Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Ireland

Discussion hidden for scrollability

Ireland naming/disambiguation Can we get a couple more eyes on the Ireland/Republic of Ireland articles? A couple of users have taken it upon themselves to "correct" the contents of the articles, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion. It's a contentious subject, which is why people aren't supposed to be shifting things around at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Im stunned a couple of people have thought they should just jump in and make those changes, especially as all of them know there is the ongoing debate at another location about the Ireland naming dispute. Please stop them from making those changes, they keep undoing SarekoVulcans restoration of the correct article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Didn't say it was the correct article. It just needs to stand until the Arbcom - directed discussion completes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC) There has been no violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion of a discussion. Nothing was shifted around. Your edit warring based on your POV, with no attempt to use the talk page. Now please show which policies have been violated, and start to use diff's to back up any more accusations you want to make. --Domer48'fenian' 17:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Note that 50 minutes before this post, he stated that "I placed the correct about the RoI and moved the Ireland text to the Ireland Article". So, what was that about "Nothing was shifted around" again? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Yes and your point is....? I put Ireland text on the Ireland article. Were do you suggest I put it? Make up another name for Ireland and put it there? RoI is not the name of the Ireland, you'd know that only you removed the text from the RoI article. --Domer48'fenian' 17:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) His ability to lie like mad despite all the evidence proving him to be guilty as hell is simply incredible, even for an Irish Republican. Whats disturbing is hes still being allowed to run around wikipedia talking nonsense. In his recent post on the Republic of Ireland talk page he seems to threaten to move the article back to where he thinks it belongs despite this ongoing debate. [1] is nobody going to stop this guy? BritishWatcher (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Oi. His nationalistic POV-pushing is not okay. Nor is you making comments about 'even for an Irish Republican'. Please refactor, and again, if I had my druthers you would be instantly topicbanned form anything to do with Ireland for a year. //roux   19:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Calling me a lier again? Time was when you could be blocked for that! Still does not change the fact that RoI is not the name of the Irish State, and the information which illustrates this and explains the use of the term is removed. So our readers are deliberatly being mislead, or lied to which ever you prefare. --Domer48'fenian' 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I've warned him on that, but I'd hate to block for something factually accurate.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I was blocked for calling an editor a liar, regardless of weather it was factually accurate or not, but then I was an Irish editor. Must be nice being able to pick and choose --Domer48'fenian' 19:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC) BW is causing a lot of disruption. If it continues, I'm going to create a file on all his transgressions and present it afresh next time he causes disruption. Tfz 20:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Can we first establish if there has been a violation, and on which article? --Domer48'fenian' 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Revert war on Republic of Ireland (was posted simultaneously to the above) A revert war has broken out on Republic of Ireland. The substance of the war is on the name of the article. User:Domer48 opposes the article being located at "Republic of Ireland". He describes the article as a POV fork and says the article should be about the term ("Republic of Ireland") not the state itself. The revert war involves the article too-ing and froo-ing between a new article by Domer48 and the original article on the state. So far the revert war is thus: new article - Domer48 old article - Rannpháirtí anaithnid new article - Domer48 old article - Rannpháirtí anaithnid new article - Domer48 old article - SarekOfVulcan (admin) new article - Daicaregos old article -SarekOfVulcan (admin) new article - Sarah777 old article - SarekOfVulcan (admin) (The article history is here.) There is an related ArbCom ruling and on-going discussion on related matters. NB: This is an article that has tens of thousands of internal links pointing to it. It is also a public holiday in Ireland and particularly warm weather so there are few Irish editors online. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Please read the discussion here. No one disagrees with the RoI not being the State. The article content was on the Ireland, and not the RoI. The information I added to Ireland was about Ireland. --Domer48'fenian' 16:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Not everyone knew there was a debate on the Republic of Ireland page for such radical change. You knew full well that the debate about the Ireland naming dispute was being held at the wikiproject and not on just one of the articles involved. Your changes were totally out of line. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC) ADDS: The edit war is also happening on the main Ireland article. (See article history.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I know there is a dispute about Ireland. I've not moved any Ireland related articles. What has the Ireland debate got to do with the Republic of Ireland page? Everyone agrees that the name of the state is Ireland, and not the RoI. The content on the RoI article was about Ireland and not the RoI. I placed the correct about the RoI and moved the Ireland text to the Ireland Article. My changes were totally in line with our policies, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV to name but two. Please show me were I did not stay within policy, or were I went against ArbCom. --Domer48'fenian' 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC) As these are Troubles-related articles, Domer48 has breached 1RR. Mooretwin (talk) 16:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC) As ArbCom have yet to agree to the 1RR, no I have not. On a personal note, I wish they would and everyone involved more or less agrees.--Domer48'fenian' 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) This sort of wikilawyering and gaming is precisely why nationalistic POV-pushers should be booted. //roux   16:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC) There is a core of British Nationalist POV-Pushers continually causing disruption on Ireland related articles, and it turning Wikipedia into a circus. About time something was done about this. We don't have Irish editors trolling British related articles. It must come to an end soon! Tfz 19:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Now that comment says it all! --Domer48'fenian' 17:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Abuse of WP:TWINKLE There are two users who are abusing the WP:TWINKLE tools. They are reverting content which is not vandalism. Twinkle is a vandalism tool, and should not be used in a content dispute. User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid has used it twice, both here and here. In addition they will not use the Article talk page to explain their reverts or take part in the discussion. User:SarekOfVulcan likewise is using the tool inappropriately, as seen here, here, and here. In addition they will also not use the Article talk page to explain their reverts, or take it to the article talk page. --Domer48'fenian' 16:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC) There is no consensus for such a radical change, you know full well the Ireland naming dispute is ongoing. If anyone is abusing wikipedia its you not SarekofVulcan. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Also, only the revert vandalism function of Twinkle is vandalism-only. The more oft-used rollback tool (which allows one to add an explanation) is simply an alternative of the undo facility. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) User:SarekOfVulcan appears to be enforcing the Arbcom rulings, which you and others (in depressingly typical nationalistic fashion) seem to be delberately flouting. One of these sets of people is editing in a manner not conducive to continued possession of editing privileges. I leave it as an exercise for the reader as t which is which. //roux   16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) This is a report on the Abuse of WP:TWINKLE, any thing else go to the talk page of the articles. Now please provide a link to the Arbcom rulings. --Domer48'fenian' 16:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Or on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Domer48, depending on the any thing else... And you know exactly where the Arbcom page is, since you've already supplied a statement pursuant to it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) There is no abuse. Sarek provided the link to Arbcom here. Here it is again, but stop the disingenuous act. Since there was no abuse, we may now focus on your behaviour, which you well know is unacceptable. //roux   16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC) After EC, based on Sarek's links, I move for immediate topicban of Domer from any Ireland-related editing for one year, based on my thoughts outlined here. //roux   16:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC) You can move for what ever you want, but you need to establish why first. I have not gone against any ArbCom ruling. --Domer48'fenian' 16:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Regular Twinkle reverts may be used in content disputes because it is an alternative to undo. The reason that rollback cannot be used in content disputes is because a) only a small set of users have rollback and b) there is no edit summary. Since any autoconfirmed user can use twinkle and since non-vandalism reverts using twinkle may provide an edit summary, twinkle undos are treated the same as regular undos. Therefore, there is no abuse unless the undo is done using twinkle's "revert vandalism" button. Oren0 (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for that Oren0, that was very helpful. I'm now stright on Twinkle. Roux open another tread, or join in one of the others which have been open. --Domer48'fenian' 16:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Blocked (Cross-posted from WP:AE) With his edit [2], Domer48 performed what amounted to a cut-and-paste move of Republic of Ireland to Ireland, in violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion which forbids such moves. Since he appears intent on repeating this violation of an arbitral decision, I have blocked him for a week. I will lift the block, and I consent to another administrator lifting it, as soon as Domer48 gives credible assurances that he will not repeat such moves, whether by means of the "move" function or by cut and paste. Whether a topic ban or other sanction is also required is for the community to decide. I suggest that any further discussion takes place here at ANI.  Sandstein  20:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks for the review, Sandstein. Note that Republic of Ireland was protected for two weeks by Canterbury Tail, so this block might not have the desired effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I think that we can lift the page protection now through WP:RPP. With Domer48 now either blocked or compliant, it is not necessary any more. Should he or other editors continue to make cut and paste moves, they can be reported to WP:AE to be blocked. That is preferable to protecting a high-profile article for weeks.  Sandstein  20:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I hope that the C&P wasn't an attempt to do an "end run" around the arbcom injunction - not least because it adds a GFDL violation to the mix - but either way the block looks like it should prevent disruption. Assuming that to be the case, a ban probably isn't necessary. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I have unblocked Domer48 after he agreed not to attempt to change the subject of the article Ireland from the island to the country until the conditions specified in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion are met.  Sandstein  20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC) "what amounted to a cut-and-paste move" is not the same thing as a cut-and-paste move. Either I made a cut-and-paste move or I did not. I made an edit, a very detailed edit! I removed information which was misleading and wrong on the Republic of Ireland article. I suggested on that Article talk page, to leave it sitting there, pending a discussion and got no response. Rather than just deleting it, I merged it with the Ireland Article of which it is a mirror. Now Sandstein's block is "what amounted to" an attempt by them to prevent discussion, and more importantly my participation in discussion. There was an ongoing discussion about my edit here, and their block is what “what amounted to an attempt by them to prevent me the opportunity of defending myself. Notice how you quickly closed the discussion, with no responce nessary to the questions I posed. Now PhilKnight in that discussion said my edit "went against the spirit of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names." Not that I had violated it! So we have "against the spirit of" and “what amounted to very vague terms used to have me blocked! So Sandstein what we have here by Admin's, is what amounts to arbitrary powers being abused arbitrarily which more than violates our policies, and not just the spirit of them. It might go some way to explain why Admin's are dropping like flies, but none of the bad ones.--Domer48'fenian' 23:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Aaaand you go right back to being incivil and accusing admins of being arbitrary? Nice. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) What are you talking about "go right back to being incivil." Aaaand calling an editor a liar is not, nice bit of slectivity. Or is this a case of felon setting? --Domer48'fenian' 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Can we archive this Incidents report? Everything seems to have been settled. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Seems like the incident I reported originally is settled, and there's another thread down below for people who have issues with my archiving of the discussion. Go ahead and mark it resolved.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (Sheepishly) I don't know how. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC) No problem, I was directing that more toward any uninvolved admin who wanted to drop in. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Ireland naming redux Since discussion of the page move was continuing out of the ArbCom-directed process, I just took administrative action to comply with the directive and archived the discussion page on Talk:Republic of Ireland. Is there consensus to overturn this action?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Archiving that discussion page, was a logical move. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (Booooo!) shoy (reactions) 15:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Yes there should be consensus to overturn this actionWgh001 (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC) As an Admin, activly involved in the discussions for you to close it was wrong. Now you did not have to come here to be told that. --Domer48'fenian' 18:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Telling you you're violating an ArbCom restriction doesn't qualify as "actively involved", sorry. Beyond that, I think I've edited regarding the name of the article maybe 5 yearstimes over the past three years. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Right. 3 edits on Talk:Republic of Ireland in August 2008, nothing since.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC) And 1 edit yesterday to Ireland. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) You were activly involved, revert 1, revert 2 and revert 3. Now you removed an ongoing discussion on the article talk page. There is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion. You were involved on the article, and you closed down the discussion. --Domer48'fenian' 19:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Domer, are you familiar with the term "persistent disruption"? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Blocked for a week over this diff -- if he doesn't recognize that ArbCom has put a procedure in place to determine the names of the Ireland articles, then he'll just keep edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC) SarekOfVulcan - abuse of admin tools SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sarek is currently is a dispute with Domer48 of the naming of the Ireland article - some of the nonsense involved in this argument can be seen above at "Ireland naming redux" as well as yesterday episode here. During their barney Sarek has used his admin tools to effective silence Domer citing this diff as evidence of Domers attempt to userp the Arbcom system. I am not interested in getting into the rights and wrongs of the Ireland naming I am here purely to hightlight this OTT and uncalled for block. A. The block isnt warranted, B. Even if the block was warranted it should have been discussed, especially one of that length (1 week) and C. an involved admin shouldnt be dishing out a block against someone they are in dispute with. Deja vu!--Vintagekits (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I agree this is a bad block from an involved admin who is in disppute with Domer. BigDuncTalk 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Suggest the blocking admin unblock, to allow for an uninvolved admin to review and possibly reblock. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I have no problem with uninvolved admins reviewing, but they can do it while he's blocked -- his talk page is still live. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)Enforcing the Arbcom ruling is not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'involvement.' //roux   20:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Nonsense, you were in the middle of a dispute with the editor and were abusing your privilaged tools as an admin. Instead of encouraging wheelwarring you should unblock the editor and see if the block stands on its own to feet by discussing it here! Also is your adminship up for recall?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) These links are helpful: Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).  Sandstein  20:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC) In what way?--Vintagekits (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Because, when reviewing a block, it is helpful to be able to quickly access the block log and talk page of the blocked user. It would have been courteous of you to provide that link in your initial request.  Sandstein  20:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC) SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs), perhaps you could provide more of a detailed rationale for the block, here? Cirt (talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Comment, it is a joke that Domer is not allowed to come here and defend himself against this farce. This is from his talk page (he should be able to come here and defend himself!) I said the Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. This process here before the ArbCom even agreed to here the case. So were is the structure for determining the names of the disputed articles set up by ArbCom? That's disruptive? Check out the section titled Time table, and check out Back-up on this? I said there is no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages. If there is such a directive, provide a diff. Is that disruptive, were is the link? This is just typical of POV warriors riding rough shod over editors who dare challange them. I know Sandstein is going to come along now and back this fucker up. They are just as bad if not worse. There last block was just as bad as this one, again lying. --Domer48'fenian' 20:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) On the face of it this looks like yet another instance where an otherwise-uninvolved admin engages a problem editor only to be told that he shouldn't do anything because by engaging the editor he became involved. If this point of view keeps gaining support we might as well not have admins at all. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC) @ Sandstein How the hell is showing the block l;og of Domer helpful?? BigDuncTalk 20:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Quite. The editor was pointed to the correct venue, refused to move, and was - eventually - blocked. Good block, far too late however. If SarekOfVulcan is to be censured, it should be for waiting too long - displaying far more good faith than the situation required. Disclosure: I've posted at Talk:Republic of Ireland, but have no view on the naming dispute - other than where discussion should occur. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 20:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC) (various ec's) I agree that, in general, the mere enforcement of ArbCom decisions does not make an administrator too "involved" to block, and I am not aware - to the limited extent I've been active with respect to this area of conflict - that SarekOfVulcan has expressed any opinion in the underlying content issue. But I am concerned that the reason given for the block is "refusing to acknowledge" by this diff that ArbCom has decided something. Having and expressing an opinion, even (as here) a mistaken one, is not blockable disruption. Only the actual violation of the relevant ArbCom decision is, but Domer48's statement does not amount to such a violation. I think this block is mistaken and should be lifted, though perhaps a briefer re-block is needed for the incivilities expressed by Domer48 above.  Sandstein  20:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC) That is rubbish to put it politely an editor gets a bad block and when he gets annoyed about it another admin comes along and says block is bad and should be lifted but block him for loosing the head come on. BigDuncTalk 20:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I'm going to have to second This flag once was reds synopsis: Good block; if any error occurred, it was extending too much good faith to a problem user. The rest is nonsense and bullshit, so sorry. Anyone who considers Sarek "involved" does not understand the parameters of "involved." KillerChihuahua?!? 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Sandstein -- I have expressed a preference for the location in the past, and the current location isn't it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you for providing an extended explanation below. I would not have made that block, but I am now a bit more inclined to view it as reasonably preventative, given Domer48's evident attitude and conduct problems.  Sandstein  21:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I see this as a SERIOUS ABUSE OF ADMIN TOOLS by someone that shouldn't have access to the admin tools. This is the DIFF that he is blocking the user for and all the user really does in that diff is ask for a diff or some proof that he was not allowed to discuss an issue related to article changes on a talkpage. This DIFF show that this was indeed the DIFF that Sarek blocked him for. Since when has asking for proof or diffs become a blockable offence?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I may be off base here, but I am under the impression that Domer should have been blocked just for changing the articles around as he did. Although I'm not quite clear on exactly when he should have been blocked, it doesn't appear that Domer was operating in good faith. [[User:|Hiberniantears]] (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Yes you are way off base would you at least read what is going on here before commenting. BigDuncTalk 21:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC) It does indeed look as if you are off base, the guy was asking for diffs and proof. Wikipedia has rules, policies, guidelines and other such things and when an admin is asked to provide such things then he should assume good faith and do so, not block the user that asks for that for a week.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I'd also like to ask if it's 100% normal that Sarek move my comments from under his Full rationale piece and up here. Am I not allowed to respond to his Full rationale?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Sure you are -- but that wasn't a response to anything in the rationale that I could see at the time, so I moved it so that I wouldn't be adding material above your response.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I just blocked Domer's talkpage for gross incivility. Feel free to re-enable if I'm mistaken. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Yes you are mistaken it is against standing policy which allows at least moderate venting w/o further punishment. BigDuncTalk 21:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I believe you mean the opposite of what you wrote. –xenotalk 21:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) now fixed [3] Er, User talk:Domer48 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) is not protected.  Sandstein  21:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, but Domer has been reblocked to disallow talk page editing. –xenotalk 21:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Are any admins going to unblock Domer from editing his own page per the standing policy? BigDuncTalk 21:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Home now. I didn't block the talkpage for calling me a "fucker" -- that's moderate venting, as above. I blocked for being warned by another editor to tone it down, and then posting "he's not running for a bus, he's running for a shovel", after several other civility violations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC) But you have been pretty uncivil yourself yesterday [4]. Maybe that's where a lot of this stuff started. I notice you didn't apologise yet. If you withdraw what you said it might go some way to calming things down. Would you agree? Tfz 22:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC Basically, no. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Then you should exempt yourself from all forward dealings with these related issues. Tfz 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I'd like to point to the following as a previous example of bad blocks and immature behavior by the admin SarekOfVulcan Right here.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Exactly Tfz, Sarek accused Domer of being a liar yesterday pretty uncivil in my book. BigDuncTalk 22:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC) See link above where I decline to apologize. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Which I commented on that your response was incorrect as what Domer stated was that he wasn't aware that he had breached sanctions not that he wasn't aware of the whole process. BigDuncTalk 22:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Again with the "can't follow links", BigDunc? "First off, I was not informed of this discussion!" --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Ok, I think I finally understand - you contend that when he said "this discussion", he was referring to the discussion of the name at the WikiProject, rather than the discussion at the Enforcement board? If so, sorry for the incivility struck out above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Sarek's full rationale Short form: for disambiguation, the article about the country named "Ireland" is at Republic of Ireland, while the Ireland article is about the island that contains Ireland and Northern Ireland. Domer initiated a discussion at the of Ireland talkpage and decided to be bold and change Republic of Ireland to an article about the term "Republic of Ireland" as used to refer to Ireland the country, and to change Ireland to an article about Ireland the country and the island. I don't remember whether I saw this on my watchlist or if someone else commented on it, but I thought it was too large a change and after Rannphairti reverted and Domer re-reverted, I reverted to the original with the comment that WP:BRD usually involves discussion. When I went to the talkpage, I saw the banner at the top pointing to the arbitration case and when I checked, I saw that they had directed that there be Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion, as specified in the remedies above it. A cut-paste move is still a move, so at that point, I went into enforce-the-Arbcom-decision mode. I posted to ANI requesting more eyes on the articles, as there were Arbcom issues involved. Immediately afterwards, Domer posted accusing Rannphairti and me of abusing Twinkle. It was explained to him by others that using twinkle to restore a previous version with an edit summary was not abuse, and that was resolved. While discussion continued, Sandstein blocked Domer48 for his edits on the Ireland side of things, but agreed to unblock provided that Domer did not violate arbitral decisions. Domer returned to discussing the page move on the RoI talkpage, despite it having been made quite clear that discussion should take place within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration. I archived all the current discussions on the talkpage, and told the concerned parties to work it out on IE-COLL. After more discussion on the RoI talkpage, Domer stated: The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. Since he was clearly acting in bad faith at that point, I decided that he could not be trusted to abide by the conditions of his unblock -- after all, if it wasn't an arbitral decision, he wouldn't be violating it, and re-blocked for a week. That pretty much sums things up, except for some minor details -- like Domer previously participating in the process he was now denying existed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Maybe you step aside at this stage, as you are getting further "involve". Can't be policeman, judge and executioner, it makes bad law. Tfz 21:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) And that is the central issue here, not the merits or demerits of Domers actions. I would go further - one cant be the "victim", policeman, judge, jury and executioner - makes for extremely bad law!--Vintagekits (talk) 08:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC) You know, calling me judge, jury, and executioner doesn't make me judge, jury, and executioner. For one thing, he's not banned, so there's no "execution". For another, the jury is the rest of the people here, so that part of the analogy falls down as well. And I never claimed to be a victim here, so that makes you... what, 75% off-base?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC) So Domer asked you for a diff asking where it state that he can't discuss on the talk page and you block him for a week. Since when is asking for clarification a blocking offence? BigDuncTalk 21:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC) "Has ArbCom banned discussion of the RoI naming fiasco on the RoI talk page?". Otherwise SarekOfVulcan is acting "ultra vires". It's a bad block either way, no matter what the answer is. But if SarekOfVulcan has acted outside his remit, maybe he should have his tools nullified. Tfz 21:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Please note that the exact same question that Tfz just asked was the one that got Domer blocked.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC) At the risk of being blocked were is the diff that says no discussions on the article talk paged as layed down by the Arbs? BigDuncTalk I think the block is extremely unfair. Domer has been "bold" recently but that is not the same as breaking wiki policy or any Arbcom agreement. He hasn't really done anything wrong per se. I think an unblock needs made to be along with the suggestion that Domer continue his points along side the WP:IECOLL process to help forge agreements on the issues.MITH 21:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Note also that as shown at this diff, he unilaterally decided that the 1RR restriction placed on articles relating to The Troubles was no longer in force. That's not Bold, that's disruptive.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Nothing to do with this but I asked Fozz here and he said it was gone nothing unilaterall about that. BigDuncTalk 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC) What, you think I can't follow links? "Right now, a lot depends on the administrator who comes in and views it. I think if the 1RR is useful (and it seems to have been, despite the number of times it was used, being high).. that no matter what you think of it personally, that it would be wise to speak on RfArb in support of it."--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Of course you can you are routing around trying to find some to justify your bad blocks and as Sandstein has refused at least 2 1RR restriction cases regarding trouble articles I think it is gone too. BigDuncTalk 22:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Time out Would both sides please stop sniping back and forth? Sarek - without comment on the original reblock, I believe that you're displaying clear involvement at this point. I believe you should refrain from further administrative actions regarding that user for the time being or this incident. BigDunc - please stop pushing buttons. Others - please respect each other while other uninvolved administrators come in and review the situation. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Speaking as an uninvolved admin, I don't see why the block can't just be reviewed per procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC) That is exactly what I am currently doing - starting with the talk page no-edit reblock, working out to the larger issues. Anyone else who wants to review is welcome to join me. However, the large scale flame war that erupted above was counterproductive and uncivil on multiple sides, and needs to end while calmer uninvolved heads get a look at it all. Fortunately it seems to have calmed down now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Perhaps the first thing that could be reviewed is the re-block keeping Domer from commenting on his own talk page. While Domer's language may be angry, I don't see too much to be concerned with there. I don't see any harm to the project permitting him to engage in discussion on his own page, and that could be the first step to resolving this. Rarely does silencing an blocked editor help solve the issue. I would propose that be remedied immediately. Rockpocket 23:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I asked Sarek about this several hours ago and have not received any response. I have re-asked on his talk page and am proposing here that we undo the talk page edit section of the block later tonight if there is no objection in this thread, subject to reprotection if threats are made. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Sarek left me a talk page note indicating he does not object to this action, so I have undone the talk page edit portion of the block without changing block duration. I will leave a note to Domer to indicate that if he threatens anyone the editing will be turned back off, and that we'd strongly appreciate if he can discuss the situation politely from now on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC) That sounds reasonable. I would note that Domer is editing from Western European Summer Time (or should I say Am Caighdeánach na hÉireann]] ;) therefore he is unlikely to respond for a number of hours. Rockpocket 02:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC) GWH - agreed not to take further action until fully reviewed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I just decided I want to be an involved editor after all, so I'm recusing myself from further admin action on this topic.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Would you unblock Domer, first (since you were the blocking Administrator)? Then the other Administrators can decide his status. GoodDay (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC) That's one of the admin actions I'm recusing myself from. An uninvolved editor should make that call. GWH is currently reviewing: if he (or another reviewing admin) decides the block was unjustified, or no longer needed, I won't oppose an unblock.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Review

Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is an extremely complex case, involving multiple administrators, multiple editors, an Arbcom case, an Arbcom-directed community project to attempt to solve the underlying problem, and quite literally a million bytes plus of pages. Putting together the narrative of relevant actions is quite a task.

I decided that the review had to go back to the original problem - so this review covers the totality since Domer48 began actions that could be construed as renaming articles.

Narrative:

1. The Arbitration Committee did put in place an article name determination process in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Community asked to develop a procedure.
2. That process could reasonably have been interpreted as having been intended to be the one correct place to centralize all related discussions, but did not explicitly say so.
3. Domer48 participated in that process with two statements Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyDomer48 on March 7 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/statementbyDomer48.2 on April 1, and various comments in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration discussion threads.
4. Domer48's edits including [5] as previously noted by Sandstein did violate the active Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#No moves pending discussion restriction. Domer48's subsequent talk page discussion indicates that there's a credible claim that he thought it was not a violation prior to doing it.
5. SarekOfVulcan reported Domer48 to the Arbitration Enforcement page appropriately Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Domer48
6. Sandstein's block on June 1 was appropriate under the circumstances.
7. Sandstein's discussion with Domer48, Domer48's responses, and Sandstein's unblock on June 1 were appropriate under the circumstances.
8. Subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 did not perform article rename or content moves in violation of the letter or spirit of the Arbcom ruling and his agreement with Sandstein to unblock.
9. Subsequent to the unblock, on June 1 and 2, Domer48 did continue rename discussions on other articles: [6] [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]
   1. Several of those rename discussions were uncivil or assumed bad faith about others' motives: [13], [14], [15]
10. Subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 did remove other people's comments from talk page discussions related to the rename discussions on several occasions, claiming justification in WP:TPG: [16], [17]
11. Subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 engaged in aggressive responses on ANI and elsewhere regarding the nature of the first block: [18], [19],
    1. ...And some reasonable responses such as: [20], [21],
12. SarekOfVulcan archived the discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland: [22]
    1. Sandstein supported the archiving: [23]
    2. The archiving was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Arbcom remedies, and prior Admin discretion history / WP:BOLD accepted practice, but not required by the letter of Arbcom's finding
    3. Subsequent to the archive Domer48 responded aggressively to the archiving: [24], [25]
    4. ...leading to aggressive responses on ANI: [26], [27]
    5. Others also objected to the archiving in depth, which led to a second archiving: [28]
    6. ...and further discussion: [29]
    7. I conclude that the archiving was done in good faith and consistent with Administrator policy.
    8. I also conclude that the archiving had an inflammatory effect on the discussion rather than the desired calming and redirecting effect, and that this was a predictable outcome.
       1. I therefore conclude that the archiving was unwise and should not be repeated further.
13. Domer48 ultimately posted a comment denying that the Arbitration Committee imposed renaming discussion had taken place: [30]
    1. Domer48's comment was ( WP:AGF ) somewhat at odds with his prior involvement in that process including his statements within that process of March 7 and April 1 referenced above.
    2. This comment precipitated the second block, by SarekOfVulcan, with block message summary of refusing to acknowledge that ArbCom has set down the conditions for determining the names of the Ireland articles and block summary of ?(Disruptive editing: Refusal to recognize that ArbCom said "don't do that".). Block duration was 1 week, the same as Sandstein's earlier block for violation of the Arbcom ruling.
    3. SarekOfVulcan was somewhat involved with Domer48 as of the time of blocking.
       1. This involvement presented somewhat of a conflict of interest under Wikipedia:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest
    4. A reasonable uninvolved administrator, combining this comment with the other edits since the unblock, could conclude that Domer48 was being disruptive at that time.
    5. Prior to the second block Domer48 had not received warnings about disruptive activity.
    6. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Education_and_warnings specifically states in part: Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking.
    7. Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks states in part that: incidents of disruptive behaviour typically result in 24 hours blocks, longer for successive violations;
    8. Administrators are given judgement about block lengths in general.
    9. The context of the earlier 1-week block (violation of an Arbcom ruling) is a factor in block length considerations for the second block.
    10. However, even factoring in that earlier block, I conclude that a second block for disruption (not further Arbcom ruling violations per se) should have been based off a 24 hour block basic duration, and that an enhancement to 48 hrs for a recent prior different offense is a reasonable expansion.
14. Subsequent to the second block Domer48 commented repeatedly on his talk page total diff including some extremely upset language: [31], [32], [33], [34],
    1. Lifebaka requested that Domer48 stop using insulting language in the talk page comments in the middle of the above: [35]
       1. This comment could have been phrased in a less confrontational manner but did not violate policy.
    2. At that point SarekOfVulcan reblocked with talk page editing disabled.
       1. Blocking policy and best practice limit talk page restrictions to cases where there is serious abuse, such as multiply repeated spurious unblock requests, threats made on the talk page or elsewhere, or other serious disruption. It is expected that a portion of blocked users will be upset to the point of venting rudely on their talk page following the block. A certain leeway for uncivil behavior on the talk page (short of threats or blatant abuse) is therefore given.
       2. The talk page restriction in this case failed to meet the policy and best practice.

• As a policy note, Wikipedia:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest exists for three reasons:

1. The appearance of conflict of interest has a strong negative impact on administrators' perceived neutrality and fairness within the community.
2. Administrators can often be frustrated with editors they are in conflict with, and this leads to bad judgement.
3. Administrators sometimes do malign things to editors they are in conflict with, in contravention of Wikipedia policy not to use admin tools to settle content disputes and so forth.

My review conclusions:

1. Sandstein's activities in this case were appropriate, as far as I can tell.
   1. With the slight exception that supporting the talk page archiving may have been a mistake, but not in violation of policy
2. Domer48 engaged in disruptive behavior. An uninvolved administrator could have reviewed the chain of edits and concluded that blockable disruption had occurred by the time of the second block.
   1. The block by SarekOfVulcan was problematic in duration, lack of warning, and conflict of interest, but not fundamentally flawed.
   2. At the conclusion of this writeup I am going to unblock Domer48 from that problematic block, reblock for disruption with a duration of 1 minute, essentially reducing the block length to time served, as that very closely approximates what I feel would have been an appropriate block duration at the beginning.
   3. I believe that Domer48 is currently unable to edit in a constructive manner on the topic of naming of Ireland related articles. To balance protecting the community and Domer48's long term interest in the topic, I am hereby imposing a one week topic ban from Ireland article naming on Domer48, retroactive to the time of the second block. If in the next five days Domer48 engages in any project or article talk page dicussion on the topic he can be reblocked for the remaining time (user talk pages are ok, but not recommended - see below).
   4. Personal comment to Domer48 - I strongly urge you to contribute in a more constructive manner to this discussion in the future. You clearly care very much about this topic. When you are this angry over it, your responses are sufficiently aggressive that they are counterproductive, both for the overall discussion and for your own ongoing participation in it. You clearly feel that this is important. You can do nothing better to solve the underlying problem than taking a break, coming back with a renewed respect for WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF, and applying those policies to how you work on the issue moving forwards. If you reengage in the discussion next week in a hostile manner you are likely to find other administrators willing to block you under those policies.
3. SarekOfVulcan bent admin policy here
   1. Archiving the talk page discussion was not a policy violation but was probably a mistake. Some conversations, we just have to let go and burn out on their own.
   2. The second block on Domer48 bent Wikipedia:BLOCK#Conflicts_of_interest and Wikipedia:BLOCK#Duration_of_blocks. A better response would have been to warn on the disruption and report on ANI and ask an uninvolved administrator to block if it persisted, or just refer to another uninvolved admin, rather than blocking yourself. Most particularly, that would have defused further anger among the disputants rather than focusing it on yourself.
   3. The third block, restricting talk page editing, established that SarekOfVulcan is by now sufficiently involved and using questionable judgement that the voluntary admin powers restriction agreement Sarek announced above (not to use them against Domer48 again) is strongly recommended going forwards...
4. A few other editors have acted in mildly to moderately uncivil manners responding to the incident. Several of Domer48's supporters have largely overlooked his disruptive activity prior to the block and feel that there was no factual justification for a second block. Please re-read the diffs and his edit history, and see below.

Whack!

Per WP:TROUT

Please do not do this again! The Ireland article naming dispute is bad enough. Please refresh your faith in the collective good intent of other Wikipedians and move forwards constructively. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

*is trouted*. Thanks, George: the highly detailed review is appreciated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks George, one detail you forgot, I think, SarekOfVulcan's liable. Tfz 01:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read it a few times, and conclude a certain poisoning of the well fallacy in the composition of the summary. I do grant that George is in a delicate position regarding admin 'falling into line', 'police investigation the police' syndrome, and self preservation etc, a practice we commonly witness in everyday structures, and not just at Wikipedia. George has done exactly what was expected of him, produced the report that saves everyone's day, and moves things on until the next ........... Tfz 03:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable review which addresses the concerns raised by all sides. It seems that the real error was made in removing the block imposed on Domer48‎ for clear violations of arbcoms rulings on the Ireland naming dispute. He was not asked to apologise for his actions nor give any commitment to not seek renaming of the articles on the talk pages in question again, the fact he was going to continue the push for change was obvious.

Removal of the talk page chat was unwise and the safest bet would of been to seek further opinions from others before acting as said in this review, but SarekofVulcans actions certainly dont justify the hateful comments which were made by some editors in retaliation. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

( Side note: I used secure server URLs for the vast bulk of the diffs above, as that's what I habitually log in to... SarekOfVulcan pointed out that this prevents popups from working, and I have given him permission to change the URLs to use mainsite diffs rather than secure server diffs - Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC) )

Thank you for the detailed review, with which I agree.  Sandstein  07:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Georgewilliamherbert for unblocking me, I respond later to your review. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi George, I’m a bit tied up with the elections here at the minute, so I respond to your review on the weekend. There appears to be a number of glaring inaccuracies in your report, could you possibly look it over again? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 08:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Response:

1. George you first raise my question which got me blocked. "The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. Please provide a link?" George in your review you say that "The Arbitration Committee did put in place an article name determination process in [Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Community asked to develop a procedure]." Now even in the link you provided it states that the The Arbitration Committee asked the Community to develop a procedure. Failing that, they asked in Remedy #2 for "three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure." Which failed! So "the Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles. The Arbitration Committee did not put in place an article name determination process, but asked the community first to provide a structure and failing that then appointed three uninvolved administrators to provide one which failed also. There is still no structure in place for determining the names of the disputed articles. (for more details on the Ireland Collaboration see here.
2. Since the Arbitration Committee did not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles, and attempts by both the community and administrators failed how could it be possible "reasonably" or otherwise be interpreted that the Arbitration Committee wished to centralize all related discussions, but did not explicitly say so. Having not put in place a structure, there was no directive by ArbCom preventing discussion on article talk pages, and if there is such a directive, provide a diff?
3. I did provide two statements [36] [37] at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration but that process faild, but I did not make various comments in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration discussion threads never.
4. The edit which you point to George [38], was only one of two edits I made. You never mentioned this one. This edit resulted from this discussion (which SarekOfVulcan removed from the talk page) which I outlined and explained my rational. Before I made the edit you allude to I had made these comments on the talk page here and here which fully explains my reasons for moving the text. However I was never even given a chance to explain myself before I was blocked. However, when the block was lifted, you note that subsequent talk page discussion indicates that there was a credible claim that I thought it was not a violation prior to doing it. Now just one point here before we move off. On the this tread here I'm called a liar three times [39], [40], [41], with three Admin's and nothing was said. How can an editor try to explain themselves with this going on? But it was not just on that discussion, but here also. It still carried on [42] even after finally being warned. The warning sounded a bit hollow after this comment supporting it.
5. You go on to say that SarekOfVulcan reported me to the Arbitration Enforcement page appropriately. How could it possibly have been appropriate? I did not violate any sanctions. SarekOfVulcan said they were acting under an ArbCom directive, which we now know there was none. I did not move any page, I edited the RoI article according to WP:NPOV, WP:V based on WP:RS. I explained everything I did on the talk page before I even edited the articles. Not only that but even if there was a violation, you said your self that subsequent talk page discussion indicates that there was a credible claim that I thought it was not a violation prior to doing it.
6. You then say that "Sandstein's block on June 1 was appropriate under the circumstances" when this flatly contradicts your comments above. Under what circumstances was it appropriate. Deprived of the ability to explain myself, how could I have provide a credible claim? I was reported by SarekOfVulcan who took no part in the talk page discussion on the Republic of Ireland article, but who reverted the article three times [43], [44], [45], on the as we now know spurious claim.
7. Thankfully you note that "subsequent to the unblock, Domer48 did not perform article rename or content moves in violation of the letter or spirit of the Arbcom ruling and his agreement with Sandstein to unblock." You might add, and had no intension prior to a discussion.
8. You are also correct that I did continue rename discussions on other articles,
9. but they were in no way uncivil or assumed bad faith about others' motives. Describing an editors comments as "more prevarication" when refusing to address an argument is not uncivil. Having been discussing the subject with Rock, who's main argument was not that my edit was wrong but "were will we put the current text." He then came out with an argument which had as much substance as "a bottle of smoke" and that is not uncivil. My comments to Sarah were a true reflection of how I felt with the position I was in and is neither uncivil or "bad faith."
10. You are correct I did remove other people's comments from talk page discussions but they did not related to the rename discussions and if editors read them they will agree claiming justification in WP:TPG: [46], [47] I was perfectly correct in doing so.
11. I did not engaged in aggressive responses on ANI and elsewhere regarding the nature of the first block: [48], [49], that is over stating. That I was annoyed is natural but to suggest I was aggressive is to contradict yourself again since you use the same diff in which you say I provided my credible claim that I thought it was not a violation prior to doing it. As to the second comment, I was responding to trolling! Read their comments. I would also like to point out to my comments above with me being called a liar, and I'm being called "aggressive," "uncivil" or that I "assumed bad faith."
12. SarekOfVulcan archiving the discussion at Talk:Republic of Ireland: [50]. Now this was the second part of my question which got me blocked. This is very simple, because we know that there was no ArBCom directive. This was untrue, and they never could and never would have been able to provide a Diff. If anyone has any doubt, they just have to read their post here. To then suggest that "the archiving was consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the Arbcom remedies, and prior Admin discretion history / WP:BOLD accepted practice, but not required by the letter of Arbcom's finding," is lets agree odd. We have already established there was no ArbCom direct. My response was correct and to the point describing them as aggressive is way over the top and wrong. This post here which you used has nothing to do with me, I was blocked at the time. In conclusion you are very much correct, archiving the discussion was "inflammatory" and that this was a predictable outcome. There was not directive by ArbCom and they just done it off their own bat.
13. This has all been very much covered, but just a couple of points.
    1. The reason for the block was "refusing to acknowledge that ArbCom has set down the conditions for determining the names of the Ireland articles and block summary of ?(Disruptive editing: Refusal to recognize that ArbCom said "don't do that".)" We all now know this was not true.
    2. "SarekOfVulcan was somewhat involved with Domer48 as of the time of blocking." This is all thrown into stark light, when one looks at SarekOfVulcan most recent contributions here and here. Obviously the most telling comments come from SarekOfVulcan themselves “I just decided I want to be an involved editor after all, so I'm recusing myself from further admin action on this topic.”. So let’s recap, after reverting the article three times, getting me blocked, removing the discussion, blocking me themselves, blocking my talk page, they just decide they want to be an involved editor after all.
    3. "A reasonable uninvolved administrator, combining these comment with the other edits since the unblock, could conclude that Domer48 was being disruptive at that time." On this I would have to Disagree. A reasonable uninvolved administrator, combining there comment with the other edits since the 1st block, could conclude that SarekOfVulcan had a WP:COI and was being disruptive at that time while abusing their Admin tools.
    4. Both blocks were over the top and wrong! SarekOfVulcan no warning block, based on something that was not true was wrong, and on that we agree, that they had WP:COI I fully support.
14. My reaction to the block was a natural reaction.
    1. Lifebaka requested that I stop using insulting language in the talk page comments, and I did calm down.
    2. SarekOfVulcan blocking my talk page was "inflammatory." I do acknowledge your comments on SarekOfVulcan when you said that "the historical level of abuse which we tolerated from blocked users venting is far higher than anything [I] said" and that "simply letting [me] vent there would not have caused any further issues, as [I] was not at any point threatening people and had largely laid off cursing much earlier." That you agree they were wrong and that they had a WP:COI is something at least.

• Summary.

SarekOfVulcan has acted throughout this whole affair in an arbitrary and arrogant manner and while having a clear WP:COI. SarekOfVulcan removed this discussion and claimed that they were acting on an ArbCom directive and that ArbCom had put a structure in place which did not allow for talk page discussion, and that if I "don't like it, take it to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. They repeated these claims at ANI asking was there consensus to overturn it. Funny question to ask, when one reads their comments above. Now Sandstein endorsed this move straight away, which is not surprising, since Sandstein also supported SarekOfVulcan in having me blocked. With SarekOfVulcan post here, we now know there was no ArbCom directive, and removing it according to George was "inflammatory" and that the outcome was a predictable. That they had a WP:COI at this stage is a least supported by George.

I challenged their actions, and responded to this also on ANI. I pointed out that as they were actively involved in the issue, they should not have been the one to remove the discussion. Now SarekOfVulcan tried to suggest that they were not actively involved, pointing to their contributions on the talk page, however they left out the three reverts [51], [52], [53] they had made to the article, not to mention the block on me they were involved in. Their response to this was “Domer, are you familiar with the term "WP:BP#Disruption|persistent disruption"?

This is all thrown into stark light, when one looks at there most recent contributions here and here. Obviously the most telling comments come from SarekOfVulcan themselves “I just decided I want to be an involved editor after all, so I'm recusing myself from further admin action on this topic.”. So let’s recap, after reverting the article three times, getting me blocked, removing the discussion, blocking me themselves, blocking my talk page, they just decide they want to be an involved editor after all.

Since the discussion on the Republic of Ireland talk page, I’ve had to contend with POV warriors and some personal abuse. While I expect nothing less from some editors, Admin’s sitting on their hands (second paragraph) and offering mitigation, does bother me. Considering I was blocked once for calling someone a liar, I discovered, that this sanction is selective. Having been called a liar three times [54], [55], [56], with three Admin's looking on and nothing was said? How can an editor try to explain themselves with this going on? But it was not just on that discussion, but here also. It still carried on [57] even after finally being warned. The warning sounded a bit hollow after this comment supporting it I think editors will agree. Well what else can I expect? All things considered, I think this was just provocative and an attempt at baiting.

All in all the final result was SarekOfVulcan got a bang of a fish and I got two blocks, with them now added to my block log and a topic ban. I don't suppose fish show up on block logs, but then Admin's don't have block logs, which stinks IMO. Having been told that ArbCom had directed that all discussions stay within the "process" and having removed talk page discussions because of this now infamous "directive" what way should I react to this. Clearly outside the "process," and they can't claim not to know this? Maybe my blocks should be reviewed again? --Domer48_'fenian' 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

My review conclusions: will have to be taken seperatly in light of my responce. That my conclusions will be different should go without saying. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Comments:

Meh. Talk about a house of cards. Your justification is riddled with logical fallacies, misrepresentations and supposition.

Bottom line? You say "A reasonable uninvolved administrator, combining these comment with the other edits since the unblock, could conclude that Domer48 was being disruptive at that time. On this I would have to Disagree." Problem is, Georgewilliamherbert is a reasonable uninvolved administrator and you are you. So whose interpretation of events is most likely to be clouded by a strong POV and who has no conflict of interest whatsoever? If you want a dissenting opinion to be considered, I would suggest getting someone uninvolved to make it. Rockpocket 02:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has a conflict of interests, and to deny that is akin to denying that the wind blows. I do think Dormer has his right to rebuttal, especially that he was not allowed to argue his case during the proceedings. Georgewilliamherbert did pick on some mundane exchanges, and put his own slant on them, thereby building a "case" in advance of verdict, it's called 'poisoning the wells'. By this procedure, everyday actions and words are heavily tagged to lay the foundation for a guilty, or half-guilty verdict. I really do think SarekOfVulcan was far too hasty, and Dormer's blocks should be oversighted. Tfz 03:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way not to take that as a Personal Attack on Georgewilliamherbert. I invite you to rephrase it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)Struck: Tfz removed offensive line. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting Domer should not respond as he sees fit. I just find it particularly unconvincing when a involved participant lectures an uninvolved admin what an an uninvolved admin should make of things. The same principle holds for you, Tfz. I, too, am involved and I, too, don't necessarily agree with SarekOfVulcan's block. But Georgewilliamherbert clearly has a fresher perspective than all of us. Given that he volunteered his own time to review this block so thoroughly - a thankless task if ever there was one - he certainly doesn't deserve your accusations. Show a little good faith. Rockpocket 06:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rock you say my reply is "riddled with logical fallacies, misrepresentations and supposition," diff's please! Notice how both George and myself used them to present our views. I'll also take this oppertunity to thank George for taking the time to offer his thoughts and opinions. Rock you are opposed to an evidence based process but that is one of the corner stones of wiki. Talk pages are no different, so please provide diff's. Lets start with a diff for the ArbCom directive which says no talk page discussions, please bear in mind now that editors are looking for ArbCom to give them one. Rock here is your Mountains of evidence. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your statement can be read in its entirety up there ^, there is little point in providing a diff for it. If you can provide new lines of evidence then I'm all for hearing it. But repeating the same flawed, illogical argument over and over and over - while completely ignoring the fact numerous people have all explained to you why it is flawed - unhelpful. Does it mean nothing to you that there is virtually no-one is supporting your preferred solution? Indeed, that is perhaps the single thing the traditional opposing sides can agree on. Do you just think that you know best and the rest of us simply don't understand our policies? I propose to you that the most parsimonious explanation is quite the opposite. Rockpocket 20:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

What's the relevance of "a diff for the ArbCom directive which says no talk page discussions"? You were blocked for saying "The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles", when, in fact, a structure had been put in place. Right now there's an ArbCom amendment request to make it explicit that that structure should be used. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer48 comment deleted

I have read the above discussion ("responce", presumably?) - could you provide a number to help me home in on the relevant part. The reason I'm asking is that I got a distinct impression at Talk:Republic of Ireland that editors felt that you had been blocked for requesting a diff, whereas my understanding is that you were blocked for stating that "The Arbitration Committee has not put in place a structure for determining the names of the disputed articles", when, in fact, a structure had been put in place. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Domer48 comment deleted

It's explained at the top of Talk:Republic of Ireland: "Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration". I'm not sure if you require a diff where the backup procedure text was added, or where the WikiProject was created? Let me know and I'll be happy to poke through the history of the relevant page. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry did not realise the above editor had all this explained to them already here, and still claims they do not know the relevance of "a diff." --Domer48_'fenian' 19:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it you're not going to explain why a "diff for the ArbCom directive which says no talk page discussions" is relevant, then? I'd settle for a diff of the talk page discussion you reference above. Incidentally, once someone's replied to your comments it generally better to strike them out so the context remains - the discussion above now looks like I'm talking to myself, which I'm sure wasn't the impression you wanted! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I just added placeholders with links to the diffs where he added the comments you responded to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright input request

• Allstarecho (talk · contribs)

Hi. Today's batch at WP:CP included Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company, which consisted almost entirely of text pasted from the official website and its subpages. (Admins only, I'm afraid, can view this, since it is now deleted.) When the copyright infringement was pointed out, the contributor evidently made an effort to obtain permission, but restored the text out of process while doing so, ostensibly so that the copyright holders could see the text in use. Not having received permission, he removed the single tagged section, but that left considerably more text from the site exposed (See the bottom of his talk page for some conversation about this.) Given the contributors evident misunderstanding of copyright policy (including the note in edit summary that "copyedit this section too to address any concerns.. although I'd hardly call descriptions of what a beer tastes like as being copyrightable"), I started checking the contributors other work and have found two more pastes for which he is evidently responsible (Including Grand Gulf Military State Park (Mississippi), which the contributor removed with the note "no copyright notice on that site but to appease the stalker...") and Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, which he restored as not copyrightable, notwithstanding Mississippi's explicit claim otherwise. (The facts are not copyrightable, but the language used is.) I also found another copyright infringement which he did not place, but in an article which he split without noting the origin. There seem to be serious misunderstandings about copyright policy here, including that we can publish copyrighted text in the hopes that the owners will grant license, that beer descriptions can't be copyrighted and that we can use copyrighted text if it is not explicitly claimed. Since this contributor is taking my scrutiny personally, I would welcome other input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't need other input, but thanks. Nothing to see or do here, carry on. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless you've now decided that beer descriptions and websites that do not explicitly claim copyright can't be used under our copyright policy, I'm afraid that I do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

In the U.S., prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, published works needed an explicit copyright notice to be covered by copyright law. (Lack of a copyright notice on a print run of Houghton Mifflin's American publication of The Lord of the Rings allowed Ace Books to publish an unauthorized version of the trilogy.) After 1976, all published works were covered, regardless of whether they had a notice or not, and unpublished works were covered as well -- so whether a webiste explicitly claims copyright or not is totally irrelevant. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

• Although Allstarecho evidently still feels harassed by my overview of his contributions, I have found copyright from diverse sources going all the way back to 2007, with Lanier High School (Jackson, Mississippi), which duplicates this copyrighted 2006 source: [58]. And, in fact, I see he removed a Corensearchbot notice from an article he created here and was advised of copyright policies here. To boot, he still does not accept that this is in any way wrong, per edit summary: as usual, facts can't be copyrighted but whatever. I believe more input might be valuable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• You are correct in your analysis. Simply remove anything prior to 1976 (as mentioned above) that is not covered by a copyright release statement. If the editor replaces it, then block them. Black Kite 00:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's somewhat easier said than done, given the extensive contribution history, but I'm doing my best. :/ Meanwhile, the more I look, the more I am concerned that this contributor has shown no interest in complying with copyright policy, given the tone with which he's addressed these concerns and previous issues. His attitude doesn't seem to have changed since he was advised in September, 2007, when he said, "I'm not incorrect because I said I don't FEEL text about a public educational institution, especially one my tax dollars help pay for, is copyrighted." In other words, evidence suggests he has not been unaware of these policies, having removed a number of Corensearchbot notices as well as basically shrugging off that 2007 conversation. He seems simply to have not felt inclined to honor them, just as he removed without comment this notice of the issue and request to address it by yet another administrator on May 30th of this year. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a serious problem of repeated, intentional copyright violations. If the user continues to upload copyright infringements, he should be immediately blocked. Meanwhile, we're going to have to plow through his contributions to remove any and all copyvios that he's added, since it's clear he won't do it himself. Any assistance would be welcome. (Moonriddengirl, do you think the damage is extensive enough to merit a checklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys?) – Quadell ^(talk) 02:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Taking MRG's assertions on trust, I agree with Quadell's conclusion. Allstarecho, your actions are out of line and you must reconsider your position or else cease contributing. No amount of flippancy routes around the absolute intolerability of copyright violation on wikipedia. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've done an initial review of Allstarecho's contributions, and the problem is in fact far worse than Moonriddengirl's description - he has been routinely and indiscriminately borrowing copyrighted content from a variety of sources for years, and considerable effort will be involved in cleaning them up. His comments demonstrate that he has a distorted understanding of how copyright functions, which is probably the root cause of this, and as such I wouldn't trust him to clean his own contributions. His actions to restore his deleted contributions and remove copyvio templates prevented the issue from being detected sooner, and are are making the cleanup twice as difficult as it needs to be, and he should be blocked at least for the duration of the cleanup. Moreover, I would not unblock him unless he promises to cease copying content from external sources altogether - I don't trust him to distinguish public domain sources from copyrighted ones with any degree of reliability. This is unfortunate because he does also contribute original content, but a necessary precaution to enable the cleanup to proceed without disruption and without new copyvios being added. Dcoetzee 04:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

User says he is retired, but did not go gracefully. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to say that saddens me somewhat. I have had generally positive interactions with Allstarecho in the past. I do agree that copyright is a serious issue, and we need to tread carefully when copying text and pictures from other sources. I certainly wish he had handled this better. sigh. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It'd been handled better if I hadn't been wiki-hounded all fucking day. I mean, look at my talk page history. And just to ease some people's fetish with the idea that I don't understand copyright: I do. Most of these g'damn articles were done in my wiki-infancy. Any newer ones which may be in question, I don't agree that statistical facts (dates, percentages, times and related words to explain such facts) is copyrightable.. just like a textual logo isn't copyrightable. But whatever, I'm done with the Wiki. I've had all I can stand of the wiki-hounding and wiki-stalking I got in one day - no, not even a full one day, more like the bombardment I got in the span of about 7 hours. No need to reply or try and explain any of your own interpretations of copyright to me because frankly, I don't give a shite anymore and am now, with this last post, retired.. so if you waste the finger strokes, you're just preaching to the choir. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Nicely done....we have pushed away ANOTHER good editor over some minor BS. Allstar was and is one of the better editors here at Wikipedia and it is a sad day when the good editors say "to hell with it" and walk away because of pointless minor BS and no one says a damned thing about it. Pathetic. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Copyright isn't minor BS, and he will be back. Viridae^Talk 07:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
  • There's nothing good about pasting text from copyrighted sources onto Wikipedia. This contributor was advised years ago that this was against policy, but as recently as May 24th copied [59] and many of its subpages onto Wikipedia, removing the {{copyvio}} template from the article that was placed by an administrator (not me). That he chooses to view the clean-up of this as persecution just verifies the problem to me. What are we supposed to do when it's been proven that a contributor has pasted text against policy on Wikipedia? Look the other way? He has ignored or rejected correction on this issue with hostility at every point I've seen. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
    • This kind of thing is potentially a very serious problem. I see that AllStar has been blocked, but that's just the tip of the copyright iceberg. I have seen various articles over time (by many editors) that "read like copyright violations", but how do you go about proving it? Thanks to endless sites parroting wikipedia, finding the original source can be very difficult. You take a suspicious-sounding phrase put it into Google, find hundreds of entries containing it, check each one to see if they are wikipedia parrots or not, and maybe you'll find the original. So you repair the article and hope that's reflected eventually in the mirroring sites. OK, that's 1 down, a few million to go. It's the proliferation that's really the problem - the same problem as with copyrighted images. Someday wikipedia might get sued over this kind of thing, if they haven't been already. But that's also just the tip of the iceberg. It is so incredibly easy to copy-and-paste on the internet, how can an author who publishes on the internet have any realistic expectation of it not being proliferated, regardless of his theoretical legal rights? This will be an interesting issue for the Supreme Court to tackle someday. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • If they ever abolish copyright, my Wiki day will be a lot more fun. :) We are trying to organize this sort of thing. Dcoetzee made a program that surveys contributions, and we've been using successfully at WP:COPYCLEAN. All true, what you say about finding the original source. It's tedious work. There are mechanical plagiarism detectors that I utilize, but they don't eliminate Wiki mirrors. Maybe someday we'll get one of our own that does. Even cutting out the mirrors we know about would simplify things enormously. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
        • A number of years ago, probably in the early days of the VCR, comedian Robert Klein was doing an HBO standup special. He "warned" people watching at home not to tape the show, as it was a copyright violation. He then went on to point out that that violation was on roughly the same level of illegality as "tearing a tag off your mattress". And as a practical matter, that's what the internet has done. I have seen occasional images which were protected from downloading, but generally that's not done. Youtube seems to have the right idea - you can view it but not download it (as far as I know). But text is usually written in text form rather than as an image, so technologically (though not legally) you can do anything you want with it. The courts might eventually have to settle question of whether the burden of protection is on the original poster - i.e. if he doesn't protect the text somehow, then he shouldn't complain that it gets proliferated. I suspect the law is far behind the technology on this issue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
          • As long as we keep Wikipedia safe while the jurists sort it out, it's all good (from a copyright standpoint that is; the whole plagiarism thing is a different, much debated story). Personally, I think the policies in place do a very good job of demonstrating due diligence, and we've got some contributors who put a lot of time into enforcing them even though I know from past conversations that some of them actually support the abolition of intellectual property laws (or, at least, the radical overhaul and relaxation of them). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
      • When I first saw this thread my reaction was much like Neutral Homer's, & I almost posted something along those lines... but for some reason I sat on my hands & didn't. I'm glad of my silence: repeated copyright infringements does not do anyone any good, & AllStarEcho's best response would have been to say something like, "Oops, I did all of that early on when I didn't know any better. Sorry." And if fixing this got too stressful, take a lengthy break. Most of the regulars here have an otherwise positive opinion of AllStarEcho, & if he were to admit his mistakes, promise not to do it again, I suspect he'd be given another chance. But his ranting above about "wiki-hounding and wiki-stalking" doesn't help his case. (And before anyone thinks I'm without sin, I keep wondering when someone will start looking carefully at some of the first articles I wrote. Especially since many of them are practically identical to what I wrote 6 years ago. If that ever happens, I promise to try to handle that kind of examination with more grace.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the user has extensively damaged Wikipedia by uploading hundreds of copyright violations over several years, which may take months of effort to clean up... given that he continues to remove warnings and templates regarding copyright... given that the user shows no remorse or inclination to change any of this behavior... given that he has said he has retired and has no interest in editing... and given that he turned his userpage into a terrifically offensive attack page against people who challenge him on any of his behavior... Given all this, I have blocked the user indefinitely. If he wants to unretire and promises not to copy-and-paste any more material from random web sources, then I will unblock him (or anyone else can). – Quadell ^(talk) 11:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On a related note, User:Allstarecho/regularmaintained will be helpful in this cleanup. From this list, I've already identified Frank Frost as a direct copyvio of this.  Frank  |  talk  12:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit hasty on this one. Thanks to User:Voceditenore for pointing this out.  Frank  |  talk  13:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The source of that article is this NYT piece dated 1999. Cf our article. "Over the years, cigarettes and alcohol wore Frost down but he continued to record, tour and diversify his repertory, appearing in the films Deep Blues: A Musical Pilgrimage to the Crossroads and Crossroads." NYT, "Cigarettes and alcohol wore Mr. Frost down over the years, but he continued to record, tour and diversify his repertory, appearing in the films Deep Blues and Crossroads." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest are you now going to block yourself, or some other admin going to do it for the blatant and deliberate copyright violation above. You did get permission from the copyright holder to publish the above didn't you? After all there was no necessity for you to quote any of that, the links were there for anyone else to see the above text. --WebHamster 11:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's likely to be a long haul. We have a program we use at WP:COPYCLEAN (developed to clean up the problem at User:GrahamBould, I think) that lists the contributions of a user prioritized by size. Once that's run, I'll be opening an investigation tab at the copyright cleanup project to help structure investigation. All contributors most welcome. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

• Good block.  Sandstein  14:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone with the buttons look at the header that comes up when editing Allstarecho's user & talk pages? Doesn't seem like the sort of thing that should stay in place. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 15:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant User:Allstarecho/Editnotice and User talk:Allstarecho/Editnotice. Don't know if these subpages stay for a blocked user or not. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 16:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow; it's true what they say: you learn something new every day. Now I know how that's done :-) Anyway, I'm not sure what should be done there or why. Can someone show a policy or precedent regarding the editnotice and whether or not it should be removed? Allstarecho is not banned, as far as I know, and I'm not certain even that would warrant deletion. I think he could return at any time and be unblocked (OK, not in that order), and I'm not sure there's a need to dig into this right now.  Frank  |  talk  17:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This comes as a surprise; hadn't been watching the noticeboard in a day. If Allstarecho takes a few simple steps would support a negotiated unblock. Ball's in his court; door remains open. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

On scanning this yesterday and the day before I thought "Ok, this can't be that bad, he's a longstanding editor in...". I stand suprised.

Perhaps we should launch a sitenotice campaign to remind all editors about the copyright policy, and offer an amnesty period ("Just tell us about it now, we'll clean it up.").

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the primary idea is to protect Wikipedia, I'd heartily support both...especially since we can have reason to hope that a contributor who self-discloses means to follow policy henceforth. With this particular editor, I think I'd be uncomfortable with anything short of supervision, given that he has demonstrated contempt for copyright in his editing and in his parting shot (or one of them, anyway). Perfectly fine to despise copyright laws. Using Wikipedia as a forum to demonstrate that, by pasting others' text here particularly when multiple editors have advised of policy, is flatly disruptive to a dangerous degree, no matter what constructive contributions he might also have made. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Having slept on the matter, there's more to be said. The 'open door' is in need of oil at the hinge. Allstarecho has taken an unusually strict stand about copyright compliance regarding another editor, and Allstarecho repeated that hard line about copyright toward the other editor as recently as last week. Until yesterday Allstarecho's position seemed worthy of respect, but now it is clear he was raising the bar very high for someone he disliked, while setting it unacceptably low for himself. Diffs are available upon request. If Allstarecho changes his mind about retirement I would support him, but in addition to the usual concerns that need to be worked out with a habitual copyright violator he will need to address this double standard--which occurs on the very same topic that caused his indefinite block. Durova^Charge! 15:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Evidently Allstarecho has requested unblocking already (and been declined). I remain concerned about his attitude towards copyright. Even after requesting unblocking, he said, "Most of it was a misunderstanding. I still don't see how statistical facts can be copyrighted. Facts are facts, period." I trust that anyone with knowledge of copyright law will recognize that there is plenty of copyrightable, creative text in such "statistical facts" as "Indian Summer Spiced Wheat Ale is a light profile American-style wheat ale spiced with Orange Peel and Coriander. The recipe uses a mix of wheat and pale barley. This beer is very lightly hopped to allow the spices to shine through. Clean fermenting yeast produce a very dry, crisp base to further accentuate the spices. The aroma has a distinct citrus note without being overly fruity", text which this contributor copied to Wikipedia from http://www.lazymagnolia.com/Indian_Summer.html (one of multiple pages copied from that site; and more statistical facts that can't be copyrighted from April of this year). This is only one of many, and the clean-up on this has only just been initiated at WP:COPYCLEAN. I have found duplicated text already in possibly up to a dozen articles, and I suspect that there will be much, much more. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: all the usual concerns apply. In addition, the issue of double standards also needs to be addressed. If you have a list I could work from to lend a hand with the cleanup, let me know how I can help. Durova^Charge! 15:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. :) Anybody and everybody welcome. There is a section open for him at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Copyright_Cleanup/Contributor_surveys#Allstarecho. Helpful instructions are on the first subpage, Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Allstarecho. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rolls up sleeves. Durova^Charge! 15:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

*I am going to ask that everyone stop and actually read the damned page you are linking to before calling it a copyvio. In reference to the Southwest Mississippi Community College page (that Durova has tagged), this link is supposed the copyvio. Nothing on that page is copied, verbatim or near verbatim, onto Southwest Mississippi Community College. That does not a copyvio make. I think we need to actually read the pages before calling a copyvio or not nominate them at all. I also believe that in the case listed in this post, we own Allstarecho an apology for saying it was a copyvio when it wasn't. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• • Obviously the wrong link was posted. That was corrected almost immediately by Durova, but missed by me. Once corrected, I see, quite clearly, the copyvio. Sadly, I must agree with the community on this one. :( Delete away. My apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I can understand your initial confusion here, but I can't honestly support the idea that anyone who mistags something contributed by Allstarecho as a copyvio would owe him an apology. I can point out quite a bit of text that he has contributed that is. WP:AGF only works when there isn't "strong evidence to the contrary", and suspicion of his contributions is extremely reasonable at this juncture. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Before seeing the correct link I thought an apology was needed, but after seeing the correct link, I now see that an apology is not necessary. I stuck that part with the rest above. Again, my apologizes for the confusion caused by my struck post above, I will be more cautious and check the links more than once before posting. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Apologies for the confusion. Nominations for deletion are something I rarely do. Was having trouble with the Twinkle interface, and simultaneously copied the wrong URL by accident. Durova^Charge! 04:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite block, reset

Given that (1) this contributor has requested unblocking several times due to the blocking conditions set by User:Quadell, "Anyone may unblock if he wants to unretire and promises not to copy and paste copyrighted content into Wikipedia anymore", and that further evaluation has disclosed more significant infringement than Quadell may have known and that further conversation here suggests that there may be more involved in an unblock than that simple statement and that (2) this contributor persists in asserting (as discussed above and at his talk page) that he has not violated copyright because the text he has placed can't be governed by copyright, I have reset his block and left a note on his talk page explaining why. I would request that anyone considering unblocking him do so carefully in light of the fact that he has shown no remorse or even recognition that he has violated policy and was advised of (and ignored) policy many years ago. He may say that he will not place copyrighted text on the project, but if he believes that copyright cannot protect material such as he has placed, then he cannot be trusted to comply as he can't be trusted to recognize what is copyrighted and what is not. I do not consider myself involved in spite of his personal attack on me, as my only involvement with him has been in relation to these copyright infringements. But I bring it up here anyway for others to evaluate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I feel bad saying this because I quite like Allstarecho, but support indef, especially in light of this rather worrisome edit summary: "...I am officially retired.. as this user anyway. ; bye bye."] I don't know if that means he will create sockpuppets, whether he already has an alternate account, both, or neither and it's just another parting shot. It may be worth a CU poking around in case socks do exist and are being used. This whole mess has been rather sad. //roux   04:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Could we wait a bit before boldfacing supports or opposes? Afterward he posted FYI, as far as socks, Ive posted under my IP a few times in my life but only cuz I forgot to log in. The latest was at Talk:Autofellatio, Friday. Transparency. So you can sleep better at night knowing I'm not running around socking up the Wiki.[60] We all know how this usually goes: an editor feels cornered, responds aggressively. Maybe doesn't even mean it and regrets it the next day, but by that time the ball is rolling and an indef converts to a siteban. Yes there are problems here: serious ones he needs to acknowledge. Wikitime can be brutal, though. Durova^Charge! 05:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Durova's right. I doubt anyone would support Allstarecho being unblocked without some preconditions, and perhaps he'll agree once he's calmed down and if he returns. AniMate^draw 10:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Let's build a path back with caveats that restoring someone else's copyvio edits is also problematic, intentional or not. I suggest too a bit of empathy as my wee brain recalls their home burned to ashes not too long ago and I believe they live in the US South, Mississippi, which likely is a major suckfest economicly. There may be some real life issues trimming the fuse short. This does not excuse everything but we can at least pretend that behind that heat is a passion for what they believe and that same energy that has generally been constructive here can still be directed toward our collective goals. In dominatrix-speak it's an attitude adjustment! -- Banjeboi 12:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I support civility and empathy, but in evaluating his constructiveness, I think we need to consider what has previously not been recognized: that a number of his articles have been built with content pasted in large or small scale from other sources. He may have been a stellar vandalism fighter, but he has been working outside policy for a long time even though he had every reason to know what policy was. This can't be put down to a short fuse, I'm afraid. Further, his ongoing talkpage dialog does not seem to me to demonstrate any awareness that he has created a problem or why. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I would refer you to Durova's comment at the top of this subsection; He was sufficiently aware of copyright issues to use it against another editors violation of policy. I have no clue as to his motives, since my knowledge of him comes from his interactions on the noticeboards, Jimbo's talkpage and AIV, and while he seemed fine (if somewhat "sparky") there the disregard - I can't think of any other phrase - for a core policy and the potential trouble for the project that might incur leaves me to feel that any return to editing will need be heavily monitored/mentored. Given his two responses in the thread I don't feel that he will willingly accept such conditions. It is a pity in respect of the good work he has done, but perhaps it would be best if the editor and WP remain estranged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
        • We're too willing to cut people loose, which neither addresses the problem nor helps WP:ENC. Clearly Allstar has lost his admin standing, but I'm with Durova's more, "Can he be rehabilitated?" line of query than with the calls of "Cut this cancer off". Situations where there are no signs of intentional malice or disruption call for firm kindness. -->David Shankbone 20:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
          • As pointed out above, he was notified of copyright policies years ago and as recently as a week ago removed without comment a note from another administrator pointing out the issue and requesting his assistance cleaning up. He has multiple times removed without comment warnings placed by Corensearchbot. These may not be signs of intentional malice, but they're troublesome. Further, Durova seems to suggest that he is familiar enough with copyright concept to hold another contributor to it, which would make it puzzling why he would not know himself that he cannot copy from newspapers and websites unless these are properly licensed or public domain. I do not say that Allstarecho cannot be rehabilitated, but I have asked that any administrator who unblocks him does so carefully in light of the circumstances and ensure that his statement that he won't infringe further recognizes what the problem is and how not to continue it. I have myself offered to supervise indef-blocked copyright problem editors and seen them go on to productive contributions, but it does take willingness and time on both sides. (I don't think that Allstarecho was ever an administrator, but perhaps I'm mistaken.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• Is now a good time to confess that I haven't taken any of my photographs? Seriously, this is a sad case and I hope everyone overlooks any recent outbursts by Allstar, and recognizes a long, productive, and honorable history. That the honor is being called into question undoubtedly raised his hackles, especially, as I suspect, he seems truly ignorant of the copyright issues involved. I'd prefer to see a more formal RFC-U, with or without his participation, with whatever has been found out. A gentle RFC-U. I think he's earned that rather than Trial by ANI. -->David Shankbone 17:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Including, amazingly enough, the ones with yourself in them. :) I've thought pretty highly of AllStarEcho, and I don't know what to make of all this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It's helpful to have agents :) -->David Shankbone 17:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Aha! So you outsourced the picture-taking. Just like Mathew Brady did. Sort of. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd moving straw poll !votes, editing and removing article talk page comments

The article cold fusion has recently been protected, and Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) started a talk page straw poll to select a version to return to when the page is unprotected. He listed two versions, neither of which I thought were good reflections of what reliable sources say on the subject, and I voted for neither of them.

Kirk Shanahan commented in the poll section that the version of September 17, 2008 was his preferred version, but didn't list it in the poll as an option. On June 4, Abd removed the comment from the page as "unnecessary." (see edit summary).

Later that day, Abd replaced part of Kirk Shanahan's comment as a listed option on the poll. The option linked to the version of 19:54 September 17, 2008. I went to that version, read it, decided it was a better version (in that it was more faithful to the consensus of reliable sources, though needing some adjustment on weight) than the two previously provided options, and !voted 7 for that version and 0 for the other two versions. (Abd was asking for votes on a scale from 1-10).

Later, Abd added a fourth option to the list of options to vote for, claiming that this version from 15:48 September 18, 2008 was the one he had linked to when adding Shanahan's choice, and so it was the one I'd actually looked at and voted for, and moved my !vote to that option.

I objected in very strong terms to the move of my vote, showing with diffs that the option I voted for was linked to the version of 19:48 September 17, as anyone can see by looking at the diff of my vote, and striking my vote. Abd responded by (1) removing my struck comment leaving the vote in place on the option I hadn't voted for, (2) removing his earlier explanation that I had voted for the wrong option, (edit summary: "Woonpton appears to have accepted move of !vote,") and (3) continuing to insist that I had got it wrong and that I had actually voted for the 15:48 Sept 18 version (which wasn't even an option at the time I voted) suggesting in the edit summary that I was "confused."

I objected again to these new edits, pointing out again that it's easy for anyone to see by looking at the diff of my vote that the version I voted for is the version I said I voted for, and adding, "You do not have permission to (1)move my votes, (2) remove my comments or my !votes. (3) edit my comments. Please cease and desist." Abd then moved my vote back to the version I had originally voted for. At that point, I removed my votes from the poll entirely and went to bed.

These actions are direct violations of WP:TALKO covering editing other's comments, especially "The basic rule is: Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission," and "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning.." There has been continuing discussion at the talk page and outside eyes would be welcome. I request that administrators review this situation and take what action seems appropriate. Woonpton (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Abd's messing with options and even votes on running polls is unacceptable. I'd like to see some more comments, though - I have a strong prior opinion on Abd. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to believe in a "good faith clueless bungling" rather than a "sinister attempts to manipulate poll" interpretation. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I think SheffieldSteel is likely right about the motivation in this case being above-board; ideally this could be resolved with a simple agreement from Abd not to refactor other editors' comments at the straw poll. I asked for such an agreement at User Talk:Abd, but will leave it to someone more diligent to parse the response. MastCell ^Talk 20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree, Abd's intentions are good even if his execution is a bit dicey. He is not making any changes that truly affect the results of anything as far as I can see and he actively encourages people to correct any errors or draw his attention to them so he can fix them.

That having been said I would (and have already) discourage Abd from making any changes to the raw tallies. Post process the raw data all you want, but leave the tallies alone. --GoRight (talk) 05:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I haven't characterized the motivation for the moving and editing of my votes and comments; my point is that it's not acceptable for anyone to do that to someone else's comments, regardless of the movitation. Woonpton (talk) 21:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Woonpton, my comments at Talk:Cold fusion are rather commonly deleted, it just happened today. Talk page comments are generally subject to good-faith refactoring, and taking someone to AN/I over a transient misunderstanding is a tad extreme. Comments in polls or RfCs are often shifted, deleted, or moved to some other location, where it seems it will serve the community. The goal there is consensus, and getting there efficiently, and it can often help things if adjustments are made, and it works when editors assume good faith. However, you've recently expressed an intention to expose, I'm not sure what, you won't say, some kind of nefarious plot you imagine I'm working on,[61][62] so you were quite predisposed to interpret what I did as hostile or "shenanigans," as you immediately called the very first action. --Abd (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, SheffieldSteel. I don't know about "clueless," but I was definitely, for a while, quite confused, with one edit conflict with Woonpton after another. I go into some detail about what happened, how the report is overblown (the "removed" comment was already struck by the editor, not quite the same as gratuitous deletion), and why we have two competing polls, how the article got protected in the first place, the gaming of RfPP to freeze a highly controversial edit (nobody appears to accept it, not Woonpton, not the editor who made it -- at least not openly, though it's clearly the POV of the editor -- nor anyone else -- but ... this is AN/I where a third of the time nothing comes of lengthy discussion, another third, bad decisions get made quickly, with the rest being routine stuff that's quickly handled, so, my complete response is collapsed below. --Abd (talk) 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, an extended comment was originally here, in a collapse box. Collapse was removed and then I was criticized for excessive length. original diff permanent link to this section with the collapse at the bottom. --Abd (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be about time for Abd to receive a community topic ban from articles related to cold fusion. He lacks any sense of proportion and has become extremely hostile to experts in the subject like User:Kirk shanahan. The talk page has been swamped with his often completely irrelevant comments which, whether it his intention or not, drive away other contributors. He also edits other people's comments (e.g. by putting them into collapse boxes). This is unhelpful behaviour from an account that seems to have regressed to that of WP:SPA; he uses the talk page as his blog/forum/scratchpad, even suggesting that science writers like Gary Taubes should be invited to join in discussions there. Abd's machinations already seem to have driven one administrator away from WP. Abd is actively promoting cold fusion on wikipedia as an "emerging science", along the lines of non-scientist advocates like Steven B. Krivit and topic-banned User:JedRothwell, with whom he corresponds. If anybody has a WP:COI at the moment, it is Abd. He has become a fringe POV-pusher. This does not apply to User:Hipocrite, whom Abd seems to be trying to pull down with him. Mathsci (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The most important point you raise is that Abd's conduct has driven away other editors from participating (such as myself). The prospect of sifting through incessant multi-kilobyte stream-of-consciousness responses is a powerful editor repellant. Any POV-pushing can be dealt with as a separate issue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

While Abd's text can be daunting at times, he always makes thorough and well reasoned contributions on both the content and the process in these cases. At least that's been my experience. Don't feel obligated to even look at his comments if you don't want to. Ignoring them leaves you in the same space as would a topic ban but allows the project to continue to benefit from his efforts. --GoRight (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Boris - you have to actually be somewhere in the first place in order to be "driven away". You've never darkened that article's door let alone contributed in a way that could be regarded as a loss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.16.66 (talk) 19:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You can substitute "deter" for "drive away" if you wish. And please comment using your main account. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} is a good way to keep a talk page on track by making tangential discussions less visible. Jehochman ^Talk 18:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Collapse boxes also make the material unsearchable, and often break the table of contents ("why do I keep clicking this and nothing happens?" the unsuspecting reader thinks to herself) and thus are best used sparingly. The fact that collapse boxes are so often needed is itself a sign that something has gone badly awry. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)a

The extremely lengthy whitelisting discussion on lenr-canr.org required the removal of Abd's collapse boxes by User:Enric Naval in order to reference hidden content on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, darned if he does and darned if he doesn't? You complain about the length of his posts, say you don't want to even look at them (by proposing a topic ban) then complain when he takes your issue and actively tries to address it with collapse boxes. Why is that? And SBHB complains that he doesn't want to see Abd's comments at all but then complains that he can't search through them. I find that stance a bit curious, actually. --GoRight (talk) 05:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, GoRight, Abd can put collapse boxes round his own contributions as much as he likes. In this case he collapsed several consecutive threads into one box, including one started by me where I discussed a new secondary source by Sheldon that I had found, downloaded through a university account and made avaliable on request at http://mathsci.free.fr This thread is about Abd playing around with other people's contributions, resulting in the unreadability of the talk page. [63] It was undone later [64]. Similarly this extraordinary edit [65] to this thread was not helpful, even for Abd himself. Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, so it was. As Abd points out below and I was planning to do anyway, a review of the page history shows that the incident you are referring to was actually precipitated by Hipocrite when he archived an entire set of discussions, including the one that you reference above. Doing so is a normal enough activity on Hipocrite's part, I suppose, but if others disagree that the discussions are actually closed, as did Abd, it appears to me that Abd's action to covert to a set of collapse boxes was actually a good one. It keeps the talk page tidy and leaves the discussions open for those who wish to continue to engage them. The entire incident appears to be completely mundane maintenance of a busy talk page, IMHO.

You specifically point to [66] as being the reason for your objection. Is there more to it than that one "adjustment" by Eric who labeled the change as minor. Your use of the term "undone" is not actually an accruate description of Eric's edit, IMHO, since it did not atually restore the article to a previous state but instead extended the same approach that Abd had started. Regardless, unless you have something more than this one edit by Eric to demonstrate the scope and impact of Abd's changes in this case I would have to question why you would view this as being a bannable offense. Please explain how this should even be on the radar screen of bannable offenses, maybe I have missed something. --GoRight (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The first diff made discussion more appropriately visible, by topic, in the TOC, not less. That series of discussions had been closed, en masse, by Hipocrite (improperly -- involved editor closing discussions). Look at the edit immediately preceding the one Mathsci shows.[67]. The claim by Hipocrite was that the discussion wasn't about improving the article. All I did was to break the closed material, covering many subsections, into a series of collapsed discussions, thus accepting, provisionally, Hipocrite's claim. Then as some of these became obviously relevant, they were uncollapsed. Anyone could have done that at any time. But Mathsci is looking for reasons to claim I should be banned, it's been obvious for a long time; but it's moot here. This report was about my behavior in an incident of misunderstanding, and the incident is resolved and moot. This discussion should really be closed. It wasn't the basis for my ban, which should be separately discussed if it's going to be. I'm banned, and whether the ban is proper or not shouldn't be confused with a farrago of other complaints. Don't beat a dead horse. I have not reviewed the other diffs, but the heaviest use of collapse at Talk Cold fusion is by other editors collapsing my discussion and that of others. --Abd (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• To Abd: Your response dated 20:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC) is of excessive length, and I think it unreasonable to expect any administrator to read it in its entirety. Please be succinct. AGK 19:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, AGK. That response was quite brief, then an extended comment that explored issues surrounding the situation was summarized, and the vast bulk of it put into collapse as being peripheral to this report. It was then uncollapsed by ShortBrigadeHarvesterBoris, who then, with others, complained about walls of text. Transparent, I'm afraid, but not for here. I didn't "expect" administrators to read the extended comment unless they were interested. --Abd (talk) 13:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• tl;dr. This is, however, typical of Abd when he's trying to get his way--a wall of text. We've all seen this over and over, and the history of such massive textdumps seems to indicate this one will also boil down to "Because I said so." Support permanent topicban, also, based on comments above about having driven away other editors. Support it even further because Abd thinks that cold fusion actually exists or is an 'emerging science', which betrays an understanding of science rivaled only by the folks who think that Intelligent Design is accurate in any way whatsoever. It really is time for Wikipedia to put its collective foot down, hard, about POV-pushing and fringe crap. //roux   19:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  In constrast to your post here, Abd is NOT pushing a POV. He assiduously sticks to Wikipedia policies and norms in terms of content and sourcing, and as the recent Arbcom case demonstrates he takes WP:DR to heart. Given this, are you really suggesting that he should be banned because he writes long posts? Excuse me if I don't think that is in the best interests of the project. --GoRight (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Tell me if i have this straight: Some editor is rude, moves around other's comments in a contentious area and doesn't leave off. And why? To try to force pseudo-scientific fantasies onto an insufficiently-educated public using wikipedia as his megaphone. Do I have tihs right? If so, topic ban and be done. Wikipedia should not tolerate the, ah, how to put this nicely, the fringers to the extent that their obsessive behaviors drive away physicists and other expert users whose editing assistance is particularly needed in technical areas. Not to get into a "cult of the expert" but we are not all equally-beautiful flowers in the lord's little garden. If you don't prune the weeds every now and again, they'll choke all forms of intelligent life to death.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

  No, you do not have this "straight" if you are trying to apply that characterization to Abd. He is not rude nor is he trying to force anything on anyone. He is positing legitimate material and working to achieve consensus on it. This is what the Wikipedia editors are supposed to do. As for your attempt to "put this nicely", in my very humble opinion you failed. Your POV is clearly visible and if rudeness is a rationale for banning as you suggest, I hereby suggest yours. --GoRight (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just a note to let people know that Abd has been banned from Cold fusion and its talk page for one month, unrelated (I think) to the thread. Hipocrite was also given the same restrictions. There is also a recent arbcom finding regarding Abd and long posts in the Abd/JzG case tha may be relevant here. Verbal chat 21:31, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

2.1) Abd (talk · contribs) is advised to heed good-faith feedback when handling disputes, to incorporate that feedback, and to clearly and succinctly document previous and current attempts at resolution of the dispute before escalating to the next stage of dispute resolution.

Passed 9 to 1, 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

2.2) Abd (talk · contribs) is urged to avoid needlessly prolonging disputes by excessive or repetitive pursuit of unproductive methods of dispute resolution.

Passed 9 to 0, 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The relevant ArbCom finding. These massive walls of text are very, very clearly excessive and unproductive. //roux   01:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is, of course why he is placing large partions of his posts within collapse boxes. Isn't that an example of "heed[ing] good-faith feedback when handling disputes"? That is, of course, if one seriously wants to consider "you write too much" to actually be a legitimate "dispute". People talked. He listened and acted upon what he was told. --GoRight (talk) 06:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I was going to add a substantive comment but now find that WMC's bold actions have brought the problems under temporary control. I certainly endorse the topic ban of Abd so that some genuine collaboration can occur, and commend the action taken. Hopefully this will help encourage some more participation on the article. EdChem (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, folks, apparently it ain't over. I'd thought this report resolved and hadn't been back here. Now I see that my extended comment in a collapse box was opened up, and thus what was a short report, followed by a collapsed extended comment, became a "wall of text," which I'm then dinged for inflicting on admins. I put it in a collapse box precisely because it wasn't so important here, except for those who wanted more background. I'm going to delete what was in collapse and ref it to history, where editors can see it if they want. And next time, that's what I'll do, since some editors seem to place their convenience for searching above organization of text for clarity. This report isn't related to the ban that WMC declared, I'll be dealing with that separately, summary: highly improper, unnecessary (I'd already declared an article ban), punitive (I'd just questioned WMC's editing of the article, and more, but this isn't the place for it. --Abd (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'm not sure how, or even whether, Abd's topic ban from cold fusion will affect this review, since the notification above says that the ban was unrelated to this report, but just for the record I think it's important to point out that many of the assertions in the response above are not consistent with the record. There are many, but I will only take one assertion to rebut,as I know your time and patience are limited.

(Note, first, that this report isn't just about Abd moving and reverting and editing my edits; it's about Abd moving and reverting and refactoring "other people's edits" and the first couple of diffs are for a comment of Kirk Shanahan's that Abd first removed, then refactored and turned into a poll option, apparently without consulting with Shanahan as to whether that was what he wanted done with his edit.)

Okay, here's the one asertion in the responses above that I've chosen to rebut; it was made twice in two different messages:

Woonpton and I were in edit conflict after edit conflict as I tried to figure out what the editor wanted and to restore and undo any damage that I might have done.

I was definitely, for a while, quite confused, with one edit conflict with Woonpton after another.

This twice-made assertion is simply untrue. It took about an hour for this incident to unfold; I edited once at 03:48 and again at 04:51. During the hour between, I did not edit the page. After I registered my first objection, I went out for a walk; I wasn't even at the computer. Here's how it unfolded:

03:48 June 5 I posted a strong objection to the move of the vote, and in the same diff I struck the vote and its accompanying comment, saying I was striking it for now while I thought about what to do about it, and then I took a break and went out for a while. That post included a diff of my vote, which showed clearly that I had voted for the 19:54 Sept 17 version, as I had said, not for the 15:48 Sept 18 version Abd was claiming I had really meant to vote for. All Abd would have had to do to verify what I was saying, was click that diff. But, that's not what happened.

During the next 45-50 minutes, Abd removed my struck comment, indicated his belief that I had accepted the move, and posted a long lecture about how I had got it wrong and voted for the wrong thing. During that time, I was not editing. There were no edit conflicts between us as Abd "tried to figure out what the editor wanted and to restore and undo any damage that I might have done;" I wasn't even there.

04:51 I came back, and at that point I was, yes, outraged that my objection had gone unheeded and even disputed at length and repeatedly, and at that point I posted a stronger objection. But that was an hour after my first objection, which had been my most recent edit. Yes, I did get an edit conflict with him that second time, but just one. During that hour, the only person escalating this dispute was Abd; the only person editing the page during that hour (7 edits) was Abd. The only edit I made after that was to remove my votes. To portray this as me taking a misunderstanding and immediately escalating it into a big deal, editing so furiously as to cause constant edit conflicts, is to misrepresent what happened profoundly.

I have not edited cold fusion and had only made a couple of comments on the talk page before this incident, because I was so appalled at the disruption on the page. After this incident I had decided to unwatch the page and stay clear away, but if Abd is banned, I would be willing to participate. Woonpton (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cutting through all this drama ... I have a question or two for you, Woonpton.

1. After all has been said and done, do you believe that the current CF talk page misrepresents your most recently stated intent relative to the !voting in any way?
2. Do you believe that it was ever Abd's intent to actively mischaracterize or misrepresent your position?

--GoRight (talk) 06:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

1. How could I possibly know? I have no idea what the current CF talk page looks like. When I last saw it, it was a complete mess. After our dispute, Abd moved the poll out of the section where it had been, leaving my comments orphaned, then he deleted the option that I had originally voted for, the day after he had put it in, saying that no one had voted for it so it could be eliminated, then Hippocrite started another poll, then Abd put the two different polls together into one, even though they were scored differently; it was just total wall to wall disruption. If my last comment I made there (in which I made it very clear that my withdrawal of my vote was not an expression of withdrawal of support for the version I had voted for; it was an expression of withdrawal of support for Abd's poll) is still in place where I put it, then I would say that the current talk page accurately represents my most recently stated intent, which was to boycott the poll because it was being conducted so disruptively. But I don't know if it is or not, so I couldn't answer the question even if the question weren't beside the point.

2. I have no idea, and don't care, what Abd's intent was; as I said above on the page, my purpose here was not to characterize intent, but simply to register concern about disruptive behavior. My point is that regardless of intent, he had no business deciding on his own that he knew that I really intended to vote for that other option (that I hadn't even seen!) and change my vote; he had no business editing my comments. I have always been taught that we don't do this on Wikipedia. At any rate, I'm a data person and have been for my entire professional career; the integrity of data is a core principle with me. When something (in this case, consensus) is being measured, I don't want someone messing with the data. It's just really that simple.Woonpton (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. Abd made an honest mistake. Moving others' comments is not forbidden; comments of mine have been moved at times on other pages to what someone considered a more appropriate place. On an unrelated page I've just put peoples' comments into collapse boxes and added a comment above another comment to try to restore its context after I had changed the text the person was commenting on ([68]): not much different from what Abd did except that I didn't happen to make a mistake (as far as I know!): but it's a wiki: mistakes can be corrected! Abd has been making contributions to the cold fusion articles based on RS and helping to clarify the issues and negotiate consensus among other editors. It will only further skew the collective POV of editors at the cold fusion page if yet another editor is banned who is trying to enforce NPOV by ensuring that the cold fusion controversy is accurately presented in the article by properly including, among other POVs described, the significant pro-cold-fusion POV as it is expressed in reliable sources including both the scientific literature and the media. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

  On the contrary, this interchange on the talk page of User:EdChem shows that Abd is actually quite uncooperative when discussing sources, particularly with expert editors with far more RL experience. Mathsci (talk) 11:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a mediation where such discussion is beginning. The discussion at EdChem's page was a mistake, I'd thought he was interested, and he appeared to be. At the same time he was preparing evidence against me to present here, and I'd originally gone to that page because he'd made noises to that effect elsewhere. Complaining because I withdraw from a discussion I see as probably going nowhere on a user Talk page, and apologizing for the waste of time? Really, Mathsci, your POV is showing. --Abd (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

disruptive editor back

Bulldog123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Disruptive editor Bulldog123 is active again and making his usual disruptive/POV edits to content and threats to editors on their talk pages, including mine. Please check this out in detail as I will not get involved in edit fights with such a person, which I think WP administrators need to take care of. Thanks Hmains (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Notified Bulldog123 on his talk. This should always be done if you post about a user here. Exxolon (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Right. Telling someone they will take them to "dispute resolution" if they continue to stalk them is a "threat" my foot. Anyone can take a look at this alleged "threat:" User_talk:Hmains#Stalking. There's no issue here except User:Hmains grudges and inability to understand what WP:V means. I shouldn't even respond to this persistent immaturity exhibited by Hmains. Bulldog123 22:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. The last time I tried to remind a person who posted on ANI that they should notify the person they were talking about, not only was I berated for it, but not one single person ever notified the subject of the discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Providing more detail. Bulldog123 previous edited and now again is editing 'fooian American' articles to remove all images of people who are not 100% 'fooian', in other words, deleting images of 'Americans of fooian descent' This is in conflict with the contents of the 'fooian American' articles themselves, which include first generation fooian Americans as well as their descendants. Bulldog123 has just done this to more than a dozen articles. Thanks for your review. Hmains (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I do recommend we get an admin involved. It's about time. Herbert Hoover is being used as a representative American of both Swiss and German Americans, despite zero evidence to that extent and zero reliable sources even calling him a German-American. Jason Mraz is apparently both a Czech and Slovak American because of his surname. When I remove these, Hmains blindly reverts them back, citing "disruption." Bulldog123 18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Bulldog123 removed a batch of German-American images based on "lack of evidence". I reverted because the articles for the individuals in question clearly refer to their German heritage. Schwarzkopf's article even mentioned that he had been named "Distinguished German American of the Year" and provided a link to the award. Bulldog123 removed the images again. I've now added citations to easily located sources, including the American Embassy, which states that "Notable among many German-Americans who have shaped our military to meet later challenges were John J. Pershing, whose ancestral family name was Pfoerschin, and Dwight D. Eisenhower, a descendant of Hans Nikolas Eisenhauer. 'Ike' also shared with Herbert Hoover the distinction of being one of our two Presidents of German descent." Now he's left a message on my Talk Page stating "you can't cite a 'German-American' by providing something that says "he had German ancestry." But the article itself defines German Americans as "citizens of the United States of German ancestry". I would consider any further removal of the images to be vandalism. Please put a stop to Bulldog123's disruptions. --Sift&Winnow 19:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what the article defines it as. That's an arbitrary definition. It's a simple case of WP:V. The jump from "of German descent" to "German American" is a expressed as WP:SYNTH. Bulldog123 23:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, all of this is a content dispute and really has no place in WP:AN/I except as a sort of character sabotage. Bulldog123 23:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Bulldog is now disrupting the Adam Lambert article, editing against consensus, and claiming that no consensus exists where it clearly does. I'm late to this disagreement, but something needs to be done about this editor. Unitanode 04:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted a warning on Bulldog's talk about his disruption at Adam Lambert, but it was swiftly removed without explanation in a minor edit.[69] Bulldog's entitled to do what he likes with his talk page, but he needs to know the seriousness of his disruption, and that he will be blocked if he disrupts Adam Lambert again. I posted that warning not to be malicious but to try to save him from his seemingly inevitable block.--Yolgnu (talk) 05:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't want to get involved in this, but I think it is worth mentioning that on Talk:Adam Lambert, I only see User:Yolgnu and User:Unitanode making the personal attacks ([70]), accusations of bad faith ([71]), and threats of blocking ([72]), which appear to be more disruptive than Bulldog's actual editing. Horvat Den (talk) 06:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have made no personal attacks, and find it odd that you would claim so. I called an IDEA "nonsensical", so perhaps that's what you mean? Bulldog is being disruptive, and you're claiming that I am the problem. That seems odd. Just checked your diffs, and it makes even less sense than I first thought. I made no "threat" of blocking. I was -- as a relatively unbiased observer (I actually removed the "Hebrew singer" category") -- letting Bulldog know that if he kept edit-warring and editing against consensus he could be blocked. Where's the problem with that? And it is CERTAINLY not a personal attack in any way, shape, or form. Unitanode 14:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
• diff I'm not seeing a productive editing pattern here. — Ched :  ?  20:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by owner of Graffiti Blasters

Resolved

 – Blocks applied by Dougweller to the accounts concerned. AGK 19:36, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Graffiti Blasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Accounts known to have edited claiming to either be the owner or to be editing on the owner's behalf:

• Rudy4400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 75.3.150.129 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 69.209.77.205 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 76.223.92.89 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

The owner of the company has been editing the article, wanting to force trademark symbols (in violation of WP:MOSTM), as well as adding promotional text to the article. The user has also been making legal threats in his edit summaries to the article, as well as in his post to J.delanoy's talk page, and even in posts within the article itself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem especially notable to me. I say delete the thing and be done with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Block away. Clear legal threats. The user should have read the the statement right above the "Save page" button: You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the GFDL. The user does not own the article; once he hits that save button, it becomes the community's article. It is also obvious that the user(s) is/are using Wikipedia for promotion of its product—also unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a publicly-owned entity; it is a website which can be utilized by the public within limitations (that is, of providing encyclopedic information). MuZemike 07:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if a rangeblock is in order, since we are dealing with a large area, but can't something set up with the abuse filter be done in this case? MuZemike 07:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked 75.3.150.129 (talk · contribs) for the threat - but for only 2 weeks, not indefinitely, as it's an IP. I've semi'd the article for the same period. If any Admin wants to change either of these, go ahead. Dougweller (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The complaining party has little to complain about. The article uses the "Graffiti Blaster" name solely to refer to his company, which is a proper use of a trademark. There's no mention of the more generic use of the term "graffiti blaster", a pressure-washing machine using a soda solution to remove paint from surfaces[73], or "Graffiti Blaster", a commercial solvent for paint removal[74], or the Lawrence Livermore Labs laser graffiti blaster.[75] --John Nagle (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I found a pair of news stories after starting this thread; I think his actions are a result of legal dispute between his company (based in Chicago), and a program started by the city of Chicago which had the same name (see here and here). According to the news story, the city of Chicago won the right to continue using the name - in part because he "slept on its rights" for too long before attempting to protect his service marks. His actions here may be a mistaken over-compensation in attempting to prevent further loss of control on the name. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-O and User:WilliamJE

WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is at odds with myself and User:Nicholasm79 in what appears to be a minor content dispute. It's not exactly at the level of a revert war, although it could get that way. For one thing, I don't much care for being referred to as a "vandal". Basically, he won't discuss it, other than to use the "other stuff exists" argument. I would like to know what the best course of action would be. I note that the user has been warned several times for behavior, but has never been blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

By the edit history I count three reverts on the fourth, two on the fifth. Looks like an edit war to me.Drew Smith What I've done 09:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. WilliamJE posted his uncited and no-context list during May 31-June 4. Nicholasm79 deleted it on June 4. WilliamJE added it back on June 4. I removed it again on June 5 and WilliamJE added it back. I reverted it again and he added it back again with his comment about "vandalizing the page", ignoring the discussion in the talk page. I removed it again and posted more messages to him asking for discussion. Right now we're both at 3 reverts in 24 hours. He's outnumbered and is liable to work himself into a 3-revert violation. I would just as soon avoid that. He's also been on here for 2 years but still hasn't learned to sign his posts. Weird. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:12, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that I'm done editing this article until the issue is settled. 3 reverts in 24 hourse is already too many. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I also just realized that it might technically be 2-against-2, as WilliamJE appears to have a shadow Pizzamaniac09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), so to speak . Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

And he again reverted to his version a few minutes ago, and again refuses to discuss it. Technically he is not in violation of the 3-revert rule, as the latest revert came outside the previous three's 24-hour window. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Here we go

1 Please cite specifically where a list like the one created is not considered content for a wikipedia page

2 While you're at it, Delete similar sections for shows Law and Order, Gunsmoke, F Troop and others. They're still there, why should you be singling out Hawaii Five 0.

3 The source for the names in the list is the imdb. Do I need to tag every actor on the list with the appropriate episode. I'll do it if that will keep the thing posted. Weird you don't think of the obvious source.

No one is sourced in the other actor's section. Why is that allowed to stand? Where's the proof those people were on the show if sourcing has to be made so crystal clear?

4 I'm not pizzamaniac. Do I sense some paranoia? What's the basis for your allegation? Did you notice pizza signed his post? I don't. You really can't keep a consistent or logical argument can you.

5 I created the list so to show what famous people did appear on the show. I stuck to people who had wikipedia entries,(Australian actor Murray Mattheson of Banacek fame doesn't have a page) and the list isn't complete. Baseball's arguments are the list isn't sourced but anyone with half a brain knows where it had to come from, and that the list doesn't have context. It does have context, actors of note who appeared on the show. He has never once cited where in wikipedia's guidelines that this list isn't allowed just his own criteria for taking it down. The sourcing is easily resolved, and as I said, and the context argument is baloney also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 11:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute and it belongs on the article talk page, where you have refused to discuss it until here and now. And the "other stuff exists" argument is not only invalid in general, it doesn't work here because F Troop, for example, lists the names line by line rather than a single long list, and explains where the characters appear; whereas you've just got a very long sentence consisting of a bunch of names, unsourced as to whatever connection they might have to Five-O. Hence the answer to questions 3 and 5 is YES - at the very least, you need to provide citations for their appearance in the show. That doesn't mean the list as acceptable, but it would improve the situation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, cite in wikipedia's guidelines where a section like this isn't allowed? I'd like to hear it.

Sourcing. Let me ask you something- Is there anyone on that list you think didn't appear on Five 0? Find one, and post it here. We both know all the people on the list have appeared on the show, the sourcing argument is bogus and just being used as your cover excuse for taking down the section.

I'll cite the episodes for every actor and put in reference tags. That will result in a 200 line reference section. What's that going to accomplish.

I could break down the people by first season of their appearance(s) on Five-0. There's context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs) 11:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• Did you really write "We both know all the people on the list have appeared on the show..." as a justification for not including references? Really? What in damnation do you think we are writing here? This is an encyclopedia, not the debating group of the Steve'n'Danno Fanclub! The project is written for people who do not know who was in the show or not, and want to be able to find out. Like it was commented earlier, you have been here for two years and are still seemingly unable to sign your posts - I would include also that you appear not to have the faintest idea of what it is that we are supposed to be doing here. If I was an abusive admin I would indef block you for being incapable of understanding the purpose and practices of encyclopedia building. The world of knowledge would be vastly improved by you taking up another hobby, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That last is a bit strong. Uncle G (talk) 14:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • "book 'em, Danno, murder 1", (book 'em, vanU, wikiviolation ___ "? (the original poster should do a better job describing the grievance. It's not clear and I'm not going to search for it.) User F203 (talk) 16:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I thought abusive admins always spoke like that? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the IMDB database was an open database, so not a RS? Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

It's borderline. I think it's considered reasonably reliable for cast information, not so much for "trivia". Trouble here is that the editor basically posted a long list of names and said "look it up for yourself". That is a totally inappropriate approach even if the info is notable. Note also his classic "prove it isn't" comment above, which is bogus, and a 2-years-or-more editor should know so. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

All the names can also be verified by the book 'Booking Five-0' authored by Karen Rhodes. BTW I have a copy of the book. I rely on it and rather than CBS video boxes for information. Season 6's box misleads people into believing the George Kennedy was a guest on the show. No he wasn't, but an actor going by the name of George M Kennedy did.

IMDB is the authortative database for movies and television casts on the internet. Other sources like TV.com also will back up these actors were on the show. Are they all unreliable and why?

I have set up many win databases for PGA golfers. Tony Lema, Jack Nicklaus, Bobby Nichols, are just three of many where when I could gain no or little information about their pre-1970 wins on the internet(Golfobserver.com's PGA Tour database only goes up to 1970) and had to use a non-internet published golf encyclopedia to fill in the rest of the info. Is data verifiable from published books that aren't accessible on the internet, automatically unreliable? The irony of this is in golf writing circles, I'm known for ripping authors for mistakes in reporting they've done and books they've written and I freely acknowledge the encyclopedia I used for those win databases has errors in it.

You again haven't answered my question as to citing any wikipedia guidelines that say this kind of information doesn't belong. Just that you feel the information don't belong. That and continuing personal attacks are made against me. I don't sign, well I'm not computer savvy but I know how to sniff out bogus info in wikipedia entries as can be seen in entries on Hale Irwin , Juan Pizarro, Kirsten Gillibrand, The Spy who loved me, and others. Plus built a wikipedia entry on Martin Gaffney from scratch. In the real world I've freelanced for Newsweek. See the entry on Young Kim for details.

You should be carrying out this conversation/argument/disagreement on the article talk page, which is Talk:Hawaii Five-O.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The AN3 complaint has been closed with a warning to WilliamJE not to restore the disputed material again at Hawaii Five-O without first getting consensus at the article Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Unfrayed

Unfrayed (talk · contribs) claims to be the brother of User:Jsmith 51389, a repeatedly banned user who maintains that editors are being anti-Mormon and prejudiced for accepting as reliable the accounts of the Kansas City Star and Associated Press, which reported that he was convicted of arson in 1990. The article text in question is at Temple Lot#Rebuilt headquarters. In sensitivity to BLP, we removed the name of arsonist and other details of his conviction; they're not essential to the article. However, user thinks that this section is defamatory because it does not mention that he allegedly started the fire as a form of civil rights protest and spiritual rain dance. We have explained to each incarnation of his account that Wikipedia must follow reliable published sources, and that no such sources exist.

User has been very persistent over the last few years, and I think it's probable that this is the same person, not a "brother." See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jsmith 51389. At this point, he's just accusing people of being anti-Mormon (see his latest rant). User has repeatedly attacked me and User:Good Olfactory, so an uninvolved admin should look into this. Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 15:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Nakon 16:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Fully endorse. I was about to block myself, but Nakon beat me to it. A user just happens to remember where Jimbo's page is after a two-year break? Combined with the rest of the evidence, that sealed it for me. Blueboy96 16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I tried to reason with the guy and got a verbal lashing. Does seem likely he's a sock. Shereth 16:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I also ixnayed his old account, Jds (talk · contribs), just in case he happens to "remember" the password for it. Blueboy96 16:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfrayed's Talk page seems to be a personal attack against an admin. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the content, other than the indef block template, as it had nothing to do with requesting an unblock or any other appropriate use by a indef blocked account. To ensure the page is not misused again I reset the indef block with talkpage access denied. If they wish to be unblocked then they still have the ability to email arbcom. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Community ban for Jsmith 51389

Do we have a community ban yet for Jsmith 51389? I assume he's de facto banned already, but just in case we don't, let's make it official already. Blueboy96 17:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• He's defactoed, with any sock log like that. No need to waste time making it official. Ironholds (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm with Ironholds. If Jsmith becomes a more acute source of disruption in the near future, then I would be inclined to consider officially setting a ban. AGK 19:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth...

I've been trying to assume good faith that this was the brother and not the older account holder previously multi-blocked.

The older account holder needs to remain very solidly indef blocked for recent legal threats, unless / until Mike Godwin indicates otherwise. I and presumably Mike can provide evidence in private to arbcom if anyone feels like reviewing at this level. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The older accounts were also involved in multiple attempts at WP:OUTINGS and even threats of violence at one point. Details can be provided upon email request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of atheism and User:24.3.195.100

I don't know if this is the best place to put it, but I feel a bit hesitant putting it on the atheism or religion wikiprojects mainly because of POV problems from both sides that exist on this article.

Basically, the article has sections on different aspects of atheist criticism as well with rebuttals from atheists. Its already a mess as there's a tendency of both sides to add their POV. Right now, what a single-purpose IP is doing is essentially taking all the "rebuttals" and moving them into separate sections that mirror the main article as well as throwing in tons of his own POV and OR. It's not as if I have a problem with rebuttals, but the article already has plenty and what this IP is doing is essentially dominating the article with them. I know that if I were to do this with the "criticism of religion" article, it would get reverted within a second.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've issued the anonymous editor with a final warning. If he makes any further POV-pushing edits to articles relating to atheism, he should be blocked for disruption. AGK 19:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The big problem over there is a lack of references. It's not like there aren't well-documented criticisms of atheism. I just added a link to the Archbishop of Westminster thundering about it, and took out some of the more vague material. It's a quality problem, not a POV problem. --John Nagle (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I said "POV-pushing edits" because a few of the IP's changes have included removing quotations by well-known atheists (Dawkins was one, IIRC) from the rebuttals section of the article. My thinking is that such a removal does nothing but give the impression that pro-atheist arguments are not held by any notable individuals. Poorly-written or -sourced prose may indeed be the article's main problem; however, the anonymous editor's isn't being warned for poor writing—but rather for non-neutral editing. AGK 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm no fan of Obama, but.......

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – User indefblocked, authorities notified.

Isn't making threats like this against the law or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojhutton (talk • contribs) 20:58, Jun 6, 2009 (UTC)

I was about to report this myself, this dif, subsequent reversion, his userpage I think are evidence he is isn't here to contribute constructively. Soxwon (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User blocked indefinitely, with email and talkpage editing disabled. I also took the liberty of protecting his talkpage and userspace. Given the circumstances, I'm also reporting this to the Communications Committee. Blueboy96 21:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Busted Soxwon (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also emailing Godwin as well. Blueboy96 21:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

If someone can run a CU, please email me the ip address and I'll contact the FBI. I have reported others like this in the past and they've been thankful. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

On it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Great--and any way you could block the IP as well just in case this bottom-feeder manages to get around the autoblock? Blueboy96 22:13, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reported it. Yes, they were very interested. Admini actions carried out. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ooh. I see waterbaording in someone's future. And I don't mean surfing. HalfShadow 22:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify the US Secret Service; they're more likely to be concerned with this than the FBI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure the FBI has their number, lol. ;) couln't resist. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's prolly some bored 12 yr old dip$%!#, whose parents are going to get a suprising visit, lmfao. Whatcha wanna bet he cant sit down for a week?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

According to User talk:70.26.6.129, 12 yrs old seems to be correct. And the fact that the FBI will be checking into it seems to have rattled him. --auburnpilot talk 01:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's a moot point since the IP is most likely just some juvenile, but in the future it's a good idea to check the IP's geolocation and report it to the local national-level authorities- the IP in question happens to be Canadian. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking more into it, I believe this is the same user as !1029qpwoalskzmxn (talk · contribs), Studentsrulendestroywiki (talk · contribs) and the IP 76.69.90.142 (talk · contribs). Note both 70.26.6.129 and 76.69.90.142 are Toronto area Bell Canada IPs. --auburnpilot talk 01:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, lucky guess or what? That or they saw my post here. Anyway, someone gonna learn a serious lesson from this, at least we can hope. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone may want to start filing an abuse report and contacting this ISP to try to get the ISP to prevent this kid from accessing Wikipedia (or probably anything else on the Internet for that matter). MuZemike 01:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Godwin's probably gonna be on this on Monday, if not earlier ... 10 to 1 Bell Canada and the RCMP will listen to him more than us. Blueboy96 03:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was a bored 12-year-old, I have a hunch he's considerably less bored at this point. Vague threats of violence are one thing, but an overt threat like this one needs to be turned over to the authorities. Which it was. Jolly good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And to answer the original question - Yes, it is illegal. It's a federal crime. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay Admins. I am actually the same person as 70.26.6.129 and asdfzxcvqwerty and am here to deeply apologize for my actions. Please don't report me anymore to any authorities and please tell the authorities that there are no issue from 70.26.6.129. I actually like Barack Obama as a president and think he is doing a fantastic job and I was no where even close to being serious when I made the threat. Please tell the authorities that the person in the IP has no serious intentions. Also, I wish to have my IP hard blocked idenfinetely so that I can never disrupt wikipedia ever again. sometimes my IP changes so please do a block in a way that will permanetely disallow me from editing wikipedia (I still want to right to READ page since I USE wikipedia for many assignments mostly geography and science)

To Sum it up I am requesting 2 things: 1. for an admin preferbally the one who reported me to tell the authorities that the IP has no serious intention 2. for my IP or IP range to be hard blocked permanetely so that I can never edit wikipedia ever again. but not blocked from reading pages I made a terrible mistake and regret it strongly. I learned a valuable lesson, which is not to make threats that cross the line and to be behave over the internet. Please consider about the two requests above. Thank You.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brave warrior (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Way too late for not getting reported. Threatening to kill someone, esp a head of state, is not a matter to make jokes about. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes I realise that now. Death threats are taken seriously over the internet. But I have 0 serious intentions when I made that horrible threat. So please tell the authorities that i have no intentions. I honestely don't, don't any of you admins believe that i don't? I am only a kid, I don't even have a gun.Please don't make any of those authorities like FBI or other police coming to my house! It will have a negative mental impact on me for years to come.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brave warrior (talk • contribs) 11:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Who says WP can't be educational. Someone here seems to have learned something today. :) --WebHamster 11:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting that the editor now posting as Brave warrior has a previous history and was unblocked in January - the block was for abusing multiple accounts. EdChem (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This might turn out to be the mother of all "Plaxicos". And as an American, I say he should be turned in, because while his threat might have been false, it's also possible that his claim it was false, is false. Take no chances. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The above retort is absolutely disengenuous as according to the edit record, this is a insidiuous and persistent troll with a previous record of making disclaiming statements. Despite the country of origin, there should be no question that the authorities (police and legal) should be involved, especially when there is a threat made to use violence. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Yes, as I said, the authorities should be notified. If it takes the threat of prison to make that guy clean up his act, then so be it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think he came here specifically to shoot himself in the leg on purpose (or have some gullible admin do the shooting). I'm not sure if "Plaxico" applies here as he showed no intent on defending himself. MuZemike 17:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Was having the cops drop by also a part of his master plan? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, since this user was kind enough to admit his crime, I have reblocked him with email and talkpage editing disabled, and protected his userspace. I'm also adding an entry for him at WP:LOBU, as it's pretty safe to say that no administrator will unblock this user who doesn't want to be immediately desysopped. El fin. Blueboy96 13:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This user has numerous aliases and sock accounts, which one is he being listed under? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC).

Good call on reporting it, and the IP address. If this *was* some kid, they will have Secret Service speaking to their parents. You'd be frankly surprised how many of these the Secret Services does in fact run down. I chatted once with a SS agent that I met in passing, for 5-10 minutes, and actually asked--do you guys actually run down a lot of the "BS" level complaints, or that appear to be? And he said yes, it's rare for one to not be looked at, since how do you know if its BS? He actually made the point that even he'd (and this was a SS agent in Connecticut, that had only twice ever even seen a President in person) gotten kids "severely grounded". Too funny, and good call reported. rootology (C)(T) 18:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Secret Service runs down every threat to the President that they hear about. As the agent pointed out, you don't know which ones are just cranks and people blowing off steam unless you run them all down. Indeed, every one of them sees a personal visit at some point, even if it's clear from the initial investigation that it wasn't anything serious--they want to make sure the person knows they weren't amused. (It also lets them do a brief evaluation of the subject to see if s/he may have a mental health issue that means they need to take the "crank" threat more seriously...) rdfox 76 (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This user's Canadian, so more than likely it'll be the RCMP knocking on his door sometime in the next few days. In any event, I wouldn't want to be there when his parents find out why Bell Canada nuked their Internet. Blueboy96 18:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I would, it'd be hilarious! ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 18:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And I'm guessing that Mountie won't exactly be grinning like Dudley Do-Right. If the Mounties show up at that character's door, all the better. "Scared straight", so to speak. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

People like this guy are why the rest of us hate Toronto. HalfShadow 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As opposed to the theory that 'threats' like this are made because the US is the most hated country in the world? --WebHamster 19:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The biggest and strongest is always hated. Instead of the U.S., you could hate Finland, but what would be the point? That would be like protesting the slaughtering of cattle and potatoes, and instead of taking it to McDonald's, you picket White Castle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

<< OK, this isn't going anywhere, so I'm closing per DFTT. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Unusual move

Resolved

I just happened to notice the following entry in the move log:

17:51, June 6, 2009 Solisdaniel moved User talk:Solisdaniel to User talk:Pleasedeleteme

I assume this move should be undone, but I wanted to check here to make sure first.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 21:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved back and left the user a message. Thanks, –xeno^talk 22:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Rangeblock on 90.193.250.*

I've just issued my first ever rangeblock, to 90.193.250.0/24. This range of 256 IP addresses appears to be used only by a long term vandal who claims there is a cure for various incurable diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, and also is in denial about the death of Wendy Richards. I've blocked for 48 hours, but my intention is to increase block lengths by the usual doubling scale on each repeat of the vandalism, unless I see evidence of collateral damage. I'm aware that rangeblocks are usually for short periods, so am I out of line on this? How do I check the range for collateral damage? I can use the CIDR user interface gadget, but it doesn't tell me which IP has edited recently, and it also doesn't work with the classic skin, so it's inconvenient for me.-gadfium 00:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The CIDR gadget is your best option - it's not too difficult to see recent edits from this range. Alternatively, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#90.193.250.0.2F24. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. WHOIS seems to suggest a wider range, but if the vandal's not active outside that /24... (quick look on my part found nothing to suggest that, but you're more familiar with this one). – Luna Santin (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser indicates no obvious collateral damage on 90.193.250.0/24. In the future, you can ask for a quick check at Wikipedia:SPI#Quick CheckUser requests. Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 05:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Backlog at UAA

Resolved

Could an administrator take a look at UAA? There's quite an impressive backlog there. Thanks. -t'shael ^mindmeld 00:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Molana yaqoob alvi birotvi

Molana yaqoob alvi birotvi is apparently a biography. It was on the LGBT radar because the gay is amongst the many items within the various texts. It's quite a mess but is it art, a hoax or a DYK wet dream come true? -- Banjeboi 08:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"His carrier as a teacher"? This magnificant effort needs preserving in all its tattered glory - on Uncyclopedia perhaps? LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

You missed the part about how his elementary school training occurred on the Nimitz. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't risk my braincells by actually reading it - I'm an admin; we don't do reading of content - but just looked at the section headers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Odd that the editor who created this article, User:Paharhikhan also created the user page for User:Syedbasit raza. Paharhikhan also created, in his/her first edit, Obaidullah Alvi, and later Syed Fazal Hussain Shah, both of which need wikification as badly as Molana yaqoob alvi birotvi. The syle of these articles reminds me of someone else, but I can't put my finger on it. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 09:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it appears to be a recreation of Molana Yaqoob Alvi Birotvi which has been deleted twice. I'd suggest someone who's not half asleep take a look at the creators other contributions. Circle Bakote and Dhundi-Kairali language have both been tagged for cleanup since '07. I found this gem in Dhundi-Kairali article about Molana: He is also a wrestler and broke the legs of many locals in his prime. Yeah, there's a lot of cleanup here. AniMate^draw 09:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted and salted the subject article. I shall take a look at the other articles mentioned and review Paharhikhan's contrib history. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted some as WP:CSD#A7, and templated others for improvement where there appears to be some claim of notability or supporting sources (some are borderline, but if Imran Khan's political party is advertising on the site I am inclined to consider it legitimate). I feel Parahinkhan is a good faith contributor, but whose grasp of WP practices is as shaky but enthusiastic as his English. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Obaidullah Alvi is another sneaky recreation, this time of Mohammed Obaidullah Alvi which was deleted in 2007 after this AfD. I'm tempted to delete it myself, but insomnia has my brain working at about half its normal speed, so not 100% on my judgement. AniMate^draw 10:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Good find. I shall take a look at the AfD discussion, since the current article does give a claim of some notability (books published, newspapers created) which was included in the deleted version. The deleted article has an awful lot of "family history" of non notable people, so I will review the discussion to see where the problems were. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) After comparing the two article side by side, other than an introductory paragraph, they're mostly identical. An easy G4, though this bears some looking into as apparently the subject is a relatively active editor named User:Molvi333. Perhaps an SPI is in order. AniMate^draw 10:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, as with all of my admin actions, feel free to revert without asking me first. I'm not particularly fussy about that kind of thing. AniMate^draw 10:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I'm content to leave it up for a new AfD. The AfD was for an article which was only a family tree, and had the above articles predecessor added to it when it was WP:Coatracked to include the family history being discussed at AfD. While it may be troubling that an editor is cleverly attempting to place family history - the discussed article is a self bio, it appears - on WP it may still be a cultural misunderstanding of notability than disruption. Under the circumstances, it may be that a fresh AfD needs to be run on Obaidullah Alvi to determine whether the claims of notability are sufficient, or whether they need to be verified. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to undelete. If another admin wants to review and decide there should be an AfD then fine, but I am also not wedded to my opinions on this matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just concerned because it looks like multiple accounts are being used and the recreation of these articles with slightly different names or capitalization is deliberate. I'd feel much more comfortable with an admin or user with some in depth knowledge of the Middle East weighing in. I'll do some more investigating soon. AniMate^draw 11:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• If they insist on creating articles here, it might help their case, however slightly, if they learn to use our language instead of apparently slapping words together in a manner that 'looks nice'. 16:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at Circle Bakote none of the references had the word "circle bakote" in them. The words "Circle Bakote" get no hits on google books, and precious view on google. There is a small village that i can confirm exists in NWF Pakistan called "Bakote" and our article on this village Bakot albiet written by someone with a shaky grasp of english, says "Union Council Bakote is historical place in Circle Bakote where four Muslim sains are laying rest including." Since Circle Bakote is completely unverifiable (and likely a hoax) I'm redirecting to Bakot.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Having looked just a little further, it appears that Bakot (i've now confirmed that's the prefered spelling in English) is in Kashmir, which obviously has various nationalist issues at play which should make iron-clad sourcing for claims even more important than usual.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Signature spam

Resolved

 – Signature amended. –xeno^talk 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• Vojvodaen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a link to their own wiki in their signature.
• istorijska-biblioteka.wikidot.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

There's currently 115 instances of it.--Otterathome (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't see where anyone has asked him on his talk page to stop. That would be the first thing to do (hint), instead of ANI. They probably are just unaware they should not use their signature that way. --64.85.216.245 (talk) 13:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's posted here in case any users feel that removing/blacklisting the 100+ links would be appropriate.--Otterathome (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the spam blacklist is that it will then prevent anyone from editing those pages with the links until the links get removed - and it's not always clear what link is the problem or where on the page it is. Try talking to him about it, as the IP recommended; if he removes the link, it shouldn't be an issue from here on. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The existing links should be ok but they could also be AWB'd out if someone felt the need. I left a follow up message for the user informing of this discussion. –xeno^talk 19:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sock war?

Hello, kind editors. I have just stumbled into a curious situation. After what I thought was a minor clean-up of the Illegal immigration to the United States article [76] a couple editors began accusing each other on my talk page of being socks of banned users.[77] This doesn't particularly bother me, but I do not wish to host any sock wars.... Any thoughts? Wikidemon (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrap the section with {{discussion top}} and in the closing, kindly ask them to discuss the issue at the article talk page or file an SPI if they feel the need. –xeno^talk 19:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good idea. I'll do that. Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Behavior of User:Jezhotwells

Resolved

 – Deferred to Wikiquette alerts. and the reliable sources noticeboard. MuZemike 17:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I’m concerned about the civility of the actions of User:Jezhotwells relating to Eurovision Song Contest articles. WikiProject Eurovision had two similar articles nominated for Good Article status that would have become the ninth and tenth such Good Articles for the project. They had been awaiting reviews for more than a month, and an hour or so before Jezhotwells decided to take them on, an ip adds a comment stating that the reviewer should check the reliability of two of the sources [78]. When the review started, Jezhotwells decided to quickfail and claimed that the sites are blogs and therefore unreliable [79]. I came online right after he failed the first and sent him a message asking for clarification of why he would fail and pleaded for him to discuss this before he take anymore action. [80]. In what I feel to be a gross violation of assume good faith, he quick-failed the other article. From then on, a discussion began where I was lectured on what blogs and reliable sources are and a thread at the reliable sources noticeboard was started. Though there was an overall lack of participation in the discussion, two outside editors responded. One told me that Jezhotwell’s actions were uncivil and I should try a reassessment with another editor, [81] and another told me that the only problem he sees with the sources is that they may be overused and that I should diversify them before GA status is granted. [82]. The uncivil behavior continued when Jezhotwells informed me that he will reassess all of the other GAs of the project to make sure that the sources are reliable [83]. This action is highly POV as there is still no consensus that the sources are unreliable and it is highly unlikely that the many GA reviewers who reviewed the other Eurovision articles just made a mistake about the sources. I was just going to let this whole thing go and submit the two recent articles for reassessment, but the incivility continued this morning when he decided to tag several Eurovision articles with unreliable reference tags [84] [85] and then opened a reassessment on an article and decided to delist as a GA within minutes of starting the reassessment using his personal belief that the sites are blogs [86].

I ask administrators and other editors to look into this matter and determine if the actions of Jezhotwells were civil and determine if he assumed good faith. Most troubling to me is that after waiting so long for these articles to be reviewed, he failed them without even inquiring about the reliability of the sources, without asking for a second opinion, and without waiting for any response from the editor as is routine. I don’t see why they could not have been put on hold while a discussion of the reliability took place. He had a preexisting view on the subject and is carrying on with his edits as if he is right even though there is no consensus on the matter. I find it difficult and frustrating to edit and improve Eurovision pages knowing that he will be there to make a scene about the sources, or request a reassessment and motion to delist based on his personal beliefs once again. What use is having these two recent articles reassessed as he mentioned [87] if he will just personally reassess them later and fail them once again? What’s to stop him? He is going around telling me on a dozen or so articles that I have the burden of proof (which i do) yet there is a rough consensus that the sources are in fact reliable (also see here for a project-wide discussion on the reliability of Eurovision sources. His editing is disruptive and must stop. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure: I've worked with Grk1011/Stephen on Eurovision articles.

Are OikoTimes and ESCToday blogs? They both have a long history of being regarded as WP:RS in Eurovision articles, and don't seem to me to be "blogs" - readers can comment on the main article, but that's possible at mainstream newspapers' websites too.

No comment on Jezhotwells's behaviour as I'm unfamiliar with this incident.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried taking this to Wikiquette alerts, yet? If not, I recommend going there, first. Otherwise, I do not see an immediate need for admin action. MuZemike 16:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Or, just looking at the second comment, the reliable sources noticeboard? MuZemike 16:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read carefully, I said we already had a thread on the reliable sources noticeboard ;) I'll copy paste the whole discussion to wikiquette alerts then, please put further responses here. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 16:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry :) MuZemike 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Petermopar

Can someone please take a look at the contributions of User:Petermopar?

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

He seems to be rapidly creating nonsense articles and/or articles on non-notable subjects. Some have been deleted already, apparently, or marked for speedy deletion, but I'm not sure how some of the others should be handled. Perhaps an admin could help out. Thanks. Peacock (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned it up and will keep an eye. --John (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Falastine fee Qalby

Krisztina Morvai is a far-right Hungarian politician who has recently been noted internationally for some utterly antisemitic outbursts and has a long history of smearing political opponents by calling them "zionists". Reminding of these facts was obvioulsy too much for Falastine fee Qalby (talk · contribs), who removed them altogether under the thinnest of pretextes: [88], [89]. I take offense at a person with a - to put it mildly - strongly pro-Arab wikiagenda to rush at the defence of that great pro-Palestinian, Mrs. Morvai (http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/02/02/the-anti-israel-neo-fascists-of-hungary/). It sure pushes the boundaries of POV a bit too far - or does it?--RCS (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has now started an edit-war [90], [91]. --RCS (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute with you pushing to place in inflammatory material. It has no place here on AN/I, whining about it won't help you here. Who rushes to the AN/I for dispute that started less than an hour ago? -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The censorship you want to exercice speaks for itself. By the way, you have started an edit-war and are on the verge of 3RR and PA. --RCS (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

And now this!!!! How disruptive can an editor get? This is the silliest request for deletion of the year (already).--RCS (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, enough with the fighting in the War Room. Anyways, in regards to She is also a rabid antisemite with a huge problem with circumcision → If that is not a blatant BLP violation, then I don't know what is. Such removal on the talk page is acceptable under WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM. MuZemike 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You call me the pov pusher, yet your only edits to the article is to label this person as an antisemite. Your accusation is ironic, clearly you are the one with the agenda. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)