Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
MiszaBot II (talk | contribs)
259,776 edits
m Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 24h) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive489.
Avg (talk | contribs)
3,233 edits
Line 483: Line 483:


I don't know, is anybody going to provide some outside response here? I'm too involved with the various disputes here to take action. Anybody? [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 07:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know, is anybody going to provide some outside response here? I'm too involved with the various disputes here to take action. Anybody? [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 07:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
:Fut. being too involved didn't stop you from asking for [[User:Crossthets]] to be indef banned [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive29#User:Crossthets].


== User:BD2412 ==
== User:BD2412 ==

Revision as of 14:42, 9 November 2008

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    Disruptive school project?

    Articles in need of review after editing (in either 2007 or 2008) by students of Dr Graham Meikle at the Department of Media at Macquarie University

    I thought it was odd that two similarly named editors (User:Parker229 & User:Gudhka229) would make similar, consecutive edits to Photography to add Susan Sontag quotes, but didn't look at it too closely. When the third one (User:Choi229) showed up on my watch list with more Sontag quotes, I understood it was related to a school project. After 11 such editors adding quotes and what looks like snippets of textbooks or essays, Photography is now semi-protected.

    If you look at other articles edited by these users, you will find a similar pattern of good-faith edits followed (in some cases) by reverts by more experienced editors. In other cases, no one seems to be cleaning up afterwards. See the history of Internet activism where great swathes of text have been added by a series of editors with the same reference, presumably the course textbook.

    I'm not sure what to do about this, but it definitely needs some more eyes. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • How about fixing the problem for good for the Win of all? A Wikiproject "School Projects" with good ways to proceed, sandboxes, curricula for secondary and college courses, and teacher guides? I mean, it would provide (a) a good frame in which school projects can be made good for the school and not disruptive, (b) encouragement for educators to perceive WP as a valuable resource and (c) training for future editors!

      My training in education is minimal, but I'll give whatever help might be needed; I'm sure we can summon some enthusiasm and participation from educators for this. — Coren (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, this project arguably even more disrruptive that Wikipedia:WikiProject Global Economics from Marshall University, which was discussed at length on ANI in May. This one involves multiple inappropriate edits in multiple exisiting articles with intervening proper edits by others which makes reversion and clean-up very messy. Several of them edit war as well. At least the Marshall project had a central page and identified themselves so we could get in touch with them. This lot are all anonymous and there are now literally dozens of them. I've left messages on the talk pages of quite a few of them asking them to let their instructor know about this thread and Wikipedia:School and university projects. I don't know how effective it will be. Voceditenore (talk) 14:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The exact same thing happened with what looks like the same university last year, with similar amounts of less than ideal editing: see here. The instructor was contacted last time, but it doesn't seem to have helped. - MrOllie (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hopefully they will see it and get in touch. If the disruption gets out of hand, I reluctantly suggest that the alternative is to start issuing temporary blocks until someone talks to us. I hate to paint Wikipedia as an unwelcoming place, but we can't forever be doing damage control for these school assignments. EyeSerenetalk 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Most of what they've done seems to have been tidied up. The article Hacker ethic has been considerably expanded with, to my mind, too much detail and too many explanations and references. I think the previous version of 23 October is a better article, but rather than just revert, I have made a proposal to do so on the talk page. Comments welcome. JohnCD (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Identification

    The course is MAS 229 at Macquarie University. The "G. Meikle" whose book is cited in so many of the edits is the Dr Graham Meikle who runs the course.

    Looking at the history of internet activism reveals that this is a problem that has been extant for more than 1 year. Around October 2007, a whole load of users whose names all ended in "MAS 214" edited that article. There are are more at around the same time in the revision history of broadcasting. There are yet more at around the same time in the revision history of photography. There are so many, in fact, that I've had to refactor them out of this text and put them in a table. MAS 214 was another of Dr Meikle's courses.

    It appears that Dr Meikle is anually setting xyr students a task of editing Wikipedia. You can even read the instructions that the students were given for choosing their account names at User:Wumas214. Uncle G (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC) It's just an assignment where we edit three wikipedia entries that are relevant to issues discussed in MAS229 (it could just be a few sentences per entry). All entries would be correct, as they are coming from sources approved by the MAS229 course (hopefully they have been cited as needed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stapleymas229 (talk • contribs) 07:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm really uncomfortable listing all these accounts in a table on the main page of WP:ANI. Many of those names appear to consist of first and last names; putting them in a table listing the specific class they are taking at a specific university essentially "outs" people that may have an expectation of privacy here. I've removed the table; it may or may not be appropriate to put that table somewhere else, I'm not quite sure, but I request a discussion take place before it is re-added here. Thanks, and sorry for the trouble. --barneca (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No trouble barneca, you're right to err on the side of caution. The table may be useful at some point, but it's probably best if it stays out of sight for now. The thought occurs that a discussion of privacy issues should have been part of these students' preparations for their assignment... EyeSerenetalk 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow. I'm taking it that "G. Meikle" doesn't have a Wikipedia account? (Against rule one of my, yes, unfinished little essay.) Ugh. Will try to help out with this tomorrow; I'm simply too busy today. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps no account, but one of his students did create an article for Graham Meikle. Perhaps if we delete it, we will get his attention. Just joking... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about an AfD? (Seriously - he doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF). JohnCD (talk) 12:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That (revised) table is really disheartening :( I think that unless we can get some productive communication going, we'll need to close this project down somehow while all those articles are reviewed. Perhaps first though we should allow some time for a response - Dr. Meikle, if you read this thread via Voceditenore's messages on your students' talk pages, could we please ask you to either post here or contact one of us via talk-page/email? EyeSerenetalk 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure if this has already been done, but I've sent an e-mail to Dr. Meikle alerting him to this discussion and the minor controversy around his students' editing. Avruch T 19:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm glad I checked back here first - I just had that same thought and was looking up his email address. Thanks Avruch ;) EyeSerenetalk 20:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone heard anything yet? Actually, looking at the first three articles, maybe Delicious carbuncle wasn't far off the mark. I'm not seeing anything there that meets WP:PROF... EyeSerenetalk 12:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It would be good to find out who is now running this course. It must have some kind of instructor! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Failing that, I suggest an email to the head of department. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Update

    I've heard back from Dr. Meikle. He no longer works for the university hosting this class (and has not for at least two years apparently). He cc'd my e-mail and his response to the course instructors for this year and last, so I will let you know when I hear from either of them. Avruch T 12:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dr. Meikle also requests the deletion of Graham Meikle. I'm willing to take the article to AfD in a day or two if the article does not get deleted as part of the resolution of the larger issue. Avruch T 12:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rather than an AFD, would anyone freak out if I deleted Graham Meikle based on WP:CSD#IAR? It comes very close to an A7 (doesn't quite make it IMHO, but if you think it does that's another way to go), and the subject has requested deletion. Good enough for me... --barneca (talk) 13:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd think that a good idea - it's borderline A7, wouldn't survive an AfD against WP:PROF, not a lot of point taking 5 days over it. JohnCD (talk) 15:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, no issues here. I'm not sure how far we normally take subject requests for deletion when the subject is clearly notable, but I don't think that consideration applies here anyway. Btw JohnCD, I didn't see your earlier WP:PROF comment when I posted mine, so apologies for the unnecessary duplication (but we're obviously thinking on the same lines!) EyeSerenetalk 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm good with an A7 deletion as well, but someone placed the tag earlier and it was removed shortly thereafter by a non-admin (I believe). I've posted a prod just in case you (barneca) decide not to delete it A7. Avruch T 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted; will restore and take it to AFD upon request. Thanks for the feedback. --barneca (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not freaking out, but can we take this to AFD? Despite the subject's off-hand request, they do seem to be notable. I know this will seem pointy, but why don't we have a policy for subject-requested deletions? That's not a rhetorical question, but this isn't the thread for an answer. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)Withdrawing my request for AFD. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, a response is good news at least. If we can turn this around into a productive exercise, that would be great. However, I don't want to get too optimistic just yet. EyeSerenetalk 12:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He needs to get the University to fix its web site, then. Its 2008 course handbook (linked-to above) lists him explicitly as the staff contact for these courses, and he is still listed as a senior lecturer in the Department of Media staff listing (also linked-to above). Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He noted that the university had not updated its website (which I can believe, looking at it). The signature on his e-mail states that he is a senior lecturer at the University of Stirling. Avruch T 13:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • When people in the world at large are affected by actions resulting from one of its courses, it's not very helpful of Macquarie University to be publishing incorrect staff contact details. ☺ I've crossed off the relevant part of the table title. I've also asked for general editor assistance in the task of review. I'm sure, by the way, that I haven't listed all of the affected articles. I didn't find all of the accounts and what articles they had touched, and new students were still creating accounts yesterday. Uncle G (talk) 13:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a more general email address for the Media dept. at Macquarie University here. Probably worth a try. Their blurb says it's "Australia's Innovative University". Ahem... Voceditenore (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Maybe they'd better slow down the emphasis on being "innovative" and start teaching some of their students to write coherently. I cleaned up two of the articles so far, and the writing style was positively ghastly. Gladys J Cortez 16:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I'm engaged in an interesting e-mail conversation with Dr. Meikle, but I have not yet heard back from the current course instructor. Perhaps we have an Australian editor who can call? Avruch T 22:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. I just wanted to introduce myself. I am John Scannell, and I am the convenor of the subject (MAS229) that has made life difficult for some of you. First of all, I do apologise for the inconvenience, and yes, if you have to correspond about this "incident" - then don't direct your correspondence to Graham Meikle, but to me. I am now the convenor of the course, and quite frankly had no idea that this project would be considered so disruptive. As someone who values Wikipedia, I did not realise that the actions of the students would have created such a controversy. Yes, I did take part in the project again this year, and yes, I was aware of the problems of last year. At the beginning of the semester, I proposed that we should create our own Wiki, so as not to raise the ire of Wikipedia again in 2008. However, after consultation with peers and open source advocates, I thought that what we were doing was entirely within the spirit of open collaboration? My predecessor, Dr. Meikle, and myself both did our best to advise the students to treat their editing with appropriate care and concision as to make valuable contributions to a valuable resource. With the problems of last year in mind, I told them to act responsibly, and to put "quality" over "quantity", don't go in and "slash and burn", make the most appopriate edits etc...I can assure you that, as best I could, I tried to steer them in the right way. Of course, given the fact that I have 100 odd students, its hard for me to do anything else but hope they act on my advice. That said, as someone who has a very strong interest in valourising the contributions to open source culture, via Linux, via Wikipedia et al, I am somewhat shocked that contributions made in good faith would attract such derision. Yes, I can understand that many students, will only contribute to Wikipedia for this subject and may never contribute again. One hopes, that some will have enjoyed this exercise to the extent that they might be valued contributors in the future. The success of the project is based on collaboration, no? Am I being too naive here? I know that doesn't mean that its a free for all...and if the students haven't acted appropriately, I will sort them out, personally. However, I think you know, as well as I, that open source can also have its element of "exclusivity", and that newcomers need to pay their dues etc, before getting their hands dirty...which is understandable in some respects, but on the other side of the coin, only a very small number of these students had ever contemplated contributing to an open source project and this project is undertaken with the hope that some of them will value the experience enough to contribute in the future... If some of the writing is "positively ghastly", then it is constructive peer review that can assist them in becoming better writers. I mean, come on, there is poor writing all over Wikipedia. Again, I'm not happy about this...but none of them were acting unethically, none of them were trying to do anything other than contribute to the project AS BEST THEY CAN. So basically, what do you want to do here, keep it egalitarian, or not? Chances are, that after two years of problems surrounding this assignment, that I, personally, WON'T attempt it again. So there you go, that's 100 potential contributors (even if only a small percentage will contribute again) that you've lost. The point is, that everyone potential contributor has to start somewhere. You did, right? --Scannell229 (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I should also add that I am so very grateful to those who DO expend so much time and effort in contributing to Wikipedia. Your comments, for better or worse, are actually very instructive indeed, and I will be making use of them when MAS229 reconvenes in the next couple of days. FYI, The students won't be making any further entries. The assignment is now over. --Scannell229 (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    One small comment: If you're going to conduct such a large scale "experiment" or "project" on Wikipedia, you should notify people on Wikipedia, if only out of common courtesy. Enigma message 09:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ChrisO's subpage: User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems

    Resolved
     – Elonka seems statisfied with the current content of that page. VG ☎ 03:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ban request

    May I request a page-ban for a single purpose account? TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) only edits chirporactic pages and consistently pushes to whitewash them. He is obstructionist, rude, condescending, and I cannot find a single contribution that actually has added content of note.

    ScienceApologist (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you proposing just a ban from the main Chiropractic page or a more general topic ban? It's not entirely clear to me that either one is warranted but in any case the scope of any restriction should be clear. I's probably suggest a general 1RR restriction to prevent edit warring and encourage use of talk pages as a better way forward. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    He hasn't in the past few months edited more than just the Chiropractic page, but I think a general topic ban with an encouragement for him to branch out and see more of the encyclopedia would be good. He does not seem to be helping the situation at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AE perhaps? This here page is for WP:DRAMA. Jehochman Talk 04:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ? How is AE going to help? He's not subject to any arbitration cases that I'm aware of. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) appears to be a very infrequent editor, with only three edits to the Chiropractic article in the last month. Though he definitely appears to be a single-purpose account, I'm not sure that a ban would really do much, since he so rarely edits anyway. Also, there are already several admins actively watching the article, so starting another ANI or AE thread doesn't really seem necessary. ANI (and AE) are usually used to request the attention of administrators, when they don't seem to be paying attention to an area of dispute. Or in other words, if someone wishes to request a ban, it's probably best to just bring it up directly at Talk:Chiropractic, or to contact one of the admins that's already supervising the page. --Elonka 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I want someone to look specifically at this account. There is enough going on at Chiropractic to keep an army of administrators busy. We need more eyes on the matter, and this particular account has been a thorn in the side of all these proceedings forever. He hasn't made a single decent contribution ever. In fact, it looks like he's acting more-or-less like a meatpuppet. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SA, please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. To request sanctions, you must file a report at WP:AE, preferably utilizing diffs that show policy violations. I believe that case requires notification to users before they get sanctioned. Please check that carefully and adjust your request to reflect any notification requirements. Jehochman Talk 06:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Jehochman, I was a party in that case, and I don't know what the hell you are talking about. We can request sanctions at ANI for behavioral issues. There is nothing in that RfArb that says this is not allowed. I have warned this account multiple times (see the history of his user talk page). Your comments here are completely unclear and unhelpful. If you think AE is the place to go, please refactor it there yourself and stop bullying me. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    {{subst:Pseudoscience enforcement}} TheDoctorIsIn (talk · contribs) made a controversial edit by restoring an original research tag without a valid reason. TheDoctorIsIn should be notified about the sanctions. QuackGuru 08:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is unresolved. I don't see any reason for removing the tag. QuackGuru 18:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What QuackGuru calls a "controversial edit" is part of a long-lasting content dispute among multiple editors. I looked through TheDoctorIsIn's recent contribs and, besides the editwarring over a tag which multiple editors are involved in, I see for example an informative talk page post with information such as an expert on the subject might contribute. I don't see any problems requiring a ban of any sort, unless such a ban is applied to all the editors editwarring over the tag. ScienceApologist says above, "I have warned this account multiple times", but besides the notification of this ban discussion, which contains no information as to any reasons for such a ban, I see nothing from ScienceApologist in TheDoctorIsIn's user talk page history since February, and the message at that time related to a page other than Chiropractic. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mahalios trying to impose layout change at List of Prime Ministers of Spain

    I don't even know if this is the right place to report this, but since Nov 3, Mahalios (talk · contribs) and I have been involved in a sort-of reversion war at List of Prime Ministers of Spain. The main point is that he is trying to impose a big layout change in the tables, removing the PMs' pictures and timelines, and changing the alignment. I have repeatedly called on him to discuss this layout change, both on the article talk page and on his user talk page. All my requests and offers for a dialog were met with deafening silence and a new reversion. This contrasts with my behaviour: with each reversion I have worked into integrating the content changes from him and another IP user into the article, so that only the layout change would be put on hold until proper discussion took place. On the other hand, he has simply reverted to the same version over and over, without even bothering to write an edit summary - except the first one in which he argues that my previous revert, in which I scolded an IP user for the pretty much the same behaviour, was inappropriate. Summing it up, Mahalios' is not willing to collaborate and has a pretty slant and invicil attitude. I don't know the procedure for these kind of cases, but sicne he has not responded to my messages I doubt mediation would help. What can be done? Habbit (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Enlist other editors! Advice to do this is available at WP:Dispute resolution. Briefly put, your overall strategy should be to begin a discussion and obtain consensus as to what the article content should be. If this editor doesn't want to get involved in the discussion, they have no grounds to complain, and repeated reversion against consensus without discussion constitutes edit warring which is a form of disruptive editing. If the other editor persists in reverting against consensus, post warning messages on their user talk page (see WP:WARN) and if necessary report them here. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 15:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has been asked for a discussion several times, and even politely warned. There was no response but the most absolute silence. By the way, I suspect that at least one of the following three users is a sockpuppet of the others, because all three follow the _exact_ same edit pattern: extremely wide changes, without a single edit summary, reverting (not stomping) others' changes on sight, etc - Onlyonetime (talk · contribs) Mahalios (talk · contribs) 94.189.172.94 (talk · contribs). I don't know the procedure for this kind of cases, but I guess an admin might run CheckUser and, without telling us the actual links found, act on the result. Thanks for the advice, though - this madness is really wearing me out... I mean, if they want the PMs' portraits out, can't they just say it on the talk page? -__- Habbit (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier today I indef blocked Onlyonetime as a sock, based on a checkuser report from July, where the abuse was proven but he was given only a short block. The nominator's statement from the checkuser case (3 months ago) shows the very same problem as was reported here by Habbit. Obstinate rearrangement of lists of prime ministers, heads of states and monarchs are usually involved, often involving additions and removals of content. It's been going on for six months. If people will take a look at the contribution history of Mahalios (talk · contribs) and 94.189.172.94 (talk · contribs), I think a verdict is justified that they are vandal-only accounts. They never communicate on Talk. They are vandals in the sense that they have no intention whatever of following WP policy or seeking consensus. If that's an acceptable conclusion, we can proceed to give long blocks to both of them without going forward to a checkuser. (It is highly likely that everyone we're discussing here is actually a sock of the same guy). WP:SSP is also an option, but that is usually needed for more subtle cases. The badness and the obstinacy of all the edits suggests that a vandal classification is justified. Any article these guys have ever touched should be checked for remnants of vandalism. Both IPs involved in this case are from Belgrade, in case that rings any bells from other sock investigations. EdJohnston (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's please reserve the word "vandal" for people who edit with the deliberate intent of making an article worse. "Disruption-only" is a better term for somebody like this. looie496 (talk) 17:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seal of Oklahoma

    Resolved
     – nothing here requiring admin attention, possible browser issue

    --Crossmr (talk)

    There is a major problem with this article, I do not know what happened or why. When I try to access the article, instead of it opening up, somehow it asks me if I want to save the article to my computer. This has never happened on any other article that I have ever accessed in Wikipedia. Has someone possibly vandalized it? 160.147.240.6 (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No issue for me -t BMW c- 19:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Something similar happened to me yesterday. I think it's the servers hiccuping or something. Seal of Oklahoma looks fine to me now; try purging the cache and looking again. --barneca (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Everyone knows there aren't seals in Oklahoma...sea lions maybe... --Smashvilletalk 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sometimes there are. Usually around Easter and Christmas. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, now you've got some George Strait song and Garth Brooks song in my head. Bah. -t BMW c- 16:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems with replaceable image Image:Albertfish-full.jpg

    Today, I've been involved in some edits to this image and an associated article. The sequence of events:

    • I removed the image from Albert Fish, replacing it with one (Image:Albert Fish 1903.JPG) further down in the article that was a free license image that provided the same information; his visual appearance. Both are mugshots, but one old enough to be PD while the image I am discussing here is not, having been published in 1934.
    • I tagged Image:Albertfish-full.jpg as being replaceable and orphaned [1], as it was no longer on the article and it was clearly replaceable by the free content mugshot.
    • User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) then removed the replaceable fair use and orphaned tags from the image, claiming in the process that the image was PD by way of being published in the U.S. before 1923 (which is incorrect; the image was published in 1934). He then reinstated the image to the Albert Fish article. I reverted this obvious error, and informed User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) of the reversion and informed him of the WP:NFCC policies I was removing the image under [2].
    • I re-removed the image from the article as unneeded fair use [3], as we already know his visual appearance from the free license image at the top of the article.
    • User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) then removed the replaceable fair use tags and orphaned fair use tags from the image again, with no explanation as to why [4] and did not reinstate the image to the article.
    • I re-instated the orphaned and replaceable tags to the image [5] and informed User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) of the correct procedure to handle the warning tags [6].
    • Following this, User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) returned to editing without ever having responded to me. Much later, he made a minor edit to the image adding in "original" with respect to the source statement. [7]
    • Another editor User:Wildhartlivie has removed the replaceable image and orphaned fair use tags [8] claiming "image can be and is used in article to illustrate subject prior to execution; fair use rationale is provided" and reinstated the image to the article [9]

    I've stopped editing on this image and article, as this is obviously devolving. There's a number of problems still extant here. The image is most definitely still orphaned, and User:Wildhartlivie was out of line for removing the orphaned and replaceable fair use tags. User:Wildhartlivie claims there is a fair use rationale provided, but the rationale is exceptionally weak consisting entirely of "Mug shot, low resolution, no revenue loss" which violates WP:NFCC 10c and Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#Necessary_components.

    In my opinion, the image should be deleted. We have a perfectly serviceable image for depiction purposes in the 1903 mugshot now at the top of the article, and the 1934 mugshot doesn't bring anything to the table that the 1903 shot doesn't, except that he's older, which has no bearing on the article. Thus, it fails WP:NFCC #1 in that it is clearly replaceable (and has been replaced) and #8 in that there's nothing about the image that having the image removed would cause detriment to the reader's understanding of the subject of the article. Lastly, though fixable, it fails #10c.

    Would an administrator please step in? Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For one, it does illustrate his face in greater detail. While there is a clear silhouette in the first, the detail of his face is not that clear. Your statement of but the rationale is exceptionally weak consisting entirely of "Mug shot, low resolution, no revenue loss" which violates WP:NFCC 10c and Wikipedia:Non-free_use_rationale_guideline#Necessary_components. doesn't make any sense. if that is your big problem clean-up the rationale. Or don't make the statement. This sounds like a content dispute, you think it isn't fair use, others think it is. Take it to images for deletion. Fair use is full of personal opinion and we don't just delete on personal opinion around here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry you feel that way but in blatant cases where fair use images are replaceable, we do delete, and this is a blatant case. So what if the image brings better detail? Is there some detail of his face that is important to the content of the article? Answer: No. This is a blatant case. And, with all due respect, I asked for an administrator to step in. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the whole purpose of an image is to bring detail to an article. A PD image is relatively useless if it doesn't clearly illustrate the subject in question. One could argue that the PD image doesn't clearly illustrate the subject in question because of the age and size of the image. And with all due respect this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and if you don't like other people responding to your questions you might not want to ask them.--Crossmr (talk) 01:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The picture when he was older is more meaningful, as it's what he looked like just before he was a fried Fish. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have restored the free image per the non-free content policies. βcommand 02:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Why don't you wait to see if your speedy deletion is approved before you hide it from public view?--Crossmr (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just list it for IFD and let everyone debate it for seven days. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just listing the image for seven days is not the panacea that some here seem to think it is. There's a reason we don't send all CSD articles to AFD. That same reason applies to images. There's no point to putting something to IFD when it is blatantly a violation. There's been scads of debates on here before about whether to allow fair use when the fair use image is higher quality. Guess which side of that debate has routinely won? Hint; we're the free encyclopedia, not the free encyclopedia except when non-free content is higher quality than the free content. There is nothing conveyed by the 1934 image that is not conveyed by the 1903 image. If there is, then please state it here and now. All I'm hearing so far is "It's better, therefore keep" or "This is what he looked like before he died". You can do better than that, can't you? --Hammersoft (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure there is. Clear detail of the individuals face. The earlier image is small, poor quality and washed out on one side. As the speedy deletion tag clearly states: illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information,. This does not adequately provide the same information as the poor quality of the photograph leaves the characteristics and details of the individuals face difficult to discern.--Crossmr (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That might have been a valid argument if the "characteristics and details of the individuals face" were relevant to the article. They aren't. — Coren (talk) 21:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an issue with the representation of this. In fact, I returned the image to the article, further down the page in the section that included discussion of Fish and his execution. I did not removed the tags yet leave it orphaned as User:Hammersoft stated. I removed the tags here, one of which stated Please remove this template if a reason for keeping this image has been provided, or it is still used in articles. I then returned the image, with some other page edits which included repositioning the images here. The image was not orphaned. I have an issue with my name being brought up on this issue without having been approached in any way prior to, or notified when, it was posted. I stumbled upon this discussion, which does allege wrongdoing on my part, while checking another issue. There is obviously a difference of opinion regarding the use of this image. If the rationale or licensing had an issue, then there should be no reason why that cannot or should not be addressed. There is most definitely a difference between the image used in the infobox, which was taken 31 years prior to the events which make this person and the article notable. There is a great disparity in the appearance of the individual, and the image under discussion here illustrates the man at the time these acts were committed, following his arrest. It illustrates his appearance at the time of his execution, while the other depicts someone in a far different condition and place that relates to 1934 in no way. Why not stick an image of him in grade school? That is as much like the man who committed these crimes as the 1903 image. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have deleted the image. (Partly I7, partly IAR to scuttle the argument). "Looks better" isn't, and has never been, a valid non-free content rationale. The image isn't just replacable, it is replaced. I'm one of the staunch defenders of fair use when it is appropriate; this is most definitely not a case where it is. — Coren (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      This is more than looks better. The free image does not adequately describe the subject as I pointed out the facial details are not clear because of the low quality, size and washout on one size. IAR isn't a trump card, you need to explain why you did something. The Free use clearly states that when the same information is conveyed by a replaceable image it should be removed, this isn't the case at all. You've already gotten more than one person who feels that to be true. If someone uploaded this kind of image of someone who was alive it would probably be immediately punted from the article as quality too low. Yet here you have someone who is dead and you claim it good enough when a better one exists.--Crossmr (talk) 01:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      As I've said above, that might have been a valid argument if the "facial details" were relevant to the article. They aren't. — Coren (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      They're relevant to identifying the subject which is the purpose of a photo.--Crossmr (talk) 04:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit war in Mukuro Rokudo

    Resolved
     – Situation is now subject to admin-monitoring. --Elonka 18:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Serpent132 has been editing the Mukuro Rokudo article, trimming the sections to minimun as it was a FAC. More important, he has been removing information from the lead mentioning it was repeated in other sections. I tried talking to him on his talk page sending info about deletion and reverting edits mentioning WP: Lead and other stuff. However, he has not stopped doing that and in this state is impossible for the article to be GA (is currently a GAC). Im requesting help here because I may also require to be blocked with these edits. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 22:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This appears to be a content dispute, which really isn't an administrator matter. However, the revert war is of concern, especially as neither editor has been participating at the talkpage. Both editors appear to be well past WP:3RR; however, neither was formally warned, so a block is probably not appropriate at this point. I've given 3RR cautions to both of them, and left a note on the talkpage that WP:DR procedures should be followed. Tintor2, I sympathize with your frustration, but just putting warning templates on someone's page is not really "talking to them". I recommend taking a deep breath and trying, at least once, some good faith communication. --Elonka 01:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion has been started in Talk:Mukuro Rokudo#Edit-warring but Serpent has not responded. Instead, he keeps reverting the edits and has been used this anon account to keep reverting and remove the warning from his talk page. It does not seem it is still good faith.Tintor2 (talk) 18:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep an eye on things, and if reverts continue, or anyone continues edit-warring without talkpage discussion, I'll block as necessary. --Elonka 18:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And there has been yet another revert, even after the warnings. By all appearances, Serpent132 (talk · contribs) doesn't seem interested in discussing his or her changes and reversions to the article. --Farix (Talk) 19:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to accusations by Editor Miranda

    I am the editor that Editor Miranda is referring to. I tried to explain to her that I am systematically going through my books and reference material, and adding appropriate references to Wikipedia where I see it may be useful. I started with the author Kira Salak. Unfortunately, Miranda has ignored my explanation. I am not “spamming” Wikipedia, Salak’s articles are published in National Geographic, National Geographic Adventure and the New York Times Magazine. She has published two non-fiction books through National Geographic Press. National Geographic is well known for thoroughly fact checking all of their articles and books, and these books and articles meet the criteria for being a source for Wikipedia articles. Miranda has not read the books that I have been referencing, which she has been removing. I do not believe she has any idea as to whether they are relevant content or not. I also doubt she has read the articles she is removing or she would have realized her error in thinking I was “spamming” and left the references intact. I believe she simply came to the conclusion that I was spamming the site, and without any research has been systematically removing my entries. The Salak references are valuable resources for Wikipedia users and her removal of these items should be stopped. I would appreciate the administrators taking the time to actually review the references that I have added, I am certain you will agree they meet the standards, are relevant, and useful to Wikipedia users.

    I would appreciate the administrators restoring my references that Mira has removed, as they are valid references. If there is a disagreement over them, it should be placed into the discussion page of the articles, and if a consensus of the users agree that a reference is not valid, then and only then should it be removed.

    Thank you.

    69.202.73.21 (talk) 22:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Tiptoety's block of user:Boodlesthecat

    Tiptoety blocked Boodles for two weeks, claiming that he violated his self-imposed 1RR restriction. The "violation" at hand was the reinsertion of info removed by Poeticbent (talk · contribs) over an hour after removing an in-line tag placed by Piotrus (talk · contribs).

    Assuming there was 1RR violation, the two week block is extreme. A tag removal followed an hour later by a reinsertion of content is not in the spirit of edit warring.

    But more importantly, there was no 1RR violation. Some Background: There is this huge arbitration case going on in which a major part of the issues there are the alleged tag-teaming of Polish nationals who are trying to whitewash alleged Polish anti-semitism. This is not the place to rehash these issues. But what's important about this arbitration is that in the original self-imposed 1RR agreed to by Boodles - which is the basis for this block - the restrictions were limited to reverts of neutral editors. This is the relevant discussion at ANI:

    But here's my predicament--given that Piotrus works in concert with others--is 1RR practical without having it apply to his team? Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Yes, please see my message above: "1) Piotrus reverts 2) Boody reverts 3) neutral user X reverts to Piotrus version 4) Boody reverts him." - simply reverse it so that you are the first one to revert. Tiptoety talk 04:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    Since Piotrus has a number of IRC and IM "admirers", happy to blindly revert to Piotrus's versions I doubt that it would work, but we can try (edit conflict) Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    Who is this "neutral user X" of whom you write? It often feels like there are battle lines drawn at the articles related to Polish-Jewish history. It sometimes seems like Piotrus and other editors are engaged in tag-team editing, and it no doubt seems to him like Boodlesthecat and I do the same thing. I have a feeling that this is going to lead to edit-warring by proxy, but I suppose it's worth a try. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
    Any random user, a third party if you may. Tiptoety talk 04:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    Ironically enough, it was Tiptoey that agreed to the "neutral editor" condition. The block of Boodles is based on the assumption that the second revert was a revert of a "neutral editor". However, this is clearly not the case. The condition was established for this very situation, a situation in which one of the alleged tag-teamers reverts to version that is in agreeance with the other tag-teamer. Piotrus (talk · contribs) and Poeticbent (talk · contribs) which were the two editors that were reverted by Boodles are accused of tag-teaming. Thus, per the above discussion, they were explicitly excluded from the 1RR restrictions imposed unto Boodles. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. Yes, there is a huge arbcom, but concerned mostly with other things. Boodlesthecat has edit warred and clearly broken (R1: [10] [11]; R2: [12] [13]) the 1RR restriction (which is why his unblock request has been declined three times today - and since when we allow a user to ask for an unblock three times within three hours anyway? what is it, unblock roulette? - and this is why Tip, who has designed the 1RR in the first place, enforced in the way he did), nobody else has done anything wrong (I have not reverted there, and Poeticbent is not close to 3RR and not under any restriction, and his involvement there, - as the creator of the article - is quite understandable, no conspiracy theories needed to explain it). Not surprisingly, the ArbCom member Kirill has proposed the following findings: Boodlesthecat banned as well as There is no definitive evidence that Piotrus is responsible for any of the off-wiki editing coordination that occurred in this case. I certainly resent the accusations of tag teaming / meatpuppetry; they are unprovable slander in any case, and not something I'd expect from another admin (some may want to brush up on AGF and similar policies, and concentrate on dealing with disruptive users, not defending them - and for who is a disruptive user here, just look at Boodlesthecat's block log). If Brewcrewer wants to look into some serious issues, why not check this BLP report, for example? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is what I hoped would not happen here - a rehashing of the arbitration case. The only issue here is whether Boodles violated the 1RR restrictions. He did not.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The 1RR restriction aside, there was clearly edit warring going on beyond or right at the limit of normal policy. The edit warring was not sterile - there was talk page discussion - but none of the parties did the right thing and used self-restraint on the article while discussing to consensus on talk.
    Piotr and Poeticbent deserve slaps on the wrist and the usual "Please stop that and don't do it again". Boodles, with significant history of warnings and blocks for edit warring, could legitimately be blocked for it, though I would personally have treated all three equally in the name of fairness.
    I see no reason to overturn the block. A 1 RR restriction with some exceptions is not a license to edit-war the exceptions. It's a notification that someone has been edit warring more than usual and is discouraged from doing it much more if at all. Asking to overturn this on the technicality is missing the point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A technicality is the only basis for this block. If you look closely at the edit history of the article you will see that most of Boodles edits were accepted. The edit warring, although not acceptable, fell far short of the 3RR standard. The only way to get a block in was though the 1RR technicality. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He added a controversial para, removed a tag I added to it, and then restored the para after Poeticbent removed it. This is no technicality - this is pure edit warring to one's version, and his edits are far from "accepted" (nobody has reverted to his version).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He made plenty of other edits besides for the reinsertion of a paragraph (that was removed sans discussion). In any case, at most, he's only halfway toward a 3rr. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody is disputing his minor edits, and he is on 1RR restriction, so being halfway towards a 3RR... QED, I think.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly! The 1RR restriction is inapplicable here because none of the editors involved were "neutral" as defined in the 1RR agreement. The only legit way to block him is through 3RR, which he does not meet in this case. It is most blatantly wrong to establish specific rules for people and then just block them anyway despite their abidance with the rules. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be under a misconception - 3RR is not an entitlement that one may revert three times before there's a problem. 3RR is a bright line in the sand that you shall not go past this limit, and behavior short of 3RR may well constitute edit warring, which is the practice that we actually block for. People who edit war over and over again may be blocked for edit warring before they reach 3 reverts. Anyone who's been put under a 1RR restriction should know better and just avoid doing it.
    We gave the guy very strict and very specific rules regarding reverts. He abides by those very strict rules, and then we block him anyway. That is wrong under any moral standard. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Repeating myself, but... Edit warring is prohibited and 3RR is not an entitlement to revert three times. See Wikipedia:3RR#Not an entitlement which specifically states:
    The three-revert rule limits edit warring. It does not entitle users to revert a page three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Disruptive editors who do not violate the rule may still receive a block for edit warring, especially if they attempt to game the system by reverting a page. Administrators take previous blocks for edit warring into account, and may block users solely for disruptive edit warring.
    The bottom line: use common sense, and do not participate in edit wars. Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others; if a revert is necessary, another editor may do it, which will demonstrate a consensus for the action. Request page protection rather than becoming part of the dispute by reverting.
    Please don't reply in all-bold. It is condescending and thus uncivil. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only part that's bold is the quote from policy, and only to distinguish it from my comment. This is used elsewhere. I had to include more of the policy as a quote, as essentially all of that policy section was directly relevant... The size of the bold block is therefore perhaps unfortunately unusually large. But I didn't use bold emphasis other than for typographical reasons. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    People who have previously been blocked for edit warring or 3RR violations, especially those under special restrictions such as a 1RR restriction, must not push the limit by edit warring. The behavior is not OK. Whether they specifically violate their additional restrictions or not, the behavior is prohibited. People should not do it on Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Side note: Piotr complained on my talk page that I incorrectly characterized his edits in my first comment above. On review, he's correct, he didn't participate in edit warring on the article. He only made one edit after the point that the edit warring began, and that was a harmless wikilink not involved in the back and forth others were doing. My apologies for the mischaracterization... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If he is on 1RR, he can be blocked for it, otherwise we wouldn't bother issuing it in the first place. 1RR are simple creatures: if you revert more than once, you break them. Boody is not to revert on articles I edit more than 1RR (and vice versa), not counting tiny stylistical/MOS changes and other AGF exceptions - of which removing a tag and restoring a controversial para are not. It doesn't matter whom he reverts, or what (per WP:3RR. Revert is a revert - again, those are pretty simple creatures. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He never reverted you more then once. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So? He reverted somebody else, 1+1=2. Perhaps you are laboring under a miscomprehension: Boodlesthecat 1RR restriction is not limited to reverting me, I am the one who triggers it: as long as we are editing the same article, we are not to revert anybody more than once. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "anybody" must be a neutral editor. I am sorry if I was no being clear enough, but the "neutral" aspect is the whole point. The "neutral" condition was established because of the concern (I have no opinion about its legitimacy) that since Polish editors are tag-teaming, a 1RR scheme would result in an unfair disadvantage to Boodles. The "neutral" condition was specificaly created for a situation like this - you add, Boodles reverts, an alleged tag-teamer adds, Boodles revets. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am afraid you are mistaken (and consider for a moment that Tip who created this restriction reviewed this case and carried it out). The restriction was created to stop Boodlesthecat from edit warring (see his block record). The word neutral was used without much thought and not defined, and was clarifed below - in the fragment you cite - by Tip himnself as random, which fits the situation better (because neutrality is in the eye of the beholder). If admins involved in 1RR had to review and argue who is neutral and who is not, this would be unenforceable (hence it is never an issue on ANI/3RR). The 1RR restriction had and has nothing to do with any tag team accusations. ArbCom, although not done, indicates (via the proposed finding I cited above) that arbitrators have not found any evidence form Polish editors tag teaming, and I would ask you not to repeat such slanderous, bad faithed accusations. If you have proof that Poeticbent and I are part of a tag team, please present your evidence in the arbcom.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I specifically stated earlier that I have no opinion regarding the tag-team accusations. But whether they are true or not, they were the basis of the "neutral editor condition" in the 1RR agreement - the basis for this block - so we have no choice but to deal with it. Please see the part of the previous ANI discussion that I copy and pasted above. From the discussion and subsequent agreement is it clear that the editors that are part of the tag-team accusations are not considered random and neutral for 1RR purposes. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is putting an argument on its head. Let me illustrate the fallacy of your logic: 1) 1RR is designed to prevent edit warring 2) 1RR if applied globally to all reverts by a user prone to edit warring prevents edit warring 3) 1RR if applied to only reverts of one specific user is unlikely to prevent edit warring between the user prone to edit warring and other users. Again: the restriction means we are not supposed to revert anybody on affected articles more than once per day, there is no discussion of "but I thought he was tag teaming with him", which could excuse ALL reverts and make the 1RR restrictions completely pointless. Oh, and don't forget that for your argument to be valid you have to prove I was tag teaming with Poeticbent - and since you said yourself "I have no opinion regarding the tag-team accusations", what's the point of this discussion? Excuse me, but I am not a fan of wikilawyering over a tiny technicality, when the big picture is obvious (1RR was designed to stop an estabilished edit warrior and was implemented when 1RR was broken, case closed).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only those that are part of the tag-team accusations, which if I'm not mistaken is around 5 editors and includes Poeticbent , are considered non-neutral for purposes of the 1RR rule. But in response to your general point, I understand that, rules aside, there should never be a spirit of edit-warring. However, in this situation, where we are dealing with an editor who is under an extreme and strict 1RR standard, it is immoral and wrong to use the very strict rule which he agreed to abide by as the basis for his block when he never broke the rule. I am turning in for the night so I won't see any replies. Good night. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How come, with all these unsubstantiated ArbCom accusations repeated against me by Brewcrewer in defence of Boodlesthecat above, nobody but Piotrus cared to let me know about this discussion at its final stage. I wrote the article which took days of painstaking effort. Immediately, I was faced with a barrage of attacks that went on for days. Boodlesthecat tried to destroy my 32 KB creation in a maddening spree that began with a request for speedy deletion and claims of copyvio based on a meagre few words from the source. And now, you say I was tag-teaming? Based on what proof? His empty claims? Boodlesthecat has been slandering people for months. And, speaking of 1RR, who is that mysterious neutral editor in this instance, a Martian from planet Mars? How would you feel, if your fresh new article was being defaced with a bunch of loaded messages based in ethno-specific spin? 1RR, 2RR or 3RR, I don't care about Boodlesthecat's agreement reached with Piotrus, or its technicalities. What I care about is a nightmare he's put me through already. --Poeticbent talk 19:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's clear by now that

    1. Boodlesthecat did not technically violate his 1RR restriction.
    2. If he was blocked simply for edit-warring, then so to should his opponents have been blocked for edit-warring.
    3. A two week block is, in any event, an extraordinarily long block.

    Can someone please present a rationale why his block should not be lifted at this point? He has already served 30 hours of a technically invalid block. Jayjg (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    But he did violate it. He made 2 rather clear reverts of the same content within a ~2 hour period. If you are thinking that he did not violate it because the other party who reverted was not "neutral" enough is not really applicable here. Where is there actual evidence to support the claims that these two users are tag teaming? And whether it was a user who supported Piotru's view or not, it does not make it alright for Boodles to simply revert it. Just because Poeticbent makes a edit/revert does not mean it is a open door for Boodles to revert that edit. Tiptoety talk 05:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm curious to see what Jayjg's response is to this - merely saying it is technically invalid doesn't make it invalid. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The original conditions that you and Boodles agree upon were based on the accused tag-teamers, not proven tag-teamers. When you made the agreement a month ago there was no proof that they were tag teamers, yet you agreed that alleged non-neutral tag-teamers are not part of the 1RR conditions. Now you want proof that they are tag teamers?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, no that was not my intention. I never specified "accused tag teamers" I just said "neutral third party", so that is clearly open to interpretation. Either way, I have offered to allow a uninvolved admin unblock if they see fit on my talk page, I would appreciate if someone less involved would mind reviewing this. Thanks, Tiptoety talk 06:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That might have not been your intention, but what you said was in direct response to Malik Shabazz's concern what he explicitly called "tag team"'s. A most reasonable understanding of the colloquy and its subsequent 1RR agreement is that the accused tag teamers are not part of the 1RR conditions. Anyway, kudos to you for offering another admin to review this block. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please review this case

    I don't know what to do. There is a single-purpose account user who is active solely on cold fusion named User:Pcarbonn. We know that he is a partner in a company that is trying to sell thin-film technology to cold fusion researchers and is hoping to promote cold fusion here on Wikipedia. How do I know this? Well, for one, he says as much on his user page and here off-wiki. I've filed conflict-of-interest reports, but the board seems to think that we should refer it to administrator review. So I ask someone to review this case. Should User:Pcarbonn be as active as he is in trying to advance cold fusion here on Wikipedia? What should we do about it?

    ScienceApologist (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is he doing some advertising, astroturfing or such? If not, COI in mind, experts are welcome to contribute on subjects of their interest (and expertise). If an expert contributes to a subject he is an expert on, it's not a problem as long as he adheres to NPOV, V and so on. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He is definitely POV-pushing a pro-cold fusion viewpoint which, of course, is in his own best interest considering that his company would benefit if people began to take this idea seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What is the evidence that Pcarbonn stands to benefit or not from the content of the Cold fusion article? I would also like to know what ScienceApologist means by his recent strong words toward the most recent content mediator of the article. IwRnHaA (talk) 20:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I propose to block the account indefinetly as a single purpose account with a conflict of interests pushing a marginal theory. Any objections? Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not objecting, not knowing enough about this case, but I will not support: POV pushing is allowed (per NPOV, editors are expected to have a POV). Moderating one's POV is of course recommended :) Is he being disruptive? Edit warring, harassing others...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To be fair, the history of cold fusion is extremely contentious. Most of the people who are not cold fusion advocates editing that page thinks he is problematic and should be removed. An example would be this comment by User:Kirk shanahan (someone whom Pcarbonn derides personally -- and falsely, I might add -- on his user page), an expert in cold fusion, who writes the following: [14]. I should note that Shanahan has expressed that he has felt almost hounded off Wikipedia due to Pcarbonn's tendentious and disruptive gaming of Wikipedia conventions. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I note that User:Kirk shanahan (contribs) continues to contribute to Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion on a regular basis. IwRnHaA (talk) 20:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think blocking is a bit premature. There is some history that might stand to be reviewed first, I think. ++Lar: t/c 05:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would encourage people to please review the history. I have a very hard time getting anyone willing to do this. Lar, do you want to review it for us? I'm not a big fan of people asking for a "review" and then not being willing to do it themselves. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is covered by Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. WP:AE is the appropriate place to go. The way you get an administrator to review the history is if you post a list of policies violated with a few sample diffs. Jehochman Talk 05:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Goddamn it, why can't we review it here? If I file a Pseudoscience claim, I am going to have to argue for proper jurisdiction over there since cold fusion is probably pathological science and not pseudoscience. I'm tired of being subjected to the bureaucratic runaround. I've been complaining about this for a long time and I just want someone to look over it carefully. There seem to be some outsiders here who are willing to do this. I've provided diffs here. Isn't that enough? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You already filed a report at WP:COIN. Could you link to that please. There are administrators who patrol that board. In what way is this not forum shopping? If you need more admins, post a request asking for help. Don't start a new discussion. Jehochman Talk 06:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the link. I was under the impression that the COIN result that YOU yourself wrote was that it wasn't a COI issue. I interpret that to mean that it should be brought up somewhere else. So if I'm forum shopping, it's because I'm following your instructions. (And now you're telling me to go to yet ANOTHER forum.) ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pcarbonn is certainly relevant. And the time-line on his userpage would seem to provide his version of the history. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That timeline in his userpage is interesting. I found this line September 2008: Dr. Shanahan wants his work to be promoted in our article. I resist, on the basis that scientists should not contribute content about their own work. to be particularly so. Somehow Pcarbonn feels it's acceptable for someone who's financially invested in a particular POV for an article, or an "expert" to edit it - but not this guy? After reviewing quite a few of Pcarbonn's contributions, he's clearly an SPA and one with a substantial conflict in editing as there is the possibility of real personal gain by inserting his POV in the article. Looking at the substance of the material he's added to the article, he does appear to strongly push a particular viewpoint and solely insert content favorable to that view. I'm pretty confused by the previous COI threads where editors said "well, as long as he plays by the rules" - since when is long term POV pushing directly related to one's own interests "playing by the rules"? I see no reason that Pcarbonn should be editing any article related to cold fusion. Shell babelfish 06:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, to expand, the "financial investment" is something which troubles me greatly but for some reason didn't fly on COI. I don't know why. I had another cold fusion advocate angrily retort that my evidence that he had a financial stake in cold fusion was basically made out of whole-cloth (User talk:ScienceApologist#COI evidence) and then decided to request that I stop editing cold fusion altogether (User talk:ScienceApologist#Request for a voluntary topic ban) since he didn't like the fact that I pointed out that the company in which Pcarbonn is involved makes products used in various cold fusion advocates' claims. Just another day in the life.... ScienceApologist (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    [outdent]So topic ban him. ~ L'Aquatique! [talk/stats] 06:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The accusations of SA are baseless. I don't have any share in MEMS Instruments. MEMS Instruments has no interest in cold fusion, and SA has not provided any evidence to the contrary. In any case, SA has not demonstrated any wrong behavior of my part. I have always provided reliable sources in support of my edits, and I have written for the enemy. This is a content dispute, and several other editors have the same opinion as mine. Content dispute are not resolved by ejecting users, but by abiding to WP policies and mediation. These policies have worked in the past, and I have always respected them. I'm ready to go to mediation again if needed to resolve this content dispute. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the accusation of Single purpose account, Sa must have not looked. I invented the To-do list mechanism, and I have written 2 user scripts recently [15][16]. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As for Shanahan, I objected about him writing 4 paragraphs about his own papers on cold fusion. I did not object to his contributing to other parts of the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support topic ban. Clear COI, POV editing, and an uncivil attitude. It'll also show whether he's an SPA or not. Verbal chat 10:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose WP:SPA is an essay, not a policy and in any case doesn't indicate that SPA's aren't allowed. Pcarbonn does not edit tendentiously, but rather seeks consensus on the talk page and cites reliable sources. That SA happens to disagree with Pcarbonn's POV is not sufficient to disqualify him from editing the page. Ronnotel (talk) 11:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong oppose - I disapprove of ScienceApologist's use of Wikipedia's procedural tactics to impose his point of view and censor others', because he has also tried to use them on me. I strongly support his efforts, for example, on homeopathy, but in the case of cold fusion the peer-reviewed scientific literature is clear: There is still a controversy and it is entirely premature to scrub the article (and its introduction) of subject matter which varies from ScienceApologist's absolutist tendencies. IwRnHaA (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not votes for banning. Please stop. WP:AE is that way. As I said above, you have a perfectly good arbitration case that can be used to topic ban somebody who causes disruption. Starting a lengthy thread here just to get lots of attention is not being fair to the user at all. Even if they ultimately need to be banned, we should still treat them fairly. Whipping up a frenzy on ANI is not the way to do this. Jehochman Talk 12:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman, can you explain what difference it makes whether this shows up on AE or here? ScienceApologist (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:AE is the place to get arbitration decisions enforced. What you are doing here is creating a big fuss for no reason. You're duplicating a discussion that was already held at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor where you were warned about the risks of speculating on the real world identity and activities of other editors. If there is actual disruption, please go to WP:AE with diffs in hand and make your request. That board is watched by administrators with the most experience in these matters. You'll get the most accurate result there with the least fuss. Jehochman Talk 13:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Jehochman. I encourage everybody to have a hard look at the harrassment behavior of SA towards me. How come that he is the only one to come after me ? I have been judged, and cleared, about possible COI. There is a principle in law that someone not be judged several times for the same issue. It should apply on WP too. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would like to take this opportunity to officially "speculate" that when User:Pcarbonn writes Hi, my name is Pierre Carbonnelle he is not lying about his identity. So... do I get blocked for outing an individual now? SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pcarbonn is an aggressive PoV pushing editor who acts uncivilly. In a recent post PCarbonn mentions that some of his edits had been made because of a 'need' to harass SA. Wikipedia does not need editors who feel the need to harass those who disagree with them. --Noren (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What is requested here? If you want a block for harassment, post diffs. If you want a topic ban, your best bet is to use the arbitration case. I don't see a community topic ban materializing. Sleuthing and making remarks about editors' real world activities are discouraged. Normally a COI case happens when an editor writes about themselves or their company. Writing in a biased way about a subject, such as cold fusion, can be dealt with as a violation of NPOV. It is not COI. Therefore, talk about identity is not helpful. In the present case, I have not seen a sufficient weight of diffs to support a block or ban. They might exist, but those advocating for sanctions need to dig them up. Don't come here with conclusory assertions, please. Jehochman Talk 18:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We seem to have a reasonable community ban discussion on-going here. Since a recent rfc just said that Cold Fusion does not equal Pseudoscience, I think it would be a slap in the face to tell the community it was wrong and decide to set sanctions under that case anyways. If you don't want to participate in this discussion or look through the contribs yourself, that's up to you, but please stop trying to derail the discussion or move it elsewhere. Just in case my earlier post wasn't clear, I would strongly support a topic ban and suggest starting it at 6 months - this gives him time to show he's not here only for that purpose and to better learn how NPOV works. Shell babelfish 19:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be a far more reasonable and balanced discussion if we were also considering whether ScienceApologist's use of forum shopping in raising the same issue here after it had been resolved elsewhere is also grounds for a topic ban. IwRnHaA (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if SA had brought up an NPOV or SPA issue on a COI noticeboard (alphabet soup!) he probably would have rightly been told that wasn't the correct venue. Shell babelfish 21:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is essentially what happened. Shell, can you link to the RFC that said Cold Fusion is not Pseudoscience. If SA had come here and disclosed the COIN thread we already had, and pointed out the RFC that says this topic isn't under pseudoscience, I would not have objected. It also would have been good form to post diffs of the poor conduct at the outset. Perhaps we should close this thread and start over with all the relevant facts at WP:AN. If you read the header, you will see that is the recommended place for ban discussions. Stuff on ANI tends to get quickly archived. AN is slower moving, better for that sort of discussion. Jehochman Talk 05:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the link to the RfC on CF as pseudoscience. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jehochman, the relevant link is Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy. The matter has already been to mediation, the COIN thread closed weeks ago, and it only takes a scroll down Pcarbonn's main user page to find an articulate argument against AE. Rather than drag out this long thread even further with more quibbles over venue and disclosure, suggest either refocusing attention to the main issues at hand or yielding the discussion to those who do. DurovaCharge! 06:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please note that mediation resulted in Cold Fusion being presented as a valid scientific controversy (see here. My edits are perfectly in line with the results of the mediation. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:BalkanFever and User:Alex Makedon

    A content dispute over whether to include Greek in the languages section of the "Republic of Macedonia" article has turned rather ugly. I have been called a "vandal" and "nationalist troll" and compared to Adolphos (Adolf Hitler) and Osama bin Laden by User:BalkanFever for attempting to restore Greek to the list of languages spoken in the country. The fact that Greek is spoken there is confirmed by numerous reputable sources. He and User:Alex Makedon, who has also described my edits as "pure Greek nationalistic propaganda", have tried to argue that the sources are ambiguous. They are not. User:Alex Makedon has also engaged in further insults and threats, apart from violating WP:CANVASS by spamming a plethora of like-minded users to support an AfD nomination he has instigated. Most seriously of all, he has used extremely offensive language against countries and ethnic groups other than his own, referring to Greece in particular as "Hellass", deliberately altering the endonym Hellas in order to render it a compound of hell and the fundamental orifice. After being asked to retract this inflammatory statement, he simply repeated it. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 06:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kekrops called me a ridiculous nationalist for citing the source, among other things. See Talk:Republic of Macedonia#Languages Section for his continuous incivility towards users who disagree with him, accusing everyone of trying to "expunge minorities" etc. He even directed his insults to an outside user (Luka Jačov). BalkanFever 08:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And Kekrops is hardly innocent when it comes to offending people, continually putting the words Macedonia, Macedonian and Macedonians in scare quotes to assert that the country, ethnic group and language are not the "real" Macedonia/n/s. That's after his continual use of the offensive term "Skopjan" was taken to ANI a while back. More of his incivility: comparing Macedonia to Nazi Germany (funny how he gets hurt if I call him Hitler in retaliation) and accusing me of ethnic nationalism. And no, he wasn't restoring Greek to the list, he added it, probably to further his nationalist motives, but whatever. I don't have time for senseless bickering with him, so hopefully an admin can lay down the law. BalkanFever 09:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool it guys. BalkanFever and Kekrops, I know you two are perennial sparring partners in all your national disputes, but at heart you love each other. So c'mon now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    All's fair in love... BalkanFever 09:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To FP: No, I am not going to have a laugh over this spat like I usually do, nor I am not going to let the insults just go by this time. Being called a "nationalist troll" by BalkanFever is nothing new, but his insults have escalated to an altogether different level. Enough is enough. My father's family fought the Nazis during the occupation, and had their home bombed by the German Stukas, for which Germany still refuses compensation. Did his?
    To BF: No one is going to force me to call another people "Macedonians" when that is how I identify. My resistance towards your desire to impose your point of view on me cannot reasonably be construed as incivility. The equivalent would be for me to try to coerce you into using Macedonia only for the Greek region. I use the scare quotes because that's what they call themselves, but I don't have to agree with that self-identification, do I? The "ridiculous nationalist" comment was the result of extreme provocation, and was not directed towards you personally, as I didn't bother to check the edit history before posting it. But I stand by my view that seeking to expunge any references to the Greek and Bulgarian linguistic minorities, which incidentally have been restored by a non-ethnic partisan administrator, is an eminent example of ethnic nationalism. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 09:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they did fight against the Nazis. Happy now? BalkanFever 11:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The thing that riles me the most about all this is that if I really were a "nationalist troll", I would've certainly opposed the inclusion of "Macedonian" at Greece#Languages from the very outset. Naturally, I've done nothing of the sort. But when I dare to request the bare minimum of reciprocity, and am actually backed up by the sources, I'm an Adolphos. I mean, fuck me. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 11:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Reciprocity has nothing to do with anything. BalkanFever 11:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant reciprocal behaviour, not content. That's what the sources are for. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 12:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My few words on the matter:

    • User ΚΕΚΡΩΨ has been stubbornly adding the Greek Language among the languages spoken in Macedonia in a total of 8 times up till now in the last few days. [17]
    • Despite the fact that there is some pretty strong evidence that the language is not spoken in Macedonia, at least not in a significant number: European Council [18][19][20], United Nations [21], Britannica encyclopedia [22] , BBC Educational [23], Eupedia [24], none of them mentiones the Greek language once in relation to the languages spoken in Macedonia. This has been backed up by many editors also. This user has continued to vandalize tha page.
    • The only lame arguments this user uses to support this fantomatic language minority is this web page [25][26] and even here the Greek it is not clearly stated among the languages of Macedonia. "The number of languages listed for Macedonia is 9." Non of them is Greek. Whatever they ment is not clearly stated.
    • The user ΚΕΚΡΩΨ has some bad reputation for using unproper language and racial personal attacks: "Fuck You", "Drop the dead donkey", "That's rather rich coming from a Slav".
    • This user has heavily offended Republic of Macedonia refering to it as the nazi Griechenfrei republic [27] just because we do not happen to agree on adding a language that is just ambiguously reported in a single cherry picked irellevant source, that he by some personal reason is insisting on.
    • In the bottom line this admin board report he has made is just a WP:GAME to cover his disruptive editing and vandalizing.

    I hope you do something about the user ΚΕΚΡΩΨ and his recent (and not so recent) disruptive behaviour. Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 13:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've stated before, the fact that Greek is absent from your sources does not constitute sufficient evidence to support your assertion that there is no Greek linguistic minority in the country. Omission does not constitute denial. As for my "unproper" [sic] language, I have lost my temper on a few occasions but I have also been severely provoked: comparing the exodus of a few thousand refugees on the losing side of the Greek Civil War who escaped with their lives to the genocide of 350,000 Pontic Greeks is more than enough to ignite me. Regarding my calling you a Slav, well, aren't you? "Racial attack"? I don't see it on the list of ethnic slurs. I even qualified the remark by saying that it wasn't intended as a slur, but merely to illustrate the point that you constantly bait Greeks with accusations of a national obsession with the "immutability and continuum of 2500 years of Ancient Hellens", despite being a member of a Slavic ethnic group who calls himself "Alex Makedon"—Alexander and his Macedonians were not a Slavic people. And what's wrong with Drop the Dead Donkey? It was one of the better British comedies of the 90s. I shan't bother replying to the more inane allegations, but the one about my being "alone" is a blatant lie, as a cursory glance at the edit history will confirm. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 13:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Rummaging through edit histories, I've made a rather interesting find. User:Alex Makedon used to be this guy, according to this. And one of the IP's more noxious posts was this, signed Alex Makedon: "Too sad Wikipedia is full of Hell Ass Neonazi wishing bloodshearing, wars and ruin just on etnic-national basis to its neighbouring country." Emphasis mine. I rest my case. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 16:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weren't we talking about Republic of Macedonia Languages [28] related arguments. Even if irellevant i will say a few words on the matters:

    1,2 years ago: my noobish second account from my first days on wikipedia is a closed matter in 2007, i still keep linked on my user page "see earlier account Alexander Mak" so all know my "alter ego"
    7 months ago: my heavilly provoked comment by the Hellenic Neonazi[29] that were auguring dismembering of Republic of Macedonia and were fueling nationalistic hate among the Albanians in Republic of Macedonia in hope for a new 2001 civil war were in a critical moment for Republic of Macedonia, 5 April 2008 when Greece managed to pospone Republic of Macedonia's NATO access

    Again clear attempts to WP:Game and to switch the attention and distracting from the present day ΚΕΚΡΩΨ vandalism, disruptive editing and lack of real eviednce (displayed above) with digging out things closed more than 1 year ago. Its interesting how ΚΕΚΡΩΨ accidently reported me and BalkanFever that again accidently happen to disagree and contrast his lame interpretation of a cherry picked source and speculations over a Greek minority in Republic of Macedonia with solid arguments. I guess gaming with reports was the only thing left to do to push his POV on the page. I expect something is done about the user ΚΕΚΡΩΨ disruptive behaviour. Thank you Alex Makedon (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It wasn't a one-off remark, it's persistent, inflammatory and unwarranted ethnic baiting of the worst kind. I hadn't realized you'd made the outrageous comment I exposed earlier from your proper user account, and had even engaged in a bout of edit-warring when others tried to remove it. It appears you're hell-bent on denying the existence of Greeks in your country, going so far as to proclaim that "No one in Republic of Macedonia clames to be Greek", despite the nation's official census being entirely unambiguous that the opposite is in fact true. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And the insults and intimidation continue... ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 19:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised that Alex Makedon is still editing Wikipedia to be honest. In fact I sincerely believe he is a liability to the ethnic Macedonian editors here and they should have acted first.--Avg (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know, is anybody going to provide some outside response here? I'm too involved with the various disputes here to take action. Anybody? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fut. being too involved didn't stop you from asking for User:Crossthets to be indef banned [30].

    User:BD2412

    Resolved

    I would like to flag User:BD2412 for intentional bad flagging, as he has flagged one of my articles for deletion, an article I worked very hard on and has legit credentials. His deletion flag was inappropriately done and I would like his actions investigated by someone from ADMIN. He has also taken part in a similar discussion on the WikiQuotes. I believe he has a personal vendetta against the book and this is NO REASON to flag an article. This user only flags for credit and not the greater good of Wikipedia content. Amelia Nymph (talk) 05:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melia Jansen (talk • contribs)

    If the book meet's Wikipedia's standards for inclusion, its likely that the community will keep it. If not, its likely you'll understand why it fails the criteria by reading the "delete" comments. Either way if an editor feels that an article may meet the deletion guidelines, the correct thing to do is start a discussion. Nothing BD2412 did here is improper. If you've run into problems on several Wikimedia sites, that's probably a good indication that your material isn't appropriate for where you're trying to include it - that doesn't make it any less worthwhile, it just means that these might not be the best venues. If you want to read up on the criteria used to judge whether or not a book is ready for an article here, please see Wikipedia:Notability (books).Shell babelfish 06:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One nomination, whether good or bad, doesn't immediately seem like an issue to "investigate" someone over. Your hard work is appreciated, and you are more than welcome to argue for the article's inclusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The violin diary. If there is evidence to suggest that BD2412 has engaged in repeated bad faith behavior, I'm not seeing it here. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I have no vendetta against this book, nor do I even particularly care about it. I joined the deletion discussion on Wikiquote because I am an active administrator there, and frequently participate in those discussions. A due diligence investigation of the topic there led me to the Wikipedia entry, and an attempt to find further information about the book via Google and by searching online booksellers led me to conclude that the book is simply not encyclopedically notable. Cheers! bd2412 T 06:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It obviously is, as per the links that you yourself fixed and I commend you for that. Woodyallenfan2004 (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is up to the AfD discussion to determine, but the fact that some mentions of a book exist on the internet simply do not suffice make it notable, obviously or otherwise. bd2412 T 07:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [-unindent-] BD2412's edits seem reasonable to me. I have no strong opinion on the underlying topic, but a prod seems reasonable to challenge and obtain a consensus on the notability of the book. On the other hand Melia Jansen's edits seem remarkably uncivil. I don't find edits like this particularly helpful. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. This was clearly a candidate for deletion -- any self-published book is going to have to show very clearly that it meets our criteria for notability at WP:BK. Anything from Lulu.com (the url is blacklisted by the way) needs scrutiny - we seem to have well over 1000 articles with 'Lulu.com' in them. dougweller (talk) 09:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This page indicates that there are 346 pages linked to Lulu.com, not 1,000, and--though it's hard to tell for certain as there doesn't seem to be a way to filter the results--most of the links appear to be to AFD pages and talk pages. There are, admittedly, some suspect articles (such as this, this, this) and this, and even some suspect user pages (such as this, this this and this). --CalendarWatcher (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You've found links to the website, which is worrying as it is blacklisted in its 'pure vanilla' form of www.lulu.com. I did a Goold search using "lulu.com site:en.wikipedia.org" which finds every mention of lulu.com which is the publisher itself as opposed to its website. If the website is meant to be blacklisted, don't we have to do something to make sure every version is? dougweller (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, you're getting a lot of false positives, including anyone named 'Lulu'. Using 'Lulu.com' in quotes pulls up 374 results. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This noticeboard is not the place to discuss deletions or general questions about notability. I am closing this thread. Jehochman Talk 13:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peter Frank VS. Peter Frank Anderson

    Resolved

    Peter Frank is a well known Los Angeles Curator and Nationally recognized art critic. When I looked him up, recently, I found Peter Frank Anderson an Athlete in his spot. Should not Peter Frank Anderson be found under the listing of Peter Frank Anderson and Peter Frank the art critic be found under Peter Frank?

    Please Take a look at this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.168.45 (talk) 06:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The article Peter Frank begins "Peter Frank Andersen is a former Danish football player." There is a redirect Peter Frank Andersen to article Peter Frank. So it is true the article is misnamed. One of the external links mentions the full name "Peter Frank Andersen" while the other mentions just "Peter Frank", so it is possible fans knew him as just "Peter Frank", and the article misnaming came from there. Article and redirect were created same day by User:Latouffedisco.
    Checking the ever-reliable 8-ball and sorting the first 10 hits, we find (apparently) 4 different people:
    • a photography set designer/stylist (perhaps in Germany), hits 1 & 10, [31] [32]
    • a different photographer "Peter Frank Edwards" South Carolina/Maine, hit 6 [33]
    • a magazine editor, hit 4 [34]
    • and the referenced art critic in LA area, hits 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 [35] [36]
    So we have some possibly large number of people all named with this (now obvious) common combination of first names.
    Notability of the more noted (at least Google-noted) art critic cannot be judged by me. The article and redirect should be reversed. Comments? Shenme (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and if all of these individuals are notable we should perhaps create a disambiguation page and create stubs with these references linked. They could be fleshed out later.--Crossmr (talk) 07:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please discuss on the article's talk page. No administrative action is required here. For general assistance with Wikipedia, see this page. Jehochman Talk 13:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that it particularly matters, but the situation required a history split, which can only be done by admins. - auburnpilot talk 17:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    67.211.155.255

    Resolved
     – No edits by anon for the the last 12 hours, tagging as stale. --Elonka 18:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    IP 67.211.155.255 has been vandalizing, and vandalized a page after his final warning, so my hunch is that (s)he should be blocked indefinitely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Old-Skool (talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No edits for 12+ hours. Please report vandalism to WP:AIV instead of here. --GraemeL (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with GraemeL. Mr. Old-Skool: Anons may be used by different people, so we never block anons indefinitely. Instead, action against anons is usually only taken for ongoing current situations, and even then, we only issue temporary blocks. There are certain exceptions, for example we may issue longer blocks for anons that appear to be being used for nothing but vandalism for long periods (weeks/months/years). But for a brief situation like this where the anon may never be used again anyway, a block probably wouldn't do much good. --Elonka 18:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Wilkes Booth and User:Arcayne

    A section near the end of the article on John Wilkes Booth has stirred some controversy. See Talk:John Wilkes Booth. In the spirit of cooperation, all involved have discussed possible compromises to problems with undue weight, Wp:Fringe, and WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. In an attempt to increase awareness of the discussion, I placed an appropriate tag here [[37]], in the section called Booth Escape Theories. The tag was removed by User:Arcayne on at least four occasions [[38]][[39]][[40]][[41]]. The last deletion include the deletion of other information as well. This user has a problem with the tag because, as he puts it, I am the only one who wants the tag. This is not true, since User:Unschool has agreed with the inclusion of the tag. Each deletion includes an edit summery that is not true. User:JGHowes displayed displeasure with the tag, since not all of the references in the section have a verifiability problem. I then placed an appropriate [unreliable source?] tag on only the citations in question. I did so here,[[42]]. That too was reverted here [[43]], and continuing to claim that I am the only one who wants this although the talk page says differant. My intention was to make other users aware that a discussion is ongoing, but it seems that one user does not want that to happen. On the talk page I have been accused of being, and I quote Fucking arrogant and rude[[44]] for placing the tag on the section. Even if I am wrong about the information, We should at least be able to place a tag on a section so that others will be aware of a discussion. Can anyone help?--Jojhutton (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Respectfully, Jojhutton actually seeks to remove the entire section that discusses the (well-cited) conspiracy theories that Booth somehow escaped justice.
    Joj first tried to have any mention of the conspiracy theory purged from the Lead (edit-warring in that effort for almost a week). When that failed to find consensus, (s)he then turned to trying to have the section itself removed - ie., no section, no need for the Lead to mention it.
    Jojhutton has repeatedly tagged the section noting (in edit summary) that a "verifiability check" is ongoing - a quick check of the user's history indicate no such check existing. When asked to provide a link to this "check"; (s)he finally posted to the RS Noticeboard days later, There, his arguments claiming lack of verifiability have been dismissed by two different editors (neither of them myself). It should be pointed out that the verifiability tag was placed in a section containing verifiabl citations, and lots of them.
    Jojhutton's excessive tagging of the section indicate a singular purpose to have the section removed. He misinterprets Wikipedia verifiability policy, despite numerous attempts by myself and others to help him/her get up to speed.
    He has no consensus for the removal of the section, and the tagging is an attempt to end-run that consensus. He is not - as he has claimed here and elsewhere - 'notifying folk of ongoing discussion'; a simple 'dispute' section tag would address that. That suggestion, as well as that of seeking out sources that explicitly address and contrast the escape theories were repeatedly ignored.
    As to the 'fucking arrogant and rude' comment, I should point out that it came from my sheer frustration at having the user ignore good advice from many other editors and continuing to tag the section in an effort to remove the section. Even the kindest of the editors in the article discussion call his attempts to remove the section a "gambit". I found it to be pointy and disruptive, and was not at all gentle in my disapproval of the user attempting to end-run consensus, ergo the comment. Sure, I should have avoided calling a spade a spade. I did in fact apologize for the outburst, but not for the transparent nature of the tagging. The user has less than 2k edits, and likely not yet truly aware that (s)he is not the smartest person in the room while editing in Wikipedia. Jojhutton may very well have thought that gaming the system was an appropriate tactic (which makes me sincerely doubt the "newness" of this user).
    Lastly, the only person who feels there is a "controversy" with the Booth Escaped section is in fact this user, and this user alone. There is no consensus for either the section's removal or tagging. Maybe this noticeboard can do what the article discussion and the RS noticeboard have clearly been unable to accomplish. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arcayne is again misrepresenting the facts. I said the information is being checked for verfiability here [[45]], and I placed the notice here [[46]]. Less than 24 hours later, hardly days later as Arcayne claims. Sorry, but editing wikipedia is not my full time job, so I waited until I had ample time to make a report. As to the two editors who have dismissed my opinion, One is User:JGHowes, who is one of the involved editors, the other added this comment [[47]]. Not exactly the been dismissed that Arcayne made mention of. Arcayne seems to only be able to tell half truths, I have never seen it mentioned that Arcayne had ever suggested a differant tag. If I am wrong, then please provide a link to that suggestion. Arcayne thinks he has consensus, but User:unschool has disagreed with Arcayne as well. It is true, that I think the section should be deleted. It has no place on wikipedia. I was willing to find compromise, but it was met with disdain. Originally the debate was with WP:Undue weight. Arcayne and JGHowes responded to that request by actually making the section longer. That is when I began to scrutinize the sources. My argument is that anything can be sourced, but those sources must meet the criteria for inclusion. Sources based on unreliable facts by biased authors have no place on wikipedia. Arcayne argues that as long as it is sourced, it doesn't matter who says it or why. I tend to take a more realistic view of source material and look at who is making the accuations, especially when it comes to Fringe theories.. My full argument can be found on the talk page, as I do not wish to keep repeating myself.--Jojhutton (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but most of your post is incorrect, Jojhutton. To begin with, you said in your edit summary for the linked edit: "the sources have been nominated for a verifiability check". Yet, no such thing was done. Or at least, not for at least two days. If you meant you were searching on your own, then you should have left the material be and come back when you actually had info. We aren't here to wait on your schedule. Wikipedia moves with a pace independent from your own.
    As well, thanks for admitting that you wanted to purge the section, and were using tags towards that end. We here call that "gaming the system."
    Secondly, I and others suggested different tags, though, as noted before, none would have been best - you are equating the verifiability of the material provided in the cited material with our verifiability policy. They are two different things, as was pointed out t you at least four different times. You aren't a suitable evaluative source to contradict the info presented in a notable, verifiable source.
    Thirdly, when it comes to sourced, notable material, it doesn't matter who or why they said/wrote what they did. That they did is the notable event. You need to arrive - and quickly - at the realization and understanding that evaluating why someone makes a citable statement is original research. Your evaluation - as the sole voice of opposition to the current consensus - isn't usable. I understand that hurts your pride, but you need to suck it up. Ask some questions when you are getting reverted, instead of thinking we are all morons who don't appreciate your touted insight into Booth. You may have been here as another user before, but it doesn't appear that you have learned how to actually work with folk. Precisely what compromise had you suggested?
    As has been said before, your energies are better directed at adding material that presents a more balanced section (and thereby a better article). Filing an ANI to complain about your incorrect tags getting reverted is hardly an effort in that direction, now is it? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 07:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only did he survive, he went on to work for Alexander Graham Bell, helping to develop the Telephone Booth. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Edit-warring between two users at project talkpage

    Resolved
     – Appears resolved, no admin action needed/taken. Tiptoety talk 00:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a lot of edit-warring between two users at WT:PW with both reverting each other and "hiding" words against WP:CENSORED. The reverts have embroiled, with both templating one another. This does not paint a pretty picture of discussion that should happen at talkpage. The dispute led to GaryColemanFan templating iMatthew, which iMatthew removed, followed by this by GCF. The word that in question that is being removed is "gay" as seen here, here and here. Not sure what else to do here (apart from a trouting if necessary) so I think this would be the best venue for this discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Correct, D.M.N. - I'd wish you come to me first, but I was talking to the administrator User:Garden when I realized I had gotten out of hand - and I stopped immediately. Garden advised me to stop as well. I apologize for causing trouble. iMatthew 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem solved. Hugs all around. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Serial hoaxer?

    Resolved
     – Articles redirected and deleted respectively, user indefblocked
    • Kibara Mortifica, a plant which according to Google shows up only on Wikipedia. Its common name "Alpine Widowveil" also only shows up here;
    • La Sos del Rey Catolico, a town in Spain which may or may not exist per Google (my Spanish is rusty), and which is, oddly enough, one of the last places where Alpine Widowveil lives.

    I'd appreciate it if someone better versed in plants and Spanish would evaluate these two. I am almost certain that Kibara Mortifica is a hoax, which is why I proposed it for deletion, but I could be wrong. J. Spencer (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The town certainly exists, but already has an article - Sos_del_Rey_Catolico - which I've redirected to. The plant looks like a hoax to me too. Black Kite 23:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kibara Mortifica is definatly a hoax. All you get from searches is the Wikipedia article (On a completely unrelated note, the title of this would make a wonderful punk band name) Rgoodermote  23:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you! That's certainly an odd day's work - two hoaxes and a duplicate of an existing article. J. Spencer (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've deleted the plant article - no need to keep it around for the full PROD run. Black Kite 02:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Three hoaxes. his version of the Sos_del_Rey_Catolico article is full of hoaxes and ridiculous statements. The statement about the origin of the name is OUTRAGEOUS. Total hoax made in total bad faith. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've indefblocked the user; two hoax articles is clear evidence of deliberate disruption. They can ask to be unblocked if they so desire. -- The Anome (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, the name "La Sos del Rey Catolico" does not exist, and it makes no sense in spanish. I'm going to ask for a speedy deletion. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Contributions/Lope31

    I've reported this user to ANI, but it was rejected due to lack of warnings. Not many contribs, a sweep of apparently valid contribs on October 27, and then a sweep of vandalism today. It raises my eyebrows that it does have me concerned enough that I'll post here; given the lapse of time between the first set of good contribs and then today, I'll just raise the concern of the possibility of a compromised account. Yngvarr (t) (c) 22:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see there is now some warnings for Lope31 (talk · contribs) - it may be they shape up or come out with an explanation which would then require no further admin assistance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Kazanovac creating copyvio articles

    He just copies some chunks from a book in each of the copyvio articles he created, even though we have an article on that topic. See Special:Contributions/Kazanovac and his talk page. VG ☎ 22:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    All copyvio contributions deleted now, leaving no useful contributions. Should be reported to WP:AIV on next occasion. Nothing more to do here.  Sandstein  23:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Betacommand restrictions?

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

    Resolved
     – Betacommand blocked for 24 hrs. Franamax (talk)

    Is Betacommand still subject to these restrictions? If so, does "fucking dumbshit" cross the line, or is that considered normal? Is it OK if it has "sorry" included in the same post? Franamax (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    after the attack and insult made by that editor, being blunt and stating the truth seem to be the only method. βcommand 23:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We might want to add a restriction that he use 'your' and 'you're' correctly --NE2 23:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the other protagonists' deliberate inability to distinguish between "legal" and "within policy" are enough to make the Pope swear, I'd agree this was inadvisable. Black Kite 00:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Beta should be made to follow, to a closer extent, the No Personal Attacks rule that we all have to follow. Calling someone a "fucking dumbshit" is a clear example of a personal attack and should have consequences, especially for someone who has been to this board more times than I can count on my fingers and toes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 00:07
    Exactly. It's unacceptable for any user to refer to another as a "fucking dumbshit" under any circumstance. For someone warned as many times as Betacommand has been, yet another warning obviously isn't sufficient. —David Levy 00:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "These restrictions are in place until the community decide that the remedies are no longer appropriate". I see nothing that says otherwise; per Black Kite, inadvisable, but in the circumstances a warning would suffice. "Sorry", in my book, doesn't remove the incivility. --Rodhullandemu 00:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have blocked for 24 hours per the civility conditions on the current restrictions, and have so logged at the appropriate place. Review welcome. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Your discretion, and I won't argue with it. --Rodhullandemu 00:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to start a whole "thing", but I think the amount of time spent on Betacommand's actions and behavior could be spent elsewhere. I seriously think a longer block than 24 hours is necessary, especially when he is trying to make up reasons why he should/could cuss someone out. I am not an admin, but I think a month+ would show this behavior isn't appropriate and will just get him longer and longer blocks. Slaps on the wrist, like the blocks and "rules" previous, aren't going to work and aren't working. Again, just an opinion, not starting a "thing". - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 00:15
    LHvU set the duration to reflect the fact that BC hs been pretty good lately, I think it's appropriate. Rod may be right that a warning would have been better, but the level was going downwards in the thread up to that point anyway - and Beta is not best at responding to warnings. 24 hrs seems fine. Franamax (talk) 00:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is most annoying about this kind of nonsense is that those of us with a strong commitment to the free-content ideal hold that commitment, at least partially, as an ethical principle. Such boorish behaviour thus only serves to reduce the credibility of our arguments and to make us look foolish by association. If this is the standard of debate in which Betacommand wishes to engage then his position (and my own) would be best served by withdrawing from commenting on the issue. Obviously, I endorse LHvU's block which would be appropriate regardless of any pre-existing restrictions. CIreland (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. It doesn't help in the slightest, and being right (in his sentiments in the rest of the edit) doesn't excuse it. Black Kite 00:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeeez. This is clearly in breach of WP:NPA and he has a long record of such behaviour. It's apparent that he has no intention of mending his ways and his continuing rudeness is disruptive. It's time for a lengthy preventative block . X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my above comments, I endorse the block. —David Levy 00:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse the block. Such language is inappropriate for everyone (see WP:NPA) and someone restricted to follow WP:NPA even more than the rest of us knows that such restrictions will be enforced when they break them. SoWhy 00:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How many warnings, final warnings, really final warnings, really really final warnings, preventative blocks, arbitration cases and restrictions does Betacommand need? How many more threads will we dedicate to him? Blocking him doesn't work, because it won't prevent anything. We all know that he's gonna be abusive again when his block expires, Betacommand has proven that the previous umpteen times. Nothing we have done so far has made him change his ways. And if he hasn't changed his ways by now, he will never change his ways. No user deserves this much credit. When will we say that enough is enough? Aecis·(away) talk 01:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    When the damage is massive and widespread. A single lapse after what appears to be several months of good behaviour is not a reason to over-react. If Betacommand used an unauthorised bot to do massive damage to articles, then I might be with you in calling for a more permanent block. But things seem fine at the moment. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He has done that in the past, some thing User:Aec is away said happened then. A long winded (in length of discussion) ANI post, a tiny block/slap on the wrist and he was back at it. When will enough really be enough with Beta? - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 01:11
    The point here is that whenever these threads come up, people start calling for a permanent ban for Betacommand, regardless of the actual content of the thread or the infraction in question. The correct way to go about something like this is not to react to the 'latest' incident, but to be proactive and gather evidence, and, when things are calm, to present a reasoned case for a ban. Not to jump into a thread like this and seize the opportunity to whip up support for a ban. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The "long winded" bit is mostly happening after the I have blocked statement above. That, plus a few admin endorsements, are all that is required here. Can this be marked resolved? Franamax (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) I said "long winded" because it seems ANI posts go on forever and ever and ever. Nothing against you. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 01:21
    I'm done here. I'm just making a point about the right place and time for a ban request. Carcharoth (talk) 01:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And my comment about long-winded is in response to those who take a simple violation report and whip it up into YABT (yet-another-Beta-thread) and by virtue of the length of discussion to which they themselves contribute, decide that Beta is just not worth it. If I'd thought there would be more calls for huge blocks and bans, I would never have posted here. My mistake I suppose... (after e/c - seeing the usual figures resurface is really making me regret this) Franamax (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    widespread and how many users does he have to insult and new users does he have to bite before we consider it widespread? I'd like to get a rough figure to work with.--Crossmr (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It would depend. Gather the evidence and say Betacommand has done X stuff in Y amount of time. This is unacceptable, and he should be banned. Until you do that, anything else would be speculation. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    User:Hpfan1

    Hpfan1 (talk · contribs) is a good faith editor who has difficulty restraining his enthusiasm for Abercrombie & Fitch related topics. His enthusiasm has, over the past couple of years, led him to upload many copyrighted images. I gave him a final warning in September.[48]. Today I noticed that he's uploaded several copyrighted images since then. I've left a note on his page that he can be unblocked as soon as he posts a note to show that he understands and will follow Wikipedia:Non-free content. In case I miss it, any admin is invited to unblock him once he's posted such an acknowledgment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Young editor in trouble?

    Resolved
     – WP:OVERSIGHT Tiptoety talk 03:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could I have some extra eyes on

    He came to my attention when he slapped a {nonsense} tag on another editor's User page ([49]) for no apparent reason.

    His userpage claims that he's twelve years old, and also releases some other personal info that should probably be redacted. (I've blanked for now, but I don't know how we deal with those cases — do we delete?)

    The bulk of his non-userpage edits appear to be to add images to articles. He's been uploading to Commons, apparently. Looking at the images he's uploaded, he's universally claiming that the pictures (mostly of celebrities) are his own work — a claim that I find somewhat implausible.

    Is there a Commons admin who can have a look at those images? I suspect that they're all bad. (Commons upload log: link.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Information on userpage has been deleted and an e-mail sent to oversight. -- Avi (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering the content of those images (they seem to all be celebrities of some kind), I think its extremely unlikely that they're of his own work. Also, he's tagging the permissions as 'my soul'... Celarnor Talk to me 07:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image Upload Problems

    I tried to upload a radio station logo and keep getting "internal errors" that would say something like "Could not rename file "/tmp/phpUk1svS" to "public/1/1a/WHRV-FM_2008.gif"." and even the image database wasn't writeable. I asked on IRC, but they were having a conversation on drugs (no...really), so I bring it to your attention. - NeutralHomer • Talk • November 9, 2008 @ 04:19

    A Possible Sock

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TNA_World_Heavyweight_Championship&action=history hows Secretaria and Secretarian editing the same article. Suspicious? PXK T /C 04:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sync Guy

    Despite three checkusers this month alone, this fool manages to return despite four years of trying to shut him down. I tried to taunt him into answering me via the talk page, but he has yet to apply a single keystroke to a talk page. This account is blocked, but there are five more waiting to be blocked. What is it going to take? At the very least, creation of sub-accounts by new users should be eliminated. He creates an account and then uses it to create several more. He didn't clobber any articles and isn't likely to given his history, but the five remaining socks should still be shut down and perhaps a rangeblock applied after another checkuser is run. I don't mind playing whack-a-vandal, but this is ridiculous. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like the subaccounts are blocked. I've never initiated a checkuser, but I've alerted User:Gogo Dodo to the issue. He's been following this kid's exploits for some time now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ec. Those five accounts blocked. I don't think that restriction account creation by new accounts would help; it's already capped at 6 per IP. WODUP 04:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Has anyone made another contact with his mum or something? Maybe if we could convince her to watch over her son's behaviour and block or ban him from using the Internet, or Wikipedia. Having her block all Wikimedia-related sites might be the fix if you're really tired of him. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I actually tried to initiate contact a couple of nights ago using the three early e-mail accounts. All three were kicked back. I'm assuming they simply aren't active anymore. So, whenever this little nincompoop decides he's going to create a slew of Wikipedia accounts, it would seem he's damned well going to. I'm thinking that the recent IP blocks should be extended to include the entire range. Ditto this latest assault. He's managed to keep at it without a single iota of acknowledgement; even a death threat is unlikely to stop him. And no...I am not goingto threaten anyone nor should anyone else. I'm just saying that to emphasize the fact that we're dealing with a remarkably persistent individual who happens to have access to several IPs. Lucky us.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    have we contacted his ISP?--Crossmr (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lord knows I've tried. I brought this up to the foundation some time ago. Never heard a word from them. Since a checkuser brings up the IP and we have a possible last name on the account which I won't mention here, it seems like a no-brainer. How do we get started? I think four years of goofs, guys and glowballs is quite enough. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Crossmr beat me right to it. We should contact his ISP and have them contact him. I don't remember the last case but I don't think it was even this bad. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You beat me to it as well, Ricky.  :) This has got to stop and now. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 06:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, there's Wikipedia:ISP contact information but realistically, they'll just ignore it. There's Wikipedia:Abuse reports, so there's some process here (assuming we know the IP address). Has that been tried in the four years? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You know in extreme cases we should have the complaint pass quickly through arbcom (as a sanity check, just for them to make sure its truly warranted) and then have one of the foundations lawyers or something send off a formal signed letter to the ISPs in question. Nothing threatening, just far more official.--Crossmr (talk) 06:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What, under some sort of request for arbitration? It would be a strange way to do it but process-wise, it might work (or encourage them to make sure that Wikipedia emails to ISPs are in better control). On the other hand, it seems like the prior process has involved just random users complaining (which might explain the lack of effectiveness). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm good with that, so count me in. This may set a precident for present and future serial vandals. I've never filed an RFA so I don't know the procedure. If someone here will take the initiative to do so, I'll not only throw in my support, I'll help deal with the foundation as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking over the abuse reports, they have already discussed who should sent out the reports it doesn't look like they are up for additional bureaucracy. I think it's best to format an abuse report first before approaching arbitration (I would ask at its talk page before going forward as well). I don't know the history. Does anyone know some checkusers with knowledge on the IP addresses? They would could help format the request. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block/Unblock, Caspian Blue, AIV reports, copyrighted material... am i missing anything?

    Caspian Blue, who I am familiar with, initially made an AIV report here. This is a relatively common situation - CB makes AIV reports for things that are not blatant vandalism quite a bit. I responded with an nv response. After CB pointed out a few diffs, I blocked User talk:Occidentalist for 48 hours, mostly because I thought it was a copyright situation at the time, but also to force the user to answer the warnings that CB had been posting on the talk page. Per Occidentalist's unblock request, I looked even further into the diffs and couldn't really find an obvious copyright violation. I then unblocked, and brought here. As I am frequently frustrated with CB's single-mindedness with Korean articles, mis-filed reports, accusations of bad faith on anyone who disagrees with him, and lack of clear English skills, I need someone else to field this one - I feel I'm biased. Thanks. Tan | 39 05:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm very disappointed at your biased accusation here. I only tried to delete some content from Prostitution in South Korea that I considered "copyviolated contents" after googling and suggested the newbie to "rewrite them". Most of his non-violated contents are undeleted by me. However, the newbie ignored that and adding same materials that Comfort women suffered last July caused by Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs) and Priorend (talk · contribs). Such material was now deleted for plagiarism, and the newbie directly went to edit the article with same materials. Moreover, you are the one who blocked him with the tool and blamed me for showing "bad faith"? I informed admin, Fut.Perf who has observed the July case, so well, will see.--Caspian blue 05:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree I should not have blocked the user, and showed a degree of bad faith myself in doing so. I deeply apologize to you for blocking the user you begged to be blocked, Caspian. See, I need to not be involved with this anymore.Tan | 39 05:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I begged you to block the newbie? I reported him/her because of the copyviolation concerns, and I provided you a google result. The final judgment falls to your responsibility. I'm frustrated with your bad faith and such labeling. Here are google results why I thought I should report the newbie to AIV.--Caspian blue 05:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait, you reverted him adding language with citations under a claim of copyright violation? He cited his sources and you replaced it with an paragraph unsourced from February. Caspian, what logic is that? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ????? I don't know what you're talking about. Because the unsource version does not violate "copyright" policy. So that's why I suggested the newbie to "rewrite" the content.--Caspian blue 07:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A short quoted section like that isn't a copyright violation, especially when the source is given. By the way the www.wellesley.edu link only shows a generic page and not the quoted sections. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 08:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Caspian, on the google search for the text that starts with "According to Katharine Moon", the only exact copy of the text is a wikipedia mirror of Comfort women article. That paragraph is a paraphrase of [50](in particular, "debt bondage" appears on page 178). It appears that both his paragraph and the text on that source are taken from articles by the same author Katharine Moon, as in page 270 that document cites a work by him, just like Occidental does. That would be the reason because they are so similar.
    At most, User_talk:Occidentalist makes a sloppy work of making clear if he is making a paraphrase or a direct quote. Please take more care when addressing work done by newbies. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bidgee2

    Resolved
     – Blocked by User:Nancy Jclemens (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like...
    1. User:Firemanpb shows up today and makes a bunch of gender-differentiation edits ("firefighter"->"fireman").
    2. He is reverted multiple times by User:Bidgee and is eventually indef blocked after multiple warnings by Black Kite.
    3. User:Bidgee2 shows up, apparently created before the block but after the final warning, and starts making the same edits.

    I suspect Bigdee2 to be a harassment/vandalism account, but I don't see that single edit (so far) as actionable for a SSP nor the name similarity sufficient for a UAA notice, hence me posting here for action at any admin's discretion. Jclemens (talk) 08:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bidgee2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indefinite blocked by Nancy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The vandal is clearly a return of Firemanpb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who even made 2 attacks in Water vole [51][52]. Bidgee (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As an aside, PromoProductions (talk · contribs) has just been blocked. Not sure if there's a connection, but it's a new account that also edited the Firefighter page after Bidgee2. Dayewalker (talk) 08:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Same troll. M.O. of sexist and (now) racist edits is easy to catch. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Back again as 71.196.61.53 (talk · contribs) and trying to start something at WP:AN [53]. Dayewalker (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the heads-up. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet again, now to the COI board [54]. Dayewalker (talk) 09:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted that one. dougweller (talk) 09:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    False articles about human migration

    Over a period of more than a year, CARLMART (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly creating unsourced and unverifiable articles on immigrants Hispanophone and Lusophone countries, despite repeated warnings left on his talk page about the importance of using reliable sources. He refuses to discuss this with anyone; in fact, he has never once contributed in the Talk/User talk namespaces in over one year and 1000+ edits on Wikipedia [55][56].

    Some of these populations are notable, others aren't, but he fills all of these articles with the same vague, plausible-sounding generalisations which turn out to be false upon further investigation:

    • A neologistic group name like "Iranian Mexicans", "Korean Hondurans", etc., which cannot be found in any reliable sources
    • A population figure, sometimes inflated by as much as 25x over what reliable sources state
    • Claims that the group in question first came as refugees from some revolution or war (in reality, most of themturn out to have come as guest workers)
    • A list of religions they allegedly follow (just listing all the religions popular in the country of origin and destination)
    • A list of languages they speak (see "Religions")
    • A list of cities they allegedly live in (just a list of big cities in the destination country, without any evidence that the migrants live there)
    • Often, a bit of original research about surnames and intermarriage and their effect on how society views the population in question. He especially likes to add to articles about Filipinos about how people with one Filipino parent get mistaken for Spaniards, for some reason [57].

    Here's the problematic articles I'm aware of that have already been dealt with:

    1. Vietnamese Cubans (deleted by WP:PROD)
    2. Vietnamese people in Mexico (deleted by WP:PROD)
    3. Ethnic Chinese in Mozambique (rewritten; original version was somewhat factual [58])
    4. Korean Mexicans (rewritten; external links in the new version prove the non-factuality of the original version [59])
    5. Koreans in Argentina (rewritten; original version was somewhat factual, since it was a thinly-rewritten version of this UC Davis web page, which he declined to cite [60])
    6. Koreans in Peru (rewritten; original version was largely non-factual [61])
    7. Koreans in Chile (rewritten; original version was largely non-factual [62])
    8. Koreans in Guatemala (rewritten; original version was largely non-factual [63])
    9. Japanese Honduran (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Japanese Honduran)
    10. Iranians in Spain (rewritten; original version was largely non-factual [64])
    11. Malays in Spain (currently at AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malays in Spain)
    12. Iranian Mexicans (currently at AfD; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iranian Mexicans
    13. Japanese Spaniards (I'm planning to rewrite it later; already found numerous WP:RS which contradict this article [65][66][67][68])

    I'm trying to go through some of his other creations; he keeps creating more and more and I can't keep up. I strongly hope that an administrator can review this and take some appropriate action to prevent him from adding more false statements to Wikipedia. Thanks, cab (talk) 11:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there anything good coming out of him? Given the number of hoax articles, zero talk page edits and zero user talk page edits, I'm willing to block him until he at least acknowledges the problem. If he cannot even bother to respond to anyone's questions, then he's become more disruptive than useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. If people ignore their talk page, and refuse to responde to reasonable requests for discussion, they are being disruptive. A block will at least force him to explain himself, and that is all we want out of this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    According to this the user has created over 80 articles, after random sampling a few of those that aren't based on human migration I didn't find one with any sources. Having said that - assuming the articles aren't hoaxes - from the information given and the occasional link to IMDB it seems like the topics could potentially meet the inclusion criteria; although I image the majority of reliable sources would not be in English. Guest9999 (talk) 14:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:98.28.245.78

    This guy hasn't really vandalised anything, but he is not contributing to the 'pedia. All he does is repeat 'get a life' on Talk:Midget. I want to scream swear words into his face and slap him. He's that annoying. I have warned him, what, four times? Please, could someone block him and the other accounts he uses:
    User:24.33.130.253
    User:24.33.131.162
    User:66.213.25.12

    See here for more details.

    Must...take out...anger...*Whacks PC, breaks it*

    Oh, sh-

    --Editor510 drop us a line, mate 12:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The most recent edits by any of the IPs listed were a couple of days ago...and the oldest were a couple of months ago. Sorry, but blocking an IP which shows no indication of being stable isn't the ideal solution. If it's really that disruptive then you could ask for protection at [[WP:RFPP|this page], but to be honest the likely response is that there isn't enough recent activity at Talk:Midget to justify protection. GbT/c 12:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Help!!

    Can any help be offered if sysops on Wiki other language abused their power and blocked me over personal issues? Thanks. 158.143.153.244 (talk)# —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=250656793"