from this area and disruptive to the SPI process. 212.183.140.36 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is frivolopus request by an IP which seems to be a proxy account. This is very likely to be banned user Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as in the past the account was used in late May for editing articles covered by WP:ARBR&I. Disruptive postings of this type by Mikemikev are mentioned in the ArbCom findings. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems quite possible. Is Mikemikev banned or just indef blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

After long enough, and enough socking, it makes little difference. --Jayron32 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Site-banned for 12 months. The "impersonating an admin" charge is just barely plausible -- Mathsci signed the block notice as Maunus, but it was several minutes after Maunus had blocked the account, so it wasn't a "bogus block message". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Maunus left the message on the user page by mistake and I copied it in its entirety to the user talk page as "housekeeping". The diffs are at the SPI report. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, makes perfect sense that way. Thanks. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are the diffs [14][15] Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

So, to translate the OP, "I'm a banned user. Please pay attention to me" ? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to blocking them per WP:BOOMERANG? --Jayron32 22:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If no one minds, I've taken the liberty of blocking the ip. He appears to be using several ips, so I suppose the only effect this will have is to send the message that he's still banned, and we can just keep removing his edits and blocking his ips until he gets bored and goes away, or gets old and dies. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks like Mathsci copied the block template (with Maunus's signature) from the user page[16] to the user talk page. I can see why that was confusing and probably not a good idea in retrospect, but it doesn't come across as impersonation to me. I'm all in favor of banning Mikemikev if he's not already banned. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the community ban, ArbCom site banned him for 12 months. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he was indef blocked as a result of an AN/I discussion, then site-banned by ArbCom for 1 year as a result of the CCR&I arbitration. I think a permanent community ban would be justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. He was blocked indefinitely on August 18 by SarekOfVulcan for making a string of personal attacks (a week before WP:ARBR&I closed). Here's the ANI report ... and this is the diff on ANI [17] that precipitated the block. Mathsci (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:ARBR&I not WP:ARBCC, let's not get carried away :) Just as a note, usually when reporting supsected Mikemikev sockpuppets I do so by requesting a checkuser. I have made several, some of which Mikemikev has listed above. All my checkuser requests have been confirmed and are listed on the confirmed sockpuppet page. At the moment, during the Christmas-New Year break, it seems conceivable that Mikemikev is with his family or with friends, i.e. editing elsewhere than normal. That would explain the latest set of edits. The editing style confirms the editor, if not the precise geographic location and the operating system/computer (a Christmas present?). Mathsci (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, R&I, not CC, my error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev's also likely responsible for the disruptive edits to the articles by open proxy IPs like this one:[18] detected here[19] Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Other edits via the Vodafone proxy 212.183.140.***

• 1: [20]
• 52: [21][22][23]
• 59: [24]

Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Formal Community ban for Mikemikev

Mikemikev for Socking and Evasion of a ARBCOM site ban and is hearby banned from editing the English Wikipedia

Support as nom The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Support on the basis of the user's contribution history and repeated disruption of the project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Support (I was involved in the arbitration page, and I opposed Mikemikev's edits at the time) Racism, insulting other editors, trying to impose his personal opinions in the article, pretending repeatedly to be someone else while block-evading from an IP, inability to simply drop an issue and calm down, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Support "Juden Raus"/"suarneduj" as well as other antisemitic confirmed socks, such as Oo Yun (talk · contribs), indicate someone whose sole aim is to offend others and cause disruption. Mathsci (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I see no sign that this editor is here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support WP's wasted enough time dealing with him already. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Endorsed; no-one who uses up to 29 socks/IPs to evade an ArbCom ban should be welcome here, period. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Thought he was already under both a community and an arbcom ban, but if a third ban makes it easier to remember, then go for it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support though unneccessary. Could anyone see him being allowed to edit even in absense of a formal vote? --Jayron32 02:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Lord, I forgot that was what kicked the indef block off. Support like anything. He's under an Arbcom 1-year ban and an unilaterally-imposed indef block for threats of violence. Imposing a community ban would mean that he's got to convince the community that he can come back and be a useful editor -- not just a single unblocking admin. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I don't recall any useful edits from this user, even when they were calm. Any future presence is certain to be disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Although he's already banned by ArbCom, so this isn't really adding anything new. Nevermind, I see the Arbcom ban was only for a year. Lets make this one a permaban. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I once checked and I think I found one constructive edit - maybe he corrected a typo. Any such positive edits are most certainly rare, and really droplets of water in an ocean of tendentious SP POV-pushing crap. Post-ban he actually boasted of his mission to disrupt Wikipedia, so I would se we passed the point of no return quite some time ago. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Post-ban he actually boasted of his mission to disrupt Wikipedia" Utter lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.210.13 (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC) This IP address (81.187 ...) has only ever been used by Michael Coombs; can we just go ahead and block it, or do we have to check first to make sure it is not a public computer? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC) I make little effort to hide my identity. Someone who spreads as much crap as you would be wise to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.210.13 (talk) 20:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC) Why? What do I have to worry about? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC) He might sign you up for membership at a gay dwarf porn site. Unless you're into that sort of thing, in which case "Ew." HalfShadow 01:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC) The OP has already made indirect threats, since removed. He was indefinitely blocked for making a similar physical threat, even if in jest. An edit summary of the OP was just removed under RD2. I don't think "jokes" like the above help very much. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 23:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Bet you're a hoot at parties, too. Someone kill a puppy in front of you or something? HalfShadow 23:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of checkuser data

I am concerned that certain users appear to have privileged access to checkuser information and that information derived from those logs has been discussed here. Please may we know how, and by whom, this information is being shared? Zarboublian (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Where in this discussion do you see an indication that CheckUser information – actual content, as opposed to a description of results – was made available to someone who isn't authorized to have it? I ask, because I frankly don't see it. What am I missing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There could be an unexpected issue of wikistalking involved here, of the kind Professor marginalia has already mentioned in a related context on the SPI report page. [25] Occasionally wikistalking is handled off-wiki and checkusers are contacted privately. That happened with A.K.Nole and Quotient group (no longer editing) who came to an off-wiki arrangement with a member of ArbCom to stop following my edits. If that were to recommence it would be easy enough to contact a checkuser in private: in the case of persistent wikistalkers that is often the only possibility left open. An account that was started a few days after another was left aside and which showed a tendency to follow another user to sharply delineated project pages would probably result in such a report. But in the case of Mikemikev, matters are quite different as I am just one of many targets. There are no wikistalking issues involved in Mikemikev's case. Mathsci (talk) 04:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was concerned about disussion of Mikemikev's computer and operating system, which would have derived from the user agent string in the checkuser log. But I guess that Mathsci has explained why he needs special access to checkusers. Zarboublian (talk) 14:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to talk about details of how checkuser results are derived. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Neither Mikemikev's edits nor the techniques used by checkusers, of which I am quite ignorant, are the problem here. That problem will be dealt with in a different venue. Mathsci (talk) 16:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Out of that little cluster of ip's from the removed comment there is one (81.187.210.13) which has contributed to Talk:Race and intelligence and who's whois devolves to Bracknell, Berkshire, while the 212.183.140.36 addy locates to Newbury, which happens also to be in Berkshire. I am aware that there are quite a few telecom companies have hubs in the area, but the fact that two out of four (the other two use national hubs) may indicate a higher potential for the same individual to be behind all of them. Not that I am a Checkuser, or even portray one on TV... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If it isn't the same person, we live in a cruel world. Mathsci (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Continued harassment by User:Pieter Kuiper

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#Stalked for a long time
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#SergeWoodzing
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing behavor from User:SergeWoodzing - is this truly correct?
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter Kuiper
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter Kuiper

As seen here and below that entry, the user continues to stalk and harass me with rancorous retaliatory actions even though I have asked him several times to stay off my talk page and leave me alone. I reported his personal agenda before here but not one administrator tried to help us stay away from each other. Mr Kuiper needs to stop harassing me and somebody neutral needs to tell him to leave me alone. The latest twist is that he uses frivolous deletion requests as an excuse to show me that he does not respect my wishes to stay off my talk page. He is not doing anything particularly valuable or constructive for WP, just trying his damndest to irriate. Being extremely headstrong and tedious, though not very good at English or knowledgeable about older English literature, he is almost always proven wrong eventually about the issues he brings up regarding English exonyms and such, if the editors he attacks and annoys have the time and energy, and patience with his constant sarcasm and ridicule, to research them and reply. I am losing it. It is typical for him to flaunt his disrespect for others. The basic current problem is that he is blocked on Commons, where I supported his blocks this year along with several other editors, so now he has come here to cause trouble instead. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have a general rule that whenever an editor starts with the STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE stuff, he is the source of the problem. I find little here to make me change my mind. If the deletion requests were "frivolous", it's doubtful that the AFDs would result in a consensus to delete.

  That said, User:Pieter Kuiper is indeed banned on Commons for harassment of other editors, which means that we need to look at this more closely than I would normally bother with. SergeWoodzing, can you provide some evidence of actual harassment done on English Wikipedia? Not nominating articles for deletion that you wish had been kept, but actual harassment?—Kww(talk) 01:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If it is not harassment to stalk people inter-wiki and then put sarcasm, ridicule, personal insults, belittlement, mud-slinging in almost every edit summary (see them from those and previous dates) and talk page comment (see them), then I am wrong in using that word. I didn't think "a good contributor" ..."usually basically right about the underlying issues" (comment below) was allowed to behave like that. Maybe I am wrong about that too? I have never behaved like that or anywhere near it, but then again I make mistakes sometimes and am perhaps not that valuable. And since I don't want Kuiper on my talk page (because he makes me literally nauseous), that makes me automatically wrong? SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodzing does not give diffs to support his allegations, but maybe his complaint is about things like this, where I had the audacity to question his claims of expertise? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 14:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

When someone asks you to stay off his page, you should stay off his page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Also for notifications according to policy? I did not know that. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

He claims you're using those notifications as an excuse to pester him. A compromise could be to have a separate sub-page to list those notifications, and he can decide whether to watch-list that page or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Woodzing is claiming a lot of things, but I have no problem at all with not notifying him. By the way, he likes posting invective on my talk page at Commons. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• • The block reason on Commons is a gross exaggeration - I will only admit incivility. All I did was to respond to a person calling me names on my talk page with a similar vulgarity translated to Dutch. Per the usual differences in wiki-clout, I was the only one getting blocked for that exchange. So now I am editing on other wikipedias a bit more than if I could have contributed on Commons. There is no reason for these repeated complaints by Woodzing. The last one was just closed a few days ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The previous ANI from last weekWikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#Stalked_for_a_long_time has some diffs. Here and on Commons, the repeating pattern is that PK gets into a dispute with someone who is editing poorly with good intentions, and then takes them to task for it in a rather abusive way. PK is smart and a good contributor, and he is usually basically right about the underlying issues, so it's mostly a civility problem and maybe to some extent a hounding problem. I wonder if some other editors could give SW some gentler guidance than PK has been giving, so that PK can leave SW alone for a while. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please!!!!! Not even gentle is necessary, just civil, without sarcasm, ridicule, mud-slinging, assumpton of bad faith every time. SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• • Looking at some of the previous incident reports on this noticeboard, and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl of Vermillandia, it seems that a long-standing situation, resulting from something on the Swedish Wikipedia, has deteriorated to the extent that Pieter Kuiper can call article content a hoax and a BLP problem and SergeWoodzing will immediately cry "I'm being personally attacked.". SergeWoodzing is not coming across as entirely the victim in this, at this point. Uncle G (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If I accused someone of "hoaxing" (which is intentional falsification as per definition) and there was no substance to the accusation of any kind, I would certainly feel like I was attacking someone personally. I hope I am not wrong in feeling that way. Falsifying WP intentionally isn't extremely despicable behavior, and wrongly accusing someone of it isn't a personal attack? What could be more detrimental to the reputation of a WP editor?

But then again, perhaps I am of a very old (obsolete?) school that doesn't even think the unnecessary word choice "cry", as used above, is particularly polite and constructive. SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Kuiper wrote that the article was a "possible hoax". If there are no written sources where this name form is used (off the Internet), I think "possible hoax" cannot be seen as a personal attack in itself. On the other hand, this situation is rather complicated. An interesting question is what rules should apply if someone asks some other person to stay off his talk page? Ulner (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The answer is "politeness and civility", as admins have told me in the past. If someone asks me not to post on his page, and I continue to do so, that's impolite and uncivil - as is using a notification as a pretext to getting around it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Some posts are mandatory on the talk page, i.e. when filing an ANI Incident, or when proposing an article for deletion. These posts should be allowed in any case I guess? The problem is that usually a content dispute is in the background, which makes it necessary to post messages on the user's talk page. Furthermore, Surtsicna and Andejons have also been told to avoid SergeWoodzing's talk page. I'm afraid I don't see any easy solution of this conflict. Ulner (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I see that Woodzing also "warned"(!) User:Sinneed to stay away from his talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors need to be civil enough to work together to be here. If there is a long standing history of harassment, then further action needs to be taken to protect the user(s) involved. If User:SergeWoodzing can provide diffs (collectively and only for here on en.wiki as we deal with issues here, not elsewhere (there are admins for elsewhere)) and can prove gross harassment, then sysop action against Pieter Kuiper needs to take place. Pieter Kuiper please be respectful of users wishes to stay off of their talk pages and not Troll users, as that is harassment. If you are indeed stalking a users contributions and following them to WP:AFD or elsewhere, that violates Wikipedia policy. We work together (please see WP:ATTACK). My hope is the two of you can resolve differences (regardless of what they are) and work together. Dusti^*poke* 18:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, several of you, very much for this! I admit to having asked a few editors to stay off my talk page before, and/or asked them to stop being belligerent and rude. Since then I have made up with one or two of them, however, and mutual respect and cooperation has been established.

None of the problems I have had with anyone – ever in my long life! – have come anywhere near the way Kuiper has behaved toward me. I can only naturally perceive it, after a long time of being the butt of it, as rancorous, unrelenting cruelty. The word unrelenting is key. Perhaps this discussion will inspire him to just stay away from me. Based on past experience (note: in his uncivil behavior, not in article content or work ethics), I sincerely feel that that will be the only way the problem can be solved.

Other than that, please also see a reply of mine above which begins “Yes, please!!!!!” Every good wish for the New Year! Sincerely, SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New accusations such as (POV) "Woodzing just disregards..." here and (POV) "this is a WP:MADEUP name" here don't do much to inspire hope. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Wouldn't someone reasonably trying to avoid confrontation just advise some other neutral editors about any possible serious content problems, rather than continuing to attack me and mention my user name detrimentally at every turn? It is my mainly reputation Kuiper wants to get at, not seroius WP contributions. SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

SergeWoodzing, maybe you're experienced enough by now to be able to look past Peter Kuiper's rudeness and understand the criticisms he's making of your editing. Could you try the obvious approach of simply not editing like that? That is, accept the notion that a lot of the stuff you're trying to add really is below Wikipedia's threshold of inclusion (WP:IINFO), and you should stick with stuff that has more substantial sourcing. If you're primarily interested in vocabulary translations rather than encyclopedia articles, maybe you'd be happier at Wiktionary than Wikipedia. Wiktionary was a pretty slow project for a long time, but it's recently picked up a lot of steam, and is sort of a neglected sister of Wikipedia, that can always use more help. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer unlinking spree

I indef-blocked TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) when zie went of some sport of wild unlinking spree, in which the hammer removed links en masse with a disruptively long edit summary.

Per my comment on TenPoundHammer's talk, the explanation given does not add up.

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) unblocked TenPoundHammer specifically to allow a cleanup, and appears to have deleted the edit summaries.

I hope that TenPoundHammer will complete the cleanup as promised, but I think that a better explanation is needed about what was actually going on here. So far as I can see, the edit summaries are least of the problems ... because TenPoundHammer was engaged in some sort of mass-delinking exercise without any sign of scrutiny of what was being done. The edit summaries actually did us a favour, by drawing attention to this spree of disruptive edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• It seems every single day I find links pointing to disambiguation pages. The first several that I found were all links for people who didn't have articles, so I falsely assumed they were all like that and unlinked. I've done en masse unlinks like this before and never had problems. As promised, though, I have been going back and cleaning them up. As per the other thread on me, it seems I've let Wikipedia get to my head and I'm lashing out at everyone over tiny things, and I admit my "CHECK YOUR LINKS CHECK YOUR LINKS etc" edit summary was clearly out of line. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Same thing with the John Reid links. Looking at that one, it seems that indeed, most of these are referring to a John Reid who doesn't have an article (most in reference to a songwriter). Those that do have already been fixed by other editors. I've finished all the David Porter links accordingly. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I thought, the edit summaries did us a favour ... because if this sort of blind-mass-unlinking has been done before, there will have been un-noticed damage on those occasions.

  Your comment "never had problems" is alarming, because you appear to mean that nobody objected to you, rather than that no damage was done. What steps are you going to take to check that the links you removed in previous mass-unlinking sprees are restored? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'll have to go back through my edit history then and see if I did do any damage. As far as I can tell, every other instance has been justifiable like the John Reid one — i.e., removal of dab-page links that were in reference to someone who didn't have an article. As I said, I restored all the David Foster links. From now on, if I use the unlink tool like this, I'll check the incoming links first to see if they should be fixed instead of removed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Again, this is the wrong starting-point. They may have been links to someone who should have had an article, and you appear to have made no effort to enquire whether disambiguation might be the appropriate response, rather than unlinking. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• John Reid, the songwriter, doesn't have an article and isn't mentioned in the dab page. Does it really make sense to leave the link to a dab page where he isn't even mentioned? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Also, I generally had checked before when using unlink. David Foster was a momentary lapse in judgment. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Ok, I'm slightly confused...what exactly is the damage that has been done, if, as TPH has said, the links he de-linked were links to disambiguation pages where the particular intended link didn't have a specific article to point to? To me that would seem to be a case for de-linking, since people who click the link aren't going to be able to find the subject article they're looking for on the disambiguation page and there is no more specific article to link to than the disambiguation page. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 22:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• The issue was that I removed some David Foster links that should have been repaired to point to a musician's article or a Naval officer's article — granted, it wasn't that disruptive since at least half the articles had a valid link and the link to the dab page anyway. As I said, this is the only time that I've ever had a misfire like this with the unlink tool. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Your "cleanup" is inadequate. I just started checking the David Porter links, which you said you restored .. and the first one I checked of those you had not reverted was Liquid Swords. That was an undisambiguated link to David Porter (musician).

I don't intend to examine every one of these links myself, but you have just demonstrated that as well as doing inadequate checks before using the unlink tools, your cleanup is also sloppy. Please can you just restore all the links you removed, and leave it to more careful editors to assess whether they should be removed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I restored all the David Porter (not Foster!) links at your requests. I don't think I need to restore the John Reid links since, as I said, all of them seemed to be appropriate because they referred to a John Reid not mentioned in the dab page. If you want me to restore those anyway, then I will. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just restore them all, please, and leave them to be checked by someone who is willing/able to apply more attention to them than you have been doing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, you said here that you "restored all the David Porter (not Foster!) links". I hadn't noticed that there was also a David Foster unlinking spree, and assumed it was a typo ... but since you say it wasn't, I have been looking around further. In this post on Sarek's talk, you said that Foster was a one-off slip of concentration, but that's not the case, is it? There was David Porter too.

I don't like what I am seeing here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And more. Checking back further, I find this a link to John Reid, which shoukd have been dabbed to John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan, but was instead unlinked. TenPoundHammer says that he has fixed the John Reid links, and that's clearly not true. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Still more unfixed stuff: [26], [27], [28]. All of them were undabbed links to John Reid should be to John Reid, Baron Reid of Cardowan), which TenPundHammer says he had fixed.

As to the songwriter, there were a dozen or more links to that songwriter. What checking did TenPoundHammer do see whether a) the songwriter was one of the musicians of that name who already have an article, or b) someone else who should have an article on them?

Yet TenPoundhammer says the John Reid links have already been cleaned-up by him. Not true. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What are the rules about red-link article titles, or are there any? I've found many a red-link, and in effect they were an invitation to create an article. Sometimes the same subject may be red-linked in more than one place, and once you've created the article, it fills several gaps at once. By de-linking the way Hammer is doing, you would have to search more extensively to re-link them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it is policy or not, but I've always thought the general consensus was that redlinks were a healthy part of encouraging growth. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

SGGH is quite right. See WP:REDLINK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a specific policy, but I've always used the criteria that if the redlink is likely to have an article created about them, or should have an article, to leave the redlink as a reminder that an article is needed. If the subject seems unlikely to ever have an article, then de-link them. This calls for some judgment, and enough knowledge to make a crude evaluation of notability. Automatic de-linking of redlinks is disruptive, as much, or perhaps more so, than overlinking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like WP:REDLINK says pretty much the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC))

My other thought is that I think it's generally more helpful to unlink redlinks within an article, say, when an overzealous editor has Wikilinked all the actors in a film's cast, many of whom are generally not Wiki-notable, then it is to unlink the same Wikilink across different articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line here is that TPH should just not be using this tool! Can anyone make it so? Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't really want to get involved in whatever is going on here, but from an outside viewer a couple questions do come to mind. First, why was an indef-block appropriate in the first place? Second, why does it appear that bad faith is being assumed here? Tuxide (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

1. An indef-block is not a permanent block; it is a block until until the issue is resolved. At the time of blocking it was not clear whether the account had been compromised, the editor had lost the plot, or what. As usual, once the editor had promised to claen up, the block was lifted.
2. I'm not sure why it appears to you that bad faith is being assumed; it's up to you to explain why you think it looks that way. For me all I can say, is that after unblocking TPH gave several explicit assurances that he had already cleaned up several parts of the mess, and those assurances were false. I don't know whether that's bad faith on TPH's part or sloppiness, just that it doesn't add up to someone who can be trusted to clean up the mess which can be made very rapidly with automated tools. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I am not aware of how big of a mess he made (nor do I care personally), but I am referring to bad faith being assumed against TenPoundHammer considering everything you said in 2. only happened in the past four hours. Tuxide (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   TPH did not say "oops, this is a big mess, gimme time to sort it out". He chose to say that he had already cleaned it up, which he hadn't. So I don't see how time is relevant here: a false "I've cleaned-up" statement is false whether it;s made after 1 hour or 1 week. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I would agree that an irrelevant conclusion was made, but I disagree that the irrelevance is concerning time. Time would be relevant on the condition that it would be improbable for him to do such a thing that he claimed. In that sense, I don't care if he claimed he did whatever after a minute if it was clearly impossible to do so. What's incorrect reasoning is that he made such a claim when there is apparently more cleanup work that needs to be done here and that it would have been apparently impossible for him to do so during the time (logical incoherence), that what people said his claim was does not necessarily represent what he meant (straw man), and that the people here choose to make a big deal about this apparently impossible claim of his anyways instead of directly addressing whatever the real issue is (red herring). Tuxide (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   Sounds like you have made up your mind, but your explanation makes a hugely convoluted mess out of something simple: that TPH said he cleaned up various things, when he hadn't. For example TPH wrote Same thing with the John Reid links. Looking at that one, it seems that indeed, most of these are referring to a John Reid who doesn't have an article (most in reference to a songwriter). Those that do have already been fixed by other editors, but I quickly found three links which had not been fixed and did not refer to a songwriter: [29], [30], [31]. Please do some fact-checking before you accuse me of logical incoherence or making straw men. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I wasn't accusing you of doing either of those things and I don't know where the hell you draw that conclusion. Especially not logical incoherence, but either way now you're misrepresenting my position. I was just reading this discussion and the only thing I care about here is all the ad homenim slinging that's been going on in this ANI convo. That was my initial reason for questioning the assumption of bad faith. Content disputes and conduct disputes are two completely different types of disputes. Tuxide (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   You wrote above "What's incorrect reasoning is that he made such a claim when there is apparently more cleanup work that needs to be done here and that it would have been apparently impossible for him to do so during the time (logical incoherence)" ... and now you claim you're being misrepresented. Try to make up your mind why are repeatedly alleging ABF, and when you change your mind don't accuse others of misprepresenting you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

   I was referring to TenPoundHammer's claim (or your version of it) being logically incoherent; I just chose not to name individuals directly because I don't really care who said what. Tuxide (talk) 06:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What about an editing restriction against the use of unlink? I could live with that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution, if it is technically possible. But I don't see what the restriction should be applied to only one automated tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Have I abused any other tool? This whole discussion has been entirely over the use of unlink. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 02:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer does not seem to have messed up with any automated tool other than the unlinker, so I do not see any need to restrict his access to anything but that one. I've never used Twinkle myself, so I do not know if it possible to technically disable just that part of it, but even if it's not it doesn't matter. An editing restriction does not need to be any more than simply an undertaking by TPH that he won't use the unlinker on pain of serious consequences. Reyk _YO! 05:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I also don't think there's any need for a technical block (which may well not be possible - I don't know). I'd say a voluntary ban on using it is all that's needed. If TPH agrees not to use it, I'd be happy to take his word for it - and if he did use it again, sanctions could be considered then. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Then I won't use it, simple as that. Consider this resolved. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 15:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I just want to go out on a limb here and say that this looks like it's a large misunderstanding. TPH does seem to have gone to left field with his unlinking spree.... but there isn't an actual rule against it. Some people just don't like red links. I believe, looking through his insane amount of contribs, he's done unlinking before. BrownHairedGirl I do want to say you were trigger happy and an indef block was inappropriate for this situation. An indef block is without expiry. It's what we use for bans, etc. no? A talk page note or warning would have been more appropriate, and if you got no response then a block should have been instated. TPH was inappropriate of doing bot like actions (mass unlinking) and he has agreed to not use them. Assume good faith, let this issue drop as the compromise seems to have been reached. Dusti^*poke* 17:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add (albeit not as an admin) that I agree with Dusti, in that your application of an indef block to force TenPoundHammer to reply to you (which is in effect what it was doing) was very "trigger happy" as Dusti put it so well. That clearly looked like its use as a punishment, and as I've been taught as an admin elsewhere, blocks are preventative, not punitive. A note on his talk page such as "would you mind explaining what you're doing?" rather than hitting TenPoundHammer with a Ten Pound Hammer would have been a lot more conducive towards assuming a little good faith and resolving in a slightly more peaceful manner. BarkingFish 17:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

No, an indef block is not without expiry, and is not the same as a ban - this indef block was used to stop an activity that was ongoing, not as punishment, and was clearly intended to be reviewed once TPH responded (which, in fact, it was). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocks do not have an expiry (yes, they can be undone via Unblock) however, when left, there is no expiry. This block as used to FORCE a user to respond, when there was nothing to respond to. No attempt was made to discuss the user, nor was he sufficiently warned (not that you have to warn a user before you block them). I just think it's a gross misuse of blocking. Dusti^*poke* 18:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes there were attempts to use Talk pages, as the editor was on a very high volume spree of doing a number of things that people had asked him to stop (see the earlier thread, above). They weren't working and he was ignoring us and continuing. I think it was a necessary block, which was clearly not intended to be permanent. It lasted less than 20 minutes, and it looks to me as if it had the desired effect - it forced a dialog and we got a good outcome. Sorted. Time to move one. Bye. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the block as used either. TenPoundHammer was using a script to do rapid mass-unlinking, among other things, and the block as applied seemed to help. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• My thoughts: 1) Ten Pound has indicated he could live with an editing restriction against the use of unlink. Whether that can be enforced in automated fashion or not, that would seem to address a substantial portion of the problem noted. 2) One remaining issue is what is our policy (or should it be) on blue links to disambig pages, where the targeted person does not appear on the disambig page. I don't see a clear answer from the above, but think a consensus view should be reached and communicated to Ten Pound (and the rest of the community). And I expect that Ten Pound will be happy to follow the consensus view. 3) I believe that indef blocks are being used more frequently the past two months, and are counter-productive when used against editors in good standing whom one can address on their talk page with a simple request along the lines of: "would you mind not delinking any pages while we sort this out -- or would you prefer an indef block in the interim?" While Ten Pound and I often have philosophical differences, he is a helpful editor in good standing with a keen mind who seeks to better the project--no need to blast him off of wikipedia as we are discussing an issue such as this one. 4) I thank Brown for her good work here.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Re 2) I'd have thought just regular linking policy - if it's a subject who would be likely to warrant an article, make it an unambiguous redlink, otherwise unlink. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The question I see on that is ... it will not appear red, and therefore will not "alert" the reader, unless the reader clicks through, and it is redlinked on the disambig page. Query whether that changes what should be done.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin privileges misused during "content dispute"

I'm not sure what to make of this, or how to solve it, but as of right now, a few individuals with the admin bit have used their privileges to remove the discussion notifications for {{Expand}} and protect the template.

User:Brandon clearly doesn't like the display small notification we transclude with templates such as {{tfd}}, {{being deleted}}, etc, and I don't like it much myself, so much so that I've been attempting to improve it so that it is less (as Brandon put it) "disruptive".

That said, we provide links to such discussions because it is important that the community knows of them and participates. In this particular case, the TfD close is widely disputed and the deletion review notification really should be visible. {{tfd}}'s inline notification was visible during the TfD for {{Expand}} (and during this TfD an editor even linked a non-neutral RFC tag into the discussion). Removing the deletion review notification at this point is going to create even more dispute as to how this issue is being handled.

I'm more than happy to work with Brandon to improve the display of {{being deleted}}, and User:Bsherr is also trying to come up with a solution. Using admin privileges (be it one individual or several) to remove and prevent the display of a discussion notification for a widely disputed TfD and deletion review is simply not appropriate. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• You've stated what you believe, but you haven't provided any links to evidence or said what adminstrative action is required. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I thought I included this link. It is clearly visible in the edit history here. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have no bone to pick in the {{expand}} dispute, I honestly and truly don't care about the outcome. I do however object to dragging protracted wiki-nonsense into article space. There are much better ways to inform editors than littering 18,000 articles with two different notices that no reader has a chance in hell at understanding. I'd personally suggest WP:AN and WP:Watchlist notices . Brandon (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You could've contributed to a talk page discussion and helped us come up with a better way to display such notifications. We've shown these messages for {{tfd}} and {{being deleted}} for quite some time and I agree, it all still needs improvement. Removing all message display during a widely disputed TfD isn't the right way to go about improving this though. I've been actively working with others to improve {{delrev}} since it originally (as I mentioned on your talk page) used a full {{mbox}} template since we had not previously had a need to DRV a widely used template.

    What we currently have is the solution which came about from prior talk page discussions. If you can come up with a better solution to keep otherwise well meaning editors from removing a "deleted template" which is under deletion review from articles, while also providing a link to the discussions, I'm all ears. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

    • As I've mentioned WP:TFD specifically covers this situation by advising that the template not be transcluded. I can't believe we've ever trancluded the full mbox either, so this is adding something that's never existed, not correcting a current problem. Please don't frame this discussion like I'm overriding any standing consensus to have these messages transcluded. The trancluded text was added by yourself to the DRV template two days ago and I have yet to see any requirement for {{tfd}} to be transcluded either. If you strongly believe these notices are worth putting in articles, then gather consensus on a visible page and the matter will be settled. Brandon (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The trasnclusion count is actually about 16,078 [32], not 18,000. That also includes 500-1000 transclusions within the User:, User talk:, Wikipedia:, etc non-article namespaces, with the actual article transclusion count at around 15,000. --Tothwolf (talk) 00:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
    • My apologizes for the inaccuracy, I still find that to be a rather large number of articles. Brandon (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. The link provided does not appear to me to show use of adminstrator's tools, and there does not appear to be any use of the tools required? Unless there are strong objections, I am going to move the discussion to a more appropiate place. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This became a matter for AN/I when User:MZMcBride (also an administrator correction: former administrator) jumped into things [33] to revert to User:Brandon's preference of not displaying the discussion message/links just before the template was protected by User:PeterSymonds, [34] (obviously also an administrator).

So yes, I would object to "moving" this discussion somewhere else at this point. I am well aware of what was discussed "off-wiki" just before this sequence of events. The way this sequence of events played out skirts 3RR while "protecting" Brandon's preference and "locking out" any attempt by others (including administrators per WP:WHEEL) to restore the transcluded discussion message/links. While Brandon didn't misuse the tools, and MZMcBride technically didn't misuse the tools, this whole sequence of events is tag teaming with the use of administrative tools to protect another admin's preferred version. Maybe PeterSymonds and MZMcBride didn't think this through before doing this, but the net effect is the same: This is a gross misuse of the administrative tools, no matter how those involved want to spin it.

My own "preference" (and I don't think I'm being too unreasonable) would be to see {{Expand}} placed back the way it had been before Brandon (who I noticed hasn't even been very active lately) discovered and objected to the transcluded discussion notifications, and have him engage in discussion to help us come up with a better way to present this information. No one else objected to it previously, and consensus is that we display such messages when we have such discussions, especially for discussions such as this which have very wide reaching effects. Brandon didn't complain while {{tfd}} was still transcluded, and there is no harm in having these remain transcluded while the DRV and other discussions about this template are still in-progress. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Please be a bit more gentle with the readers when you bring an issue here in future, and spell everything out for us. I looked at the history, looked at what you'd written here, and there was nothing that looked untowards. Now that you've actually explained this I'll not move it, of course. Plus I'm looking closer at the history to see if it's as bad as you say... Thank you. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have a low tolerance for misuse of administrative tools and I feel quite strongly about this. We are having the DRV precisely because of the way the closing administrator decided to close the TfD involved (I won't get into that here). --Tothwolf (talk) 04:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of this is that you want to transclude the message onto mainspace articles so that editors don't remove the template from them. Is that correct? If so, I'm a little puzzled: why would they think to remove the template in the first place unless they had already visited the template page? —Emufarmers^(T/C) 05:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The effect is pretty much the opposite, particularly when the notification box is added to a template which can be used multiple times inline within a single article: this trashes the article(s) quite thoroughly, as happened with Template:Font—no article diff as the template is now deleted. --Mirokado (talk) 06:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:TFD explicitly states there is no requirement to tranclude the template on article containing the template, going as far to advise against it. So "consensus is that we display such messages when we have such discussions" is simply just not true. You haven't actually shown a single policy or consensus forming discussing that transclusing the template is required. Advertising debates regarding major changes to the project fall under the domain of AN and watchlist notices, not article entirely unrelated to the topic at hand. Brandon (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The text you continue to try to use as justification for your actions was meant to apply to inline templates (such as {{Font}} mentioned above) where the display of a notification would disrupt the article text. This is also covered at Template:Tfd#Which type should be used? where it shows such an example of an inline template along with the text: "As can be seen, the downside is a greater degree of interference with the article's text, so the decision of which type to use, should be made on a case-by-case basis. In the rare case, where the insertion of any template is deemed too detrimental to a large number of articles, it might be advisable to completely disable the notifications."

The template you removed the notification from however, is not an inline template, it is a message box template, where transcluding the notification does not harm the output of the template or article text. If you genuinely feel that this is likely to cause further confusion for others, then perhaps we need to update the text at WP:TFD. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The real point is that while there remains a reasonable chance that the DRV will not confirm the tfd decision, it would be much more difficult and disruptive to remove the template while the deletion review is pending, and then have to restore it-- this would be the case with any very widely used template. If , on the other hand, the final decision is to remove it, then the weeks delay in doing so will not matter. Thus the notice tothwolf wants is altogether reasonable. More generally, the failure to include deletion notices for tfd discussions is a contradiction to the normal openness of Wikipedia content decisions; TfD is already essentially the province of those supporting deletions, and the result of not notifying is to suppress meaningful input from outside. Of course, the TfD regulars support not notifying--it is one of the Wikipedia procedures showing the greatest degree of ownership. My own opinion for how to handle it is to use tfd as a screening device only; any deletion opposed in good faith must come to a more visible part of the project. DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If people started removing {{expand}}, presumably it was because they saw {{being deleted}}. If that's a concern, then {{being deleted}} should be removed from {{expand}} until the deletion review concludes. {{delrev}} seems more accurate, and I don't see what's gained by having it along with {{being deleted}}. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 08:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• I also have a low tolerance for misuse of administrative tools, and feel quite strongly about the issue (as I feel the community should, and as wp:admin suggests should be the case). That said, while admittedly I have more to review, I'm not sure I see the abuse by Brandon here as of yet. As to the substantive notice issue that is at the center of the dispute, I tend to side with Toth's view.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Attacks and outing

I would like to ask someone to have a look at this post by User:HeadlessMaster. WP:OUTING and calling me a "pure communist worshipper" in the same post. I guess insults like the "communist" bull go with the territory, but alongside attempted outing its not something I think should be ignored. That is dangerous, serious stuff, and frankly I would like to see something done. There is no way it was not deliberate.
(P.S. I restored the report, I don't think it reveals anything itself and the relevant post has been deleted. I'd like to request the outing to be viewed in light of the rest of the attack.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the outing (maybe I'm looking for the wrong thing?) but it does seem a rather hefty personal attack. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternative account of Ks0stm]} 00:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Was that an revdel or an oversight ? Is there an log of the remove action ? Anyway Fred Bauder has copied the text back in (thats why the links are dead now) wich means HeadlessMaster's text is now misattributed to Fred... 217.235.33.74 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The outing was indeed there. I am also aware that Fred copied the text back (after removing the outing), which is why I specifically mentioned that the text was posted by User:HeadlessMaster. I also posted a new link. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I know you are aware of that. This doesn't answer my question about the log. And posting a refactored comment under wrong attribution is still a fishy move. Since Fred Bauder hasn't even commented one has to take your word that there was something outing. 217.235.17.209 (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw the original, and I can confirm that was something in it that could well have been outing. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The user repeated the outing on his talk in spite of warning about this report [35]. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

So what happens now? The guy's insulting and openly flaunting his ability to try and out me. Do I need to take this to oversight after all, what? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Anytime someone is being outed, the very best way to deal with it is to go to Oversight immidiately. Posting about it in a public forum lke this increases the chance that the outing will be seen by more users. Details of what oversight is doing and exactly what is being suprerssed will generally not be discussed on-wiki, as that is contrary to the whole point of suppression. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What Beeblebrox said.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Political prisoner page – Request for opinions on my level of involvement

Further information: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive659 § Please review a block I am about to make

It has been suggested that I should not be performing in an administrative capacity on Political prisoner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Slim Virgin's opinion carries a lot of weight with me, but in this case I find myself so strongly in disagreement that I’m asking for input from the crowd. This is a follow-up to a previous ANI thread. My brief summary of events prior to that thread:

• There was a low-level edit war on Political prisoner, including reversion of sourced edits without appropriate edit summaries.
• Even brief examination of the other material on the page shows that no clear inclusion criterion had been established.
• The much-newer accounts were making good-faith attempts to use the talk page and were conforming to the de facto standards.
• I first requested and then warned several editors that greater emphasis needed to be placed on collaborative discussion and less on reverting, and that they were only to revert once.
• One editor choose not to engage in discussion with me and reverted twice more without first using the talk page.
• I blocked that editor and opened an ANI thread here. Some discussion ensued.
• My prolix-as-always response to the various opinions in that thread is here.
• The block was lifted and the page fully protected.

Following on from this, I carefully considered the various advices offered. My most recent edit to the talk page of Political prisoner [36] reflects that consideration. Which brings me to the purpose of this posting: Is there general consensus that I'm involved in this in an editorial capacity, and thus should not be acting as an administrator?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I just paged through about several pages of the article history, dating back to 2009, and I don't see where you have ever edited the article in question. Where is the contention that you are involved? How can you be involved in an article you haven't ever edited? --Jayron32 03:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman is involved via the talk page, you don't need to be involved via the article itself. Bidgee (talk) 03:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It has been suggested and I support it that Aaron Brenneman is a long time (a couple of years nearly) returning admin who has appeared to be struggling with his admin tools and shouldn't be using his admin tools anywhere until he is up to speed as they say..personally I have watched his contributions since his return and I don't support his admin status at all. Off2riorob (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Bidgee Ah, yes. I just finished reviewing the talk page. Since Aaron Brenneman has expressed an opinion on which side of the dispute he favors, he should probably not have used his tools. I'll admit that the result would likely have been the same, but in the future its always best to ask for someone else to pull the trigger. As a total aside, and irrespective to this, Aaron Brenneman's interpretation of policy regarding removal of sourced edits seems in error. Per WP:BURDEN, contentious material should be removed if the source is contested. Disucssion MUST occur, don't get me wrong, but insofar as material is contested in good faith, where the quality of the source is under good-faith dispute, it is the burden of those who wish to include disputed material to establish quality sources before it is added, not the other way around. The best solution for any contested material is to leave it out while it is under discussion, rather than to leave it in. Always default to "not in the article" until such time as it is established that it belongs. If consensus develops quickly, or if quality sources are found easily, it can be quickly and easily returned. --Jayron32 03:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a pity that Aaron Brenneman isn't giving the whole facts of this case, the article history only tells part of the whole saga but the article's talk page tells a lot more and the fact myself and Stepopen discussed why the sources didn't or were not reliable POV free sources to cite on what it was alleged (that Manning and Assange were political prisoners), so I did discuss but not as much as I should have (I admit that) but Aaron Brenneman's threats on my talk page was completely out of line (since he's view that the content was fine[37][38][39] even though another Admin said it wasn't and even has the same view over the new editors [IE: SPAs]) and he should have taken it to ANI then or got a third party Admin to deal with the alleged issues.

Fact is Aaron Brenneman never even warned Cecilex yet threatens myself (twice) and Stepopen?

Aaron Brenneman fails to see what he did wrong and will not settle the fact (Also see the ANI thread over the block) he wrongfully blocked myself more then an hour after I did the undo and the fact that another editor used the rollback tool. Fact is both WP:BLOCK and WP:ADMIN policies were breached. All I have asked from Aaron is to annotate the block stating he did it in error and the it was a wrongful block and a meaningful apology. Bidgee (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't normally reply so quickly, preferring to let consensus build, but...

• @Off2riorob - What I'm "struggling" with right now is the fact-free slag-off you've just committed. While people are certainly entitled to the opinion that I should review, can you please provide a diff that shows both A) someone suggesting that I'm not up to speed and B) policy or guideline that shows I'm not actually up to speed? So far, every time someone says that and I go and reread the page in question (since I pretty much always read them before doing anything, eh?) I'm right. Then when I link to pages and discussion, all goes quiet... Just because you say something enought times doesn't make it true.
• @Jayron32 - Can you please provide a diff where I support one side with respect to the content issue? The editting behaviour I warned and blocked for included removing material that directly supported the newer user's statements. This isn't a question of if the sources were good or not (they weren't) but the editting atmosphere, including ownership of articles.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you express opinions about the quality of sources at several points, at 01:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC) and at Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC) for a few examples. By expressing those opinions, you clearly indicate that you think the sources are good or bad; which is taking a side. In general, you probably shouldn't express opinions over the quality of sources, and then block those people who express different opinions than your own. As I said, given the behavior issues it would have likely been the same result, so it would have been better to ask another admin to perform any sanctions. This isn't a "Aaron Brenneman should be desysoped" issue, this is a "Aaron Brenneman made a little mistake, and should likely try to avoid such a mistak in the future" sort of issue. Just try not to perform any admin actions in any situation where you have expressed any opinions. Its better to just ask for another admin to act; if you are right in needing a block against another user, it will be backed up by a neutral admin who can pull the trigger. --Jayron32 05:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond so carefully, but I'm still not able to grok. I'm really sorry. I'm looking at my edit of 01:18, 17 December 2010 right now:

I have some concerns regarding the removal of sourced statements without clear consensus. I would also consider this edit summary to be highly misleading:

• The "vandalism" was a single emoticon buried in text, and
• The "dubious and unreliab[e] sourc[e]" was the Australian Broadcasting Corporation

I am utterly gobsmacked by the suggestion that this edit makes me involved. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Edit summaries and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles#Source citations, my comments of 01:18 are totally consistant with those principles. By the "not to perform any admin actions in any situation where you have expressed any opinions" standard, how in the world are we meant to perform our duties as adminstrators?
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That one edit probably not so much. The sum total of all of the talk page discussion is likely adds up to a small amount of involvement. You can perform lots of admin actions, for example, you can merely leave a note at WP:AN asking for another admin to administer the block in question. The issue is not in actual impropriety, it is in the appearance of impropriety. As soon as you say "these sources are good, and these other ones are bad", as you do at several times in the discussion on the talk page, it's probably not the greatest idea to block the person who has a different opinion. Note that this does not mean that the person should not have been blocked. As I said several times, they should have been blocked. Just not by you. There's several hundred very active admins, someone else can always pull the trigger if it is obvious. I issue blocks and protections myself all the time, but if there is ANY chance that ANYONE could say I was involved in a discussion or editing, even if its minimal, I always ask someone else to do the dirty work. Blocks get issued, just by people who haven't already been involved in multiple, threaded discussions with the blockees over the content of the article. --Jayron32 05:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Must... resist. Rational... discourse... taking... effect.

I don't like what you're saying. Like, at all. However it is clearly a tenable position you're putting forth. My biggest concern with it is that we (as admistrators) are better placed to make decisions when we've been involved in the discussion. ("Involved" in the general since, not the wikipedia term of art.) I shall stew further on this dichotomy. Thank you for taking the time to make your meaning more clear to me.
Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Aaron here. The whole point of admins not using their tools in cases where they are involved is to prevent abuse due to conflicts of interest, where the admin is clearly siding with one of the parties in the dispute. However if, like Aaron, they show a remarkable capacity for staying detached from the topic, and are involved in a totally administrative capacity, I don't see how their long-term involvement in the article is not a plus, rather than a reason for them to step out when administrative decisions need to be made. If anything, an admin who has actually had been keeping track of what is going on throughout the course of the dispute will be in the best position to make blocking decisions (which, if done right, require an insanely large amount of research for lengthy disputes) and other difficult administrative choices. I don't understand the logic by saying that a person that has no idea what is going on (or a very limited idea, based on the selective truths that people present on noticeboards) should be preferred over a person who knows a lot about what is going on.

And by the way, I still haven't seen a single person that insinuated that he was biased, or involved in anything other than an administrative capacity, either provide a diff or apologize for making a baseless allegation. One of these two things should happen immediately. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have to say that the interpretation that stating that someone is a political prisoner is a BLP violation due to the term being derogatory is very creative. I see that the whole section has been removed at this point. un☯mi 04:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

How do you mean, "creative"? It's contentious material about living persons. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Uh huh, Especially derogatory ones like "political prisoner".. un☯mi 05:32, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• From Courcelles's comment in User_talk:Courcelles. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

@Aaron - Without commenting on this specific incident, I think you would have to admit that there's been a number of questions and concerns expressed about your admin actions since you returned from your break. Some of these were discussed on your talk page, and never hit AN/I, but you're obviously under increased scrutiny because of it. Don't you think it would be advisable to hold off on performing any admin actions for a while -- say a month or so -- until you're back in the swim of things? After all, Wikipedia got along without your participation while you were away, it'll survive another 4 weeks without your admin input. It would be best to just edit for a while, and monitor AN/I and AN to adjust your understanding of current Wiki-culture. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It has to be obvious to other editors why an admin has arrived at a page: it's usually because of a complaint on one of the boards or talk pages, or a serious BLP issue. We can't just arrive willy nilly and start telling other editors what to do. Aaron hasn't explained how he came to notice that admin assistance was needed at Political prisoner, and his initial posts on the talk page gave no indication that he wasn't there as an editor. Aaron's block of Bidgee was inappropriate for that reason; his opposition to page protection on RfPP after Bidgee requested it was odd; and his block of Bidgee thereafter odder still. That Bidgee requested admin help on RfPP suggests that he didn't see Aaron as an admin at Talk:Political prisoner, or he wouldn't have needed to go to RfPP; Aaron should have realized that meant the roles had become confused, and he should have waited for admins at RfPP to deal with it. In addition his posts since then on Bidgee's talk page here, following the AN/I discussion, have not been helpful.

I have concerns in general about Aaron's return as an admin after a break. He hadn't used the tools much for a couple of years, and not at all for 14 months, until September 2010 [40] when he deleted two talk page histories, User talk:Aaron Brenneman (restored by Moonriddengirl), and User talk:152.91.9.144, though nowadays best practice is not to delete user talk pages unless there are privacy/harassment concerns. Then after a few (uncontentious) user page deletions and an article speedy deletion, his first admin action directed at another user was this sudden block of Bidgee.

Aaron, I think it's in your own interests to avoid using the tools until you're familiar with the changes in admin practices since you were active. Most of your adminning was in 2006-2007, when things were very different, and the notion of "involved" was more fluid than it is now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 20:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy new year, everyone. Also,

@Jayron32 - I've had a good think about your Caesar's wife dictum on administrative behaviour. After this consideration I must, with respect, disagree. We use "rough consensus" instead of "true consensus" in making decisions, why is that? Because there is a large enough plurality on Wikipedia that some level of disagreement is expected, even desired. If, as in this case, an administrator has taken the time and effort to engage in a topic (to examine the article's history, look at the contributions of the principles, read (and re-read) supporting policy and practice) then we shouldn't throw that time and effort away based upon a minority dissent. We don't need to be totally above reproach, we simply need to do the best job that we can. It's a much better use of time to have a good think about if someone is involved or not as per Wikipedia:Administrators, and to get consensus that "Yes, some people on the page may not like it, but this admin has the imprimatur to warn, block, etc. So play nice." This also avoid the re-work necessary to get a drop-in admin up to speed on the local situation. If that linked policy needs amending, we should take it to that policy talk page.

@Jrtayloriv - thank you.

@Beyond My Ken - First, the use of "admit" is unfortunate on your part. It strongly implies that, to date, I had been somehow denying that there was noise. I'd direct you to my earlier response to Off2riorob. If you have a specific case where you see that my actions are not supported by policy, please do point it out. Barring that, the simple presence of disagreement is not sufficient evidence that I'm out of touch. Please note that there are over 600 pages of archives for this noticeboard, so disagreeing is what we do. The increased scrutiny that I'm being subjected to has been mostly lazy hand-waving. Which, I am beginning to recall, was always the "wiki culture" on this board.

@Slim - I must begin by stating that I have tremendous respect (and no small amount of affection) for you. The manner in which you've stated your disagreement should be an example to everyone who comments on this board: Clear, with links to relevant diffs, and obviously having done the homework before commenting. Thank you. However, with respect to the substance of your comment, I must (for the most part) disagree.

• My initial comment did not state I was an administrator. This has been mentioned several times as where this episode went off the rails. In response to this, I'd like to ask a rhetorical question: Looking at my edits and then the immediate response, is that how we'd like editors to be treated? Is it only administrators who deserve calm deliberative responses to neutral queries? It should concern us more that this was the response from Bidgee, not less.
• My opposition to page protection is totally sound as far as policy and practice. I'd ask everyone to actually read the protection policy, to look at the page history, and comment based on that.
• My comments to Bidgee's page have been, at all times, calm and respectful. I've tried very hard to engage that editor in meaningful dialogue, to encourage them to use dispute resolution, to come down from the Reichstag. That he has refused to do so reflects poorly on him, not me.
• My deletion of my talk page and the IP talk page are not "best practice." This is, however, simply a difference of opinion. It's not totally forbidden, it's just slightly unusual.
• My block wasn't "sudden." The editor had been warned, both in person and on the articles' talk. When he removed the warning from his talk, I explicitly said I would block him if he failed to keep to one revert and use the talk page first.

In general, I'm disheartened how easily "I don't agree with you" get supplanted by "You don't know what you're talking about." While it's important that (as members of the sysop group) we have some consensus about what constitutes "normal" behaviour, it's also important that we encourage a diversity, to avoid mono-cultural groupthink. When there are cases raised that are outside the norm, we should be engaging in careful, considered discussions. Opinions (particularly unsupported and regurgitated ones) greatly lower the quality of these discussions.

I've came and asked for input, and I've received some. I'll be taking all of that input into account moving forward. I really appreciate everyone's contribution.

But I'm not going to be stepping away from the tools. This is perhaps no longer appropriate a discussion for this noticeboard, but I'm happy to leave that decision to the peanut gallery. If there are continuing concerns that anyone would like to air, User_talk:Aaron_Brenneman#Administrative_actions.2C_and_concerns_thereof would be a fine place.

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hardly surprising when you airily dismiss legitimate complaints from veteran editors and other admins as "lazy hand-waving". You would be better advised to stop blaming others for your errors, and realize that you are significantly out of step with current admin practices, which is what numerous people have told you, but you refuse to hear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm rather astonished, Aaron, to hear you say, "My deletion of my talk page and the IP talk page are not 'best practice.' This is, however, simply a difference of opinion. It's not totally forbidden, it's just slightly unusual." I had already quoted the policy at your talk page: WP:CSD#U1: "In exceptional cases user talk pages may be deleted via Miscellany for Deletion (see right to vanish); they are not eligible for speedy deletion under this criterion." You deleted them both under U1. "they are not eligible" cannot be more clear. I was not aware that you had deleted the user talk page. I have restored it in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy: "If a page was obviously deleted "out of process" (per this policy), then an administrator may choose to undelete it immediately." As the page did not meet the criterion for speedy deletion, it could not be deleted under it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

User:DC - compromised account?

I've seen DC (talk · contribs) around quite a bit, and he seemed like a great editor... until he vandalized the user pages of two editors with the comments "I'm a stupid nigger" and "I'm a twat." He then proceeded to roll back my query about the edits in question. Either DC has officially gone insane, or (more likely) his account has been compromised. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 06:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I posted this below, but it appears to be connected to User:Justice America, which is detailed below. Very weird. Dayewalker (talk) 07:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd find it perfectly believable that DC and JA were both compromised by the person behind the VOA CassidyQ (talk · contribs); they're both caught in their autoblock. --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 07:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Justice America

Similar to above, abusive editor, or compromised account? I got a profane e-mail and don't believe I've ever encountered this editor, and I can't decipher the autoblock situation on his/her talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Very strange, it seems to be the same message as on User talk:DC's talk page, as mentioned in the thread directly above this one. Dayewalker (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that Justice America was last majorly active in November 2008, when they stood for Arbcom with this statement. Since returning in early December of this year, all of their edits are problematic. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, then I likely opposed JA at Arbcom. The only other possible connection I can see is that the DC account supported a recent RFA that I opposed after he announced that he would be away most of the week. (And there are a few curiously new accounts supporting that RFA.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

What's the connection with User talk:CassidyQ? Justice America and DC have both gone off the bend, then tagged themselves. [41]. Dayewalker (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

←I'm looking into this now. It appears that these accounts may actually be sleeper accounts. Admins, please hold off on taking any administrative action for a few. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 07:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Once you get it sorted, there's an RFA that will need attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Would it be OK to make this into a sub-thread for the discussion I initiated on DC just above? They're both related somehow, and it would be a pity if these threads went into different archives (hence rendering the usage of the word "above" a paradoxical one). --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 07:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Tiptoety ^talk 07:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Looking at DC (talk · contribs)'s block log, it appears he has tried to play the "compromised account" angle before. Unfortunately, he was not as smooth in covering his tracks this time. It would appear that Justice America (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) and DC (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) are  Confirmed socks of CassidyQ (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Also, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Y2kcrazyjoker4 appears involved somehow. I'm still thinking that CassidyQ (talk · contribs) is the sockmaster. All blocked now, if someone wants to tag go for it. Tiptoety ^talk 07:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've sent you an e-mail; who deal with the RFA and how? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

How can CassidyQ be the sockmaster when the account was created months/years after the other two? Surely either someone has compromised DC's account, or DC has gone troppo with his main account and a sock (CassidyQ)? Of course the second theory is based on DC and JA having been the same person all along. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I was simply going off of the fact that CassidyQ was the only one currently blocked, so I made her the sockmaster. But, I guess if you want to get technical it would be DC. The reason I am saying the accounts are not compromised is 1) how often does an account become compromised twice, and 2) there is no technical evidence to show it has been compromised. The IPs that they have been using for a while geolocate to the same location of the IP they edited from today. Tiptoety ^talk 07:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically JA would be the sockmaster since he came before DC did (JA: June 2008; DC: August 2009). --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 07:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks. I don't think the "compromised" theory holds up either on what I'm seeing. DC's vandal edits had very particular targets, mainly related to WP:ITN. DC has a regular editor there for some time. Looking back through his talk page archive it seems he's had short fuse problems in the past concerning ITN, so this just seems to have been another blast, and very much a blockworthy blast at that. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

(Note to Self: never tag, even if encouraged, unless looking into yourself first.) I'll switch the tags and remember not to tag before making sure again. JA is the puppeteer then? Doc talk 08:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My bad, sorry. Tiptoety ^talk 08:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say wait til everything shakes out to figure out who's the master. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it appears that Justice America is the oldest account. It seems DC was the good-hand account...--Bsadowski1 08:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

@Tiptoey: no need to apologize: I've seen more than one "completed" SPI report that had to be corrected after the fact. I'll defer to SG and either let someone else correct the tags or wait for further developments. Doc talk 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't wait for me, I've had a leaky roof for two nights, and need some sleep and some time to work on more of this. I 'spose tags can be changed later if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The other interesting question is whether DC or JA had some previous run-in or issue with Tony the Tiger or Candlewicke, which would explain the vandal edits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You could check their FAC/GA/DYK etc intersection, but TTT is kinda hard to avoid, so I suggest looking at Candlewicke :) I'll look into more of this after I get some rest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

←DC's account has been compromised before, taking part in similar antics. It was put down to the account being based in a university campus dorm room, and someone else had used the account when he forgot to log off or something. I don't know if the real real DC could just be some sort of victim of a mass college revolt(?) whist returning home for New Year etc. —  Cargoking  talk  12:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

AGF, if the user has twice managed to leave his logon unsecured in a public place, he ought not be editing here anyway; and if he does online banking, he might want to check his current balance and see if there still is one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I probably shouldn't speak if I haven't looked in to the history but while a twice compromised account may be possible, it seems odd that this time? the person who just so happened to compromise it also happened to have a few sleeper? sockpuppets which he/she used to post the same nonsense. Were these sockpuppets used for the same nonsense when the account was compromised before? Personally I'm inclined to believe someone drinking (or smoking or whatever) too much during the new year celebrations is a more likely cause here. Nil Einne (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

But because the account was based at a university campus, these other accounts could possibly be used by other people on the campus who possibly could have used DC's account, and were vandalising at the same time. (I am not trying to stick up for DC btw.) —  Cargoking  talk  13:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Had some sleep, may not get to all the work I have to do on this by today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the more I think about this I just don't buy that some random passerby or cheeky college roommate made comments about two other editors. It just does not ring true. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

There is form between DC and TonyTheTiger here, evidence that the attack on TTT was not random. I'm struggling to find the specific connection between DC and Candlewicke, other than that they are both regulars at ITN. Unfortunately ITN's archiving system makes it difficult to find particular examples of conflicts. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

DC's TTT edit really ought to be revdel'ed, IMO. That's not the kind of thing an editor should have to see in their user page history. 28bytes (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The last time DC went on the rampage, or his alleged compromiser, the pages were presumably in his watchlist as they had been recently modified. This could be the same again. —  Cargoking  talk  13:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

jlesco

Jlescoe made a very scary noise on my talk page [42]. Not sure what that is all about, but I never had edited anything related to Mormons. Phearson (talk) 07:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably a reaction to a message I left at an IP editor's talk page (presumably his) a couple hours ago. New editor who doesn't seem to know how to identify who he's engaging in discussion. No idea how he found you, but I think you could safely ignore it. alanyst ^/talk/ 07:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think he meant it towards Wikipedia as a whole. I just happen to be the one he picked up from the petri-dish to be yelled at. Phearson (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is likely the same person that was editing Joseph Smith, Jr. as an IP last night. Here is a similar post on Katie's talk. I will watch-list the article and see what happens next. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Craig Vincent

An IP claiming to be the subject is taking part in an edit war at this article (now up for AfD). I could block the IP as they've been warned, but am not sure that that is the best thing to do. Right now the IP is removing citation needed templates saying that as he's the source of the information they are inappropriate. I've protected for 6 hours to try to get this sorted. Although the IP is getting very hot under the collar, and an editor has put "rv v" in edit summaries, this is just a content dispute with some obvious COI. Is the best thing to do to extend the protection until the end of the AfD (which isn't normal) or just go ahead and block if the IP won't agree to stop? Maybe a couple of other voices will convince him to stop. I've tried. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 10:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I think SPAs should be blocked. HeyMid (contribs) 10:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added some advice at the article talk page but I don't think the IP is going to like it. I don't think a block is called for yet - but I agree if the behaviour continues it would be appropriate. I have said as much in what I wrote there so he has had fair warning. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that was a good note. Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

• Chiming in as a non-admin involved in the AfD ... While this is another round of ammo in my staunch belief that we need an official guideline to go along with WP:BITE that newcomers have a positive duty to become familiar with Wikipedia policies, guidelines and practices, as well as the responsibility to comply with WP:CIVIL, let's not get too bitey. This is a rookie who plainly has no idea how we do things, and needs education more than a smackdown. Heck, I'm currently participating in a RfC where the subject's incivilities rank in the hundreds, and for some reason he's still allowed to edit.  RGTraynor  11:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We've no proof of the IP's RL identification, so its claim of being Craig Vincent is a non-starter. Also, if it were Craig Vincent, it would be easily breaching COI. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Still a fair candidate for a WP:SNOW close to minimise drama. Ticket:2010123110008179 is informative. Guy (Help!) 02:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Science&HiTechReviewer experiments creating disruption

• Science&HiTechReviewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also editing as 96.247.28.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Science&HiTechReviewer who claims to be using this account to experiment with Wikipedia. Now that he's edited enough to be autoconfirmed, he's become more disruptive: continuing to focus on other editors, and now edit-warring to remove tags [43] [44] added to identify specific problems in the content he's previously reverted [45], and reverting a merging of information under dispute that includes dubious information [46].

Past ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive661#Editor_Science.26HiTechReviewer

He began labeling my editing as "vandalism" with his 00:13, 30 December 2010 AN attempt. Despite the response from Trebor , he wasn't swayed [47], and is now throwing the label of "vandalism" to justify his edit-warring: [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57].

When he first brought up the "vandalism" accusation on the article talk 14:41, 31 December 2010, he was rebutted by PrimeHunter Habap, yet he's continuing there as well: [58] [59]

Maybe we should fully protect the article while we get this settled? --Ronz (talk) 21:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Part of the ideal of wikipedia is to allow misinformation and disinformation to be corrected when reliable information can be demonstrated. This process is completley undermined when efforts are continuously made to correct such factual errors, and an individual keeps reverting them back into an incorrect status without proper justification or better source material. Some of us are helping on a volunteer basis to help improve the overall quality and excellence of the material presented. Sometimes, it appears that certain individuals are here to tamper with that process (in both directions), removing the impartial nature of what is trying to be accomplished. This is most unfortunate, and especially when it is happening with regards to a living person, where the utmost care needs to be taken. A number of editors on this page have been trying to help improve the quality, but this editor continually is reverting proper edits, questioning primary sources, and reverting back to inaccuracies, character slurs, and inappropriate references. These types of actions are very disruptive and counteractive to the overall process of improving the excellence of the material presented.

Vandalism occurs when someone deliberately tries to tamper with the facts relating an historical event or profiled person. This can be done by inserting improper facts, removing important contextual information, unfair juxtapositions of unrelated events giving the false impression of cause and effect, and also by revising corrected inaccuracies and errors. The term vandalism can also be applied to the unbalanced questioning of primary sources and secondary sources. There is no problem in questioning sources, but this editor is only questioning the sources of others, but not his own, even if they come from the very own source! iWhen a standard for source material is not equally applied across the board, then it becomes biased, and falls into the vandalism category, especially when such edits appear to have the impact of distributing only negative information or removing positive information (or the reverse).Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact that I write and give talks about misinformation and disinformation in important public forums, and sometimes I find examples of such misuse in these types of interactions, is besides the point. I would like to see the process work properly. It is my trumpet song to bring attention to these sorts of abuses. I have no problem with his making edits as long as they do not interfere with the factual content, do not promote a hidden agenda, are spiteful, and stick to what Wikipedia stands for.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Adding tags in which an editor has found legitimate verifiability concerns, or inconsistencies regarding verification thereof, is not vandalism. –MuZemike 22:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

In spite of Science&HiTechReviewer's claim that he is here to experiment with Wikipedia, his contributions suggest that he is just the next in the series of pro-Naveen Jain promotional editors. There have been past complaints about this article at the COI noticeboard. A review of Talk:Naveen Jain will give a flavor of the past problems. The talk page shows that one registered user, by fixing a previous mistake, admitted he was editing from an IP belonging to the Intelius company, of which Naveen Jain is a founder. In the past, IP editors have frequently tried to remove well-sourced negative information about Jain's legal troubles. Science&HiTechReviewer's edits fall under the clause of WP:COI which provides:

Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promotion (e.g., of a person, company, product, service, website, or organization) in apparent violation of this guideline should be warned and made aware of this guideline. If the same pattern of editing continues after the warning, the account may be blocked.

As this section provides, a direct proof of COI is not needed if the account is clearly an SPA here on Wikipedia with the mission of promotion. If Science&HiTechReviewer continues on his campaign to insert pro-Jain material, without waiting to get support from other editors, I think that a block for edit warring or disruptive editing might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 22:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, per WP:DUCK. Without Jimbo's confirmation, I'd assume he was just another sock/meatpuppet. He's been making very similar edits as employees of Intelius: removing the same well-sourced information, removing and dismissing the same sources, placing the same emphasis on information that is poorly sourced, providing the same arguments. I'd like to attribute this to just stubborness combined with a lack of interest in reading past discussions and doing in-depth research. Regardless, given that this is a long-disputed BLP article, some further precautions look necessary. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

A new SPA, Mists out of Time (talk · contribs) has emailed me information that suggests personal links between P3opl3watch3r (talk · contribs) and Science&HiTechReviewer (talk · contribs). I don't have time at the momement to investigate further, but from the looks of it, it's probably meatpupptery. I doubt if there's a good case to be made. --Ronz (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Science&HiTechReviewer is now up to four reverts at Naveen Jain on 31 December. In each case he claimed to be reverting vandalism. This amounts to a plain WP:3RR violation, irrespective of the promotional editing. Can anyone argue that a block should not be issued? The reverts are [60], [61], [62], [63]. EdJohnston (talk) 23:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I see no vandalism. I see a content dispute. Tiderolls 00:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is just total crap. I have explained myself fully with regards to all my edits, which are factual only. I am not anyone's puppet. I don't have any connection to Jain or anyone else I am editing, and I don't edit my own wiki entry, which is far longer and has been up for a lot longer than Jain's. This is just the reverse being claimed here. It appears that only negative edits are being done. I think my arguments speak for themselves, and are valid as such. I have over 15 books published under my name, and countless articles, and I do believe that I know something about scholarship, and that applies to the Information Age as I give invited talks about it enough.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I have my own theory of who S&HTR is (of course I mustn't post it here per OUTING) and if my guess is right, then yes, in my opinion he has a COI. In any case I think the experiment should stop, or be done much differently, as I feel it is illegitimate from a WP policy standpoint in its current form, and I find some aspects of it ethically questionable. I actually do think S&HTR's critique of Wikipedia has a lot of validity, but he's pursuing it the wrong way, and it's especially obnoxious of him to pick an area (problematic BLP's) where we know that we suck and we've made it our top priority to improve (with considerable success so far, but a long way to go). It would be much better for him to visit some of the more successful parts of Wikipedia; for example, by getting involved in an FA campaign. I have some other things to do right now but I can post more on this later, and (from the viewpoint of a longtime semi-disgruntled editor) I'm willing to get into a 1-to-1 talkpage discussion with S&HTR about Wikipedia in general and how to edit successfully, if S&HTR is interested in that. Meanwhile, Jimbo says S&HTR offered to say who he was, and I'd like to take S&HTR up on that offer, if it is still on the table. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 00:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This is actually turning out to be hilarious. I am happy to privately reveal my identity to anyone that wants to know. So yes, that offer is still on the table. I am not connected to the person that is the focus of this bio. That would be evident from the reveal. I am happy to point to long posted videos of me moderating distinguished panels on this subject, echoing the same arguments alongside Arianna Huffington (no, I am not associated with her either), etc. I am not in the high tech industry though I speak and write about some of its dangers. Listen to my arguments. They are not unreasonable. I am not trying to hide behind Wiki rules. This is standard scholarship stuff. There was a reason I picked a "controversial" profile. I got a couple of others I am working on too, because that is where you find things out. It isn't safe. That's how physicists work, you scratch at those areas that have issues. My training. It wasn't to cause offense, and it certainly wasnt' to be anyone's puppet. I went through a lot of trouble going through all the junk in the system to try to improve things, and see what happens. It is frustrating to see it all unravel, and revert back to the same errors. That's not progress, nor improvement. I don't like my time wasted in these ways. If good edits are made, then great. Everyone is a mixture of good and bad information, just want to make sure it is correct. It is true I haven't gone in detail through all the history on this page, and was pretty unfamiliar with the chap, but this afternoon I did, and I can see that some of this stuff has been discussed before, but why wasn't some of the errors corrected back then? The process is not working well here unfortunately. I am hopeful that this will end with a productive dialogue.Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 00:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have an idea. I can set up a free conference line, and anyone who wants to speak to me can get on, and I will happily reveal myself, and then you can google me, as long as my profile is not revealed here. This may dispel any notion that meatpuppery is going on, and the like, and that all this stuff fits squarely into the profile of what I talk and write about. I am happy to take this conversation off line, so I am willing to put up. So, who will go for it?Science&HiTechReviewer (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, we've established that the edit-warring was over sourced information removed without reading the source or reading discussions about the source closely enough to notice the details. So much for accuracy and scholarship. --Ronz (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

S&HTR, I think your offer to self-identify privately to random WP editors is honorable, but isn't really the way we do things here. To the extent possible, on transparency grounds, we frown on that type of private, off-wiki coordination between most editors, and instead have just a few editors (specifically Checkusers, Arbcom, and Jimbo) authorized to deal with confidential info on the community's behalf. I was really hoping you'd announce yourself here on-wiki, but the next best thing would be to email the info to arbcom-l@wikimedia.org and then an arbcom member could comment here on your possible issues, without specifically identifying you. 64.62.206.2 (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming that S&HTR is indeed experimenting in order to produce a report about our editing, I would strongly advise him against basing the presentation around a single case--especially a case where the cover of doing ordinary editing was not able to be maintained. There are many reasons why certain subjects arouse controversy in Wikipedia, and by using any one particular article, especially a living person, one is apt to draw unrepresentative conclusions. In this case it was an article that was the subject of alternately promotional editing, and negative comment upon the validity of the person's work. If the purpose was to find how Wikipedia attains balance in such a situation, it was not necessary to probe: an examination of the existing edits would have told the story--but would tell the story only about the particular article--there will be other stories at other articles. There is perhaps a pattern, but it is the comparisons that will disclose it--an n=1 study where the identity of the editor was semi-disclosed partway through has no validity. Wikipedia is properly very sensitive about anything that might be considered a breaching experiment for such can be the excuse for any sort of disruption; at the least, it immediately raises the question of whether there were other undisclosed "experiments." And in general such probes with public sources of information, while I think often valuable, are always questioned: see Sokal affair. And S&H will have now found something else out-- people at Wikipedia does not like overt or implicit appeals to authority or connections, or people one knows. Of course, he could have found that out also by examining the archives, either on-wiki or the various mailing lists. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I find the appeal to authority especially annoying. I find being used as an "experiment" annoying as well. The "partial reveal" of the experiment is a Schrödinger's cat to me. --Habap (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Friends, you are being trolled. I blocked Science&HiTechReviewer for tendentious and disruptive editing, and probable sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 02:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Any proof of sockpuppetry? Or trolling? I'll accept their editing wasn't great, but indef seems bizarrely premature (unless you're privy to something I'm not). Trebor (talk) 02:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Good block, I think. S&HTR's statement

"In fact, I am doing this all as part of an experiment for a talk I am giving next month at the World Economic Forum, Davos, on how we are rapidly transforming from an Age of Information into an Age of Misinformation and Disinformation based on this kind of shotty reporting. I have personally talked to Jimmy W. about this issue. Now, I am trying to actually play with it myself to see the results. Best to start off with controversial figures. That's where I will find out what's interesting. "[64]

in combination with what followed, sounds like he really was on a disruption campaign, i.e. trolling. I'm not sure what to make of the sock theory, but it would fit the picture. In any case, S&HTR's announced plan of editing here incognito to gather ammunition with which to attack Wikipedia in an external forum seems block-worthy to me. As the saying goes, "Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." 67.122.209.190 (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• If anyone wants to know, S&HTR is now getting this matter handled at the "executive level", whatever that is.[65] 67.122.209.190 (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, which one of you yahoos leaked the existence of the secret "every user but you" cabal to him? Whoever it was, you're docked a week's pay. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

This whole story isn't new. It was kind of endorsed by Jimbo 1 whatever that means. - BorisG (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 2011 ...

Don't suppose any admin could magically turn back the clock a week so I can prep some stuff for the WikiCup? ;) Wow, it's actually a new year. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fetchcomms! Yeah, 2010 blew by pretty fast, but on New Year's Eve, don't you always wonder where on Earth the year went? --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 00:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thirded! Happy New Year! Though I've already been saying Happy New Year in my country since an hour back :) HeyMid (contribs) 00:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well here in the Bay State, we've still got five more hours to go. (Wouldn't you be an hour ahead, Heymid?) --Dylan620 ^{(t • c • r)} 00:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fourtheted! Happy Yew Nears!!!@# ;P -- œ^™ 03:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What a terrible incident it is! Making the 2010 a 2011 without consensus! I demand a revert! Phearson (talk) 06:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

L.O.L.!!! :-D Yeah, it is interesting that the "Happy New Year!!!" messages are here on the Incident noticeboard, instead of the regular/main Administrators' Noticeboard, which may well be a better place for them. X-D [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 06:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

To all as well ... my only question being, will this violation of notaforum lead to trouts, or to the ever-more-popular (they don't mean forever) indef blocks?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Nah, outright ban 'em I say! Take 'em out to pasture! Off with their heads! Let them eat cake! <insert historic rabble-rousing statement here>...and so on. :) Happy New Year all. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 09:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I would of course favor trouts over indef. blocks :-), but someone could always move this thread (and the other one below) to the main Administrators' Noticeboard. (Funny note: two admins are guilty-as-charged of posting on this page in the other thread below, "Happy New Year, EST", especially the one who opened it, SarekOfVulcan. Also note the admins who have posted in this thread X-D.) [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 09:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior and harassment from Pmanderson

I've documented on his talk page three instances of uncivil behavior on the part of User:Pmanderson within the last day or so. I'm copying those comments here:

Please do not make derisive and/or maligning comments about me (or any other editor) in article/guideline talk page discussions as you did recently at WT:PLACES [66]. Announcing your opinion about another editor, that he is "prepared to be disruptive for years until he gets his way", is taunting, baiting, maligning and generally contrary to the type of behavior encouraged at WP:CIVIL.

If you have an issue with an editor's behavior, please take it up in an appropriate forum, normally starting with that editor's talk page, for which this post may serve as an example. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You made another derisive comment about me here. You, wrote, about a suggestion I made, "This would worsen Wikipedia - although it would help B2C's long term agenda.". Sharing vague conjectures about another editor's "long term agenda" in such a blatantly negative light can have no purpose other than to malign that editor, and is highly inappropriate. WP:CIVIL clearly states, " Stated-simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect.". Statements like this are not examples of how editors "treat each other with consideration and respect." Second request in two days. Please stop. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

And this one too: "We need to ignore Born2Cycle's persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize." [67] Characterizing the efforts of another editor as "persistent and solitary efforts to destabilize" is uncivil. Again, if you have an issue with an editor's behavior, you should take it up in an appropriate forum; a guideline talk page is not that. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Any one of these comments taken in isolation is not really egregious, but taken together it amounts to harassment:

a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons ...The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely.

These comments are distressing, they make working on WP unpleasant (others have noted the inappropriateness of these types of comments as well[68]), and they are obviously intended to undermine me. Per WP:CIVIL they are also "taunting or baiting": "deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves".

I've asked PMA repeatedly to raise concerns about the behavior of other editors (namely me) at the appropriate forum, starting with that editor's talk page (as I did with him), but he persists. If he has legitimate concerns, then he should pursue them in an appropriate manner, not by making derisive comments on article and guideline talk pages. PMA has a long history of make these kinds of inappropriate snide remarks about fellow editors with whom he disagrees, and I'm asking for administrator intervention.

At a minimum, I ask that he be restricted from making derisive comments about others, or sharing concerns about the behavior of others on article and guideline talk pages. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It does appear that the focus of your editing in recent years has been on naming conventions, rather than article editing.[69] You have been brow-beating editors who disagrees with you in page move discussions or naming convention RfCs. Perhaps the right course of action for Pmanderson would be to start a user RFC to get community input.   Will Beback  talk  01:30, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It would be the second in under a year, see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pmanderson From this past July The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I meant that maybe Pmanderson should start an RfC on Born2cycle.   Will Beback  talk  01:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

No argument there, honestly PMA and Born2Cycle need an interaction ban. One always seems to be bringing the other to ANI The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Far too much time is spent on wikipedia debating the names of things, which serves the readers not one iota. Normal US usage is "city, state". It ain't rocket science. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And it's rather disturbing to read, in a citation provided by B2C himself, that B2C intends to devote years to his pointless crusade. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that these comments rise to the level that they need the attention of ANI. Born2cycle should learn to be more concise and conciliatory on talk pages. Also, warning templates on Pmanderson's talk page are more likely to escalate rather than reduce tension. TFD (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Pmanderson is consistently slightly derisive and uncivil, constantly accuses people of being vandals and not assuming good faith. But doing anything about it is a long and painful process. It's not worth the effort. Try to ignore it. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that Born2cycle and Pmanderson have both been guilty of incivility in recent weeks. I also recently placed a complaint on OpenFuture's talk page a few days ago about his comments towards me, a complaint which he promptly deleted. All three users (and possibly a few of the others who have been involved in the debates in question) need to cool it. I respect them all as contributors, but my own patience is wearing thin. Under the circumstances, I feel the best thing to do with the current discussion is to bin it and start again with a bit more mutual understanding for 2011. Deb (talk) 14:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Your unfounded accusations of me are unbecoming of your admin status, and is either harassment or baiting. I'm trying to ignore it, as I feel that it is a waste of time. Please stop, and try to engage in something more constructive. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's unwise of you to play the injured innocent here. Anyone who is interested in the facts can see the two comments I made on your talk page simply by looking at the page history. Deb (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I neither am nor play injured, that's another baseless accusation. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The reason I started with discussion on PMA's talk page is that that is the recommended first step in dispute resolution. The reason I escalated immediately to ANI is because of PMA's history and everything else has already been tried with this user.

Some here may not know or fully appreciate that, for better or for worse, my main interest in Wikipedia is to bring stability to the area of article naming. What I mean by naming stability is that the number of articles moved per day, and especially brought for discussion to WP:RM, is reduced to a trickle compared to the torrent that it is today. Having this interest means that I am heavily involved in article naming including many naming discussions (both with respect to policy and guidelines as well as individual article naming disputes).

Because I seek ultimate stability in naming, I am a strong proponent of having all article titles in Wikipedia each adhere to the naming criteria listed in policy at WP:TITLE as much as possible. This is because the reasons someone may reasonably have to move an article are minimized and usually eliminated once an article is at the title that meets that criteria as much as it reasonably can. Time and time again I have seen years of disputes over titles be resolved once the article in question is moved to the title that best meets that criteria.

This is why I am also an advocate of using specific naming guidelines that provide guidance only when the primary guidance at WP:TITLE falls short, primarily in order to indicate how an article should be disambiguated if disambiguation is required so that similar articles are disambiguated similarly. But when a title is clearly indicated for a given article by the criteria at WP:TITLE alone, then more specific naming guidelines should have no application. I find that most naming disputes are ultimately caused by more specific naming guidelines indicating a title that is different from the one indicated by the criteria at WP:TITLE (most often the specific guideline indicates one title, even though a natural and more concise name is available).

Many do not agree with me, but others do, and only time will show who is correct. But I strongly believe all the evidence supports my position on this, that better adherence to WP:TITLE criteria is the only path to true naming stability at Wikipedia. However, because I am very vocal on these issues, that apparently creates animosity towards me. Okay, I can deal with that. But can't I still ask that everyone who disagrees with me never-the-less treat me in accordance with community standards? That's what I do with you, don't I?

I'm not claiming to be the ideal Wikipedian here; but surely perfection is not a requirement for requesting that sanctions be taken against another user. And if Deb is going to accuse me of being guilty of incivility in the last few weeks, I request diffs and correlations with quotes from WP:CIVIL that shows this, as I've provided with respect to PMA's behavior. At any rate, I note that Deb is on record in this ANI for agreeing that PMA's behavior has been uncivil.

I understand that starting an ANI can also bring scrutiny to one's own behavior, and I welcome that, but I suggest that while my focus on naming and naming discussions is probably not an ideal use of time from any perspective, it's not a behavior that violates policy or guidelines or any community standard, as far as I know, and certainly does not justify the violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:HARASSMENT by anyone, which is the focus here. Besides, no matter how inappropraite my behavior, WP:CIVIL clearly states, "This applies equally to all Wikipedians: It is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user."

I am simply asking that despite my flaws, that PMA treat editors with whom he disagrees, including me, with same respect and civility that all editors are supposed to treat each other with, and to avoid the kind of comments that are supposed to be unacceptable. Those who have a history of disagreeing with my views, including everyone who commented above so far, may be delighted to see PMA comment about me derisively, but that is not a good reason to look the other way. I suggest we hold respectful behavior towards each other as the higher standard.

As to Deb's advice to back off, that is exactly what I've been trying to do with PMA for months. That is, except for in discussions that are specifically about his behavior, I've avoided commenting about him or his behavior, though I would comment as objectively as I reasonably could about positions he has taken. It is my understanding that that is what we are supposed to do, no? Again, if there are specific problems with my behavior, I would like to see the diffs.

I don't understand why there is reluctance to clearly tell PMA that he must adhere to the behavior standards set forth by the community in terms of treating others respectfully and civilly, or he will face escalating sanctions, and to follow through on this. The incidents I have cited above occured while there is another ANI open about his behavior. Almost everyone admits there is a problem with his behavior, but actually doing this has not been tried. I therefore seek administrator assistance. Enough is enough. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it's because it looks like you're a crusader, and crusaders' careers at wikipedia tend to end badly for the crusader. Normal US usage is "city, state". Your insistence on screwing around with that for the sake of rigid conformity to some global "consistency" theory is a total waste of your time and everyone else's, as it provides no value whatsoever to the readers of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean to say that because of my opinions about naming with which you disagree I deserve to be treated disrespectfully and uncivilly, and that disrespectful and uncivil remarks should not be sanctioned when they are about me? If so, that is the epitome of defending the ad hominem attack. If not, what are you saying? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm saying your renaming crusade is of no value to the readers of wikipedia. I would further say that your gripes about name-calling are a way of distracting from that issue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that advice. I'm sure it's sincere, and is likely to even be true with respect to me being too active in this area. But unless it is meant as a justification of PMA's disrespectful and uncivil behavior towards me, how is it relevant here? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The user Deb advised you to back off. Take that advice. Find something to edit that the other user is not involved in. That's what I do when something gets too frustrating (for example, it's why I don't edit political articles anymore). And a tip for the future: Never complain about another user's incivility. If you complain about name-calling, then the name-caller wins. The only thing that matters is article quality for the wikipedia readers. If a user interferes with that quality, then you've got something to complain about. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I reject the argument that incivil behavior does not affect article quality. If it were true, there would be no reason to have WP:CIVIL (not to mention WP:HARASSMENT). I presume you do not favor getting rid of WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASSMENT, which means you again seem to be arguing that whether incivility should be sanctioned depends on whether the recipient of the incivility "deserves" it or not in your view. That is, if an editor is making edits and comments with which you agree and PMA starts making the same snide remarks about them as he does about me, and that editor raised an ANI against PMA, I get the impression you'd take a different position here. You and Deb disagree with me about naming. I get that. I'm asking you to put that disagreement aside when you look at PMA's behavior. If you can't do that, perhaps you should not be commenting here, instead of taking this opportunity to encourage me from advocating a position with which you disagree. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In "real life", if someone insults you, do you ignore it, or do you take it to his Mom? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had no content interactions with Born2cycle, but wish the user could see why her/his own behavior (characterized above as "crusading" and here as tending toward arrogance) can come across as unproductively self-righteous and controlling, whatever good intentions lay behind it. My interaction with Born2cycle is limited to a single page, where the user was asked by no fewer than four editors ([70] [71] [72] [73]) to dial it back. Born2cycle finally stated his intention to withdraw, but in fact continued his quarrel at Pmanderson's talk page less than four hours later, and made the complaint on this page about 24 hours after that. As one of the 400 most active editors, User:Pmanderson travels with a long baggage train. He has friends, enemies, and people who just don't know what to do about him. Born2cycle has laid claim to measurably high cognitive skills and maturity, but there seems to be a growing number of editors who perceive Born2cycle as attempting to control the process and other editors' behavior to an uncivil extent. I've noted elsewhere that of the last 500 contributions by Born2cycle (as of that time), all but 10 were made to talk pages and forums (excluding moves and redirects). Multiple editors have suggested that Born2cycle's social and rhetorical strategies need to be modified, perhaps by a shift of focus to article content ? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cynwolfe, this kind of confrontational post was exactly what you were requested to avoid on WP:WQA. Please could you disengage? The same applies to Born2cycle, who should probably not have started this thread. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please explain why presenting evidence that Born2cycle's own behavior inflames the situation is unduly confrontational. Born2cycle had just implied that those who have problems with his/her behavior also have content disputes. I've had no content disputes with the user, and have only encountered Born2cycle in the one forum, where I unwisely tried to answer the questions posed persistently to me. Multiple editors involved in multiple pages think he needs to moderate his behavior. I'm not a regular participant in these forums, but didn't know that my opinion isn't allowed here. If something I said was uncivil, I should be told what it is so I can avoid that kind of language in future. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The summaries of edits as "measurably high cognitive skills" and "maturity" were not particularly helpful. I don't quite understand why matters like this are being debated; in any case Pmanderson's age, background and expertise were revealed in a public interview he gave some years back. Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That comes perilously close to outing, since all Wikipedians may not be familiar with that little piece of journalism. My links were to remarks Born2cycle made about himself; you're right that pointing them out may make him look a bit insufferable (hence the reaction some people have to him), and I apologize. My point is that Born2cycle assured us he was backing off the other discussion of PMA's behavior, and then promptly went off to file this. I also gave a legitimate counter-response to his claim that everyone who objects to his behavior has a content dispute with him; this is simply untrue. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This thread should probably be archived fairly soon, since I think it was unwise to start it and there doesn't appear to be anything for an administrator to do here. Mathsci (talk) 21:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think what this thread evidences is various editors who won't back off, because they want to win the fight; like the other day when B2C stated that he intended to continue this fight for years if necessary, and including B2C's acknowledgment that I may well be right that he spends too much time on this topic, but by implication, it doesn't matter, because his crusade is more important than the interests of wikipedia readers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"like the other day when B2C stated that he intended to continue this fight for years if necessary". If you won't provide the diffs supporting your accusation about allegedly inappropriate behavior or statements, please do not make the claim. For the record, I never made such a statement, though I don't doubt that this is a sincere belief about what I meant. It's ironic that it echos what PMA said about what I said ("an editor who has just declared repeatedly there will be no stability unless he gets his way."[74]), but does not reflect what I actually said, which demonstrates the problem with such statements from PMA (others, like BB, assume it's true). The lack of citation of my specific words which supposedly mean this is telling. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• I regret my behavior with Cynwolfe (repeated questioning), and I understand why Cynwolfe might perceive a relationship here, but my behavior in that discussion has nothing to do with the years of snide and derisive remarks PMA has made about not only me, but many other editors, that has nothing to do with me or my behavior. See his talk page and block log, not to mention the completely unprovoked uncivil and harassing remarks cited at the top of this ANI.

  And I ask again, unless you're arguing that PMA's uncivil harassing is justified by my behavior, what is the relevance of my behavior here in this ANI about PMA's behavior? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Measures to regulate PMA's more wasteful behaviors are already being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names. A proposal to block PMA had no consensus, and Born2cycle's efforts to urge a block failed; other restrictions have been proposed and are in current discussion. This seems like an attempted end-run around the preexisting action. I bear Born2cycle no ill will, and am sorry that any dedicated editor has been made to feel put-upon. I sincerely think (from experience) that taking a break from talk pages and noticeboards and focusing on improving content, perhaps in non-controversial areas, would be a good thing for someone of such persistent temperament — something to which I'm no stranger. Your behavior, Born2cycle, indeed does not justify anything PMA did. But it isn't good for you. Bad karma, and all that. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought that ANI was exclusively about PMA's behavior at another incident. Should I have brought up these incidents there? At any rate, I just noticed that WP:CIVIL dispute resolution recommends, after trying to resolve the situation at the user's talk page (which I've already attempted), to make use of Wikquette alerts. Perhaps this ANI should be closed as "wrong forum" and I will open an alert there. At this point I will and and see what an uninvolved admin will advise.

I sincerely want help with this situation, because PMA's comments are completely unprovoked, and there is nothing I can do to make PMA stop except maybe by avoiding the expression of opinions with which he disagrees. Capitulating to that, by "backing off" from my efforts to find consensus in the area of WP article naming in what is negatively characterized as a "crusade", "fighting", and "until he gets his way", as those who tend to agree with PMA unsurprisingly advise me to do, is unacceptable. Finding consensus through discussion is how we resolve conflicts in WP - bullying others into suppression by ridiculing them or their opinions is not. Is it unreasonable for me to seek help in dealing with the latter? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Back to your previous question... Here,[75] it appears that you are willing to fight this useless battle for years. And you reaffirm that here,[76] where you pledge to go 5, 10, 15 or 20 years if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Potential outing

Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Deliciousgrapefruit and I have not been getting along. I recently (today) reported the user at the edit warring noticeboard and he reported me a few weeks ago at Wikiquette alerts. I stopped making personal attacks since I was warned. The user continues to comment on the contributor and not the content on an article. This has been discussed over at Wikiquette but the user has now attempted to post my real first name on Wikipedia.[77] That is outing. I am concerned he might attempt more since he said he was researching me on Google.[78] He needs to be blocked now. WP:PRIVACY.Cptnono (talk) 02:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Take it to wp:Oversight, don't draw further attention here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the diffs you provided are troubling, and I think Deliciousgrapefruit really needs to disengage and do something else for a while. But I don't agree that a block would help the situation, in fact I think it would further inflame the matter, and possibly be seen as punitive rather than a preventative action. What's done is done, and should you require a revdel that option is available for you upon request. At this point User:Deliciousgrapefruit should be formally warned about wiki-hounding and only if it continues shall it require a block. -- œ^™ 03:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

• Per OlEnglish here, I gave Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs) a warning about posting personal info (using {{uw-pinfo}}). Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My first name being possibly mentioned is really not that worrisome. It is a little but what is done is done. But a warning would be appreciated since I don't want him going a step further and mentioning a last name or employer if it can be found. BTW< he was already warned by an admin for personal attacks and keeps it up so a final final warning that really means something would be great.Cptnono (talk) 03:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Grapefruit was created on the 6th and immediately went after the Fort Hood shooting "terrorism" debate. Methinks there is hosiery afoot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

where else would you wear your hosiery if not afoot? Maybe I shouldn't ask. --Jayron32 04:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

On your head? -- œ^™ 04:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

depends on which head...--Jayron32 04:49, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The responses to this Grapefruit situation are getting fruitier by the minute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I just nuked that first diff, FWIW - Alison ^❤ 04:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Tbanks Ali, good call. -- œ^™ 04:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In my defense I didn't out anyone. I employed a slang term that means "buddy" or "Pal" that also happens to be a name. Had no intention of outing anyone, nor did I ever threaten to do so. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And I would just add, that while Cptnono has stayed away from personal attacks since his warning, he has continued to bully edit, and continued to treat me like a subordinate. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Baseball bugs, please don't accuse me of being a sock puppet. Deliciousgrapefruit (talk) 13:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to explain your editing history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It's always interesting when brand-new users pop up on AN/I and seem to know considerably more than would normally be the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Him being a sock has crossed my mind. He has shown a lack of knowledge regarding process so I doubt it is a long time abuser of socks if that is the case. Not sure though. And I know this is the exact opposite of AGF but I do not believe the user when he says there was not an attempt to use my name. It was one of the only edits to my talk page and the user said he was looking me up on Google. Just seems more likely that it was a veiled jab and not the use of something like "pal" that is hardly ever used and does not show up in their vocabulary in other discussions. But as long as it doesn't happen again I am happy. Does this come across as being a bully? Don;t no and don't care as long as there are no more personal attacks from the editor.Cptnono (talk) 21:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cptnono, I never said I was looking you up on google. Nor am I sock puppet. I don't see how my editing history indicates that I am one. What I think is going on is there are a small circle of editors who pretty much run things on these pages. Bully editorsDeliciousgrapefruit (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Do not refactor other's comments! I provided a diff and you changed it. Completely out of line.Cptnono (talk) 21:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Disregard. I misread the tabs open. Link is here where you say you have been googling me: [79]Cptnono (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's see... He said he wasn't googling you, and he said he wasn't a sock. The part about not googling you was untrue. Any bets on the other part? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Enough is probably enough with his recent actions: "Fuck you. FUCK YOU> FUCK YUOU FUUUUUUUUCK YOUOOUOOUUOOUOUOUOUUOOUOU!!!!! STOP PUSHING ME AROUND ASSHOLE> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU ARE A FUCKING BULLLY and you are a biased editor who controls the Beck page. FUCK YOU." and blanking of the entire article.[80] Cptnono (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And he has crossed 3/rr in his second blank of the page.[81]Cptnono (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

3 blanks of the page now. Epic meltdown. I've been in the same boat before. We do not do cool down blocks but there is certainly a level of disruption that needs to stop.Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for now. Feel free to change the length either way without letting me know. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

48h sounds good. I didn't examine the person's contribs but based on reading the user talk page, I see an extremely frustrated newbie who stumbled into a crappy region of wikipedia and got into standard wiki-conflict without having the skills to engage in it. I left some advice encouraging the person to come back after the block, but find a new area to work in. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 05:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy New Year, EST!

And many happy returns. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Same from me :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Happy New Year from Virginia!--White Shadows ^{We live in a beautiful world} 05:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto from Ohio. Happy New Year! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And Happy New Year from North Carolina!!! :-D [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

One more year until the world goes to poo! But seriously, Happy New Year everybody! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Bah! What the do the Mayans know? Didn't even predict their own completely mysterious disappearance. Unless... Doc talk 13:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I actually had this Saturday Night Live skit about 2012 in my head there. That's worth it to watch though because it feels quite true. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming EST means Eastern Standard Time, it was a Happy New Year here 15 hours ago. You guys are so slow. (PS: EST is not exclusive to USA) HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

New York *is* the capital of the world. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Little Rhodie checking in :) Cheers! --Threeafterthree (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess your Eastern Standard Time is different from our Eastern Standard Time. For us, the new year came only about 25 minutes ago. We watched the news and saw the Acorn-drop in Raleigh, N.C., and the celebration in Times Square, New York (as well as seeing several New Yorkers suck each other's spit >:-P). [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And just when I thought I'd managed to repress the memory of the Backstreet Boys, they show up... I thought I hated them in the late 90's, but now I really hate them. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Kicking off the new year with a bit of your own WP:OR on ANI? How could you? :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

seeing several New Yorkers suck each other's spit >:-P Cannot unread. 2011 is now ruined for me, thanks ;) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

L.O.L. That was my fancy way of saying that they were kissing each other on the lips, smooching, and all that grub. One can just imagine them doing what I said above, plus touching tongues, wiping each other's teeth with their tongues, etc. >:-P(I have to quit now, or someone who enjoys such kissing is going to feel like they are nastier and more gross than a Kroger restroom. ;-) It is hard to look at. It makes you want to look away. What is really funny is the fact (and it is fact) that, while the people in New York were smooching, etc., the people in Raleigh were hugging! (Which is a lot cleaner, more sanitary, not gross, and perfectly acceptable to watch!) L.O.L. Regards. --[|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Adding my late new year greetings to my fellow wikipedians across the pond. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And CST

Hiya! Nakon 06:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

PST

Crappy Glue Smear, everyone!

Wait, that's not it... HalfShadow 16:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yay!!! Tacos rule. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

AkankshaG COI and sockpuppetry

Happy New Year everyone! Now on to business as usual...

AkankshaG has been editing/creating articles in a fashion that seems only to be one-sided puffery. I also have evidence through mywikibiz.com (which is down at the moment) and another website, that she works as an executive for Ciplex, an article that she has heavily edited against wp:COI. I also think that she is either contracted through Ciplex or Mywikibiz to create and edit articles for specific corporations without notifying the COI noticeboard. Vector Marketing, Ken Goldstein, CJ Environmental, Tonny Sorensen, and the list goes on, but these are affected.

Another situation has arose that she Sockpuppeted as user:sanfernandocourt [82], in an attempt to influence a AfD. [83] Possible other socks are currently changing stuff as I type. Hold on... Seems under control for the moment.

The point I'm try to make is that AkankshaG has shown that she is not here to create neutral articles. She has shown by her own behavior that she is only interested in maintaining the ones she has made or completely redone wp:OWN with primary unreliable sources WP:RS and fighting off AfDs through the use of meat puppets and sock puppets. As for evidence, (for the Ciplex COI) look at the photos she uploaded for Vector Marketing, Google the author of the photos along with the term "Ciplex" and you will find what I'm talking about. Phearson (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the merits of AkankshaG, this seems like outing - should it be zapped? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this closely enough yet to see the outing you're referring to, but if something looks like an outing, that's an automatic yes to zapping, and e-mail oversight (and preferrably remove any evidence of the outing from heavily-trafficked boards like ANI). It can always be unrevdelled if found not to be an outing after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The author of the photos has been named in conjunction with the license of the photo. To oversight the name would be a violation of that license. Phearson (talk) 15:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Phearson (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

1. This isn't outing as all of this evidence comes directly from Wikipedia 2. I say AkankshaG needs an indef block as a promotion-only account. He has been confirmed by checkuser evidence as having used sock puppets in the AfD, and its likely there are meatpuppets there as well. The other recent AfD of one of his articles (also, in my opinion, a puff piece) likewise had a ton of spa's flock to keep the article. I can attest to the fact that Vector Marketing hires individuals to up its "net presence". These guys just basically go around the web and insert friendly comments about the organization everytime somebody high on google's search ranks starts to complain about the company. The promotional intent of AkankashaG's edits is a major cause for concern, but the behaviour during his AfDs is beyond the pale. Anything less than an indef block would be inappropriate. ThemFromSpace 15:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not only Vector Marketing. A quick search of some of these companies shows that they allegedly maybe engaging in unsavory activities, whilst remaining under the radar of authorities. Whenever exposed online, astroturfing trolls attempt to spin, whilst personally attacking the the complainant. I was subjected to such attack on wikipedia awhile ago [84] Phearson (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

CU

A formal SPI case has confirmed Alison's findings. Though Chase is requesting a more experienced checker to look at the other socks surrounding the AfD's, as these are more likely Meat-Puppets. I was wondering if the community was fine in looking into these, as they may not be Specific to AkankshaG. I'd recommend it because of WP:DUCK. Phearson (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Indef. Ban Proposal

I personally would like AkankshaG to respond to the accusations here and SPI, but in the meantime, I like to propose that she be blocked indefinably until she is able. Phearson (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It's "indefinitely" not "indefinably". Are you asking for an indefinite block or ban? Doc talk 07:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Would a Ban appropriate in this situation? She did sock. Phearson (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That wouldn't necessarily justify a ban. My point is this: a block and a ban are two different things. Are you asking for an indefinite block or a formal community ban? There is a huge difference between the two. Doc talk 07:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing again, I go with Formal Ban (sorry for the runaround, this is a first for me). Phearson (talk) 07:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

NP :> I would think an indefinite block would be easier to obtain than a community ban, but I guess it depends on which way the wind is blowing at the time. Doc talk 07:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Gabirro

Gabirro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gabirro has received final warning (for living person violations), but continues to edit war and ignore NPOV and general policy. Greenman (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Cancelling all the edits - Mary Cross

Resolved

 – Jayron32 blocked both edit warriors for edit warring — Gavia immer (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

User User talk:Mary Cross is trying to undo all the edits I am making to the pages Mel Odom (artist) and Gene Marshall. He/she have been also suspected doing the same on the Mdvanii page. I dont see any other reason for it other than bad will and vandalism. Please help!

Muotinukke (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Muotinukke, as the big colored box says on the edit screen, you are required to inform any editor when you discuss them here. I have notified Mary Cross for you, but don't skip that again. On the matter at hand: It takes two to edit war, and you two are in an edit war - counting reverts on all the involved pages, you are both far past WP:3RR. Reverts like this are particularly egregious. You can be blocked just for engaging in reverts like that. It seems like you two dispute the extent to which Mel Odom was the creator of a fashion doll - so go to Talk:Mel Odom (artist), talk to one another, work it out, and then make reasonable edits. You will surely both end up blocked otherwise, even assuming no administrator blocks both of you for the 3RR violation today. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I already have blocked both users for 24 hours for edit warring. The back-and-forth appears to be equal here, and a user should not be rewarded for edit warring merely by being the "first" to report the edit war. If either user makes a cogent unblock request where the make clear the will stop editing the disputed articles, and use appropriate dispute resolution methods instead of edit warring, then anyone can unblock them. --Jayron32 15:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

user:Rodhullandemu

A lizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.28.11.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
80.189.177.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.82.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.28.99.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.195.109 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.208.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.27.238.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
92.30.108.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can someone please look into this editor again. Edit summaries such as this are a clear violation of WP:CIVIL, and this is not the first time either. 92.28.11.13 (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

See [85] for previous reference. 92.28.11.13 (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

What's your connection to the other user IDs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, since IPs don't have watchlists, it would seem that the OP in this case has some identity he is trying to mask. The OP did not make their first appearance at Wikipedia today, since they are obviously familiar with Rodhullandemu's past behavioral issues. I would like to know who the OP is so we can more fully investigate any conflict between him and Rodhullandemu. --Jayron32 16:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP's all emanate from England, which figures, as we seem to get a lot of trolling from there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

note - this is just Bugs personal opinion, there is no evidence or support for it at all. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, strictly anecdotal observation. Certainly we have trolls from around the universe. I just seem to have run into the British ones more often. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The OP's been trolling AN/I and other editors for the past hour. I've blocked them, the trolling's been unrelenting [86], [87], [88]. Acroterion _(talk) 15:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Lizard has a sporadic editing history, although the last few edits prior to today's seem normal, and even today's wasn't horrible. Hard telling if the IP's are actually him, or are simply that British bloke trying to get him in trouble. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The IP's teeth must be acting up. Oh yes, I went there! HalfShadow 16:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

92.30.26.120

92.30.26.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He's been blocked for a year. I think this is unfair. Someone down it to a week. (No I am not him) --Hinata talk 16:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He's been blocked for a month, not a year, but you're right - it's not fair that his other socks, listed above, are only blocked for a few hours. A month for all of them would be fair. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no point blocking for more than a few hours since he just moves onto a different ip address. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention this is the first time that IP has been blocked. --Hinata talk 19:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A 92.30 prefix block would probably help here, since most of the attacking IPs are under that prefix, but I wouldn't know how much damage that would do. HalfShadow 19:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

also, I didn't know that it 2011, I thought it was 2010. My mistake --Hinata talk 19:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It's actually 2012. You overslept. :)

A 92.30 prefix block would be an interesting experiment. Maybe just for a day or so, to see what happens, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It'd certainly be interesting for those answering the unblock list, because even the 92.30.0.0/16 is too busy. However, it's actually a much wider range anyway, as you can see from the list above - 92.24.0.0/13 to be precise, which is bigger than we can block. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

It is a British ISP, who generally "own" a block of ip's that they allocate on a "first come, first served" basis - log off and log back in and you have a new addy. (This is not WP:BEANS, since the only UK users who don't know this are unable to understand what is written here.) This is just a troll who bounces around a few ip's trying to get a rise out of Rod - likely a thwarted vandal. Aggressive RBI is all that can be done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

But, as the IP ranges match each other very closely, wouldn't it be more efficient with a range block? The only major difference I see is the 80.xxx IP, which is not in the same range as the 92.30.xxx ones. HeyMid (contribs) 23:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I think I understand Black Kite's post – the range is actually too wide, wider than what is possible to block on Wikipedia. HeyMid (contribs) 23:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

DOES IT BOTHER ANYBODY THAT NO ONE'S NOTIFIED A LIZARD? I have done so: User_talk:A_lizard#ANI_thread. 174.20.220.94 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

All that trolling and user:A lizard still remains unblocked?!? 85.210.61.162 (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it certain that the named user is also those IP's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Ionuţ Caragea

Resolved

 – The chap is still not notable. Deleted and salted --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This article was:

• Created in May 2009 by single-purpose account Nesterovici, then deleted at AfD
• Recreated in February 2010 by single-purpose account Caragea Florina, then speedily deleted
• Brought up for DRV in November 2010 by single-purpose account Danielconstantin, with deletion endorsed
• Recreated now by single-purpose account Manvaxus, with speedy-deletion tags repeatedly removed by him and by sockpuppets Ledseptronic and Iamfromromania.

Will someone please end this circus by blocking the latest sockpuppets and salting the article, at least until Caragea can somehow demonstrate his notability? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted and salted and am in the process of collecting usernames for a sockpuppet report. There are several that you missed --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

King09roy

• King09roy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Keeps making distruptive edits to Wikipedia especially on the article "2024 Summer Olympics". User:Intoronto1125 16:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He's got a grand total of 2 visible edits to that article, which are at worst original research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And speaking of disruption, why did you redirect the 2032 Summer Olympics when there's still and AFD discussion going on? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

So what is stopping him from continuing to do so? Intoronto1125 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

From doing what? Making articles about future Olympics? Let's see what the consenus is before answering that question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He has repeatdly continued to add fake infomation about Manilla bidding for the Olympics without any source. Intoronto1125 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Once on December 7 and once today is "repeatedly"? Just revert it with the edit summary saying "No source" or something like that. If it develops into a true edit war, take it to the edit-warring page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

You might have discussed it with them first or at least explained what the problem was rather than this. Also I can't see where you notified them about this discussion. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

but I've done that. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikidemon jerking people around

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

This isn't a sideshow. ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 22:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

---

I wish to file a report on myself for jerk-ish behavior. Meta:Don't be a jerk
This page is a soft redirect.

Per a discussion on Jimbo's talk page I'm seeing whether people might prefer this new template as an alternative to WP:DICK, and a variant of WP:TROUT. I was going to leave it for someone else here to test it out, but that could be perceived as trolling. If any of y'all want me to call anyone a jerk, I'm open to suggestions. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

That's the most nauseating-looking chicken I've ever seen. If KFC started offering it, they would likely go out of business. Which makes it the perfect replacement from the well-worn trout. The fish is cute, but who would want that wretched chicken on their screen? Should be a good deterrent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ooooh, but Jerk Chicken is tasty! Sometimes food isn't pretty, but the prettiest food isn't always the tastiest food. --Jayron32 22:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree Jayron, and oddly enough almost cooked this for dinner tonight, but decided to go out to see Cedric Watson instead, jerk chicken for tomorrow night. Heiro 02:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Am I screwing up?

I'm in the process of working through old images uploaded to Wikipedia with the deprecated licenses {{No rights reserved}} and {{PD-release}}. Whenever there's any kind of halfway-credible sourcing or assertion of user creation I'm moving the images out to the Commons.

The sets I'm working through now were uploaded back in 2004 when image policies were considerably different, and uploaders were not expected to pass permissions on to OTRS when they were not the creator of the work. In some cases the sources have succumbed to linkrot and the status cannot be verified.

I had an admin drop a note on my talk page saying these old images should be left alone because they were uploaded in good faith. An example image of the ones he is talking about would be File:Elliptical leaf.JPG. I understand where he is coming from and sympathize, but this type of photo should be able to be replaced with another that is unambiguously free.

Anyway, I welcome feedback on whether I'm doing the right thing here. Kelly ^hi! 19:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Policy-wise, your placement of a no permission tag is correct. File:Elliptical leaf.JPG cites a source, but it does not appear to be helpful in determining the copyright status of the file. When it comes to copyright, there is no middle ground; the file either meets the criteria, or it doesn't. Although I must agree that tagging deadlinked-sourced files with no permission tags is not particularly constructive to the project, it is still our responsibility to protect the rights of authors and anyone who wants to reuse files uploaded to Wikipedia. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

In the case of the leaf picture, the uploader is active even today, so a direct question about that picture (uploaded in 2004) would seem to be in order. The rules weren't nearly so strict in 2004 as they are now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

This particularly image was a copyright violation. Good catch. But you are also tagging images like File:Gudis Argenteus.jpg, that are quite obviously PD. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that Codex image, I don't know how I screwed that up. I must have mistakenly thought it was a 3D subject. Kelly ^hi! 20:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to add my voice to the support: No, no you're not screwing up. It's perhaps not work that will make you popular, but it's work that needs to be done. Good luck. J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Blatant self promotion

Tota1056 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously an account created purely for the self-promotion of the user's Own blackeyed peas blog. To convenient that the owner of the blog calls themselves malTOTA? Said user has added his/her blog link to almost every See aslo or external links section of every Black Eyed Peas article. What concerns me most about the blog is that it hosts illegal copies of the albums and singles of the group. I think a clear block/ban is required? Indef. ? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:54, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

We can't tolerate linking to copyright violations like that. I'd suggest blacklisting the domain as a first step, and blocking the user as a second. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fluoride spammer community ban discussion archived

Just a note, the community ban discussion of the fluoride spammer (Wikidrips, Freedom5000, et al.) was archived (here) without a formal closure. I believe there's an obvious, predominant consensus in that discussion, and that it meets other requirements for such a thing, so I'd appreciate if some administrator could enact the magic formalisms. Thanks in advance. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I've unarchived it above -- hopefully someone else will close it within 24 hours. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So... who's gonna write the entry? Under "The Fluoride Spammer" or "Fluoride Spammer"? Doc talk 06:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Upset troll resorting to unsourced BLP additions and genitalia edit summaries

Resolved

 – blocked troll is blocked - Alison ^❤ 03:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Kiki Rebeouf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Okay, so someone nominated an article she wrote for deletion. She nominated a couple of articles for deletion in retaliation. Now she's calling me a "cunt."[89] And adding unsourced information to BLPs.[90] School's back on Monday. In the meantime, she needs monitored at the very least. But probably a quick block is in order. --Kleopatra (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the cunt thing. Anyway, I want to nominate "Torc Waterfall" for deletion as I think not a few editors will find the article fails GNG and lacks reliable third party sources. The article as it is has been unsourced for three years. Kleopatra, however, keep reverting my AFD tags as if she/he were the sole gatekeeper of the process. Kiki Rebeouf (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Kleopatra was in the wrong to delete AfD templates, even if placed out of revenge. There is a process for this and if followed it keeps things nice and cool. However User:Kiki Rebeouf has been abusing AfD and this edit summary is probably worth a short block. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Y'alls been trolled. Kiki Rebeouf (talk · contribs) = Randi Rosenberg (talk · contribs) = Tomas Gilbfarb (talk · contribs), who's probably Wiki_brah. Anyways - party on - Alison ^❤ 01:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, fast work Alison! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 01:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure 'nuff. --Kleopatra (talk) 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv 's continued abuse.

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

I'm closing this down before it descends into any further madness. At this point the thread is generating more heat than light. Take it to WP:WQA or try WP:MEDCOM. Something. Please. --Jayron32 03:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Jrtayloriv has made repeated personal insults, most notably repeatedly and groundlessly called me a "liar" on Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#NPOV. Attempts to ignore this have come to naught.Repeated attempts to get him to retract the comments or apologize have just resulted in him doubling down with the abuse, sarcasm and petulance, effectively derailing any attempt made for other whom he disagrees with to improve the article. This user has a history of bulling and disrespect toward other editors and has escalated this to the point where good faith can no longer be assumed. This editor should be blocked from this article if not Wikipedia. V7-sport (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I find it a bit amusing that I am being called out for personal attacks by a person who has called me "maniacal" and a "wiki-punk", says that I am making "lame attempts to assert myself" by seeking third-party mediation in our dispute, that I am trying to "censor" the article, that I am "overcompensating" by spell-checking my posts, saying that he was going to "call the waaaaaaambulance" in response to one of my complaints about his refusal to adhere to talk page guidelines, that I "like tossing my own weight around", etc. I think that given his childish and disruptive behavior, I have responded with a remarkable amount of restraint, by not responding in kind. The most he can say is that I've talked in a "condescending" tone to him, and called him a liar.

Initially I was very helpful to V7-sport, who came to me stating that he wanted to have the article deleted, even though he knew about the consensus in the past 9 deletion discussions that it should be kept. I told him that this wouldn't happen, and that it would be a waste of his time, and tried to explain to him how to improve the article instead (i.e by adding information from reliable sources, and making concrete suggestions for changes). He began getting disruptive, by including original research from primary documents that don't even cover the topic of the article, and by blanking the entire article. After myself and other editors repeatedly tried to explain policy to him, and received personal attacks and disruptive edits in return, I started using a less friendly tone with him, and even called him a liar after he had lied and misrepresented my statements several times.

I don't deny that I stated that he was lying, nor do I apologize for it. I said that he was a liar because he has clearly lied, several times, and has repeatedly misattributed views to me without retraction or apology, even after the falsehood of his statements was clearly pointed out to him (with the exception of one case where he said "I amend that"). For instance in this section, V7-sport said the following about me (1) "you are essentially arguing for this definition to be excluded on the grounds of how it may be used rather then on it's own merits for encyclopedic inclusion", (2) you and yours have not allowed one comma to be changed, (3) from the onset you left little doubt that you thought I was "wasting your time" for having an issue with this article.. These are all lies, as I have demonstrated there. He has also repeatedly misattributed views to me, such as that: (1) any disagreement or call for civility is "whining", (2) that I view other peoples editing attempts as "personal attacks", (3) that I thought that Including the Governments definition of terrorism in an article on government terrorism is "synth", amongst others, nowhere did I claim to hold these views -- he just made them up as straw men. When someone lies repeatedly, with documentation right there on the talk page, it is not a personal attack to state that they are lying. It is a statement of fact, just like saying that they included/removed a passage of text into/from the article. Maybe it sounds harsh, but it's true, and given the nature of his repeated personal attacks listed above, I'm a bit amused that he would come here whining about it. But if people here think that I should refrain from saying that he is lying when he lies, then I will do so (I'll just say things like "that's not true").

And also, now that he's brought up our interpersonal conflict (which would probably be more appropriate for a WP:WQA, but that's fine) maybe someone could talk to him about the personal attacks above, and get him back on track, hopefully getting him to start contributing something useful to the discussion like most of the other editors are doing, instead of continually derailing the conversation with personal issues (as well as dealing with his repeated soapboxing, refusal to provide reliable sources, and derailing of an otherwise production talk page discussion).

Anyhow, when not dealing with his shenanigans, myself and other editors have actually started making progress via the RFC process in rewriting one of the problematic sections. While we are having disagreements, we have been able to work together remarkably well considering our differing viewpoints. We've gathered quite a few sources, begun writing suggested revisions, and began discussing possible reorganizations of the article. V7-sport has not contributed to this, and is still obsessing over his personal problems with me, which I have repeatedly told him I'm no longer interested in discussing. I'd like him to join in, but he'll need to start focusing on finding sources that support his claims, stop making personal attacks, stop misrepresenting other users, and try to adhere to Wikipedia policy in general. It seems like he won't take that advice from people on the talk page, so hopefully someone else will be able to help him learn how to collaborate with other editors, and properly add content to articles. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I do not see that this discussion should have been brought here. Writers however should attempt to respond to issues, and assume good faith, even when it seems difficult to do so. TFD (talk) 02:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Best suited for WP:WQA, methinks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

V7-sport, when you misrepresent things on a talkpage and then get called on it, it's a bit rich to come here and complain about the people pointing it out. Reading the talkpage actually suggests to me that it would be a far more collegial environment if you weren't involved in it, rather than Jtayloriv. "Chances are excellent that you wouldn't call me a liar to my face." - hmm, real nice, but some advice - trying to act the tough guy on the Internet generally doesn't work very well here. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Stating that he was helpful from the start is untrue, as is stating that I was aware all the attempts to delete the article previously. Jrtayloriv employed a sarcastic tone which appears to be calculated to communicate exasperation that one would even question what was a fait acompli and responded to questions as if they were idiotic. "Childish and disruptive" is the term he uses above. Regardless, where he states "I don't deny that I stated that he was lying, nor do I apologize for it. I said that he was a liar because he has clearly lied, several times, and has repeatedly misattributed views to me without retraction or apology, even after the falsehood of his statements was clearly pointed out to him" this is simply untrue and I have repeatedly explained myself in the article. Indeed, I have proven that I was telling the truth. Per guidelines to not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion I will refer interested parties to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_and_state_terrorism#NPOV. V7-sport (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Re Black_Kite, What specifically do you believe I misrepresented? Not trying to act the tough guy, I believe it is cowardly to saying things to people on the internet that you wouldn't be saying to their faces. V7-sport (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

You said "the article is being set up to exclude US Law but include fringe polemicists like Nick Turse, who praised the columbine shooters as "revolutionaries"", yet, as Jtayloriv pointed out, the Turse article was only being used to source a quote from a military officer in Vietnam, not any opinion of Turse's. Jtayloriv called you on it and said you were being misleading, which you were. Oh, and in your next reply to him you called him "pathetic" as well. If you're going to throw the insults around yourself, I would suggest developing a slightly thicker skin. Furthermore, I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be closed, there clearly isn't any administrative action that needs taking here. Black Kite (t) (c) 02:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, there is content in that article cited to a story written by Nick Turse. That was the point I was making. Secondly the quote is not the entirety of the citation. I reject the notion that I was lying in the -strongest terms-. Thirdly, he has called me a liar repeatedly throughout this. If you are telling me that this is a free-for-all so be it. I have been trying to avoid answering him in kind but if the remedy is to develop a thicker skin then any attempt at restraint is waisted. V7-sport (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any part of the article cited to an opinion of Turse's. I see unsourced material, which probably should be tagged as such. This is not a free-for-all, and I suggest that treating it as such would be a very poor idea. However, it looks as though progress is being made by editors on that page now, perhaps it would be a good idea for you (and to an extent Jtayloriv) to ignore each other and concentrate on improving the article. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you've been remarkably polite, and showed a great amount of restraint ... except when you've been telling me how "lame" and "pathetic" and "maniacal" and "wiki-punk"-ish I am. Anyway, your non-argument regarding the Turse source has already been responded to on the talk page, and there is no reason to waste time on ANI with hypocritical accusations of "personal attacks" -- that's what WP:WQA is for. If you really feel that I've got an etiquette problem with you, and that you haven't made any personal attacks, take it to WP:WQA, and have them tell you the same thing you just got told by everyone here. But what I'd recommend is that instead of obsessing over me, you start contributing to the article, by making suggestions for concrete improvements based on reliable sources, like everyone else is doing. As I've told you several times before, I am no longer going to discuss these personal issues with you on the talk page - I'd rather continue spending my time improving the article rather than bickering with you. I'd recommend, as Black Kite did, that you do the same. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Re.Black Kite "Commanding officers encouraged the use of massive, indiscriminate firepower to wrack up high body counts. Louis Janowski, an adviser during Speedy Express,observed the operations and called them a form of 'non selective terrorism'".... The next citation is to the Salon article. The point being that I thought content from Turse (be it an opinion or quote) being included and and US law on terrorism excluded was wrong. Not a lie. So that's it? Get on back out there and ignore him? V7-sport (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Non-constructive edits

Would some admin mind looking at these, at this point in time, unchallenged contributions. They are perhaps a little short of outright vandalism, though they are also a little short of being remotely useful. I am a powerless content editor, so naturally I dare not attempt to sort such matters by myself in the current dysfunctional climate for fear of being blocked. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

IP 96.245.189.195

This editor has been repeatedly adding a spam link to Dysphoria [91][92][93][94][95][96][97] despite being warned on article talk and repeatedly on user talk. I think we've been pretty patient but now might be the time for a sanction. User has been notified Anthony (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! A spammer to the bone. Warnings haven't work, so off they go. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)