Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Frank Lofaro Jr.

I have issued a test4 warning to Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk • contribs) for having created, just a few minutes apart, Talk Page censorship of Encyclopedia Dramatica is wrong and Wikipedia is so worried about spammers it will hurt Google and legitimate sites it links to by using nofollow to prevent sites from gaining Page Rank. A sudden burst of trolling from what appears to be a good user. User:Zoe|(talk)

Zakusage

Despite wikipedia having policy to the contrary, ZakuSage seems to think he owns PSP-related articles.

He defaced my user page yesterday as well as removing someone else's comments regarding his behavior from the page Talk:PlayStation_Portable.

I think this is wrong behavior and am serving him formal warning to stop it. This note on the admin noticeboard is my following up to serve public notice as well. RunedChozo 20:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I also request deletion of my user page as well. I intended not to have one and I wish that to be respected.

I had a quick glance at User:ZakuSage's recent contributions but don't see any evidence of edit warring or other disruptive behaviour. Can you be more specific as to what you are complaining about, and provide diffs? —Psychonaut 21:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychonaut, I'll try. It appears worse than I thought, he has maliciously claimed that another user is me with no evidence and had them banned for no good reason.

The other use in question is User:NotAWeasel.

Diffs emblematic of his behavior: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=102729058&oldid=102686610 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=101828003&oldid=101825050 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=101618470&oldid=101618369

He seems obsessed with removing any mention of the different Playstation Portable firmware editions from the page, as well as generally being disrespectful. He is also obsessed with misspelling the word "Color." RunedChozo 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am updating, he has just vandalized my user page again. RunedChozo 21:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PlayStation_Portable&diff=102987910&oldid=102981599 He has now after re-vandalizing my user page gone on to revert yet again to remove perfectly valid content as he is obsessed with doing. This is wrong behavior. RunedChozo 21:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The edits to PlayStation Portable seem fine to me; he seems to be calmly arguing that dwelling on firmware-related minutiae clutters the article. If this is "emblematic" of his behaviour, then he has probably done nothing wrong. With regards to "colour", it is the proper spelling of the word in British English; WP:MOS states that either British or American spelling is acceptable so long as it is applied consistently within an article.

The accusations of sockpuppetry are a different matter entirely. I agree that he should present his evidence that you also operate the User:NotAWeasel, or else withdraw the claim. However, perhaps he has already done so somewhere I haven't looked yet. —Psychonaut 21:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll create an evidence page in a moment. - ZakuSage 21:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. I have for a long period been working to keep the article PlayStation Portable not as my own personal plaything, but to the upmost quality of wikipedia standards. This user simply has a grudge against me for a past dispute. He's also been actively engaging the the act of sockpuppetry (currently with the recently blocked indefinitely User:NotAWeasel, created the day of one of RunedChozo's blockings) not only on the PSP article but also on his other grudge match the article for the Beit Hanoun November 2006 incident, as well as using his sockpuppet to vandalise my userpage. He has removed the template I placed on his user-page to let other users know of his activity as a sock-puppeteer. - ZakuSage 21:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He has done nothing of the sort, and his "complaint" - that it makes the article harder to read - is groundless. He has even refused to allow descriptions of changes made to the firmware over time in the firmware SECTION. He is deliberately trying to make it a less informative article than it could be, for reasons unknown, except that he seems to feel some ownership of the article as it currently sits; he never makes improvements, just sits around reverting. His accusations that I used a sockpuppet are base lies and I demand an apology.RunedChozo 21:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to stop making accusations/demands. Zaku, without Checkuser evidence of sockpuppetry, such insistent accusations can be considered personal attacks. Runed, stop accusing Zaku of attempting to damage the wiki and take this through the normal disupte resolution channels rather than continue to edit war. --InShaneee 21:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A checkuser request has already been done a few months ago: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/RunedChozo - just to let you know. x42bn6 Talk 21:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Regardless, new requests need to be taken there, and you cannot take unilateral action based on your assumptions. --InShaneee 21:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I've made an evidence page in any case, as seen here

Yes, convenient that you deface space attached to my user page for your lies. RunedChozo 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sorry, but the issue of whether to include certain facts about the firmware is a content dispute and does not fall under the jurisdiction of the administrators. For this matter you should pursue dispute resolution such as mediation or RFC. With respect to the sockpuppet accusations, if it can be shown that User:ZakuSage has made them negligently or in bad faith, then this may be a violation of Wikipedia's policies on personal attacks or civility. (On the other hand, if he is correct and you have been using a sockpuppet to evade a block, to engage in edit warring, to attack a user, or to otherwise disrupt Wikipedia, then you will be blocked.) Let's wait for him to present his evidence so that it can be judged by a disinterested party. —Psychonaut 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychonaut, another user has already been blocked - indefinitely or so the page says - based on Zakusage's lies. And I have already been cleared in another bad-faith case when POV pushers were trying to accuse everyone and their brother who disagreed with them of being sockpuppets, and the claim that I was "Wheelygood" was meaningless, they were merely another person at my school.

Zakusage is using these accusations to harass me and nothing more. RunedChozo 21:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User:NotAWeasel was blocked for abuse of edit privileges and being uncivil. - ZakuSage 21:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Zakusage has returned to vandalizing my user page. RunedChozo 21:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding a just sockpuppeteer notice is not vandalism. Blanking and removing it could be considered as such. - ZakuSage 21:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop harassing me. You are doing that just to harass and annoy me, administrators have removed your vandalism of my user page, STOP it.

I have filed RFC on the topic of PSP firmware on that page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2FMaths%2C_science%2C_and_technology&diff=102996533&oldid=102739299 RunedChozo 21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not harassing you. Please stop this.

I'd also like to point out that after creating a sockpuppet evidence page, RunedChozo has blanked it. This is getting out of hand. - ZakuSage 21:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of you need to back off a little. Zaku, let him blank it for now if he wants -- it's in the page's history, so admins can see it, and you've raised the issue here. Continuing to edit-war to add it only reflects badly on you. Chozo, this isn't the place to handle a content dispute. Shimeru 21:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm going out for a bit. I'm tired of this users continued attacks against me. This isn't the first time he's tried to come after me. - ZakuSage 22:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your lying campaign to harass me is very much out of hand, and I'm getting tired of it, because I'd rather make wikipedia a better encyclopedia, as opposed to you who just wants to keep a page static. RunedChozo 22:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am against putting evidence in another user's userspace because it is fairly harassing - the best place (and should be filled in) is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. x42bn6 Talk 22:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if the placement of the evidence page is inappropriate, but I've never had to file a sockpuppet report before because no other user has acted in such an uncivil manner and dickish manner as this one has, including the use of his sockpuppet against me in some sort of grudge. - ZakuSage 22:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page to NotAWeasel's talk space. Hopefully this will be a better place for it, even rather than moving it to the already over-crowded Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. It can now be found here: User talk:NotAWeasel/Sockpuppets. The old one will redirect to this. - ZakuSage 22:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You were specifically instructed where to put it, and yet you insist on using it to harass another user instead. You're a problem user. RunedChozo 23:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not being productive and bordering on uncivil. ZakuSage, if you feel that there's a sock here, file a RFCU - throwing around unsupported sock acusations like this is hostile and uncalled for. RunedChozo, please back off; we're aware that there's a problem, nobody else will act against you based just on what he says. Both of you should probably take a break for a day and calm down. Georgewilliamherbert 02:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I already made an evidence page, but I have now filed a formal notice on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. - ZakuSage 19:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you keep sticking harassing "evidence pages" in other users' name spaces. What a riot you are. Stop with the harassment. RunedChozo 20:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC) ZakuSage has now started an organized campaign to keep sticking his harassment pages back into my user space over and over again. This is beyond ridiculous. RunedChozo 20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The sockpuppet report is in the proper place, and is nowhere near your userspace. Please stop vandalising the sockpuppet report. Your actions are highly childish. - ZakuSage 20:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I've not TOUCHED the sockpuppet report beyond leaving a reply, you filthy liar. It's your constant insertions of harassment pages into my user space that I have a problem with, and I'm tired of you pulling this over and over again. RunedChozo 20:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Your actions are CLEARLY visable in the history (although because of an accident while moving the page, most of it is now here) of the sockpuppet report. Your actions are pure vandalism, and I'm getting tired of your antics. - ZakuSage 20:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I fixed my own mistake and I'm tired of your lies, dick. Get over yourself and stop harassing me. I'm here to try to make wikipedia better and you're obviously not.RunedChozo 20:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Could somebody please help me deal with this users consistent lieing and vandalism? I'm at wits end here! - ZakuSage 20:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you'd stop lying about me, stop harassing me, stop calling me a dick, stop thinking you own the page, and stop opposing making the page better, then you wouldn't have to spend so much time lying, now would you? I invited you to make HELPFUL suggestions on a project page I made to work on so that I wouldn't touch your precious article till I had everything banged out and looking right, and what did you do? You just left harassing messages on the talk page. You've proven you're not here to do any good for wikipedia. RunedChozo 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who's been vandalizing the sockpuppet report I made, and are now furthering your web of lies. Somebody, anybody reading this, please, PLEASE help me deal with this abusive user. - ZakuSage 21:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. The next time either of these users goes near the other, they're getting blocked. This has gone WAY too far. --InShaneee 21:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to a note at WP:AIV regarding one of these two users (i.e. RunedChozo). For lack of civility and disruption, I have blocked the account for 1 week. Given the long list of blocks, I am not sure if I have been too lenient and should not be asking for a community ban instead. Asterion^talk 21:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Upgraded to two weeks after personal attack to unblock reviewer. Asterion^talk 22:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please reconsider the extended block. Extending blocks based on people venting on their talk pages after a block is a pernicious form of admin abuse - yes, they're being uncivil, but it's their talk page, they've just been blocked, and expecting them not to vent some is unreasonable. Unless it crosses the line from mild personal attack into serious attack or personal threats of some sort, giving people a little slack calms the situation in the long term. The basic block was appropriate, though.

I believe that ZakuSage clearly went over the line into stalking here, though they didn't do so in a manner which is insta-blockable. I'm going to say something on his/her talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 23:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the other user's behaviour as I just came across RunedChozo throrugh WP:AIV. I considered his attack on the unblock reviewer particularly nasty and completely unwarranted. If the community think it is indeed excesive, I have no problem reinstating the original length. Regards, Asterion^talk 23:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In the spirit of blocks not being punitive, I have restarted the original 1 week suspension of edit rights. I hope this editor cools down during the time off. Asterion^talk 23:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)r

So do I. There's currently a lively discussion on the wikien-l mailing list. Hopefully a little venting and then calming down will resolve this. Georgewilliamherbert 00:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, ZakuSage won't care. He got off scot-free after wikistalking, while RunedChozo got the nuke dropped on him for being the victim of wikistalking. But that's how wikipedia is, admins don't care about doing what's right, just flexing their muscles and beating someone down. Asterion asking for a "community ban" is just icing on the cake, he just wanted to beat someone up and couldn't care less about the facts of the case.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.235.28 (talk • contribs) 01:00, January 26, 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser request and follow up on this

72.178.235.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has left some comments on my talk page [1] [2] and here just above this subsection. I have gone through extensively the contribution history and there are several coincidences of style and edit patters with those of blocked User:RunedChozo ([3][4]), including personal attacks (compare RunedChozo's [5] with the IP's [6]). A CheckUser may be inconclusive indeed but I think this needs a follow up indeed. Asterion^talk 03:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yawn, and the bully keeps going...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.178.235.28 (talk • contribs)

I have filed a new CheckUser request as explained. Asterion^talk 03:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Better reference: Paranoid Delusional —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.178.235.28 (talk • contribs).

I've blocked the above IP; while I AM interested in the results of the Checkuser, it's pretty obvious now that Runed WILL sockpuppet, including to evade a block. --InShaneee 23:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Results are out. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RunedChozo. Asterion^talk 23:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In light of these results, I'd like to suggest a block extension against Runed for continued sockpuppetry. He clearly knows this is wrong, and clearly doesn't care. --InShaneee 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would rather see how he behaves during this week and then get a second opinion. I am sure I am not the only one watching. Asterion^talk 08:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that he is doing himself any favours anyway... [7][8] --Asterion^talk 01:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BenBurch and FAAFA

A consensus has been reached in a meatpuppet investigation here. The consensus is that the two users in question have formed a meatpuppet relationship that is abusive to other Wikipedia editors. It was successfully used to bait another Wikipedia editor into violating policy to the extent that he was permablocked; and they are still tormenting him on his Talk page while he appeals the block. They should receive the same punishment: permablocks.

In the alternative, in his previous "NBGPWS" incarnation, FAAFA received a one-month block; this block should be longer. BenBurch's previous block was one day; this block should be longer. And they should be permanently blocked from editing the Free Republic article due to their ongoing violations of WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:LIBEL, WP:NPOV (particularly WP:NPOV#Undue_weight), WP:CIV and WP:NPA.

Thank you for your kind cooperation in this matter. In response to anyone who has even the slightest suspicion that I might be a sockpuppet, I will cordially direct your attention to this notice. Dino 20:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hasn't there been an ARBCOM about some of these editors? I don't fully know the background here, but alot of these names are becoming familiar to me and that isn't necessarily a good thing.--Isotope23 20:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that there has been an ARBCOM... yet. FAAFA had an RfC, which became quite lengthy, and devolved into a circus atmosphere. I don't think that anything came out of it. Crockspot 21:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/BenBurch may be interesting reading. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• You edited in your own conclusion, since moved into the RIGHT spot in the complaint, and then came here to represent that a legal conclusion had ben reached. Bryan, and you ARE Bryan, you continue to violate our rules here at Wikipedia and are attempting to game the system here. DISGUSTING. --BenBurch 23:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• NOTE - User:DeanHinnen just admitted to being a sock puppet of permanently blocked User:BryanFromPalatine in a thread further down on this page. --BenBurch 06:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made no such admission, the official finding is the opposite, and such misrepresentations of the evidence are a chronic problem here. Something needs to be done. Dino 15:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You clutch to that unblock finding like it were a magic talisman... You seem to be unaware that this is not the US Legal system here. There is no concept of double jeopardy or Stare Decisis here whatsoever. You got unblocked, yes, but I can make the representation that you are a sock puppet of Bryan or that Bryan is a sock puppet of YOU and still have that found to be true subsequently. And you know it is true. Please do not misrepresent yourself to this body, and please do not threaten, as a member of the Free Republic legal team, to SUE WIKIMEDIA FOUNDATION as you just did in the Free Republic Talk Page. DISGUSTING. --BenBurch 17:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley has just blocked BenBurch for 24 hours due to his "incivility and misrepresentations" on this page and on Bryan's Talk page, and issued FAAFA a warning. See this also. It remains to be seen whether such slaps on the wrist will do any good in the long term. One can only hope. Dino 16:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see notice of checkuser-confirmed multiple sockpuppet finding, below. WP:ANI#Confirmed_sockpuppets_of_User:BryanFromPalatine_via_checkuser. --BenBurch 23:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Further on the Professor Tim Pierce situation

Response from Jimbo

Note from Jimbo: Wow, this is just wildly inappropriate. I spoke to Mr. Pierce by telephone several days ago and the issue was completely resolved back then. I think Zoe's pursuit of this in this way is wildly inappropriate and should cease immediately, and that she should apologize to him for it. I very much do not approve of this kind of random hostility from Wikipedia editors.--Jimbo Wales 09:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Jorcoga ^Hi!_{09:12, Saturday, January 27 2007}

For my part, I think this issue to have been entirely overblown, and I surely can't understand editors' being so irked by a relatively innocuous incitement to vandalism, but I don't think Jimbo's upbraiding of Zoe to be particularly constructive. Zoe appears to have made her role as a "private citizen" (as against an official representative of the Foundation) exceedingly clear in her correspondences (I may have misstated the case a bit; see Opabinia regalis infra), and there appears here to be no prospective disruption of the project (I suppose one might suggest that were Pierce, for instance, to be fired, bad press for the project might entail, but that's seems rather unlikely), such that, whilst off-Wiki actions that harm the project or imperil editing might be dealt with on-Wiki, there appears to be no need for on-Wiki action or comment here (the issue probably ought not to have been at AN/I at all). I may be altogether puzzled over this stir, and Jimbo might think Zoe's actions to be immoral (I personally have no moral objection), but it is not appropriate for one editor to evaluate the propriety or morality of another editor's actions, especially those that take place off-Wiki and only tangentially affect the project. Jimbo's comment comes very close to referencing an editor rather than her conduct and, even as I might agree with his description of this situation, I can't help but understand it has high-handed. Joe 20:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"I spoke to Mr. Pierce by telephone several days ago and the issue was completely resolved back then." Well that's nice. He or Jimbo should have told Zoe that. It isn't like Mr. Pierce didn't know Zoe was writing to him. No offense, but that lack of communication here from the WMF end is a much bigger problem than Zoe's conduct. If she'd been informed, I doubt she would of continued to pursue this. Someone needs to apologize to her for not letting her know what was going on. Nor was the hostility "random" (AGF Jimbo?). Vandalism is not a "random" subject around here. pschemp | talk 20:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, endorse a lot of that from Joe. Quite simply, do we have a guarantee that this will not happen again? If so, then this whole thing can be archived and forgotten. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• With respect Jimbo, it is worth remembering that Zoe did what she did out of concern for the integrity of Wikipedia, and to protect the encyclopedia. Her actions, if over-zealous, were done in good faith and it would do well for us all to remember that we are all valued contributors until it is proven we are destructive influences. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 20:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If people had known the issue was completely resolved I'm sure this wouldn't have been all over the noticeboard for the subsequent several days. Jimbo's remarks to Zoe may be taken as more harsh than they are meant, and might have done less harm if sent by email. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone assumes bad faith here, but Zoe's emails were overly aggressive nonetheless. Things like "Please respond to me, or I may find it necessary to take this information to the press" are simply unacceptable, IMHO. We are supposed to be polite, nice and friendly. And those comments in this thread that compare vandalism on Wikipedia with vandalism in the real world (Y'know, that's where it takes a little bit more than one click to repair the damage that was done) are just mind-blowing. While Jimbo's words could've been a bit more diplomatic, I'm glad he did comment in this thread. --Conti|✉ 21:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe says above that Zoe made her role as a 'private citizen' clear in her messages; actually I think it was quite the opposite from her first letter. I would never think to sign a message "Wikipedia system administrator" (system administrator?) and, even if we in the Wikipedia world know that 'admin' doesn't imply action associated with the Foundation, there's no reason to suppose that Mr. Pierce would have known that. That said, pschemp is right that if the situation had already been resolved, a note to that effect in the original thread would likely have preempted all of this. Opabinia regalis 22:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I based that comment on a review of only some of the correspondence, and in my cursory review I somehow missed "Wikipedia system administrator". Though I don't know that one would have inferred from Zoe's note that she was writing in some official capacity, I readily concede that my initial characterization was not quite accurate. To the extent that Jimbo's comments were restricted to Zoe's ostensibly acting as a Foundation representative, they were probably, as Conti observes, not inappropriate (at least in substance if not in tone); I do continue to think, though, that his comments were unnecessarily broad in scope. Joe 23:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

what? someone unconnected with Wikipedia would not infer that an email coming off someone identifing themselves as a XXXXX,XXXXX Wikipedia Systems Administrator was not actually from Wikipedia (and no I don't expect anyone not connected to the project to any distinction between this site and the actual foundation) - pull the other one. --Fredrick day 00:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm glad that it's resolved and we can all move on, I think it's important to note that there can be no doubt at all that Zoe's intentions were to protect the integrity of the encyclopaedia, and that she would have dropped the matter immediately if either Jimbo had stated that the matter had been resolved or Mr Pierce had agreed not to do it again. I haven't involved myself with this topic so far, but I read various comments about trying to ruin a man and deprive him of his livelihood, etc., and it was obvious that Zoe was looking for a simple assurance that he didn't intend to give this assignment to any future students, and that he was refusing to give this assurance. Musical Linguist 22:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

She would have dropped it if Jimbo has stated it had been resolved? What about all the editors and admin who said "hold on a minute this is wrong" - right until the end, Zoe did not acknowledge any concern - she carried on in an entirely high-handed manner. She did not try to get any concensus about WHOM to e-mail or WHAT to email - she just want off as a loose cannon. ---- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fredrick day (talk • contribs) 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC).

Fred, you seem familiar somehow. Would we know you better under a different username? Regards, Ben Aveling 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that if Jimbo had made it clear here that he'd taken care of it, Zoe (whose efforts in this matter I thoroughly applaud) wouldn't have felt compelled to pursue it. "Random hostility" isn't a good description of her actions at all. Her actions were neither random (Pierce fired the first salvo here) nor hostile (she made a good-faith effort to resolve it directly with Pierce in a way that protected Wikipedia from future attacks). Asking her to stop is completely within Jimbo's rights, but let's not pillory her for actions that a lot of experienced users and admins supported. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that settles that, then. Go vandalize all you want, nobody at Wikipedia gives a flying fig. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need to go OTT. We deal with vandalism all the time. It's not a big problem. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Folks, I think the main point here is that some things just do not rightly fall under the purvey of editors and admins. What should have happened once the Pierce incident was discovered was to report it to Brad and Jimbo. There is a time to "know your role" and not overreach it. There is a time to work through and under authority. This was one of them. No blame, just live and learn. CyberAnth 04:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I sent an email to the Northern Illinois University Public Affairs people concerning Professor Tim Pierce's assigning Wikipedia vandalism to his students, and did not receive a response to that one, nor to the subsequent one. When I sent a third, indicating that I would be contacting the press if they did not get back to me by the end of day Friday, Melanie Magara, Assistant Vice President for Public Affairs, finally contacted me, and indicated that I should contact the Ethics people in their legal department. That is my next move. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed this one. Link(s) to some history would be appreciated, mostly for curiosity's sake. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As of now, it’s right at the top of this page, but here is a permanent link, anyway. —xyzzy_n 22:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

D'oh, thanks. I did a ctrl-f for that but couldn't find it. Must have mistyped. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

wow - what are we trying to do here? get a guy sacked? Flogged in the streets? he's stopped already hasn't he? we don't hound other vandals do we? This is a man's life you are trying to fuck up here, over a few poxy edits? This is way out of line. --Fredrick day 23:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If he refuses to respond to emails. This is a bit harsh, but ignoring Zoe's emails is no good either. 128.118.60.168 23:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

He didn't refuse to respond to my emails, in fact he has responded to every one I sent. It was the PR department who wouldn't respond. But he has never said that he wont' do it again. In addition, destruction of a privately-owned website is a federal offense. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

if you read it - he did (and I bet at this point, he wish he'd never bothered - by the way did anyone inform him that his answers and I guess what he assumed to private emails would be posted all over wikipedia?), his university did not. --Fredrick day 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the big deal is here. Seems to me like a fairly useful and sensible exercise, providing- as he states in the quote above- he undertook to revert all the instances of vandalism himself if it wasn't otherwise done. I also have seen plenty of instances where Wikipedia is used as a citation in student work, or where Wikipedia-derived information is included uncited. It's completely unacceptable, as I think everyone here realises. There are other ways to make this point, but this is a reasonable one in my view (provided no lasting damage is done). Contacting university authorities (who presumably will take no action anyway- what exactly is he supposed to have done wrong, or even contrary to academic regulations?) or the press (who surely are also unlikely to be interested in this non-story) is way, way over the top. Let's keep a sense of perspective. Badgerpatrol 23:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd personally support taking this to the press, mainly because I don't feel any real action is going to be taken otherwise. Don't vandalize unless you're happy to appear in the news next day. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 23:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Per the first section on this matter, the prof had not reverted all the vandalism. Anyway, the issue for us should be that of all the things that can be done on Wikipedia, the students were effectively encouraged to stay away from it except for vandalism. Personally, I think that’s a bad perspective and it is good to protest against it being taught. —xyzzy_n 23:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow - this is getting totally out of line - so blocks are preventive not punitive but hey by the way, we reserve the right to fuck you over in real life (punitive). He did wrong, he said he was sorry, I would guess he's told the students to stop doing this. Don't you think he gets it? that it was wrong. Isn't that where the community normally stops? the user admits he did wrong and stops his actions (in this case encouraging others to do such edits to wikipedia). At that point, we normally allow registered users to carry on their business - but since we have his name and address, we are going to drive the point home? Have a little power trip? --Fredrick day 23:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Zoe can probably clarify this, but my impression was he only apologised for the vandalism that he hadn’t reverted himself and that he did not think he did anything wrong in general. (Corollary: he’s going to do the same thing next year.) —xyzzy_n 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think that getting him into trouble punatively is really an answer, but that he and/or his university to make a statement that it's not cool to vandalize Wikipedia as a class assignment (and they won't do it again) might be a more worthwhile and positive focus. Bitnine 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That is completely fine with me. I just want a promise not to do it again, and an understanding as to why it was wrong. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Off him? So if you are in conversation with him, why did you feel the need to bring in the wider university? Why take that step when there is still conversation going on. --Fredrick day 00:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "off him". I took it further because he refused to concede that he might be wrong, and also refused to concede that he would not do it again. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've read this entire thread and the earlier one and nowhere do I see that this professor has apologized. From Zoe's description, his response to feedback was to defend the vandalism. I'm not sure how many e-mails Zoe has traded (three tries seems like an appropriate number), but if he proves to be that resistant to input I see nothing wrong with contacting the university's student newspaper. It seems the instructor's aim was to raise awareness about Wikipedia's level of reliability. A good investigative article could do that on a university-wide level as well as explore some relevant questions about academic ethics. Despite what some respondants have posted, this would be preventative rather than punitive: unless some meaningful consequence arises he may repeat the assignment next semester or recommend it to his colleagues. If an individual vandalizes Wikipedia privately then of course we handle it privately, yet he has made an academic assignment of vandalizing Wikipedia - and from the threads I read he did not even undo all the damage that assignment had caused. That teaches his students to violate site policies. Some student journalists could impart a better corrective lesson. Durova^Charge! 00:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

the "story" here is the one all the sites that watch wikipedia will pick up on - "Wikipedia tries to run man's career off the road". --Fredrick day 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hardly. It will be that a professor, a public employee, advocates vandalism. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

After this display, I'll be advocating to students and staff at my place not to come near this place with a ten-foot pole. --Fredrick day 00:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Frederick, I cannot tell if you are the same person as the professor, but if you are, if you would come clean at this point and say, "sorry, I won't do it again", it looks to me like Zoe, et al. would be backing off quite quickly. That's all they're asking for. No need to eat crow and play mr. penitent: just say, "I won't do it again". That will suffice. 128.118.106.28 00:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Since I live in the UK, I'd ask you keep your half-ass sherlock holmes act to yourself. --Fredrick day 06:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And if you aren't the professor: I must say, I would be appalled if a professor at my university gave me the assignment to vandalize out of some vindictive annoyance at Wikipedia (and, such professors do exist: they hate seeing it cited in papers, and hate it being plagiarized in papers even more). And, upon being contacted, if he refused to stop, I see no problem whatsoever with contacting the school paper. In other words, if you don't think what you did was wrong, then it won't be a problem if everyone knows about it, right? 128.118.106.28 00:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He did not encourage vandalism out of vindictive annoyance. He did it to demonstrate to his students how unreliable Wikipedia is as a source. If a student found a piece of paper in the street with "the Moon is made of cheese" written on it, surely you would accept that it is not wise to cite that as a source in their next planetary science essay. Wikipedia is a cut above that, but the same principle applies. No student should ever cite Wikipedia in any of their work nor rely upon it any way, unless the topic at hand is Wikipedia itself or something closely related. Teachers who hate seeing it cited in papers and hate seeing it plagiarised are simply doing their job effectively. Badgerpatrol 12:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

While I agree the professor in question should make clear he won't do this again, I don't think having Wikipedia editors aggressively demanding a grovelling apology is the right way to go. Any demands should come from our version of 'official'. ie. the WMF office. I personally would be offended if one of the millions of Wikipedia editors took it on themselves to write to me in a situation like this. Apologies if Zoe was acting in some official capacity, but I haven't seen any indication of this so far. Carcharoth 00:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, no need for a grovelling apology: just, "I won't do it again, I didn't realize it would be that big a deal; I'm a good guy deep down, and I really have everyone's best intention in mind". That's all. Perhaps, Zoe could send another email to him before going to the newspaper, though, relating this. 128.118.106.28 00:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Pierce is *not* a professor!

Some quick googling reveals that Tim Pierce holds the rank of instructor, and his highest degree is an M.A. This guy isn't a professor, he's a graduate student, with probably less than two years of teaching experience. I think siccing the press on him is a bit heavy-handed, and very likely could have negative effects on his career. He doesn't have the protection of tenure, or even of being a hired employee--he's still a student. Even if Zoe's intent isn't punitive, this situation may very easily result in a punitive effect upon Mr. Pierce.

Furthermore, this seems like a disproportionate response to someone's first offense. I don't think it's normal to contact people's real-life employers for on-wiki offenses; it certainly doesn't seem to me like it should be done unless there's an ongoing pattern of abuse. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that latter part is so cut and dry in this case. Not only are we talking about an employer, but also a body whose members were instructed and proceeded to perform vandalism. If it were just Mr. Pierce himself performing vandalism, I would be in complete agreement. That being said, I think that quickly seeking a promise that he's not going to do this again is probably the best solution to sate all parties involved. Bitnine 00:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lets just range-block the school for a week if it happens again and for each further offence escalate the block. If the school is unwilling to deal with this internally then any activity from the school is a liability. Trying to send the media after him... is...well... Overzealous. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 00:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

An "instructor" is often a non-tenure track teaching position existing at many colleges where the number of classes being taught is larger than can be reasonable covered by a department's normal faculty. He is not listed as graduate student, and most likely this is his full-time career. 128.32.95.83 00:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's possible, but "instructor" is also a title given to graduate students who have received an MA and are working on their PhD. Pierce got his MA from NIU, so I think it's quite possible he's a PhD student. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Google suggests he's been an instructor for at least 8 years. (bottom of page) 128.32.95.83 01:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I need to work on my google-fu. NIU doesn't even grant a PhD in communications. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's Henningsen's page, not Pierce's page. Peirce has his name on the bottom, as 'web dude'. Let's be real careful here. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether Pierce is a prof or a grad student isn't really that relevant. The relevant issue is whether Wikipedia benefits by responding in this fashion. I'm not sure if it does. If we were dealing with large scale or organized vandalism it might make sense. The only argument that might support continued pursuit is that we have had so many of these sorts of instances that it might make sense to make an example of one to deter future problems. However, given that all of these idiots seem to be unaware of almost any previous attempts to do what they've done (and some seem to think of themselves as frightfully clever) I doubt any teacher or prof will be aware of this event occuring even if we get this guy humiliated/sacked/disciplined/reprimanded/whatevered. All of that said, a promise that he isn't going to do this again is highly reasonable to work for, and going to the student paper if necessary to get that sort of statement out of him strikes me as fine. JoshuaZ 01:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do think it's somewhat important to note that Pierce isn't a professor, simply because the employment status of adjunct faculty is often tenuous--their contracts are often year to year, or even semester to semester. Adjuncts who find their way into the news--even the campus paper--for anything "controversial" often find that their contracts aren't renewed. It's more difficult for professors to lose their jobs. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The situation is not that this person vandalized Wikipedia, it is that he made a classroom assignment in a mandatory course that the students in the class also vandalize Wikipedia. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone attempted to contact Henningsen? Seems Henningsen's in a supervisory position, relative to Pierce. I'd suggest that you escalte SLOWLY and judiciously, hitting each step. Direct supervisor, department, dean, and so on. The more steps you take, the better the odds you'll find a sympathetic ear, or hit the 'bull**** ceiling', that is, the point where someone's got too much to do to put up with too much hassle, and calls Pierce on the carpet. As other editors have said, 'Wikipedia ruins Journalism Professor's Career' is how this will play out in the media. 'Internet Nerds versus Student Nerds'. That's the angle that will be portrayed, if anyone in the media bothers to care at all on the slowest news day around. If a button click can undo it, no one will see it a horrible vandalism. I suggest bringing this to Henningsen. He was an attorney, per that page. I suspect he understands that incitement and conspiracy to vandalize are more serious than the idle hands of teens at home. That this was done under the auspices of NIU, and more specifically, where he should've caught the problem, are far more important. Try him before running to the biggest names at NIU. Just one editor's view. (Disclaimer - I am not an Admin. I am familiar with academia.) ThuranX 04:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're concluding that Henningsen is in a supervisory role because of his webpage, but that page hasn't been updated since 1999. A look at NIU's course schedule shows that Pierce is teaching some sections of COMS 100, an intro-level course that has tons of sections; this is the course where students got the vandalism assignment, per this post. The director of the COMS 100 course is Ferald Bryan. It might be productive to contact Prof. Bryan, I'd certainly prefer that step to contacting the media.

(If this post is giving out too much personal info, please remove it.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I do worry that we might be relying too much on one post. I understand other people have more information, having been in direct contact with NIU. Just be careful everyone, that's all. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Right after this started (Jan 20), I contacted the department chair and assistant chair and Prof Bryan and asked them to investigate. They responded. They're aware. Georgewilliamherbert 04:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, might you be so kind as to provide your real world identity and location so that Mr. Pierce can further pursue this matter with you? Likewise for Zoe and anyone else involved in this cowardly and disgraceful series of actions. Life isn't a game, folks. Hiding behind our pseuds, we're going to take this guy down? One of the very academics upon whom we rely for our best material? Were I Mr. Pierce, and I lost my job due to this, I would strongly consider further action. Wouldn't you? It's an unforgivable lapse of judgement to consider the vandalism of a few articles - an everyday occurance - to merit this kind of action. Simply unforgivable. Decisive action is in order.Proabivouac 11:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on assuming good faith there, Probavouac. In order:

• I provided that info to Pierce, his dept chair and assistant chair and Prof Bryan when I contacted them.
• I made no assumption of the accuracy of the first report and asked them not to, either; I asked them to investigate and stated that I took the claimed incident as a serious abuse by someone. I was rather explicit in saying that I didn't know whether Pierce had done it and that they should not act until they were able to determine what happened. I also apologized in advance if turned out that this was a Joe job framing Pierce.

You're right, this is not a game. I don't take WP as a game, and the professors involved didn't take the incident as a game. I made a responsible and precise report of what was known (vandalism) and claimed without factual confirmation (Instructor Pierce behind it) and left it for them to determine the truth of the situation and handle it.

The email will be provided to anyone who wants to see a copy if there is any question as to its contents.

You owe me an apology. Georgewilliamherbert 22:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for having characterizing your actions as cowardly. However, they remain disgraceful.Proabivouac 00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, Proabivouac, that sounds perilously close to a legal threat. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why, are you planning on banning him? It sounds nothing of the sort to me. If I were Zoe's professor, I think I might make this play required reading for her. Let's everybody calm down and grow up- this is way over the top.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Badgerpatrol (talk • contribs)

Of course it's not, Zoe. I'm not Mr. Pierce, and I have no idea what if any action could be taken. It's simply very unwise to give people cause to consider it. I consider that the virtual nature of this box, wherein you do good work, has led you to lose perspective. This noticeboard must never be allowed to become a platform for organizing real-world harassment, however justified you think it may be.Proabivouac 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yawn. This has gone beyond bizarre. There's no need to discuss there any further until there are more developments. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim Pierce: Over the top

Is this a joke? I have seen people hand out revolting death threats on this encyclopaedia (including to me in the past) and escape with a slapped wrist. This guy sets a class assignment which may or may not have been misjudged (I personally still think it wasn't an unreasonable idea), with a good-faith intent (to demonstrate to his students the perfectly reasonable point that Wikipedia is not a reliable source for their assignments) and with, as it seems to me, zero lasting damage- and some people here appear keen to get him the sack! WTF?!!?? I'd like someone to point out to me exactly what academic regulations, or US laws, this chap has broken. If - as I strongly suspect- he hasn't broken or infringed any, what is the purpose of continuing this harassment? Badgerpatrol 09:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Academic regulations vary from institution to institution, though having worked in several myself, I do feel confident in saying that someone in a position of authority over students would never be permitted to encourage or require them to commit vandalism or other socially disruptive behaviour as part of a research experiment or a course assignment. Such a violation would be all the more severe if it weren't a single student who was incited to vandalize but rather an entire class—and keep in mind that first-year undegraduate classes, as the one in question presumably is, can have hundreds of students. (This is also the reason that many people here see this incident as worse than isolated legal or death threats from individuals. We are talking about an authority who has allegedly ordered a large number of people—possibly hundreds—to disrupt Wikipedia in contravention of its stated purpose and usage policies. I doubt that even the infamous GNAA vandal group had such human resources to draw upon, and it certainly didn't have the coercive authority to get them to do its bidding.)

With respect to your assertion that we are "harassing" the instructor, I don't see that anyone has. Certain editors have contacted those responsible for ensuring the instructor's compliance to academic codes, asking them to investigate the matter. That is, to find out if the version of events we have been presented with is accurate, and if so, to determine whether they constitute a violation of their academic code. —Psychonaut 10:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have also worked in numerous academic institutions. This isn't academic misconduct by any measure that I have ever come across. As I note below, there is no comparison between actual, real-world vandalism and this kind of incident. Disrupting Wikipedia is not a crime, and I would not personally characterise it as necessarily socially disruptive, especially in this case where the intent was obviously good-faith. Unless he has a personal account, in which case he should probably receive an appropriate ban, this chap is not subject to Wikipedia's usage policies. With the best will in the world, anybody that sees this incident as worse than a death threat (= a highly illegal act, at least in the jurisdiction where I live, which carries a sentence of up to 10 years' in gaol) is an idiot. There is a real need to place this incident into perspective, I think. Your language- " coercive authority" " do its bidding" is faintly ridiculous. We are talking about a class assignment (I can't see how it could possibly have been an assessed class assignment either, so I presume it was basically presented to the students as a more-or-less optional exemplar exercise). One can only hope that his department will pretty much laugh off such a spurious complaint after a cursory examination. I might personally suggest alternative means to make his substantive point, but I would also pat him on the back for making it. If those students have come away from this with the lesson ingrained in them that Wiki is not a reliable source, and hopefully more generally an idea of the kinds of sources that they can or can't rely upon when forming opinions, then they will have learned pretty much the most important lesson that organised education can provide. If you are a decent tutor, then I suggest you ought to think the same thing. Badgerpatrol 11:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Having chased someone for academic misconduct before, I suspect that he's unlikely to be sacked for this, unless he's already on the nose anyway.

But imagine if a visual arts lecturer had forced his kids to spray paint railway trains, then what would your reaction be? If the claims made are true, then this isn't a person I'd want teaching any child of mine. If he accepts that he made a mistake and agrees not to do it again, then I'd be happy to see things left where they are. But if he plans to do it again, well, what would you recommend? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The difference between "vandalising" Wikipedia (can we even say it's vandlaism when the intent is good faith?) and spray painting a train is two-fold: 1) One cannot erase any damage made to a train by the simple expedient of pressing a couple of buttons; 2) Vandalising a train is emphatically against the law. Any academic who encouraged his students to break a just law would no-doubt be fired PDQ. There is absolutely no comparison between your analogies whatsoever. Once again, I'd like to hear someone explicitly state what academic regulations he's broken, and therefore exactly how this is "academic misconduct". Whether he is likely to get the bullet or not, it is completely unreasonable to harass this guy in this way. Badgerpatrol 10:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that all the damage has been undone? Even if every edit has been undone, which I think is unlikely, what if some of the students decided that they enjoyed vandalising? Not all damage that happens here can be undone by pushing buttons on a computer. And I'm still waiting to hear if he's going to do it again.

Here's a different metaphor for you. What if he told his students to go into the university library and replace some of the books there with fakes that look real but aren't. Some of them are complete nonsense. Some of them are believable, but still wrong. And no-one has any way of knowing if all of these fake books have been detected and removed. And he intends to do it again. What then? If you don't like the idea of reporting him to his boss, what do you suggest instead? Ignoring him and letting him do it twice a year for as long as he's teaching? You don't like our proposal, but do you have a better one? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that all the damage has been undone, but I am sure that all the damage can easily be undone and more importantly, if you look above you will see that Pierce himself undertook to undo any vandalism himself before he set the exercise. If some of the students decide that they want to vandalise Wikipedia for the sake of wanton destruction then they are exercising their own free will- he has not encouraged them to wantonly vandalise for amusement, but rather to reinforce a key educational principle. Some editors note above that they have in the past made "vandal" edits to Wikipedia in order to demonstrate the limitations of the medium, and then reverted themselves. This is the same, except on a larger scale. As for your other metaphor- that is a far more sensible one, but again you miss the key point which is that Pierce has kept track of all his students' edits and has undertaken to revert them himself if they or another party do not do so. If the library exercise you mention was a temporary one, with careful track kept of where the fake material was placed, to be collected later, then I wouldn't have any problem with it whatsoever. To be quite honest, my action in this case would be to email Pierce, set out your case, and suggest an alternative, less controversial means to make the same point (i.e. limited, supervised reverts). If he doesn't accept your case and wants to do it his way, then so be it, it's not for us to interfere with how he teaches his students. If the Wikipdia community decides it doesn't want him to do it, then that's fine too- block the relevent IPs. He is not burning down the Library of Alexandria- he is making a very valid point, namely that Wikipedia is not to be trusted. That's just good teaching. Badgerpatrol 11:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

He has resolved to repair the damage, but that's a resolution we're pretty sure he can't keep. What he's doing may not be ilegal, but it's immoral. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break

I find this completely outrageous, not on Mr. Pierce's part, but on ours. Get a grip, Zoe. I agree with 99% of what you do, but this is simply wrong. We are volunteers here, and we're threatening Mr. Pierce's career. As several people have observed, we show infinitely more kindness to outright trolls and serial vandals. All we've proven is that it's a fool who involves themselves in Wikipedia in any way using their real world identity. Most of the time, it's untracable, so our frustration builds. Now we have a target, so we fire away? Identifying himself was his real mistake, wasn't it? The correct solution is to identify the problem, rv the vandalism and walk away. Going after real world individuals is sometimes justifiable if they're similarly harassing other editors, but articles we can and should fix. The lack of empathy here I'd find morally disgusting if I didn't chalk it up clueless immaturity. We're going to have some fellow cursing Wikipedia for his lack of a job and a future while we're wanking over edit counts and AfD's. Who knows what will come of that? If we continue to give people very good reasons to hate Wikipedia, it will sooner or later come back to us one way or another. I think losing one's job qualifies as a very good reason.

I motion to 1) end this discussion forthwith, and to cease attacking and remove mention of Mr. Pierce from this site 2) temporarily block (preventatively, not punatively) any editors, admins or others, involved in harassing him 3) leave any further decisions to the office or to Mr. Wales.Proabivouac 11:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Proabivouac's and others' concerns here. Leave the guy alone, please. We normally treat "legal threats" and threats of real-world contacting of employers and the like as bannable offenses, no matter how valid a complaint the person who does the threatening thinks they have. We shouldn't be indulging in such behaviour ourselves now. Contacting the school to get the person damaged in his professional life and career is an absolute no-no. This has already gone way too far. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe this has gone too far (though maybe it wouldn't have if Mr. Pierce had simply apologised, and agreed not to use such a stupid method again), but I don't think that advocating a block to all those who are trying to protect wikipedia from mass vandalism is the best idea. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as what is off-wiki should stay off-wiki, I'm a rather firm beleiver that except in clearcut cases of long term abuse, what happens on-wiki stays on wiki. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 12:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, "the Halo," neither you nor anyone else has the moral right to attack real people (excepting tyrants and the like) from behind your pseud: it's an abuse of the anonymity we're graciously allowed on this forum. A block is well warranted not just on moral but on practical grounds: by negatively intervening in someone's career, we leave the foundation open to further action. If God forbid we actually succeed, we have one very angry individual on our hands whom we can't simply wish away on this virtual noticeboard. It's vital that this kind of thing be run by the office. We can't have smart but clueless kids playing games with people's lives. Someone not being able to edit Wikipedia for awhile is trivial in the scheme of things.Proabivouac 12:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect to you too, I seriously doubt that the objective of getting in touch with the university that Mr. Pierce works for was to get him fired. It was to stop a tutor and all his students from vandalising with out having to block the entire university. It is important to assume good faith on the part of the editors who contacted the university, who I think believed they were acting for the good of the encyclopedia. Thε Halo ^Θ 12:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. He is surely not going to get fired, and one may hope that that was not the intent of anyone contacting the university.... But clearly, contacting the university President (I'm not sure who that is, but I imagine it's something akin to a chancellor, vice chancellor, provost etc) to officially complain about one of their lecturer's actions could obviously potentially harm Pierce's career and get him into trouble. As stated ad nauseum, far, far, far worse offences (sometimes actual criminal acts) on Wikipedia are brushed aside with comparitively little action. I agree- with few exceptions, what's on wiki should stay on-wiki, and to harass someone in their real life because of (good faith!!) actions taken on here is absolutely bang out of order. I do hope as an aside that someone has pointed the university authorities to this noticeboard so that they can see for themselves the diversity of opinion to be found here and the context of the complaint. Let this be a sobering lesson to everyone- never, EVER use your real name or allow your personal details to be seen here on Wikipedia. Badgerpatrol 13:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

:: It is important to assume good faith on the part of the editors who contacted the university, who I think believed they were acting for the good of the encyclopedia. - I am assuming good faith of the editors but the sheer lack of consideration of the possible impact demonstrates that a) all and any such actions should be discussed very very deeply before implementation of said actions, that b) (and don't take this as a knock, it's not intended to) many of our editors and administrators while excellent here are quite young and without being rude, quite naive about the real-world ramifications (because of a lack of practical experience) of contacting a real world organisation in such a manner. It's fine saying "hey he's not going to be sacked!" and more than likely he's not - BUT we exist in a world where mis-use of email is used as a rod to beat staff with. While HE might not get sacked, that's not to say someone else would not be in a similar situation. I agree with others, it's one thing to contact an individual but contacting someone's employers (let alone multiple departments in the same organisation!) should be a WP:OFFICE action. --Fredrick day 14:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, how did we get here? This is a massive overreaction; please rethink. This guy evidently didn't know what he was doing and delved in without doing the proper research (he had people print old copies of the articles?) but that doesn't merit going after him with such vigor, which looks vindictive even if it isn't intended that way. As someone said above, we extend more courtesy and give more 'second chances' to the most inveterate of trolls. Opabinia regalis 15:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

We got here because he won't pledge not to do it again. Would you rather we blocked the entire university in perpetuity? User:Zoe|(talk) 16:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. That would the correct way of dealing with this matter, albeit an extreme solution. If someone infringes Wikipedia's rules, then the solution should be found on Wikipedia. You are talking about making someone accountable in real life for something that occurs on-Wiki. That is in my view only ever a last ditch solution when said person has broken the law, not a comparitively unimportant community-defined Wikipedia rule. As correctly stated elsewhere, pretty much anything that spills over into the real world should be left to a WP:OFFICE action, and is not the domain of individual editors. By the same token, I'm sure you thought you were doing the right thing, and I'm sure you acted in good faith, albeit precipitously. Badgerpatrol 16:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So what's actually happening now? Above you mentioned an ultimate of friday (for a response) that you has made to the university? Are you still chasing them? Have you ceased activity because of community concern? --Fredrick day 19:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In the first place, I don't think that "community concern" is opposed to my actions. In the second place, I am waiting for a response from the University's ethics office. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

WHAT! have you actually read all of the comments here? you don't see community concern there? I'm sorry but I find that an amazing statement to make. --Fredrick day 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Community concern is irrelevant. If Zoe or anyone else, acting as a private individual, wishes to contact the university about this matter it is none of our business. Seeing as admins, unlike Jimbo or those from WP:OFFICE, do not speak for the Wikimedia Foundation they would be acting as private individuals who have been affected by this outrageous misconduct. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a complete cop-out, disgusting in fact. I am now going to act as a "private individual" and write to prof. Pierce (using my real name) and tell him that I think the conduct is an total disgrace. It's a complete cop-out because it is effectively a backdoor that allows people hiding under pseduonoms to email people's workplaces in regards to wikipedia and then say "hey but actually this is nothing to do with wikipedia - it's a private thing". I think this stinks - totally stinks. --Fredrick day 21:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You are completely free to do that: enjoy. This does not change the fact that when someone misuses their academic authority in this way to destroy knowledge, rather than build, we, acting as individual Wikipedians, should have the ability to complain about it. Vandalizing Wikipedia should not lead to workplaces being contacted - though we contact schools, do we not, to stop persistent vandalism by the kids - but misusing your academic authority in this manner by encouraging others to vandalize should certainly do so. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And actually now I think about it, how did we get here? that implies that others were involved in deciding to send the email and that dicussion occured. Where did this discussion occur? Where was the concensus to send those emails? Who are the we you mention? --Fredrick day 19:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. What a stunning, draconian display of presumed power carried from cyberspace to the real world. There are people who have to work for a living to feed their families, pay their mortgages, go to the doctor or the dentist, and most of these people have to, in some way, interact with cyberspace at some point in time. Very few people in this world have the luxury of not working. As a student I learned something important from a professor's inapprorpriate attempt at a Wikipedia assignment, and so did the professor. We have just taught this instructor's students what kind of a community we are--I hope it's a pretty picture we painted, or even an accurate one.KP Botany 20:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, this academic's conduct sickens me. The wanton destruction of knowledge - free knowledge, yet - violates just about every single academic principle I can think of. If humanity has got to the stage where we will happily destroy knowledge in some petty game of "my source is better than yours", then it is time to start despairing. The Wikipedians who have to waste their volunteer time in reverts and blocks have every right to be cheesed off and to pursue the matter further. This...person...deserves at least rap over the knuckles, and some detailed lessons in clarity of thinking. Moreschi ^Deletion! 20:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Capricious section break

I split the section here because it seems to be on a slighty different tack, and used "capricious" in place of the overused "arbitrary" for the sake of variety. Picaroon 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Wow guys.... what are you all thinking? This is completely overblown here. Pierce might have been a bit out of line, but he was illustrating a valid point: we should not be used for academic papers. He showed that to his students. Doing is better then learning. Look at this like the reporters who snuck knives and such past TSA to show how poorly they perform,ed. It may have been somewhat out of line, but beutifully made the point to many people. Zoe, chill out a bit. You're normally on the ball, so I trust you. Breathe deep for a minute and you'll see. -M^ask 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In the case of wrecking the free-content work of others and then wasting the time of a large amount of people on a spectacular scale, no, doing is not better than learning. Petty intellectual games like this are revolting, not only in the time they waste but also in the small-minded willingness to destroy displayed. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi, we must remember that not everyone takes this encyclopedia as seriously as those of us who write and otherwise maintain it do. The general public doesn't give us the respect that our millions of hours deserve, and we shouldn't blame them; they know no better, and they won't until they come along and begin editing. There's even an essay sortof about this. Picaroon 23:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that essay, but unfortunately it is also one of the most stubby, incomplete essays I have ever seen. Carcharoth 01:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Pierce’s point was not a valid one. Here’s what you do, if you’re reading. Stand in front of the class. Speak clearly: “Any papers using Wikipedia as a primary source will be handed back to you unmarked. We do not use wikipedia as a primary source because it isn’t trust worthy at the level I want you writing. Anyone can put anything on there, regardless of whether it is true or not, so don’t use it.” You know, that will be enough. It is what I was told, and, surprise surprise, I didn’t use wikipedia as a primary source. Mr. Pierce, if I remember correctly, is teaching at a university. These people aren’t stupid. If you tell them not to do something, they won’t do it, and if they do, make them change it. Mr. Pierce could have stopped all this a long time ago, and the thing that I’m really worried about is the fact that because of one mans bad idea we may (though probably won’t) have to ban an entire university. Thε Halo ^Θ 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Because what he's suggesting is the online equivalent of his asking his classmembers to pick a random store, throw a brick through the front window and see how long it takes the cops to arrive. HalfShadow 23:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious. You don't have to pay for and replace a broken window when you vandalize Wikipedia. All you have to do is click once on the rollback button, and it's all good again. Some of the comments on this thread sound like vandalism on Wikipedia should be a punishable crime. That's just absurd. --Conti|✉ 23:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

HalfShadow: I refer you to my comment about the general public not taking Wikipedia seriously. Throwing bricks through windows is viewed as bad by the general public and the Wikipedia community. Vandalizing Wikipedia is viewed as bad by the Wikipedia community, but not the general public. Picaroon 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why shouldn't wikipedia vandalism be a crime? All that clicking takes a lot of people a lot of time. If we had just one button marked "roll back all vandalism" I might agree with you, but we don't and I don't. Cheers, Ben Aveling 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't it a crime? Because we allow - no, encourage - people to edit. Think about it like this: markets encourage people to shop. Why isn't buying all the cereal in the aisle a crime, then? Why isn't taking all the free samples of brownies a crime, then? It might sound like a random comparison, but if you think, its quite similar. Picaroon 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thsi would be more like taking all the free samples, or throwing the brownies all over the store. Actually, it would be more like getting a hundred people to knock over everything in the shelves of the whole store for a couple weeks and maybe replace some foods with diarrhetics. Stores encourage people to come in and buy goods, or even to just look at them, but that does not mean that anyone is free to come in the store and do whatever they want. —Centrx→talk • 18:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Every second I have to waste cleaning after a 'comedic genius' is a second I could have spent accomplishing something. Regardless, effectively telling your class to 'bust up the joint' is hardly what I'd call proper behavior for a teacher.HalfShadow 23:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think we all agree that it isn't the best behaviour to tell your students to go and vandalize Wikipedia. But we voiced our opinion, and I think that's all that we should do. What stops you from just accomplishing something, anyways? No one ever forced you to revert vandalism, to the best of my knowledge.--Conti|✉ 00:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Halo: Hindsight is 20:20. Yours is a very good description of a better way to do have explained to the students what's wrong with using Wikipedia to write papers. Now, how do you suggest we get the message out? A disclaimed at the top of pages? An ad campaign? Those methods might or might not work. Preaching to the choir here about whats wrong with Tim's assignment will not work. Picaroon 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I completely understand your point Picaroon, but I wasn't trying to preach to the choir. I was trying to show AKMask that Mr. Peirces point wasn't as valid as he may first have thought it to be. Sorry if I got off the beaten track along the way there :P Thε Halo ^Θ 00:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Perspective

One thing I don't understand. Mr Pierce's defenders seem to be saying "what he did was no big deal, therefore we shouldn't complain, because he will get sacked." If it's no big deal, he won't get sacked whatever we do. So why so worried? Personally, I'm not even after an apology, just a commitment that it won't happen again. Regards, Ben Aveling 23:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea is more that if you turn up here as a real person and annoy the wrong Wikipedia editors and don't agree with what they (correctly) say the site is about and how it works, and you disrupt the site in the process (by giving a public lecture, say - imagine Jimbo giving a lecture and telling people to try editing Wikipedia - "add anything you like - it doesn't matter, it will be reverted within seconds if it is wrong"), then some Wikipedia editors may aggressively engage you in discussion by sending you e-mails, and sending other people e-mails, until you back down and admit you were wrong and won't do it again. I'm concerned that this has been more about getting the instructor to admit that he was wrong, rather than helping him understand how Wikipedia works, and trying to convert him, rather than alienate him. Being diplomatic, in other words, rather than argumentative. Carcharoth 01:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point is something which we do not allow. I do not see any reason for special consideration being given to this teacher or his students. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Informational Request

You know, I would really like to see what exactly is being sent out, if possible. Particularly if there is any potential interaction with the media (as well as educational institutions), it would be very good to see exactly what is being said and how or to whom it is being attributed. Bitnine 21:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have put the texts of my correspondences at User:Zoe/Pierce. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you were a bit quick on the draw there, Zoe. You could have said, maybe, "please promise not to do it again; this is the wrong way of going about it"; I didn't detect much warning for "I'm going to the press". 146.186.44.199 22:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My letter to the department administrators is at: User:Georgewilliamherbert/PierceLetter Georgewilliamherbert 22:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The ethics department has reponded, unfortunately, from my point of view, clearly wrongly. I have asked Brad Patrick for his input. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think most of what there is to be said has been said, on all sides of the matter. I would add, however, that I have grave reservations about the statement in one of Zoe's letters that "I don't think we need to discuss the illegalities of defacing a website. Such actions are a federal offense." We all dislike vandalism and those who encourage vandals, but that's a long way away from saying that vandals are criminals. Newyorkbrad 22:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I can only applaud the measured response of that ethics office in replying to Zoe, and am utterly amazed at the impropriety of the tone Zoe had used both to them and the teacher. I'd very much recommend to put this to rest now in order for us not to make ourselves look completely stupid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Newyorkbrad & FutPerf. Mr Stephen 23:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Having read the mail pages, I disagree with some of the points Zoe made in the correspondence with NIU (and in Zoe’s place, I would have written rather differently). However, I still think it was right to complain. —xyzzy_n 22:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone directed Mr. Pierce and the NIU administrators to the relevant policy pages, e.g., WP:VAND? From the correspondence that was posted, it doesn't look like it. Thanks to Zoe and Georgewilliamherbert for posting these. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that the appropriate initial contact with Mr. Pierce would have pointed out these policies, described how we deal with vandalism in practice, and suggested an alternative means of making the same point (e.g., having the students edit a sandbox) without disrupting others' efforts. Taking the time to thoroughly explain to him why we have a problem with his assignment and ways he could work with us, would likely have produced much more satisfactory results; as it is, we got a bunch of needlessly bombastic emails to university officials and a needlessly long thread in which people compare scribbling on a website to breaking a store window. This could have been an opportunity to educate an obviously ill-informed academic about how Wikipedia works, and instead we probably just alienated him (and his colleagues) further. Opabinia regalis 01:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree absolutely with this analysis of the situation. Carcharoth 01:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Zoe and Georgewilliamherbert for posting the correspondence they sent and received. It is rather instructive to see the different approaches they took. Zoe engaged in aggressive questioning of the instructor in question, while George wrote calmly and at length to possibly the people responsible for the instructor's conduct, taking the time to explain himself. It was also interesting to note that Zoe signed as 'Wikipedia system administrator' (which could give the appearance of speaking for Wikipedia), while George (more correctly, in my opinion) said "I am not speaking for Wikipedia in any official capacity (I have no organizational official standing) other than as a user and editor."

I also thought Zoe's threat to go to the press (the university's ethics office was restrained enough to only call it a veiled threat) was intended by Zoe to provoke a response, and I find that very worrying. This could easily have escalated the situation when there was absolutely no need to adopt that attitude.

So, what can we learn from this? Would Zoe and George do things differently, or even do nothing, if this happened again? I'd really hope that some people would do things differently next time. This episode has not cast Wikipedia in a good light. Carcharoth 01:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Be brutually honest - from a purely internal perspective, the most concern aspect for me is that even after debate raged for almost 3 days, Zoe posts only a few hours ago In the first place, I don't think that "community concern" is opposed to my actions. - I find that an amazing statement to make considering some of the comments that have been made here.. I haven't interacted with Zoe before this wikidrama but it suggests that various people are invisible to her or... well I just don't know! --Fredrick day 01:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea for people to post suggestions (even subtle ones) in any part of Wikipedia that a named person has acted illegally or broken Federal law. I see the requests for information above - my comments are not an attack on anyone, they are simply meant as advice. Hobson 03:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Site block?

We have a site, with a set of known vandals, where the vandals have stated they may continue to vandalize, and the site's administration has indicated they will take no action.

This sounds like the definition of when and why we use a site-wide indef IP block.... Georgewilliamherbert 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That does sound like the logical conclusion to the problem, yes.  :) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Because vandalism is still going on? Well is it (outside of normal patterns)? Where does he states that he plans to carry on? I don't see that? --Fredrick day 22:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Far, far too much potential for collateral damage by blocking an entire college. At most, I'd support a checkuser if the college's IP can be determined, to assess whether there is an ongoing vandalism problem that is materially higher than normal. Newyorkbrad 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser of whom? Of all of the students who have been assigned to vandalize? User:Zoe|(talk) 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Some colleges have a single IP for all the computers in their network. I know little about the technicalities of IP assignment, but that might (or might not) be true in this instance. Newyorkbrad 23:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, wow. NIU and Mr. Pierce were straight-forward, and Wikipedia accused them of a federal crime. I thought that someone had recently quoted that administrators aren't godheads or something, according to Jimbo Wales. Criminal accusation are usually handled through the DA's office, not by one individual throwing an accusation at another or at an institution. Crimes should be reported to the proper law enforcement officials, not used as threats against someone. And since when is this not an apology, "So, in the sense that I've caused a lot of work on people's part in what's going on, I'm sorry for that?" He apologized, admitted it was a poorly thought out exercise, after explaining that he had weighed potential consequences, that he had tried just instructing his students not to use Wikipedia, and he's being battered down with the threat of criminal actions. I've seen too much of Wikipedia administrators who can't simply back down from something. When someone is being reasonable, after doing something unreasonable, you latch onto their current sense of reason, you don't keep attacking them. KP Botany 04:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the above. I think this issue has gotten to the point where I have contacted Jimbo here to solicit his involvement. I strongly encourage others to do the same. CyberAnth 06:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This should have been handled by Brad Patrick to begin with. Or at least from the point where the University's legal department got involved. This could have backfired horribly had the teacher been fired and then sued Wikipedia for defamation causing him to get fired. 1 million dollars from the last fundraiser may sound like a lot but when you get into things like this we could have gotten into serious economic/legal trouble here. A site/department block sounds like a good idea. That is perfectly within our discretion (no need for legal help to do that) and would solve the problem. MartinDK 09:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(IANALBIPOOT) I cannot imagine any cause of action—certainly not defamation—that Pierce, were he to be fired over this, could essay against the Foundation generally or against any editor who contacted the university specifically (other causes of action, relative, for instance, to a characterization publicly of his conduct as somehow criminal, might be more tenable, but such causes would not be relative to his termination). I, to be sure, would not be inclined to contact the university about conduct to which I have no grave objection, but there is, IMHO, almost surely no legal liability for an individual who should undertake to make such contact; I have always understood, indeed, the practice of contacting an employer of someone with whom one has a quarrel to disseminate true information apropos of the former in order that he/she might be fired to be relatively common, but I gather from this discussion that there are those who think such practice to be immoral. Joe 20:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe, I posted that message minutes before Jimbo posted his message. I had no idea, as did no one else apparently, that the foundation had already been involved. had Zoe been told this by Jimbo I believe she would have let Jimbo take care of this. I don't doubt that she really wanted to do Wikipedia a big favor by going through all this trouble. I just happen to believe that such matters are better handled by the foundation. Jimbo should have posted here when he settled the matter. I think we should just move on and let Jimbo know that sometimes things happen on ANI that might make it beneficial for Wikipedia and the foundation in general to pay closer attention to this board and post here before so-called wildly inappropriate things take place. MartinDK 22:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

See Jimbo's edit at the top of this greater section. Case closed, everyone. Grandmasterka 09:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Miltopia has decided it is in Wikipedia's best interests to welcome those who are here for disruption. Cplot harassment account OurAnthem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made four edits, the last being a test3 vandalism warning to my talk page[9], and at the same time, Miltopia decided to welcome him [10]. I'd appreciate a neutral third party remind Miltopia that welcoming those who are here for disruption is disruptive.--MONGO 06:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

My experience with Miltopia on Encyclopedia Dramatica has been that he generally tries to tone down anti-Wikipedia activity. I have personally tried to create attack pages on ED and have been reverted by him. Look at this: <www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Miltopia>. He's actually getting on some of their nerves because of this. He also mediates disputes between users. I know that you don't like ED, MONGO, but Miltopia really isn't the person to go after here.--Desnm 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

None of what you posted has anything to do with the fact that he decided to welcome an obvious vandal after that vandal left a ridiculous warning on my talkpage. Please use your real account next time you post here if you want any credibility.--MONGO 07:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no other account I can use.--Desnm 07:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So warned. Based on the times of the edits, I think it's unlikely that he posted the welcome at 03:22 after seeing the troll edit to your talk page, also at 03:22, but I'll bet he saw the earlier edits. Thatcher131 07:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, the vandal account made an edit at 22:22, Miltopia welcomed him at 22:22 and a User:PullToOpen tagged the account with a sock tag at 22:22. Miltopia simply has my talkpage watchlisted and decided to welcome the vandal soon as he saw the vandalism to my talkpage. The times are all in the same minute, but Mitopia was on line and had just made an edit a few minutes before.(22:22 CTZ in U.S., sorry about that)--MONGO 07:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. Thatcher131 07:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also possible that I was watching WP:AN, having edited there recently and saw his comment, tried and failed to revert it (got beat to the punch, see below) and figured he was about to get banned anyway. Furthermore, it's also possible that I care so little for MONGO that he could go on a 3 month wikibreak and the only hint I would have of his departure is the lack of pointless threads on ANI about me. Milto LOL pia 10:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

If, in fact, you do try to tone down the garbage on ED, any chance you can work with somebody to get that disgusting crap about Sceptre out of there? The kid is 15, for God's sake. User:Zoe|(talk) 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I may get lynched for saying it, but in the interests of Wikipedia, someone has to - whatever happened to assuming good faith? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

So, welcoming an vandal account is not disruptive?--MONGO 08:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. He was banned. The welcome had zero effect whatsoever. Milto LOL pia 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As much as I never thought I would ever say this, I'm with Miltopia on this one. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 10:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst welcoming a blatant vandal isn't the most productive use of time, it will do no harm; it's certainly not disruptive, and this seems like a complaint with no grounds. Proto::► 12:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Posting a welcome message to a vandal account is certainly not disruptive. I often see someone vandalize, and give them a welcome message as a sort of "Hey, we can see you! Why not edit constructively?" wake-up call. It's sometimes more effective than a {{test1}}. I've certainly welcomed people, only to have my welcome message replaced in a mintue with {{indefblockeduser}} or whatever it's called, when someone else pegged them as a sock of some banned user. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The complaint wasn't that a welcome message was posted. The complaint was this particular user, with this particular history and with a recent ArbCom decision decided to welcome a troll that was harassing MONGO. Coincidence? Maybe the first time. Maybe even the second. But this is about the twentieth "coincidence." It iwll be a nice reference for the next coincidence. --Tbeatty 06:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Desnm created that account to defend Miltopia, first edit, sure knows a lot about me! It's also possible that Miltiopia could be indefinitely blocked from this website and it would be of nothing but benefit to this website...I see zero constructive edits. Peter Dodge and Proto shouldn't be defending disruptive behavior here as this isn't a playground.--MONGO 16:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate it if you would explain how this disrupts anything significant. It was a waste of space and of time, certainly, and not a serious or wise action, to be sure, but the only disruption that it appears to have caused for users other than Miltopia is this very acerbic section. Is there need for such hostility here? Calling for community banning of a user, discounting the entirety of the user's contributions to Wikipedia, making insinuations regarding sock puppet abuse, admonishing users for having an opinion that differs from your own - are such actions really necessary over such a minor issue? Think for a moment about the situation - is all of this hostility warranted for putting a welcome template put on a vandal's talk page? --Philosophus ^T 16:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no hostility on my part. I have done nothing wrong except inform the community that Miltopia is still being disruptive. The vandal account he welcomed was created by Cplot, who has created the largest sock army I have ever seen on wikipedia, and who has been vandalizing numerous pages for months now. Desnm creates an account and his/her first edit is here to defend Miltopia and knows a lot about me and you tell me that isn't a sock account of someone? Simply put, we don't aide and abet vandals by welcoming them on their talkpages. It's not like this is the first time Miltopia has been supportive of disrution, or been so himself.--MONGO 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But again, how is this disruptive? I don't see how it aides and abets vandals, besides the possibility that it could be seen as a symbolic gesture. It's not like the welcome is "Welcome to Wikipedia! Here is a guide to vandalism and here are some pages that could be vandalised". --Philosophus ^T 20:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

MONGO, can you just drop it? No one has responded any of the times you or Hipocrite have tried to get me banned. I don't go around complaining about you, so why don't you just find something else to do? Milto LOL pia 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can you please explain how posting {{welcome}} on a vandal account's page is disruptive? It's just a boilerplate welcome, not an endorsement of any particular misbehavior. —Dgies^t c 07:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

WHOOPDEDOO

I had just tried to revert him on WP:AN and had been beaten to the punch by someone with rollback. I welcomed him as a joke, knowing he would be banned. Not particularly constructive, but nor was it destructive. It has nothing to do with MONGO. Everything Desnm said is true. Stop making a federal case out of nothing. Milto LOL pia 10:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• And that was smart in what way, exactly? Guy (Help!) 15:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The question is, who cares? And why? THe answer is nobody except MONGO and... I don't know about the second one. Milto LOL pia 20:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be under the mistaken impression that nobody but MONGO cares if you troll him and deliberately provoke drama. You may well be wrong in that. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• MONGO is irritated by my mere presence; there's nothing I can do about that. I don't care about MONGO at all, so I ignore him whenever possible and don't give any thought to walking around eggshells for him. I can't and don't care to change the fact that MONGO doesn't like my presence; only he can do that. Milto LOL pia 00:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I'm kind of wondering why Milto hasn't been 'sploded yet, but I'm far too apathetic to bother beyond that. HalfShadow 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Can we not go there? I'd be happier if this were just dropped. Milto LOL pia 20:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Now really, I'm sorry, are you guys going to blame MONGO for saying that an editor shouldn't welcome a vandal, let alone an editor who has a long-time dispute with MONGO, whom the troll just happened to speak to right before the welcome? It is disruptive, and smacks to me of WP:POINT. Worse, he's making rude comments like it's also possible that I care so little for MONGO that he could go on a 3 month wikibreak and the only hint I would have of his departure is the lack of pointless threads on ANI about me. I have no idea why you guys are sticking up for him - he even admitted he knew the guy was a troll. Having never seen this conflict before, the suspicion of WP:POINT only gets worse when I hear that he's an ED editor, who, from what I understand, has a history of being a pain in the rear end on Wikipedia. Milotopia, if you would just say, "sorry, I won't do it again", would it be that hard? If it was just a joke and not a big deal, then why the need to argue back and make a scene (PS sorry for editing anonymously, I'm trying to take some time off, and this is the closest I could get myself to do). 146.186.44.199 22:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• No really. The second step of Dispute Resolution is to disengage. Please try that now. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert McCartney (murder victim)

• Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gerard Montgomery‎ (above), various libelous claims were removed from this article, it was then deleted and the AFD blanked. I have removed the same allegations from Robert McCartney (murder victim), but they will still remain in the history version. It should be removed from the history here as well Astrotrain 19:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, thye articles have been fully source - 4 articles infact, 2 in the Daily Mail, 1 in its sister paper the Mail on Sunday and another in The Mirrior. Send me an email from my user page and I will forward you the details of the articles--Vintagekits 19:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Having looked at the relevant articles, the core claim (that the Mail, and other newspapers, identified the men as implicated in the murder) is not libellous, as they certainly did so. However, the case never went to trial, it appears, nor did anything at all come of it after the initial burst of coverage, at least that I can detect. This probably deserves only a limited mention in the article, but, again, I think this primarily on general editorial principles rather than with regard to BLP. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Didnt the UUP MEP (McAlister, I think) state all the names in the European Parliment aswell.

• One article indicates that he planned to do so (although the quote actually given isn't quite as explicit). I have no evidence that he actually did name them. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Note that I've only looked into Montgomery -- the other men named may indeed have been formally charged, taken to trial, etc. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick summary of the issue: The Mail published three articles stating that various individuals were allegedly connected to a murder (the Mirror's article which i saw does not). The articles do not show up in the online archives for the paper, it's possible that they were retracted or names removed. There needs to be some discussion as to whether or not these articles are appropriate for use, but where and how? Can we quote from the articles on a talk page, discuss the content of the articles w/o mentioning any names, etc., some advice is needed.—eric 19:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Apart from Montgomery, McCormick and Davison were charged with the attack so I can not understand why there is an issue over these two. Just all seemed a bit knee jerk and reactionary yesterday.--Vintagekits 19:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Source? User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

here you go--Vintagekits 00:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The Guardian is a significant upgrade in trustworthiness from the other sources. I would mention this article as a source, note the two men actually charged, and leave Montgomery out entirely. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

How are we supposed to do that as Zoe has deleted all three pages.--Vintagekits 01:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I only deleted two of the articles, which were accusing people of murder with not a single source. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well you have been given the sources now so can you revert that, thank you--Vintagekits 14:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I would put it in Robert McCartney (murder victim). We don't need a separate stub for every single aspect of this killing when one medium-size article would cover everything worth saying. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Davison and McCormick are well know republicans who are notable for a lot more than just for the connection to the killing of McCartney - where should all that information go!?--Vintagekits 14:31, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Any update Zoe?--Vintagekits 00:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Rocky Marciano heating up

Hm, I suppose someone should likely review and perhaps step in over at Rocky Marciano. The page has been locked a little while, largely due to a dispute between MKil and BoxingWear. I'm trying to remain uninvolved in the more personal arguments, so I'll just give some examples of speech. MKil has said a few things along the lines of [[11]], whereas BoxingWear has grown increasingly frustrated, leaving left a comment on my talk page[[12]] and comments in the talk such as this [[13]].

I've been trying to engage in conversation and so haven't done anything quite so far as warning, but some action likely needs to be taken to cool things down there. Bitnine 21:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I started sifting through the talk page and associated discussions last night, and will continue to read through today's accumulation of edits to get up to speed. The page is protected for now, but that will expire tomorrow and I'm almost sure that the unproductive editing pattern will resume based on what I'm seeing. Kuru ^talk 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As one of the parties involved in this situation, I welcome a review. I called for a third party review already [14] and when the third party chastised BoxingWear, BoxingWear began attacking that editor [15].

BoxingWear has continually called my edits vandalism and now, apparently, terrorism [16]. He has also spread outright falsehoods that I am using another IP address to edit [17]: “the above message 58 user is you, i traced the ip, ok, cool off, i will make sure you are blocked here.”

If I am doing something wrong here, I’d be happy to correct my errors. I’ve tried to follow Wikipedia policies and have tried to point out these policies to BoxingWear. However, he erases my messages from his talk page and says that he does not want to hear from me. MKil 02:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

I may be way out of line here but the writing style of BoxingWear seems to remind me of the writing style of Vesa and his socks. He exhibits the same short fuse, use of caps when he's angry. Also, he is editing the same subject areas that Vesa/Projects did. Could this be another sock? -Localzuk^(talk) 18:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Ideogram: the personal attacks are getting ridiculous

Ideogram is expressing a lot of hostility towards Giano at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IRC admin channel discussion [18] [19] [20] (note the edit summaries—"Oh Giano said it it must be true", "oh my, the great Giano has spoken"). Here he states explicity that he has "enmity" for Giano. I think it's obvious that this makes Ideogram the last person who should take it on himself to remove Giano's posts (with edit summaries like "Remove rant"]). I'd rather not speak to him on the issue myself, as I believe he has plenty of hostility for me also. Perhaps somebody entirely neutral would like to suggest to him that these removals are not appropriate? Possibly they're intended to make a point about Irpen's removal of one comment of Ideogram's, as discussed above. I wish Irpen hadn't done that (sigh), but he did it once, as far as I know; and all who have commented above find that Irpen removed a highly uncivil personal attack by Ideogram. By contrast, Ideogram's own removals and attacks are large-scale, ongoing, and getting worse and worse. Now I'm not one to block for personal attacks, but could somebody try to talk him down from his trolling high or something? Please take a look at the thread above; does it look to you like Ideogram is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? It would be a real relief if it could be stopped. Preferably without any blocking, because I suspect that Ideogram is trying to get blocked, as part of the charming point he's making. Note that it's many hours since Giano edited. This is not some kind of battle or quarrel, it's a pure monologue. Oh, hey, here come the latest installments of it: "Giano again thinks he's God.[21]. "You are a god-damned hypocrite.[22] Baiting, anyone? Bishonen | talk 23:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Everyone knows you are a friend of Giano, so your opinion here is basically worthless. Aren't you the one who chose to unblock him when he was blocked for civility concerns? Did that seem at all wrong to you?

If someone I believe is neutral suggests I am crossing the line I will of course tone it down. --Ideogram 00:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've said nothing on that page. I suggest that you tone it down, both on the page and in the edit summaries. Newyorkbrad 00:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad, I do respect your opinion. --Ideogram 00:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Starting a rebuttal with "your opinion here is basically worthless" suggests a certain need for more quiet reflection before hitting the 'Save page' button. I haven't reviewed the other conduct, but just the response here speaks for itself. Tone it down. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't think the fact that she's Giano's friend makes her opinion biased? Are you going to force me to rebut her point by point? In fact I am able to do that, if you like. --Ideogram 00:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He asked you to quietly reflect on what you said before hitting the save button. In what way is that advice forcing you to do anything? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not forcing me to do anything, and I didn't say it did. --Ideogram 00:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Never the less TenOfAllTrades advice is good and you do well to follow it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been advised by several people I trust now that I have indeed crossed the line. I will be more civil in the future. --Ideogram 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please, this situation continues to make me sad, as there have been continual misunderstandings and hurt feelings about it. Take a moment and consider that Bishonen is posting here because she wants other opinions on the matter and therefor we can only assume that she has good intentions, after all she has not acted unilaterally as some admins should have. Also, I feel that while some of Ideogram's comments are regrettable, he or she has been misunderstood on more than a few occasions. I would ask both sides to remember to assume good faith and attempt to stay cool in a heated and divisive situation. Please realize that there is a wide spectrum of views on the depth and nature of the situation and therefore a similarly diverse number of opinions how to fix it. Above all else, remember we're all here to work to improve this encyclopedia, and treat others with respect. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest I've come across Giano before and haven't found him/her to be nice at all - that's putting it rather mildly to be frank. I'm not surprised that Ideogram has said what he has, though my advice to him is just to ignore any comments by other users he finds to be blatantly annoying. I just want this opinion of mine to be noted, but don't wish to be contacted further on the issue, so please don't message my talk page about it. I've been told off Wiki that Giano has a few friends here who can make life on Wikipedia very difficult for me if they wish, so I don't want to get involved. That's my personal opinion, and as I said I don't wish for any messages regarding this - any I get will be ignored. LuciferMorgan 01:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• • My one and only experience of this editor is here [23], where his points were not only refuted by not only the regular architecture editors, but also by editors with whom I had had no previous interaction. Regarding Ideogram's edit here [24] not only is it a personal attack (I can live with it) it is the first time I have ever been called a hypocrite (many other things but never that :-). Apart from (possibly - I don't remember exactly) removing his trolling comments from editor talk pages, I have never deliberately (I'm pretty sure I haven't at all) removed a comment he has made elsewhere. However, tempting on occasions that may have been. Giano 10:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't get to decide if I'm a troll. Ever. --Ideogram 22:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Explain this. I am not the kind of person to demand apologies (but you are), what do you think you should do about this? --Ideogram 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this. --Ideogram 22:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ideogram, aren't there enough disputes in the community now without dredging up a diff from months ago? I hope this can stop now. Newyorkbrad 22:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Giano could have chosen to let the matter drop. If he feels the need to make counterfactual claims I will rebut them. --Ideogram 23:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Everyone should let the matter drop. Newyorkbrad 23:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you will also ask Giano to never speak of Kylu, Lar, or Carnildo again. --Ideogram 23:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If Giano ever calls me a troll or anything I write trolling again, you can be sure I will not let the matter drop. --Ideogram 23:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Recurring Personal Attacks, Admin Attention Requested

About User:Wobble:

• Reported to PAIN before [25] for things like calling me racialist and then saying "The sort of out of date racialist thinking that normal people (that's 99% of us) think only nutters believe any more." or calling me racist and then saying "There was a cite to "racial reality", a racist nazi site as far as I can see, with the reliability and accuracy one would expect from a bunch of neonazi thickos (who ever met an intelligent racist? Not me).", etc...

• Calling me racist again [26]

• "Your POV pushing and total lack of any understanding of science is getting boring." [27]

• Calling me pathetic along with other accusations: [28]

• "I think this has got nothing to do with using swear words and everything to do with you and Lukas's attempts to undermine the integrity of Wikipedia by introducing your nasty racist POV." [29]
• He seems to call anything that he disagrees with, racist [30]

• "You are such a massive hypocrite. You really are unbelievable. You constantly "report" people because you can't take criticism (you act like you are in a school playground, please miss he disagrees with me), but you are one of the most offensive people I have ever met." [31]

Talking about accusations, 99% of what he says is INCORRECT. For ex, he accused me (as usual) of distorting biomedical research and I asked him to provide examples [32] and he provided me with a link of an edit that WAS NOT mine.[33] More such examples can be provided.

Now, some of these are recurring personal attacks and I think that requires admin attention, rather than RfC. He even admits that his behavior is wrong but blames all this on me by saying: "If you do not like people being nasty to you, then you could consider that they are only behaving towards you the same way you are behaving towards them." [34] He was warned before about personal attacks (see the PAIN report link)

He also removed my option from RfC, [35] so his behavior may be called harassment. Lukas19 00:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I think a block might be needed here, but I'm not sure how long, as the user was not given any warnings for personal attacks (though there does appear to be a fairly long history of edit warring over race-related articles). --Coredesat 00:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean a warn by an admin? If not, His warns: [36] [37]

I don't see any rationale for an immediate block; some of these diffs are more than a week old, and the recent contribs certainly don't suggest any kind of rampage of nastiness. If more than one user is actually concerned about this user's behaviour and hasn't been able to work it out, take it to RfC. Our criteria for blocking shouldn't be lower than that of having a formal discussion. Jkelly 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

3 days is recent, right?

"Oh and by the way Thukas, don't fucking call me a vandal. This is hypocrisy of the highest order given the amount of times you have tried to compromise Wikipedia by claiming a source supported your racist POV when it does no such thing. I am a very experienced editor and do not do vandalism. Your constsnt claims that other editors that do not agree with your lies and racism are either "vandals" or are "personally attacking" you are pathetic. I suggest you learn to edit in a more mature manner. Learn that you need to compromise, you need to know that Wikipedia does not exist to promote your personal racist/Nordicist oppinions. Alun 17:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)" [38]

Again, about incorrect accusations, I didnt called him a vandal, I just said "reverting vandalism" to one of his edits, and I dont have a racist POV, etc...Lukas19 01:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've warned both users to cool off and drop the argument, since their arguing is disrupting the community and it's clear that they can't seem to stop getting in each other's faces. However, Wobble seems to have left the project (at least temporarily), though he immediately blanked my warning. --Coredesat 06:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. I think you'll find it was archived, not blanked. About as accurate and unbiased as all of your behaviour towards me. Alun 21:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Alun please calm down and try to follow wikipedia procedure. Itsokay

I've checked out Wobble's edit history and it's extremely counterproductive. All he seems to do is accuse other editors of racism and remove anything he disagrees with on the grounds that it's racist. Many articles have lost a lot of rich content because he wont allow view points he disagrees with to be included always using the excuse that something or other is racist. He contributes nothing to the encyclopedia. All he does is remove things so that only his view on things is seen Itsokay

Upon a second review of Lukas19's edit history, it seems he does have a history of persistent POV pushing on the White people article (as pointed out by various users on that article's talk page). This changes things. --Coredesat 04:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Left Lukas19 a final warning for POV pushing. --Coredesat 05:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot Gone Wild

User Jogersbot has been running through various song articles, changing the date link formats from "year|year in music" to just "year". Needs to be shut down until its fixed. See its contributions page Whyaduck 00:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

That does indeed look like an issue - I blocked the bot temporarily while this is settled. I'll see if I can find the bot owner... Cowman109^Talk 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked more of the pages altered and it looks as though most of them are OK. There was definitely an alteration to the page for How Are Things in Glocca Morra? though. Apparently an intermittent bug of some sort. Whyaduck 01:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I see what's happening. The bot leaves the first instance of a "year|year in music" it finds on a page, and then changes the later ones it thinks are duplicates. The problem arises when the article has mentions of later recordings of a song from different years. Removing the duplicate links is OK, but the bot needs to learn to differentiate between years. Whyaduck 01:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More precisely- the bot is in fact recognizing different years, but the "year|year in music" links are being converted to simple "year" links when the "year|year in music" is immediately preceded by a "month, date" link. I haven't seen any cases of simple "month" links, so I don't know if they cause an alteration or not. Whyaduck 02:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The bot is doing precisely what is meant for. It removes piped links to "years in music" when they are breaking reader's date preferences (see Manual of Style). Jogers (talk) 10:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why the piped links are breaking the readers preferences, though. Is it only when the piped link and a linked month/day are adjacent? That's the only difference I can see between those pages where the bot removed unique "year in music" links and those where it left some of them alone. But I might be overlooking something, as I don't have any clear idea how all this stuff works. I'm just trying to figure out how to set up unique links to "year in music" pages so they won't be removed for misbehaving in the future. Whyaduck 13:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the bot removes piped links to "years in music" only from full dates. Try to change date format in your preferences and note the difference between January 1, 2005 and January 1, 2005. Jogers (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So basically, lone links just to a year in music are preserved, but when you have a day and a month given, it is converted into a normal year wikilink so that it does not break user preferences. 'Years in music' links will be left alone if there is no attached day and month. I see now that this is explained in Wikipedia:Piped_link#Use, which specifically states that piped links to years in music or years in sports should not be used in conjunction when a day and month are given next to it in order to preserve user preferences. I will be unblocking the bot now unless there are any objections, then. Cowman109^Talk 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead. I clarified the function summary on the bot page. Jogers (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I've unblocked it. Cowman109^Talk 18:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Jogers (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack

86.17.211.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) left an insult on my talk page[39]. This user has been warned before (as 86.17.247.135 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which is in the same range according to WHOIS). John Reaves (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. They're apparently only here to disrupt and mock you, at this point. If things improve, good; if they keep going as they are, this may still need more attention. Luna Santin 07:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. John Reaves (talk) 07:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Globalwarming awareness2007 again.

An interesting edit summary for the creation of SEO contest-related spam-only account Globalwarming Awareness2007 (talk · contribs):

created MY user page, no one can say ANYTHING ABOUT PUTTING LINKS ON MY USERPAGE IDIOTS!!!!! [40]

Background here. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 03:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have blanked the page. If this user continues to be disruptive, I propse a block be placed against them to prevent further disruption. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Deleted the user page. Sasquatch t|c 06:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Should that be blocked as an innapropriate username? --cesarb 02:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Strange, subtle vandalism. I think. Maybe.

A short while ago Justin Forbes (talk · contribs) edited the Template:Home video page to change DVD-Video to DVD, and added the {{homevid}} tempate to the DVD article. Both of these edits were done with no edit summary. I reverted these (given that the homevid template is for video formats, not video media, e.g. VCD but not Compact Disc) and out of curiosity looked at the user's contributions. What I've seen there can only be described as a strange pattern of borderline vandalism that might be fact-checking. Or vandalism. It's very, very subtle. Case in point.

Now were this normal vandalism I'd report this to AIV in a heartbeat, but much of this is borderline. (Some of it legitimate too, e.g. their edit to Cat) I don't know if you can really call this guy a "blatant" vandal, but there's definitely something very, very hinky going on here. Distinctly not in line with what Wikipedia is all about, and probably bannable. I just don't know if it's an AIV thing or not. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 04:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see that this user was given a final warning for this edit. I think I'll alert him to this discussion and see what he has to say for himself; he's made some constructive edits in his time here. But subtle fact changes like that really bother me because of the opportunity for there to be misinformation that might not be caught right away. It would be helpful to get sources or explanations from him for fact changes like these. Grandmasterka 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User has also created pages about space travel topics that have been deleted, one of which was marked as a hoax. This doesn't look very good... But I would like to hear input from the editor in question as well as other admins. Grandmasterka 10:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Sean mc sean

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Klptyzm is basically conducting unsigned personal attacks on a valid action by an editor - needs some response from an admin SatuSuro 05:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sean mc sean (talk · contribs) seems headed for trouble, if he doesn't calm down. Warned for now. Hopefully they calm down or take a breather. Luna Santin 05:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He seems out of control... [41] Merbabu 06:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours to hopefully calm down. Luna Santin 07:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Avad

User:Avad(Contrib) keeps on creating foreign language pages that seem like large sections of copy pasted text. The text is even hard to edit for English encoding browser, such as محمد کریم پیرنیا now allowing the input of text at the beginning of the article for me. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Weird edits

63.194.52.252 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been removing the names from the categories (e.g. [[Category:Radio|ABC]] as the diff) within many West Coast radio/television articles. This sure seems like vandalism to me, and the users has apparently refused to respond to my query on their talk page. John Reaves (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Further to this, it should be noted that the pipetext in the articles in question typically consists of the last three letters of the call sign; Wikipedia:WikiProject Radio Stations has done this in categories where all articles begin with the same letter (i.e. W or K in a radio category), in order to make the category page appear more cleanly sorted. In this particular case, I think it more likely that the user doesn't understand why it was done, and isn't so much vandalizing as merely correcting what they thought was an error. Bearcat 07:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

77.49.2.142

A user editing from IP address 77.49.2.142 was vandalising several articles about Greek cities by removing their Turkish names. Based on his/her preferred edit summary [42], he/she may try to do so again. I reverted all of his/her edits and gave a {{uw-vandalism3}} warning on his/her talk page, but I wanted to let you know in case he/she shows up again. --JaimeLesMaths ^(talk!edits) 11:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

IP 194.255.124.250, possible sock of User:Comanche_cph

After a number of warnings left by other users, which were not heeded, I have blocked 194.255.124.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 24 hours, anon only, account creation not prevented... (see: [43]) Edit patterns suggest this IP is a possible sock of Comanche_cph (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) who was blocked for a month by me a few months back. Note that Comanche_cph is currently not blocked from editing. The IP's pattern of reversion, manipulation of warnings on the pages of others, personal attacks on established contributors, troll like behaviour, and tendentious editing, in the face of requests not to do so, is disruptive enough to warrant this block, or more, I feel. But of course I welcome review of my actions as always. This matter was not urgent enough to warrant IRC consultation, and an immediate block, so discussion was carried out on my talk page: [[44]] ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition

It looks like the edit war on Goa Inquisition is continuing. Given my history with the page, I won't get involved, but could someone take a look and see if anything needs doing? There are accusations of sockpuppetry flying around that probably need a little investigation. Thanks. --Tango 15:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

81.145.240.86 vandalism

IP address 81.145.240.86 has been warned once previously for vandalism, and today messed up James Field. Nyttend 16:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

You might have better luck on WP:AIV. Cheers! Isopropyl 17:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, he's not removed a last warning. I'll try there anyway. Nyttend 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Move.

Sorry if this is the wrong place to put this. I'm hoping to get some help with a page that was moved improperly. $ was moved to Tarrus Carr, then redirected to Money... --Onorem 17:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick help. --Onorem 17:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User:JB196 socks

DragonKidfan432 (talk · contribs), Bigdaddydriver (talk · contribs), Hipchop (talk · contribs), Shopstermax (talk · contribs), Histogramunited (talk · contribs), Aqua Nation (talk · contribs) and DogJesterExtra (talk · contribs) appear to me to be more sockpuppets of JB196 following his MO of new accounts immediately appearing and nominating wrestling relating articles for deletion. Each of these users has also signed their AfD in the same way - no punctuation at the end of the line. Bigdaddydriver also has as one of his contributions the edit summary "(RV VANDALISM)" which, while the edit was reverting the removal of an afd template, follows JB's pattern of reverting any edit against him as RV VANDALISM. I discovered these accounts while looking at the contributions of User:DogJesterExtra who only appeared today and has been removing refs from articles and is the only person to have voted in every one of the AfD's of the sock accounts. The accounts only other edits, besides the AfD's, are to make their own userpage consisting of one line. Could an admin take a look and give their opinion? –– Lid^(Talk) 17:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that prior to creating the AfD Shopstermax (talk · contribs), the oldest account, also removed refs from wrestling articles. –– Lid^(Talk) 17:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Not really...If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Wrestling , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GhettoV1 , they're all listed there and there. DogJesterExtra 18:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The user talk is an automatic bot which links to all AfD's that it crawls for such as the AfD posted by ((User|Shopstermax}}, whose article Nadev Rozenfield is linked nowhere else but the bot post on that users page. –– Lid^(Talk) 18:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

More accounts - Several of these accounts first act after being created was to create another account greatly increasing the likelihood of sockpuppetry. These are:

• Hipchop (talk · contribs) created ZimZamZang (talk · contribs)
• Shopstermax (talk · contribs) created DarkUmp243 (talk · contribs)
• Aqua Nation (talk · contribs) created Blizzardofsnow (talk · contribs)
• DogJesterExtra (talk · contribs) created Emblemsocietyx (talk · contribs)

These accounts have also been used on wrestling related articles to remove sources as well as ZimZamZang focussing on the article Professional wrestling in Australia, which has been targetted by JB196 in the past. I may file a RFCU to see if any more of these exist. –– Lid^(Talk) 19:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'd go straight for RFCU (if the circumstantial evidence isn't enough to block already), Barber fought with [[User:CurseofFenric] before on the Professional wrestling in Australia article, so I have a strong suspicion this is JB trying again to disrupt WP. I will also tag the AfD's with the comment that if the various creators are WP:SOCK accounts, the AfD's will be db-banned as a speedy keep with no prejudice towards renomination SirFozzie 19:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are these afd's still open? Aren't we supposed to close any afd's that jb opens? 146.186.221.141 21:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We haven't "Proven" That the accounts are WP:SOCK accounts (although there's a WP:RfCU open against all of them. Until it's proven (or an admin decides that there's enough circumstantial evidence that this is another set of JB socks), our hands are tied. It's one of those things where I'm sure it's him, but my opinion don't count for much, at least in this :) SirFozzie 05:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Indef-blocked Vlh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) threatening to disrupt

See User talk:Vlh for the threat. I blocked him ten days for repeatedly disrupting various pro-wrestling articles, then indef'd him when he made a personal attack against me. He emailed me a few days ago requesting an unblock, but his unblock request (which I helped him format) was denied by another admin. Now he appears to be threatening more disruption. I'm posting here just so other admins can keep an eye out. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He's not the only one. See User talk:193.219.28.146; this editor his on his third block for disruption (24h, 48h, now 1 week) and is threatening to continue after the block ends. He believes the block is unjust and has even admitted to trying to create a non-anonymous account to evade the block. =Axlq 02:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Augmon92 leaving fake welcome messages

Has an edit summary of Created page with {{subst:welcome}}, but placing this userbox on the talk pages:

This user doesn't care that they are vandalizing the hard work of others.

Kesac 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked, and all his messages removed. It seems he modified his monobook.js to do it. Hut 8.5 19:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

This has happened again several times, and they all may be the same person using different accounts. See BNW11 (talk · contribs), NoobStr (talk · contribs), and I think there was at least one other username with identical activity. Dar-Ape 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser#User welcome vandal. Dar-Ape 03:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:69.205.119.243

You'll notice two very subtle vandalisms from this user today that I've reverted. TJSwoboda 20:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Feel free to report continuing vandals to WP:AIV for a quicker response (usually ;), just make sure they have recieved a recent final warning (such as {{subst:bv}} (my favorite) or {{subst:test4}}. Cheers! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 20:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

What to do with a persistent editor who refuses to communicate?

I have no idea how to stop disruption from an editor Nasz (talk · contribs · logs) who simply refuses to communicate. That his edits (mostly on linguistics and ancient history) lack much sense, are poorly sourced or not at all and are full of spelling errors is not a blocking offense. But is blanking his Talk page after anyone protests against his edits (recently at least once daily) and making multiple reverts (but yet 3RR) without even trying to read the talk pages of the articles (with fresh explanations why he was reverted). Examples of ignored Talk page sections with detailed explanations why he was reverted are [45] and [46]. I want to avoid a revert war but feel helpless facing this kind of opponent who simply refuses to discuss anything. Any help will be appreciated. --Friendly Neighbour 21:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I handed out a {{subst:disrupt4}}. Hope that's specific enough, as Nasz's behavior could be defined as nothing but disruptive. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I forgot to add that according to one of the blanked edits on his Talk page he was already blocked indefinitely on the Polish Wikipedia. This may explain his burst of activity here. --Friendly Neighbour 21:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

So would that imply he's evading his block? I hope someone more knowledgeable in this area can help. Cheers, Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't help but take a look at this user, and I noticed that he is harboring copyrighted information in a subpage. User:Nasz\b\Herodotos is a copyvio of http://classics.mit.edu/Herodotus/history.4.iv.html. John Reaves (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, it's from 440 B.C. John Reaves (talk) 21:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Emot Template:Emot Template:Emot Copyvio from 440BC? LOL. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow! I had no idea that copyright extension had gotten so out of hand.  ;-) Robert A.West (Talk) 21:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, since it’s a translation, the date is rather more recent. George Rawlinson died in 1902, so it’s public domain, but by a thinner margin. —xyzzy_n 21:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Multilingual Warnings?

Are there templates which can warn a user who doesn't speak English? I ran into this problem with this IP user. Can someone help? Thank You. Real96 21:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

no template I know of. But I have to ask, if they don't speak any English, why are they editing here? pschemp | talk 21:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I warn the user with this? I don't know why they are editing here. I tried to warn the user to edit on ITA WP on the talk page, but she still speaks Italian on the talk page.

I found the 1st level warning on ITA WP.

Grazie per aver fatto un test con Wikipedia. La modifica che hai effettuato ci è sembrata essere un test; la tua prova è stata quindi rimossa e la pagina ripristinata. Per favore, per ulteriori prove, utilizza la pagina delle prove, dal momento che le voci vengono ripristinate rapidamente. Puoi dare un'occhiata alla guida introduttiva per imparare a contribuire sulle pagine del nostro progetto. Grazie. Real96 21:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Commons also has some at Commons:Message templates, although most are not what you need, a few might be helpful. Click on the language you want to get the text you need. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 00:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

We need a Rosetta Stone type template saying that if you cannot speak English, then you cannot contribute here. Then have links to the other language's Wikipedia. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Have the four major Anglo-languages (French, Spanish, Italian, German) as well as the Asian languages (Japanese, Chinese, Korean et. al). I am sure that there are a category of users who are bi/multi-lingual and they can help with the messages (from test-1 to test-5). I would enjoy working with you with that project, if one ever exists. Real96 07:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Latest Jacob Peters sock

Described as "Likely" by checkuser, it's Ploughman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Block requested. Moreschi ^Deletion! 21:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

He's just been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR but this is the checkuser-confirmed sock of a community-banned user, someone needs to indef. Moreschi ^Deletion! 22:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to the checkuser case: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jacob Peters. Heimstern Läufer 22:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppets of User:BryanFromPalatine via checkuser.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine Not sure how it ought to be dealt with, I will leave that up to admins. I will say that I am mighty suspicious of this pattern of behaviour and the ever-changing story that has been presented to explain and justify it. Is the current story the truth? It *might* be, but I am full of sincere doubts about this. I'd rather that people not evade blocks (in this case a PERMANENT block) by using sock accounts, and there is NO doubt that at least some of this activity was exactly that, and has been admitted to. Are the present ones socks? I will leave that up to y'all to decide. --BenBurch 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone goes off half-cocked, examine BenBurch's block log. He's just returned from a 24-hour block for incivility and "misrepresentation." Dino 23:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• Which I apologized for. There is NO Stare Decisis on Wikipedia, my friend. And this is new data as requested for re-opening this matter. So please stop attacking me and explain these sock puppets one of which you just ADMITTED to below. --BenBurch 23:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Next, let's examine this. I will cut and paste the relevant sections for your review below.

This account was initially blocked for being a BryanFromPalistine sockpuppet. After investigations and substantial and very civil discussion with this user on unblock-en-l, our opinion is that this person is Bryan's brother and not actually a sockpuppet. Furthermore, although the edits looked like meatpuppetry, they were actually legitimate and good faith attempts to remove libel from Wikipedia articles. To avoid even the appearance of meatpuppetry, this user has agreed not to edit the article, Free Republic, directly but may still participate in that article's talk page and is specifically encouraged to report libel on that page at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (assuming that is the right forum for the libel). Once again, this person showed nothing but civility during the investigation on unblock-en-l despite the time it took. He has our apologies for the block. Dean, please feel free to leave a brief note on the talk page for Free Republic referencing this message if you feel it appropriate. --Yamla 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Yamla's analysis. Dean: If posts to the Free Republic talk page aren't getting corrections done fast enough, please let me know, and I'll try to help transcribe stuff if there is clear consensus for it. Long term I'd like to see this self imposed restriction become liftable as long as we don't have any issues around the editing and content... ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Lar and Yamla are two of the most senior administrators at Wikipedia. They were joined in this unanimous Unblock-en-l decision, after an extensive, exhaustive and time-consuming review of the overwhelming evidence in my favor, by Luna Santin, another senior administrator.

In addition to the public evidence presented at Unblock-en-l, I also presented abundant evidence privately via e-mail to these administrators. Please consider the fact that they reached the decision to unblock me unanimously, less than 48 hours ago; and that I have carefully adhered to the very letter of the self-imposed restriction on my posting privileges, in order to avoid even the appearance of meatpuppetry.

The Friendly Ghost was created by another family member -- neither Bryan nor I -- to remove a violation of Wikipedia's privacy policy. The violation had been created using an open proxy, and was being used to harass my brother's family. After that, the account was used to "Wikify" an article and then nominate it for the "Did you know" feature on the Main Page. No disruptions, nothing abusive, purely defensive and then constructive. Any objections?

H4672600 was created to combat the rampant "mischaracterizations" of BenBurch. BenBurch actually engaged in edit wars to protect those "mischaracterizations."

Fensteren has been cleared. Dino 23:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so you're Bryan's brother. Can you call him and ask him to stop creating sockpuppets? Picaroon 23:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If checkuser is confirming that they have used the same IP, then they must live together or interact daily in some way. Note that Bryan was not unreasonable either, except for the puppets. Therefore, I suspect that all the accounts were created by the same person. But of course I do, I made the original block, with Mackensen's agreement (before the CheckUser). Prodego ^talk 23:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Dino - so H4672600 is your account too? Your admission of family members editing on your behalf is an admission of meatpuppetry, EXACTLY what the Admins on unblock L warned you about. Those emails are public, by the way. Any Wikipedian with a valid account can sign up to that list and read the archives, as I did, where I read the specfic, direct warning and instruction for you to NOT engage in meatpuppetry. Should I post it, or do you admit that they warned you about meatpuppetry? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

And this is new data as requested for re-opening this matter.

It is a rewind and replay of the original data that led to Prodego's premature block on my account. No inquiries, no investigation, no Check User. Just lock up Dino and throw away the key. Exactly the same IP address data, plus a wealth of additional data that I provided, led to my unblocking at Unblock-en-l less than 48 hours ago. Family members can innocently share IP addresses without being sockpuppets or meatpuppets, can't they?

... explain these sock puppets one of which you just ADMITTED to below.

This is another misrepresentation, identical to one of the misrepresentations that produced his just-concluded 24-hour block. Would anyone care to give BenBurch another 24-hour block for this misrepresentation? Dino 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"H4672600 was created to combat the rampant "mischaracterizations" of BenBurch. BenBurch actually engaged in edit wars to protect those "mischaracterizations." is what you said. This is an admission of an account found to be a sock puppet. It is not an attempt at mischaracterization! It is your own words, just typed here mere hours ago. Now, please stop with the un-civil attacks on my person and deal with how you have so many "family members" that you can have an unlimited supply of editors willing to make the same edits to the same article using the same terms and the same sources. I'm sorry, but this isn't right at all. Nothing about what I have seen here since User:BryanFromPalatine checked in is right, and that includes the notice on your user page that I cannot read as anything at all except a legal threat against Wikipedia. So, I am asking you; 1. How many family members are you going to trot out as editors here? Is there a limit? And how is that different from the Wikipedia term-of-art "meatpuppet"? 2. How is what is on your user page not a legal threat? How is it different from when some guy comes into your business and says; "Nice soda shop you have here... It would be a SHAME if something HAPPENED to it!" ??? Now, you can probably get somebody to block me for writing this. Maybe permanently. If you can, have at it. I won't sock puppet my way around it like I honestly believe you have, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna shut up when I see this sort of thing happening here. --BenBurch 05:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Lar, Yamla and Luna Santin have reviewed far more evidence than any Check User could ever provide. They unanimously agreed that I'm not a sock puppet, and that I could avoid even the appearance of meatpuppetry by refraining from making any edits to the Free Republic article. This I've done. No one denies it. Accept their honest review and their final judgment in this matter. Dino 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits were identical to a user known to be using sockpuppets, and those were your only edits. I am sorry if I incorrectly blocked you, but there was sufficient evidence for me to feel comfortable doing so at the time. When you asked for an unblock, I directed you to unblock-en-l, because I was not willing to unblock. I am glad they could help you. Also, as you can tell, blocks are not permanent, so I hardly "threw away the key" ;-). Prodego ^talk 00:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Prodego, I accept your apology. Let's not allow any misunderstandings to get in the way of creating an NPOV article. What is your response to BenBurch's mischaracterization above? It is virtually identical to a previous mischaracterization that resulted in a 24-hour block. That 24-hour block expired just a couple of hours ago. Apparently he's learned nothing. Are you at all inclined to do anything about it? Dino 00:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this an admission of a sock account? "H4672600 was created to combat the rampant "mischaracterizations" of BenBurch. BenBurch actually engaged in edit wars to protect those "mischaracterizations." Fairness & Accuracy For All

Note : Dino wrote in unblock L : "Any skeptics among you can feel free to monitor my account after it is unblocked, and block me again at the slightest hint of abusive or disruptive behavior." On the FR talk page he writes, while 'claiming' BLP, even though he admits BLP might not apply: "Tbeatty, I encourage you to remove it [contested material] aggressively per instructions by Jimbo Wales. As you can see from the boldfaced portions above, no need to worry about the 3RR rule." link - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Admin Jossi, the article mediator, said that BLP doesn't apply

That's another misrepresentation. Jossi didn't say that BLP doesn't apply. He asked, "Why is it WP:BLP mentioned?" How can anyone get anything constructive done around here with all of these misrepresentations? Dino 00:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You've GOT to be kidding me. I suggest you read the Wiki article Rhetorical question - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Isn't this an admission of a sock account? "H4672600 was created to combat the rampant "mischaracterizations" of BenBurch. BenBurch actually engaged in edit wars to protect those "mischaracterizations." Fairness & Accuracy For All

You've GOT to be kidding me.

Did he, or did he not say "that BLP doesn't apply"?

Isn't this an admission of a sock account?

It isn't. I said that it was created. I did not say that I created it. I didn't identify the creator of that account at all, but I will spell it out for you in no uncertain terms right now, so that there are no misunderstandings: I did not create the H4672600 account, nor have I ever used it. I have never created or used any account except this one. Stop posting these misrepresentations. BenBurch was blocked for it, and may be blocked again just a couple of hours after the previous block expired. It is in the nature of presenting false testimony. Sanctions for such misconduct are appropriate. Dino 00:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Dino claimed above: "Lar and Yamla are two of the most senior administrators at Wikipedia." Lar was adminned on May 08, 2006. That's not very 'senior'. Why would Dino make up a totally bogus false claim like this? Please see the claims here where Dino says that he spoke to noted author TJ Walker who he says denied writing one of his own articles BLP Noticeboard - and then the story changed - entirely. Meaning no disrespect, but IMHO from my close observations of this persons claims and actions, he will say and write anything. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There really isn't any seniority as far as being an admin goes. Prodego ^talk 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please see the claims here where Dino says that he spoke to noted author TJ Walker who he says denied writing one of his own articles BLP Noticeboard - and then the story changed - entirely.

The fun just never stops. This is yet another misrepresentation. The story never changed. First I called TJ Walker's office, then I called Carolyn Doran's office. Evidently Carolyn then spoke with TJ Walker's office. That story has never changed, because it's the truth. When is an administrator going to do something about all of these misrepresentations on an evidence page? Dino 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, just a moment here - Are you claiming that Author TJ Walker claimed never to have written the article that archive.org puts on his web site in 1999, which at least one other site used here as an RS republished, that is still in the index of all of his articles on his web site, and which you are seemingly threatening suit over? Is that what you are claiming? And you are claiming it on the basis of an unverifiable telephone call? I think the fact that archive.org has the complete text of that article online and linked to its historical place on TJ Walker's web site is absolute proof that he did write it, did publish it, and that it did exist. The fact that it is not currently online anywhere does not mean that it is not a valid cite for any article here on Wikipedia. We can prove its content. We can prove it was published. archive.org does not make stuff up. We can also prove that the quotes used in that article absolutely were on Free Republic. I am going to stick my neck way out here and say that I very much doubt that you ever called author TJ Walker. And also say that if somebody claiming to be TJ Walker called Carolyn at Wikimedia Foundation, that was not likely to have really been TJ Walker. I see no proof of the truth of either event being proffered here. --BenBurch 05:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

YES - he did : Dino claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that he PERSONALLY contacted noted author TJ Walker CBS News and that Walker PERSONALLY told him that he never wrote the particular article in question "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately" here

Note : That Dino is also editing as a numeric IP 209.221.240.193 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) the same corporate IP that Bryan (alleged to be his brother) and 5 (6? 7? - I've lost count!) confirmed sock puppets have edited from. My advice would be the block this whole IP netrange. Dino can edit from home if his editing privledges aren't revoked, but for him to be editing on the same IP as multiple banned sock puppet accounts just isn't right. Fairness & Accuracy For All

the same corporate IP that Bryan (alleged to be his brother) and 5 (6? 7? - I've lost count!) confirmed sock puppets have edited from.

Yet another mischaracterization. Bryan has been proven to be my brother. Apparently only one sockpuppet (ClemsonTiger) has been "proven" to have edited from the IP address 209.221.240.193, and Bryan disputed that finding. I have also edited from IP address 209.221.240.193 and it has been proven that I am NOT a sockpuppet. Dino 01:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

May I casually ask why, DeanHinnen, is there a seemingly legal notice on your userpage? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading all of this, do you really have to ask? Dino 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because the notice on your userpage can be construed as a violation of WP:NLT, subtle though it may be. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean "misconstrued," don't you? May I cordially direct your attention to the big, bold, green lettering across the top of that page? Dino 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And indeed I have read the big, bold, green lettering across the top of that page, and I thank your courtesy. I have also read in between the lines, and find that my use of "construed" is correct, as though the message is not worded as such, it can be considered, in my opinion, as a subtle violation of WP:NLT, semantics notwithstanding. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• I can address that, Physicq --- "Dean" here is a member of the legal team of Free Republic. He therefore represents Jim Robinson, the owner. On the talk page for Free Republic, "Dean" says, (prarphrasing here) 'I am just trying to keep Wikipedia from being sued as Jim Robinson is litigious.' - Well, as Jim Robinson is his client, this is just a lawyer saying Do as I say or my client will sue you. isn't it? It is absolutely a legal threat from a lawyer who WORKS FOR FREE REPUBLIC. And he works for them whether he has ever taken a dime from them or not as he has represented them and written briefs on their behalf, and bragged about it in the Free Republic talk page. Now I haven't gone over there and looked up exact quotes, but I am not attempting to "misrepresent" anything here, or being "uncivil" here. I am giving you my understanding of the actions of this person as expressed by what he has said in the past and applying logic to see what deductions arise. And my deduction is that he has directly threatened wikipedia with suit if material not to his liking is incorporated in the Free Republic article. If there is some other way to read this, I don't see it. Again, if you want to say I am misrepresenting anything, and block me forever, go right ahead, I am doing what I think is right in making this observation here. I also am going to make the observation that I do not believe for even one moment that these many usernames are not a single person trying as hard as he can to game the system here, but I will leave the determination on what to do that up to admins here and abide by whatever is decided. --BenBurch 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BUT....WAIT ! It's 'Bryan' who claims he's a member of the FR Legal Eagles who flew out to L.A. to advise them on the L.A. Times v FR lawsuit 'in the summer of 2001" (when FR filed their final appeal April 2001) (my side aches) Bryan What's this claim about JimRob being 'litigious'. I can only find one lawsuit. (not counting LA T V FR that he LOST) Fred Phelps is litigious. JimRob? Yet another of Dino's unsubstantiated 'claims' Ouch. My side. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE : Subject: TJ Walker's 07/06/99 article :

Dino claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that he contacted noted author TJ Walker CBS News personally and that Walker told him that he never wrote the particular article in question "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately" here

Dino claimed today on the BLP board "The purported "TJ Walker article"... Abruptly, and without explanation, American Politics.com pulled the article and blanked the page a few weeks ago. They did this because it was libelous, and they didn't want to get sued like the City of Fresno got sued." - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And this is significant because ... ????? Dino 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It shows a pattern, Dino. Just like you misrepresenting that Lar, who was made an Admin on May 06, is one of the 'most senior administrators on Wiki'. These things can be checked Dino, just as your claims can be checked - and your words can be checked, and are forever archived, even if you change them, in the edit histories. Like I'm fond of saying : "We didn't all just fall off the back of the turnip truck here on Wikipedia!" (especially not the Admins!) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 02:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Check all you like. But as Brenneman said, a few phone calls can't satisfy WP:V so neither can a few e-mails. If TJ Walker posts a notice on his website (or some other website that can relied upon to accurately represent him) by Tuesday, stating that he still stands behind the claims made in his July 1999 article, then you will satisfy your self-imposed deadline. If he doesn't, then I expect you to accept the constraints of the official WP:BLP policy, and remove the disputed material from the article. Thank you. Dino 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BLP? LOL! BLP doesn't apply. Read what Jossi said one more time. Even if the article was retracted for being libelous, it can be cited as it's verifiable. Didn't you read WP:V like I suggested? Verifiability not truth - Fairness & Accuracy For All

• Okay, Dean, you say "I did not create the H4672600 account, nor have I ever used it. I have never created or used any account except this one. " - So, if you did not create it and all, how the heck do you know how and why exactly it was created? If I misread your statement as an admission, my apologies, but I could and can read it no other way. I see you admitting to this, and then denying it when called on it and then trying to get me blocked for reading your words at face value. Well, if you can get me blocked, do so. I read what I read. And I know the checkuser team is very careful when they say that users are socks of other users. And I wonder just how many family members you have editing this encyclopedia anyway? --BenBurch 05:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE : I would like to thank and compliment Dino for one thing. His unabating use of colored text is so inventive, light-hearted and cheery that I've adopted it! It really brightens things up! I think I'll start adding it to articles ! ;-) I'm dissapointed that I couldn't add blinking text through, I tried and Wiki doesn't allow it. <BLINK>Damn you Wikipedia !</BLINK> ;-) LOL! Fairness & Accuracy For All

Vandalism of Color entry

The entry has been vandalized a number of times in the last few days...should it be protected?Benje309 22:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ask on WP:RFPP. Don't be surprized if they say to just watchlist. It's worth a try anyway. 68.39.174.238 22:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Urgent help needed

A talk page spam bot is adding fake welcome templates to new user pages. Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?offset=&limit=50&target=newbies&title=Special%3AContributions&namespace=3 and revert all such messages. I've been doing some myself but there are loadas to do. Cheers Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/ErhAo. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually he's had at least two other usernames (see further up the page) so please keep an eye on newbies contributions in case he comes back again. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw User:JAbester as well. The user seems to be doing this through a modified monobook.js. I nixed a chunk of the created pages. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone id all these, file an emergency checkuser request, and IP-block them? [I have to go offline, or I would do the CU request now...] Georgewilliamherbert 00:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, as an ex-arb, do you have Checkuser? Newyorkbrad 00:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No she doesn't. Prodego ^talk 01:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No I don't. The autoblocker will take care of the IPs for 24 hours so there is no urgency. If he comes back after that well we can checkuser him then. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Threatening comments

Sorry to bother you, I would like to report a User (davidrusher) making threats against me on the Men's rights talk page: since it is obvious that we have at least one feminist (Cailil) who is misusing Wiki standards to force a feminist world perspective on the MRM, and where he is attempting to prevent a real definition of the movement on Wiki by attempting to "single me out" and somehow being unqualified to present a credible overview of the movement, I will do an article about this over the weekend, and publish it on at least a dozen major websites. and Apparently at least one of the folks editing this section need an education from MRM's. This is our section, and no feminists will be allowed to mess it up. I request that Cailil's editing privileges be revoked. He has proven himself to be a feminist censor, not a balanced editor.. I'm really not sure what to do. I apologise if this is the wrong to place to post this. The full diff is here--Cailil 00:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If not threatening, it certainly smacks of a article ownership attitude.

As we've seen with other groups such as the Scientologists, some folks seem to think that they "own" articles that are about them or their political or other group ... and that they should get to control what is included in them. This is against Wikipedia rules, and other editors should make a point of stepping in to resist article ownership.

In this case, it would be useful if Wikipedians who do not think of themselves as either "feminists" or "men's rights advocates" would step in and take a look. --FOo 01:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

John Broughton has attempted to engage in discourse with the editor in question on his talk page to apparently no response or avail. I'll second his comments in a few minutes; hopefully this user can still be reached. —bbatsell ¿? 01:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Azerbaijan page

User Azerbaijani keeps RVing this page and removing valid scholarly references, and reinserting his own quotes to unscholarly amateur websites on the Internet. Please, lock the page at revision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azerbaijan&oldid=103730458

and request user Azerbaijani to discuss and come up to complete consensus with everyone on the discussion page. Thanks. Atabek 01:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is the proper place to post this Template:Emot. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 01:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This user is trying to add irrelevant information in a section that through compromise was extensively shortened. I have told him on the talk page of the page in question and on his talk page that the information about the founding of the Musavat party belongs in the main article Musavat. Furthermore, he talks of discussion and consensus when he does nothing of the sort himself, and infact goes against consensus.Azerbaijani 01:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrators, please, visit the Discussion page for Azerbaijan. User Azerbaijani did not reach any consensus with anyone. Atabek 01:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Banned user Mykungfu is back

Editing largely through IP addresses. One lovely example. Just a heads-up to any admins who are on tonight. He usually edits via AOL IPs, so keep a special eye on IP edits if you're on RCP. | Mr. Darcy talk 01:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User deleting massive amounts of information from multiple articles

User:CyberAnth (contributions) [47] has been deleting massive amounts of text from multiple articles on the basis that ANY uncited text in a Biography article must be removed or else it violates WP:BLP. I engaged him on his talk page and pointed out that WP:BLP requires the removal of controversial uncited items from a biography, but his reply was that since we have no way of knowing what items may be controversial to the subject, everything uncited must be removed. This deletion in particular is a good example. [48]. The Frank Abegnale article (the guy portrayed in the movie Catch me if you can. He removed MOST of the stuff that the subject is known for. None of what he removed had {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) tags on it. He just deleted it all. Other articles he is simply stubbing, like this diff [49]. This seems more like an example of WP:POINT than trying to improve the articles. Am I off base on this??? WP:BLP does not require that every statement of fact be cited. I really don't see how this is constructive and resisting the urge to start reverting as vandalism I wanted to get a second opinion. Can anyone advise me on this? Caper13 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, WP:BLP says potentially controversial (and if it doesn't, it should). We shouldn't have things without a source, anyway, so the best way to solve this is just to find sources. It does not hurt Wikipedia to remove statements which may be untrue. -Amark moo! 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at his contribution list though. Rather than placing citation tags on items to encourage others to cite, he is just stubbing entire articles and deleting pretty benign information. This is an example of text deleted "- In the California State Senate, Dr. Aanestad's top priorities are preserving rural health care, protecting North State water, and serving the needs of the citizens of the 4th Senate District, which includes Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Nevada, Placer, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity and Yuba counties." Caper13 02:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

...uncited, unreferenced claims, that could be pure bogus and therefore very controversial to someone, including the subject. CyberAnth 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tags are cool. But for BLPs, no. CyberAnth 02:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What was controversial about the passage above about the California State Senate that caused you to delete it? Caper13 02:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You mean about the living person said to be in the CA state senate. Said with uncited, unreferenced claims. For all I know the info was made up in school one day. It could therefore be controversial to someone somewhere, and libelous. CyberAnth 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The edit to the Frank Abagnale article you link to above was a good edit, and is mandated by WP:BLP. CyberAnth should be encouraged in removing any more entirely unsourced accusations of crime from biographies of living persons, even in the case of someone whose notability rests on criminal behaviour. Jkelly 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I get the criminal behavior thing on Abegnale. I still a better approach would be to put citation tags in rather than deleting in this case, but I cana see the point. I am not trying to be troublesome because I am still learning some of the rules, but in this latest edit [50] He deleted all information about an Italian Conductor other than the fact that he is an italian conductor. This doesn't make sense to me. Caper13 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

For all I know, the stuff other than that he was an Italian conductor was made up in school one day. This is a living person we are speaking of, and none of the info beyond what I left was verifiable. The info does not stand WP:BLP. CyberAnth 03:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You left his birthday and his occupation. How do you know either of those were true. Neither were cited. and they are about as controversial as the information you did remove. You gutted an entire article which no one had previously questioned. Doesnt that seem a little extreme? Caper13 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I should not have left the B-Day info. CyberAnth 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you've removed it. WP:POINT. The fact that he is a conductor is uncited as well. Why don't you delete that. Then the entire article can consist of his name and no identification of who he is.

In the current drive to improve the site by fixing its highly unreferenced state I would agree with CyberAnth's removal of unsourced info. Any unsourced info on a BLP article is potentially controversial so it shouldn't be there. (Which, I suppose is counter to my original arguments about the same actions on the Ron Jeremy article, but we live and learn)-Localzuk^(talk) 03:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ron Jeremy - that is a very well referenced article. :-) CyberAnth 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is since it was blanked and dozens of editors stormed over there to fix it up :) It was a bit 'shock and awe' to blank it but it did the job well.-Localzuk^(talk) 03:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It may just be me, but I completely fail to see how removing unsourced info is bad. I view WP:BLP as "in these cases, nobody may revert removals", not "this is the only reason to remove unsourced info". -Amark moo! 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP (emphasis in original): "Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

• Verifiability
• Neutral point of view (NPOV)
• No original research"

CyberAnth 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No doubt CyberAnth is acting in good faith here but this seems to me very close to breach of WP:POINT. Many of the articles stubbed contained no material that could conceivably be seen as controversial. WP:BLP does not require such extreme action for uncontraversial material. Articles can be tagged as unreferenced without danger. Better still, if CyberAnth has reason to doubt the truth of some of the information, contrary sources or discussion on talkpages might be appropriate. But blanket stubbings without controversy is unnecessarily disruptive. WJBscribe 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

For WP:POINT to apply, it must be deliberately disruptive, which you admit it is not, and it must prove a point, which it does not do. And while it is true that BLP does not require such action, that does not mean that unsourced material can't be deleted, only that it is not always mandated. -Amark moo! 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The intention may not be disruption but disruption is the result. It is incredibly disrespectful to other users' contributions. There are other ways to go about this without going on a wikilawyering crusade to have every article meet the strict letter of WP:BLP in one night. By all means delete contraversial material, but simple career information without comment is harmless. It can be tagged, or queries raised on talkpages. But blanket deletions of this nature are not helpful. WJBscribe 04:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, people who write BLPs without strictly citing their sources show a serious lack of respect for the subject, their readers, and other Wikipedians. The Burden of evidence is not on me to find sources for every article on Wikipedia. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article" (WP:V#Burden_of_evidence). This is especially so with BLPs. If something is potentially controversial to someone somewhere it is therefore controversial. For all I know, or someone else not knowledgable about the subject, the "basic career information" could have been made up in school one day. Cite the material per WP:CITE and you will have nothing to worry about. When editors get away with this sort of stuff it may seem disruptive, but it is for the better of the article, the subject, and this Project. CyberAnth 05:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This edit on Cyberanth's talk page suggests suggests that the disruption is intentional, and designed to provoke a response. that Hank Aaron was elected to the hall of fame" - I do not know hardly a thing about Aaron, so that can absolutely be a controversial statement, given that it is not verifiable. Cite it. That shows you care. CyberAnth 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC). Yes, Hank Aaron being elected to the hall of fame is SO controversial. Obviously, it is easily cited, but his actions here are disrespectful to the work of editors. The stubbing of this article [51] removed completely neutral information from an article that only gets a couple of edits a month and probably doesnt have people watching it, so what is he expecting to accomplish here other than to destroy months of work by editors who had no other intention than to contribute to wikipedia. The information removed is not controversial in the least. Additionally when I pointed out that in his initial stubbing, he left nothing but the date of birth, he went back and deleted that as well WP:POINTCaper13 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You can try to divine my motives all you want. The content policies is what I am following. Of course, the solution to the birthdate issue is to cite it. For all I know, it is false and could be considered offensive by the subject if not true. CyberAnth 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

That is patently ridiculous. You are trying to impose a new interpretation of BLP which says that EVERY statement should be deleted if it is not sourced. BLP has never been interpreted that strictly. Current BLP policy requires the citing of potentially controversial statements, but you are redefining EVERY statement as potentially controversial to force citing of every statement. It is a good goal to have well cited articles, but forcing this change overnight especially to little trafficked articles is WP:POINT Caper13 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth engaging in vandalism through misapplication of policy

I have just noticed that the above user has made a series of edits to over two dozen articles removing material he claims violates WP:BLP. I have not looked at every one of these edits, and some of them may well be valid, but to use just two examples he has removed from the Hank Aaron article the fact that Aaron was elected to the baseball Hall of Fame and removed from the article on golfer Tommy Aaron every bit of information in the article save for his name and profession, including his finishing places in various golf tournaments. WP:BLP exists to make sure that libel is not placed in wikipedia and specifically mandates that only controversial information should be deleted. None of the information presented above, and presumably most of the rest of the material removed, has been challenged by anyone or could fit into a rational definition of controversial. Furthermore, the user did not attempt to resolve what problems he claimed existed through dialogue on the talk page of the article or through use of tags. I posted about the issue on his talk page, and he was unapologetic. I reverted some of the changes and he immediately reverted me. Administrator action would appear to be required to end this user's disruption of wikipedia. Indrian 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already a thread here started on this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_deleting_massive_amounts_of_information_from_multiple_articles

What would you like to do, dialog about allowing BLPs that do not adhere to WP policies?

That Hank Aaron is in the Hall of Fame may seem incontrovertible fact to you. But many people, like me, know hardly a thing about Aaron, so that can absolutely be a controversial statement, given that it is not verifiable. Cite it. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.

CyberAnth 04:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference between "not verifiable" and "not verified". There's your verification. You may have a point with many of your edits. There is far too much unverified information on Wikipedia, but I'd still say you're mostly making a point this evening. --Onorem 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

So, is the Burden of evidence now on the reader? Per WP:V#Burden of evidence, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." The solution is cite it. CyberAnth 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You'll have a hard time convincing me that you actually believe that calling someone a Senator or stating that a baseball player is in the Hall of Fame would be considered libelous. These are statements that should have, at most, been moved to the talk page. --Onorem 04:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You must be referring to the litany of claims about a Senator...unsourced, uncited, unverifiable claims. The cite for the HoF is just above. Feel free to add it. CyberAnth 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If your intention was anything other than to prove a point, you could have added it yourself rather than deleting the work of others. Caper13 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The burden of evidence for every page on Wikipedia is not mine. Per WP:V#Burden of evidence, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." The solution is cite it. CyberAnth 05:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, it is not vandalism. If it is an edit based on a misunderstanding of policy, it is not vandalism. In fact, I think CyberAnth understands BLP policy and is applying it mostly correctly. Tags are fine for Civil War generals, but potentially controversial material about living people has to be sourced when added. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to add the material. The solution is to cite it and add it, not to revert to the uncited version, with or without a tag. Tom Harrison ^Talk 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me. CyberAnth, who has been here before about POINT violations, is REMOVING facts like "Hank Aaron is in the Baseball Hall of Fame" and whether so and so is a SENATOR... and that's a GOOD THING? If we required cites for every sentence, then the whole article would be unreadable. I strongly disagree. SirFozzie 05:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It may seem common knowledge to you that Aaron is in the HoF. For all many know, it could be false. Cite it. Pick any dozen of baseball figures. By golly, if an editor makes such an exceptional claim that they are in the HoF, it better be cited in a BLP. As for the Senator, you must be referring to the litany of claims about a Senator I removed...unsourced, uncited, unverifiable claims. CyberAnth 05:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

CyberAnth is continuing his process despite the fact that there is active conversation and discussion of his edits here at AN/I. Would it be worth it to request a temporary stop while the extent of WP:BOF and what is, is not, or might possibly be controversial is worked out? ThuranX 05:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The material being removed ranges from statements with legitimate potential for being defamatory, to easily-sourced, common knowledge, positive statements about the subject. The fact that CyberAnth doesn't appear to be able to tell the difference indicates that he doesn't understand the policy, and rather is going about removing uncited material from bios at random. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar's block of CyberAnth

User:Alkivar has blocked CyberAnth for one week. I have asked for a reconsideration of this block. Jkelly 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion of this block has happened at User talk:Alkivar, but I'd like to invite more admins to weigh in. Jkelly 06:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading the above discussion I'm fully in line with the block. CyberAnth is antagonistic to the point of POINT. Removing uncited, common knowledge and *refusing* to do any trivial research, or work *with* other editors is highly detrimental to our aims. Wjhonson 07:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say a block was necessary, but a one-week block probably too long. – Chacor 07:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this is more of a case of WP:SPIDER than WP:POINT. CyberAnth is mixing in good removals of uncited material that violate BLP, but the removal of some thing such as that Hank Aaron is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame because there wasn't a cite next to the "claim" is not appropriate behavior, namely (edited) blanking sections. More diffs are readily availible in the contribution history. There are much better ways to conform biographies, and disruption is not a way. Preventative block. Teke ^(talk) 07:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with the block. As someone who was once blocked for WP:POINT - I know it when I see it, and boy did I see it in CyberAnths actions ! Thank you Alkivar - well done. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You are aware that User:Sandstein unblocked him about two hours ago, right? User:Zoe|(talk) 08:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Hildanknight and User:Dev920

I don't know the history between these two, but the history of Dev920's talk page shows some major incivility going on. Looks like a concerted effort by Hildanknight to go on a personal crusade against Dev920 (see also Dev's recent RFA), and he's been warned. Admins should probably watch the situation and block if necessary. – Chacor 02:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Final warning left. --Coredesat 02:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:ExxonMobil

ExxonMobil has been making improper edits that appear to be in good faith at a first glace, but when you take a closer look, he's causing disruption, such asflagging common words as vandalism, adding inappropriate categories, and moving pages to inappropriate titles after being told not to. I think this is grounds for an indef block for vandalism. Thought? -- Selmo ^(talk) 03:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd think an indefinite block for a user name violation would be in order. John Reaves (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest indef on both accounts; i.e. creation of new accounts disallowed. This subtle vandalism obviously demonstrates intention to damage the Wikipedia, and knowledge of how to do so. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I blocked this user on sight for a username violation earlier, but looking at the contributions I left autoblock on. HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure this is the right forum for this . . .

Nicholas Strunk and The Long Road Ahead have both been nominated for deletion. The same user user:hellogoodbyes2007 made virtually all the edits on both articles. Tonight another user, user:nicolescherzingerfan was created and began removing the AfD templates. As no other editors have been working to make additions to these articles and nicolescherzingerfan immediately began revising these after account creations, I have my suspicions . . . but anyway. Now this editor has vandalized For a Moment, which is apparently a Brooke Hogan single--but she altered the article so that it appeared to be the work of Nicholas Strunk. With the scope of behavior exhibited by one/both users, I'm way beyond assuming good faith. I'd like an administrator to look at this please. Thank you. janejellyroll 03:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they have edited exactly the same articles and are obviously the same person. If they continue to interfere both should be blocked, but if not there's no reason to. Chick Bowen 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The user in question is Nicolesherzingerfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (you made a typo Janejellyroll Template:Emot). Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I have tried the sledgehammer test. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicolesherzingerfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just removed the AfD template again. I had previously posted two warnings on her talk page about this type of behavior. Here is a link to the edit. [[52]] janejellyroll 08:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Overzealous Editing. Can you reign this person in please?

To David Klein, administrators, or to whomever is the gatekeeper of the Webster University Wikipage:

I have been building the Webster University page for the past year or so. I am also an alumnus of the institution, holding a Masters Degree. I have put in countless hours of work/research into building the page. I have built approximately 2/3rds of the Webster University page, and built most of the sections.

However, someone is constantly going behind me and making trivial changes. Changes that effect the content. It appears to be the same one or two individuals each time.... reverting.

Under the 'Notable Graduates' section, the above suspected editor adds his own person opinion under one of the entries (Dr. Debra Peppers). (side note: It's interesting that he believes that his detailed summaries are allowable, while at the same time, he is deleting other summaries on the grounds that there should be no summaries).

I have tried to stick with facts, particularly in the Notable graduates section, as well as throughout the rest of the article. In fact, I have gone out of my way to avoid that kind of opinionated partisan commentary. It's annoying to have someone come behind me to throw in their own personal partisan opinion.

My purpose for the work is to improve the wiki profile of the institution....and to show how good the University is. The partisan stuff was and is the furthest thing from my mind. Why someone would want to bring that kind of spirit to a University page is beyond me. It is especially annoying to have my work edited by someone who is probably not affiliated with the University.....not a graduate, etc...and probably not even from the local area.

The above editor has also made several other unnecessary changes. Some of the entries in the 'Notable graduates' section need some explanation in order to convey why that particular person is notable. So from time to time I have to add a few lines of detail (i'm just a detail oriented person). I have modeled my work on other University wikipages. Many of those pages have the same occasional summaries regarding graduates...and all of those pages look great. And with no overzealous editing. I have spent countless hours researching the people affiliated with the University....first identifying those who are notable graduates and determining if they should be on the list, etc. That all takes time and patience. So it's aggravating to deal with the overzealous editing of the work I have put in. Adding a few links here and there, & changing grammer is one thing, but this person is affecting content and image.

I am not claiming to own the page.... (and I don't want to own it or control it). However, I have put in quite a bit of time in the process of building it up. And I would like to continue.

Can we lock this person out (of the Webster U. wiki) for 6 months while I finish building up this page? I still had some work to do...however, if I have to constantly deal with the overzealous editing...then I will unfortunately have to end my work now....leaving a half finished project.

Or can I obtain temporary control of the page so that I can deal with issues without contacting an admin every time there is a vandal?

Any assistance would be appreciated.

Thanks

Musiclover06 in St. Louis

Taking a quick look at activity on the page, I don't see any actual discussion with the editor in question. This would appear to be a content dispute, and the first place that should be taken is to the article talk page for discussion of the changes and the importance of the information being considered. You could also take it to User talk:Davidkevin and engage the editor directly. It doesn't look like anything that needs page protection at this point, from my look - better to discuss it further with the editor at this point. Tony Fox (arf!) 07:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)