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

Jehochman and David Boothroyd censorship

User:Jehochman is preventing editors from working on David Boothroyd (aka former arb Sam Blacketer) in userspace (on my user page and most recently at User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd) despite the existence of multiple reliable sources from the British press addressing the controversy. He has suggested he will block anyone who includes the material and will only allow selectively restored versions of the Boothroyd article that do not mention his Wikipedia controversy. Coverage in the British national press includes:

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-sentinel-quits-after-using-alias-to-alter-entries-1698762.html
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wikipedia_westminster_councillor/

Jehochman is now clearly dedicated to preventing any development or discussion in spite of reliable sources. This censorship must end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TAway (talk • contribs) 21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• This has already been through three AFDs (1, 2, 3 with 2 and 3 closed as delete), one very lengthy DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 27#David Boothroyd). All have been rooted in extreme BLP concerns, which has led to its recent deletions, salting, and DRV. Please do not throw the word "censorship" around, especially when the intent is to prevent and negative unsourced information from being added to the userfied copy. MuZemike 21:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • With 2 and 3 both having been closed after almost no discussion by Jehochman. This is not about preventing unsourced information -- all the information is sources -- but protecting a former Arb and Wikipedia's credibility. The media has covered him on other issues, they are now covering his Wikipedia activities, and we even use Boothroyd's election guide as a reliable source in over 700 Wikipedia articles. The media coverage is there, and this is censorship. TAway (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem is that there is at least the appearance that what's being protecting isn't BLP concerns, but Wikipedia's rep. The story is out, in reliable sources, the only question is about notability, not verifiability. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes - and isn't it odd how long we had an article on David Boothroyd BEFORE this controversy broke? The article survived the first AfD, then was bought two more times in rapid succession in violation of WP:NOTAGAIN. "Censorship" isn't quite the right word - but it closely resembles a whitewash. Snarfies (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
        • August 2005 to May 2009 is not most people's idea of "rapid succession". Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Jayron32 has userified the article to User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • After userification, Jehochman selectively re-deleted any versions noting the Wikipedia controversy. He also threatened that any re-creation that included the Wikipedia controversy was a "potentially a blockable action." TAway (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Correct - repeatedly re-creating deleted material is blockable, especially when it involves BLP concerns. I'm unsure what the problem is here. Black Kite 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • How is it restoring "deleted material" when the new sources are appearing after Jehochman's inappropriate speedy deletions? Why is it that the article was immediately speedied after Boothroyd resigned from ArbCom after years of existing, then deletion is accepted as the "status quo" when the media picks up on the scandal? He has salted an article and blacklisted an entire issue under threat of ban regardless of how it develops and continues to appear in the media. That is censorship. TAway (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • as the references accumulate, the material is no longer deleteable. I have respect for Sam for his work here, but neither he nor anyone is actually helped by censorship. That he was an admin here is relevant to his possible outside notability. Jehochman is operating beyond the limits of consensus here. DGG (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that there was an article on David Boothroyd before the controversy? If so, for how long? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. And David Boothroyd effectively wrote it.

  The article that was created in article space was a simple copy and paste, by an editor without an account, of the autobiography that User:Dbiv had had on xyr user page since 2004-03-31. M. Boothroyd didn't write xyr autobiography in article space, and nominated the copy and paste for deletion in the article's second ever edit. The only significant subsequent expansion of the article came from an IP address assigned to Westminster City Council. If that wasn't M. Boothroyd himself, it was someone who was using M. Boothroyd's autobiography as xyr source, because it gave that autobiography as an external link in the edit. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article would be deletable with or without the Wikipedia scandal - it isn't censorship to say someone isn't notable, nor is it censorship to argue that involvement in one significant event (related to Wikipedia or not) doesn't change that essential fact. He wasn't notable at all before, and the scandal qualifies as his 1BE. I don't think it is Jehochman that is overly focused on the scandal element here; its the folks who insist on recreating this article only to focus on the scandal element of it who need to find other work to do. Nathan ^T 00:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• There shouldn't be an article on Boothroyd or any other marginally notable living person until Wikipedia implements an effective mechanism for protecting such articles from malicious editing. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So consensus was that he was notable enough for an article until there was substantial coverage of his getting caught sock puppeteering and violating Wikipedia's integrity by engaging in conflict of interest edits? This is fascinating. I move that anyone encouraging this kind of policy violating behavior should be put up for recall. We can't have this kind of censorship and bias on Wikipedia especially not from Admins and ARbcom member. It fosters rot right at the core of our trustworthiness and undermines the integrity of Wikipedia as a quality information source. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • That of course presupposes that there isn't already rot right at the core. --WebHamster 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, it pressupposes something rather different. See below. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • No, that was not the consensus. The first AFD discussion really didn't apply our primary notability criterion at all. No rationale for keeping makes any mention of reliable sources. We kept the article because it satisfied one of the other, secondary, notability criteria that we had at the time: an arbitrary number related to book readership.

      I suggested a complete rewrite from reliable sources, but that didn't happen. In retrospect, that could well have been because there weren't actually any to be had. The source of all of the content was, indirectly, M. Boothroyd documenting himself, throughout the entire life of the article, and the second AFD discussion can well be regarded as doing the right thing, in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines on reliability and independence of sources, albeit four years after the subject himself first requested the right thing to be done. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

      • That's interesting because I'm finding lots of sources that discuss his political activities before his indiscretions were covered very substantially. I'm also finding he was VERY active in working on political subject including some that are very negative in tone about Conservative politicians. Where is the accountability? Where is the investigation and clean up that needs to be done? Do we know all the sock accounts he used? Have we asked if there are more? Who knew what when? Are we to believe that Arbcom was completely in the dark about his true identity? Stop trying to sweep this under the rug and let's root the rot out. If we spend half the time trying to make things right that we do trying to cover up the impropriety, maybe we wouldn't have this problem all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • It doesn't look good to make wild and foolish accusations of sweeping things under a rug when people are doing nothing more than straightforwardly answering your questions. If we'd spent the effort to make things right, by the way, the copy of the autobiography wouldn't have stood in article space for four years, based upon nothing except what the subject claimed about himself. That is what would have been right. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• TAway appears to be a sock puppet account or somebody with an axe to grind. The matter of deletion was dealt with at WP:DRV. It is not proper to continue badgering to get one's way against consensus. I hope that TAway stops disrupting Wikipedia to make a point before somebody else blocks them. They did not notify me of this thread. Apparently. Their goal is to stir up drama, not to resolve a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 00:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not a sock puppet and I have no axe to grind. I simply stumbled upon this mess when commenting upon a different mess after finding this board recently. It appears to ME anyways that this is not about protecting a BLP, but is a CYA for Wikipedia. From what I can gather, Boothroyd's article had existed for several years before this last bit of trouble. How does it become deleteable only after it's discovered that Boothroyd had managed to somehow attain a position of trust and power on the project, and then abused that power using sock puppets? The situation -- and Boothroyd -- have been dealt with in reliable sources. Why is this even an issue? It seems obvious that the article belongs on the project. Unitanode 02:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To be clear, the above regarding my not being a sock puppet was in regards to Jehochman's apparent ad hominem against the originator of this thread. Unitanode 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The reality is that it was deletable right from the start, had we applied our sourcing policy properly at the time of the first AFD discussion. But we didn't. We applied a notability criterion that we no longer have, and the existence of what was effectively an unsourced autobiography in article space for four years is an example of why that criterion, and others like it, were and are bad ideas. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Whatever the reality of the policy issues, this bears the distinct odor of a coverup. I'm not well-versed in the ins-and-outs of policy here, so I'm commenting simply on the appearance of things. Unitanode 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Then you are creating confusion, and are not being helpful to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia editors, at least, should be capable of getting the facts straight in this affair. Look what happens when one doesn't. TAway has created an entire house of cards in this section predicated upon false information about when M. Boothroyd nominated the article for deletion and what it was that Jenochman deleted from the userfied article. The consequence is that xyr repeated protestations and accusations here look rather silly when compared to the actual MediaWiki logs and edit histories. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You're being something of a bully with your accusations of "not being helpful to the encyclopedia." My contention is that the continued removal of any reference to Boothroyd, when he has been prominently featured in several reliable sources now, has whiffs of a CYA by those with much more power on this project. Your accusations notwithstanding, all I care about is whether or not the encyclopedia is comprehensive and accurate. Unitanode 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
          • No-one is bullying you, and that mischaracterization isn't helpful, either. The fact remains that "commenting simply on the appearance of things" is not helpful to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. Stick to the facts, to what the edit histories and logs actually say, and to the policies. Don't build and encourage fantasies based upon "appearance", such as the one that you put forward above based upon the false notion that the article "became deletable". They waste an awful lot of everyone's time. If anything, entirely the reverse of your notion is true: The article, being based upon nothing but autobiography, was deletable for almost four years, and it is only now that it is possibly, as DGG points out above, becoming not deletable. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Appearances are important, whatever you may think. And your characterizing people as being "not helpful to the encyclopedia" appears to be bullying, whatever you may intend it to be. Boothroyd is now notable, and deleting and salting the target page appears untoward, and looks like a CYA move. My saying so is not unhelpful in any way. People disagreeing with your take doesn't make them unhelpful, by the way. It just means we disagree about the importance of the appearance of things. I think that the appearance of things is quite important. Interestingly, and tangentially, the Supreme Court of the United States seems to agree with that view as well. Not that what SCOTUS thinks really matters here, I just found it interesting that they don't simply discard the appearance of impropriety. Unitanode 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Just for the sake of comparison.. the political office held by Boothroyd in the UK is on par with a US "city councilman" - Apart from the bad press for getting caught with "wiki-fingers" (pardon the bad pun).. I don't see how he qualifies for an article. The fact that it was here before just means we have a huge problem with borderline BLPs that noone bothers to read. - and we already knew that. If we had an article for every US city councilman caught in a compromising position - we'd really be screwed. --Versageek 02:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, the problem of the article existing before is that AFD didn't come to the right conclusion the first time around, because we applied a bad notability criterion. It has been partially addressed by the fact that we don't have that particular criterion any more, but constant vigilance is required to ensure that we don't slip back into applying such faulty notability criteria at AFD, and don't formulate such criteria. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• The article clearly passes the GNG guidelines based on very substantial coverage in numerous reliable sources. It was borderline before this incident, but there's no question now. There's coverage of his activities as a politician, coverage of his activities in private enterprise it look like, and there's now quite a bit of coverage of his subterfuge in editing under aliases against our policies as he sat on our highest administrative body. We are a major information source, we aren't censored, and we shouldn't pretend that he's non-notable now to hide the truth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Before this incident it was not borderline. It was an unsourced autobiography, and should really have been deleted alongside the other unsourced autobiographies that we delete all of the time here. The subject even asked us to delete it. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • As per precedent, and possibly a guideline (can't find one at the moment, but I think one does cover this issue), the wish of a subject of an article for the article to be kept or deleted is irrelevant. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That's certainly true, because an editor is not allowed to own an article. The real question is whether the article should have existed in the first place, regardless of who wrote it. What I'm seeing here among some of those pushing for keeping it, is as coatracking for criticism of wikipedia. There's already an article on criticism of wikipedia, and that's where this situation belongs, if anywhere. It's likely nothing more than a blip in the real life of the subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Without making comment as to this article, this can depend on the level of notability. We now and then do delete BLPs whose topics are at the very edge of notability if the subject asks for this to be done in a verifiable way. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Nonetheless, it was autobiography, without independent and reliable sources, and the subject asked us to do what, in accordance with our content and deletion policies, we should really have done at the time. AFD came to the wrong result, and that wrong result stood for four years. The arguments being made by two editors, that that wrong result somehow proves notability, when there was no evidence presented either at that first AFD discussion or in the intervening three and a bit years that multiple reliable and independent sources covering this subject in depth exist (because, as can be seen if one actually reads what is cited below, they did not exist), which is the definition of notability, are clearly fallacious arguments. The existence of an unsourced (in effect) autobiography for four years only demonstrates that AFD went wrong. It doesn't demonstrate notability during that time, and both that thesis, and the further thesis (also propounded) that the subject was notable and now is not notable, are predicated upon a falsehood. (As DGG points out above, if anything entirely the reverse is true.) Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • For those of us too lazy to look up what actually happened, but not lazy enough to refrain from repeating misinformation:
          • WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd "I am nominating this article about myself for deletion as I don't think I make the notability criteria (although possibly verging on them). However I reserve the right to become notable in the future. David | Talk 22:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)" KEEP
          • WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination) "Non-notable, lack of sourcing. Does not meet our present notability standards for inclusion as a WP:BLP. Last AFD was nearly four years ago. rootology/equality 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)" DELETE
          • WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (3rd nomination) "The individual does not meet our criteria for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)" DELETE

--Hans Adler (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrative action v. outcome

Actually there are two separate questions: whether the article was deleted correctly and whether Jehochman's post-deletion actions were appropriate. The complaint regarded Jehochman's actions, not the deletion itself. So let's break this down:

1. The poster lists three sources and calls them reliable: The Register, Daily Mail, and The Independent. Would an editor who knows British periodicals please weigh in?
2. What is our general practice on userspace recreations of courtesy deleted biographies?
3. The poster asserts He has suggested he will block anyone who includes the material and will only allow selectively restored versions of the Boothroyd article that do not mention his Wikipedia controversy. Yet no the poster provides no diff of this assertion. If Jehochman actually did suggest that blocks would be forthcoming, we need clear answers to the first two questions.
4. If at least one of those three sources is reliable, and if userspace recreations are allowable in this situation, and if Jehochman selectively deleted that news and threatened blocks--then a problem exists. Otherwise there's probably little problem, except for one thing:

This issue is developing news, and arguably a reputation management issue. Jehochman is a reputation management professional who appears to have acted boldly without requesting the review and assistance of fellow administrators at the admin boards. It wouldn't be good to see this spin out of control with claims of 'coverup', and if mud gets thrown it might possibly stick. So respectfully requesting that Jehochman seek community consensus before taking further action. Durova^Charge! 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that the Mail, the Register and the Independent qualify as reliable sources. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh? Had thought there was doubt about citing the Register. Anyway if at least one of them is then question 1 is answered. How about the userfication question? Is it permissible to develop BLPs in user space after deletion and DRV? Durova^Charge! 04:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points, but let's be clear. This is NOT just developing news. This is a subject we've long had an article on, who has been covered in the media for years. There has recently been a major surge in coverage due to policy violating behaviors that are also unethical for a politician. So he's under fire. Not only are we subject to allegations of a cover-up, so far we are guilty of one. All of a sudden the subject was no longer notable right when lots of coverage was occuring that wasn't favorable? This is the worst kind of censorship and it puts us in a very bad light. It also comes at a time when Arbcom is already involved in coddling POV pushers, bias and NPOV violations. So we have a major problem that needs to be fixed. So instead of attacking anyone who questions those trying to sweep things under the rug, we need to take a step back, take a deep breath, restore the article, put in a few sentences about the issues involved, and see what happens. We have this rush to action any time there's a controversy, but cooler, more rational, and more reasonable heads should prevail. Let's do the right thing instead of engaging in subterfuge to cover up for those violating our policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As the person who had the article usefied, I'm currently thinking about this with both the Mail and Indepdent as reliable and the Register as a source only as a matter of last resort for uncontroversial details. The Mail and Indepdent are pretty clearly WP:RS. Regarding the matter of development in userspace, there's a variety of conflicting precedents about that. Given that the closer of the DRV made the decision that userfication in this case was ok that seems ok. He's given one week to work on it as a time limit. Given that, I see it as very hard to see a problem with working on a userfied version. I haven't seen Jehochman claim that he will delete/issue blocks for any mention of the controversy in question although I've already asked him to clarify what precisely he considers to be a BLP problem. It might help matters if Jehochman would have other arbs or admins take a look at this in more detail since a variety of users seem to be upset with his handling of the matter. In any event, it would be appreciated if users would help contribute to a draft rather than attacking Jehochman or stirring up further drama. (Oh, and the next time something in my userspace is the center of an ANI thread could someone please do me the courtesy of letting me know?) JoshuaZ (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Jehochman wrote in an edit summary to your user talk page: "(WP:BLP1E enforcement -- blocks will be issued if same old problems are reinstated.)"[1] Durova^Charge! 04:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know what he meant by that. Is the problem using The Reg as a source? Is the problem the Wikipedia matter as a whole. Is the problem some of the unsourceable details about his career that were in the earlier version? Needs clarification. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's one in the morning in Jehochman's time zone. So he probably isn't available to answer that right now. Was it only a citation to The Register that he removed? It's a long page to scour and you're more familiar with it. Durova^Charge! 04:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If the recreated page is turned into an attack page, I predict the editors who are responsible will be blocked by somebody else. It won't be me doing the blocking, but I am pretty confident that an uninvolved administrator can be found to review the evidence if a block is called for. Jehochman ^Talk 11:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is 1 AM here too... :). Anyways, I can't tell since he deleted the offending edits [2]. But I believe that was the only material in question. I do of course understand the late hour and don't have any issue waiting for his clarification. (Indeed, I sent him a note. I still see this ANI thread as unnecessary). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is developing news. That's not the only thing it is, but it certainly is that. Do you have an analysis of the numbered questions, please? Durova^Charge! 04:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just developing news. Here are a few of the sources that Google News search comes up wit (the first 10 or so predating the latest controversy):

• 1) [3] Fox News
• 2) [4] The Guardian
• 3) Time/CNN [5]
• 4) [6] The Independent
• 5)The Argus [7]
• 6) Wood and Vale [8]
• 7)Westminster’s Icelandic folly - PressDisplay.com - Oct 13, 2008 has a story on him.
• 8) Westminster affordable housing row

PlanningResource - PlanningResource (subscription) - Oct 23, 2008 Labour member of the committee Cllr David Boothroyd, has branded the move as “a smash and grab raid”. He said: "So many people are waiting for transfer to a ...

• 9) Local elections good for gay Labour

PinkNews.co.uk - May 5, 2006 Gay councillors, Matt Cooke and Alan Dobbie held seats in Labour controlled Haringey and David Boothroyd held his in Westminster.

• 10) And then of course there's the very substantial coverage AFTER his latest controversy [9], [10] Daily Mail
• 11) The Register [11]

And then there are other stories that I'm not sure are related. There are several tech stories. Is he David Boothroyd, Contributing Editor to Vision Systems Design? Does he write on wireless standards?

And I understand he's also an author. So there's more notability based on his book and writings and presumably more sources available on Google Books.

And to answer your other questions, Jehochman needs to stop acting unilaterally and in haste. And other veteran editors need to stop covering this up and maintain what's left of our integrity by doing what's right. There's no need for userspace recreations, because the article should be recreated in main space and protected with a couple sentences covering the latest issues so we can all get back to editing and expanding the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Childofmidnight, those are all very interesting sources. Would you move them out of this subsection to the previous subsection please? For purposes of this subthread, all we really need to determine is that at least one of the new sources is reliable. We're already there. The second question is whether it's ok for users to recreate BLPs in user space after they've been deleted. And looking into this a little more, there's also a subquestion: if it's ok to do this in userspace, are editors prohibited from starting work before DRV? Durova^Charge! 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I can answer questions 1 and 3, Durova. Question 1, yes, the Daily Mail (second most-circulated paper in the nation) and Independent (a past top British Press Awards recipient) are both ironclad reliable sources. We use the Register as a source in the Essjay controversy article so I am assuming it is fine. TAway (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Question 3: I was incorrectly blocked by Jehochman for "WP:POINT violations" for having the article (entirely sourced) in my userspace (it was in my user space prior to his inappropriate speedy deletion, but he claimed I had restored it post-deletion), and only unblocked if "you will not restore this content anywhere on Wikipedia." When the article was userfied to JoshuaZ's userspace, Jehochman appeared and re-deleted, then selectively restored revisions without the Sam Blacketer controversy material saying, "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Deleted revisions were improperly restored" (it was not unsourced, and only "negative" in that it certainly reflects poorly) and "blocks will be issued if same old problems are reinstated." He then left a message on the userfied article's talk page making clear what he had done: "there were a bunch of WP:BLP problems in the deleted history. These were accidentally restored. I have deleted and selectively restored revisions I think may be acceptable."

Let's face it, had the evenly split post-speedy-deletion discussion at the Boothroyd deletion review been allowed to take place as a normal 7-day Article for Deletion it would have been a clear "no consensus" outcome. He has used his ability to speedy-delete and thus force DRV discussion instead of AfD discussion to claim that the book on this issue is now closed. He completely ignored administrator User:SoWhy's attempt to approach him on the matter and instead dismissively pointed to the DRV. By my count, three sysops (SoWhy, Sandstein, and now DGG) have commented with concerns about his protective and anti-consensus behavior during the developing Boothroyd situation.

Jehochman has openly stated "our website with its search-ranking-fu does not need to be made available to those who wish to amplify his (David Boothroyd's) problems" (assuming bad faith of those who hold the story with its coverage to be verifiable and notable). It is my contention that Jehochman is a search engine optimization expert who wants to keep the story out of the search engine results for the sake of Wikipedia and Boothroyd's reputations both. He is obviously about as far from a neutral broker of the Boothroyd situation as one can get right now and is in fact editing with a declared agenda: to minimize the search engine imprint of this story. His actions during AfD (speedying a deletion and denying a full AfD despite substantial new media coverage of a new development) and actions to suppress development of the issue's media coverage on-wiki via blocks and block threats are censorship. TAway (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, let's not rush to conclusions here. Or at least please excuse the ignorance of an editor who doesn't spend much time at AFD. In good faith, Jehochman might have been thinking of the editors David Boothroyd had voted to ban during his time as an arbitrator, who might add frivolous accusations to the substantial material. A portion of editors believe in being generous with courtesy deletions upon the subject's request. Regarding the block of May 27, could people who are familiar with AfD standards comment on the practice of recreating a BLP in userspace before DRV gets underway? Is that an ok thing to do? Durova^Charge! 05:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not enough in the way of precedent. If it were an unambiguous attack page then recreation in userspace would have clearly been blockable. However, the deletion reason seems to be primarily BLP1E which is not sufficient reason generally to argue against a userspace recreation. I'm not aware of any similar block occasions for such more or less borderline situations such as BLP1E, or courtesy deletion requests. (There may have also been a GFDL violation in TAQway's actions but I'm not sure). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm leaving a whole mess of things to the side here and just offering my own view on Durova's second question. As a matter of commonsense, if we in fact do courtesy deletions of not-well-known BLPs (as has happened here) then it strikes me as the acme of foolishness to turn around and allow recreation of said BLP - even in a different form - in userspace. Leaving the specifics of this case to the side, let's think of this from the perspective of the subject of a theoretical article similar to the one we are discussing. The article subject comes to us and says, "Hey, I'm a local politician in Topeka, KS who is barely notable and I don't want a Wiki bio because I'm worried about defamation and having an article about me is not important for Wikipedia/the world, so can you delete it?" We say yes and then do so, but then we allow an editor to develop a new article in user space, presumably for the purpose of one day importing it into article space (otherwise why would would it be there?). At a basic level that strikes me as illogical, and I think the BLP subject in question would be understandably agog that we deleted it and then let it be created again in some other part of Wikipedia for it to be worked on and then maybe moved back into article space later. The particulars of this case are more complex (and I'm intentionally ignoring them to make a general point), but personally I feel "our general practice on userspace recreations of courtesy deleted biographies" has to be "we don't do that." If not then courtesy deletion is effectively meaningless. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, couldn't userspace be noindexed? The DRV closer in this instance specifically allowed userspace drafts with a time limit. So the post-DRV recreation seems ok. Not sure about the other one. Striking for now. Need to reverify: thought that was written, but having trouble finding it. Durova^Charge! 05:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I suppose that helps, to the extent that average people know what "noindexed" means and/or are comforted by some techie's explanation of it (I barely know what it means, to be honest). Again I'm just thinking about this from the perspective of a the subject of the BLP who asks for deletion—presumably (most of the time) a person who is not familiar with Wikipedia or even maybe the workings of the series of tubes in which this web site lives. If we say, "Sure, we'll delete that!" and then in following up the person in question somehow sees (maybe on the talk page of the admin who did the deletion) that the article we just deleted has been recreated at some random user's user page....well let's just say it probably wouldn't be fun to respond to that OTRS ticket. The moral component of our BLP policy is (or should be) as much about perceived harm as actual harm—i.e. if a BLP subject says "I'm an unimportant person and this article has done and/or might do me harm" we probably are not going to fight with them about that but rather will largely take their word. Similarly I would not want to get in a conversation/argument with such a person about how they don't have to worry because it's in userspace which is "different," something something something "noindexing," etc. etc. And it still doesn't deal with the fact that an article in userspace is, by definition, something that is being worked on to be put in article space, otherwise we wouldn't have it there in userspace.

          Like I said there are different aspects to this particular discussion that might complicate matters, but in general I really cannot imagine a compelling argument for saying we can delete a BLP based on a real life request from an article subject and then turn around and put it in user space to work on it so we can later re-create the article we just deleted. In all seriousness I might be missing something but that strikes me as the rub of the matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

          • What you are missing: that almost immediately after Boothroyd's deletion request he became the subject of national media attention. National media attention in multiple sources completely changes the ballgame. TAway (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Like I said above, "Like I said there are different aspects to this particular discussion that might complicate matters..." This case might be slightly different for the reason you suggest (though this supposed "national media attention" seems, at a glance, to be quite minimal). My two previous comments gave my view on Durova's general question about userfying BLP articles that have been courtesy deleted rather than engaging with the specifics of this situation. I think it's obvious that userfying BLP articles that have been courtesy deleted is, as a rule, a definite bad idea. Perhaps this is an exception or perhaps not, but if it's the former I think it would be a very rare one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
            • 3 years 9 months is not "almost immediately". M. Boothroyd asked for the article to be deleted on the 8th of August 2005. This is one of the errors of fact upon which you have built your house of cards. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The content related to the recent scandal can be added to Criticism of Wikipedia, as there are reliable sources. My concern about the biography is that it was, and would be if recreated, a serious WP:BLP1E violation. We cannot write a biography based on a person being involved in one event when there is very thin coverage of the rest of their life. Unless there is enough substance to the rest of the person's life, the scandal would have undue weight. That's the problem. A public figure, like Chris Dodd can have some scandal content in their biography because there is enough substance to provide balance.

I'd very much like an answer to the question of whether it is kosher to userify a deleted WP:BLP. My initial feeling was against undeletion, but I did not outright delete the article again because I wanted more input, and did not want to generate more shrill comments about coverup. I did delete selected revisions which either 1/ I recalled having been previously deleted by other administrators before I ever set eyes on the article, or 2/ represented WP:BLP1E violations that had been discussed, and the deletion of which had been sustained at WP:DRV. Basically, I think the undeleting administrator was not fully aware of those circumstances and would not disagree with what I did. Jehochman ^Talk 10:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On a side note: Jehochman involved admin?

Another problem to ponder, which I have so far not considered, but which strikes me now is this: If Jehochman closed the second AFD as delete (very quickly without the usual 24h SNOW waiting period that admins usually apply), doesn't this mean he is now involved? Imho SNOW, unlike consensus judging, requires an admin to decide that deletion is the correct thing to do. SNOW is an interpretation of WP:IAR as we all know and IAR requires a decision by the one applying it, i.e. one should only ignore the rules if they think it's best for the project. But if SNOW/IAR requires such a decision, it means the person ignoring the rules (here the SNOWing admin) has effectively taken a stance on the issue. But if they have taken a stance on the issue by doing so, they are now to be considered an involved administrator and should not take administrator actions regarding the same subject again, especially not closing a new AFD (like the third one) or selectively deleting revisions of the userfied article) based on said close. Opinions? Regards SoWhy 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Trying to solve a difficult problem does not disqualify somebody from continuing to try to solve that problem. You can't just scream "involved!" to get rid of an administrator who disagrees with your point of view. Most of the revisions I deleted had been previously deleted (as best I can remember) before I was ever aware of the article. When the article was userified, I don't think it was the administrators intention to restore those revisions. They included some edits by the HAGGER vandal, for example. I also removed the WP:BLP1E violation that was the immediate cause of the article being deleted (which was upheld at WP:DRV). Jehochman ^Talk 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand that you probably do not view yourself as an involved administrator while I think in the spirit of the reasons you cited on your first close that you were from then on, now having an opinion about what should stay and what should be deleted. A deletion by an involved administrator can be upheld, so pointing at DRV is not really an argument. But my posting was a question to those not involved in the issue at all (unlike you and me) whether my interpretation of IAR/SNOW leading to a seperate decision and thus more than just being judgment of consensus is correct, so I'd like to invite those people to consider this thought/problem (regardless of the issue at hand if possible).

    From you I'd like to request that you recuse yourself from taking any further administrative action towards this article (userfied or not) and allow an administrator previously not involved in the issue at hand to decide the further fate of the article (you can tag it for speedy deletion as G4 for example and someone will make a decision). It would serve both you and the project as a whole if any rumors of whitewashing can be avoided and not having the same admin repeatedly deleting an article is imho a way to achieve this. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    • I'd be happy to have nothing else to do with this stinking mess if an uninvolved administrator would step forward and promise to keep an eye on it. Whatever leads to the smoothest operation of the project is fine with me. Jehochman ^Talk 10:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• My opinion is that this side-issue that you have created only serves to confuse, not to enlighten. The specifics of the case at hand are that the userfied edits that were deleted, as you can see for yourself, with the sole exception of TAway's contributions were all BLP vandalism making various libellous statements about the subject's sex life and sexual orientation. Abstract notions of "involvement" are irrelevant to that, and only serve to further muddy waters already muddied quite a lot above. If an abstract notion prevents someone from reversing/removing an edit where a BLP has been replaced with the word "cunt" (the one piece of vandalism here that I think to be safe to explicitly describe) then the abstract notion is directly enabling the existence of damage to the project. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Applying some simple logic here from my simple mind: (1) If this guy Boothroyd is notable, then he could qualify for a bio article. If not, then delete it. (2) If his own life and career are affected by his abuse of wikipedia, then it could merit a sentence or two. If not, then it doesn't belong in his article. That's not to say it might not belong elsewhere, such as the Criticism of Wikipedia article, as it illustrates some of the flaws in wikipedia's premise, which have been exploited by many, not just that one guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Jehochman involved 'now'?

It's a simple test.

The level of involvement is simple to determine: is there consensus that Jehochman is involved now? If so, he is, and can't use the tools again without risk of the usual risks that come with that. If there isn't consensus he's involved, he's not. If it is gray or borderline, you probably are. It's fairly simple, everyone. Make your case either way with evidence, or stop alluding to it. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• My case is above. It's an irrelevant side-issue given the actual specifics here, and extra section headings don't change that. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know, I was just emphasizing that if someone thinks he's involved to just spit it out already with a valid reasoning or evidence, rather than us wasting time more on that bit. I'm actually with you on this. rootology (C)(T) 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability of the event in the context of the rest of him and BLP

This is getting pointless in particular. If he's notable, he's notable. If he's not, he's not. You either are, or you aren't. The sourcing IMHO is beginning to look like he is. I will say again what I said before: the fact Boothroyd is or isn't a Wikipedia user is 100% irrelevant in anything. The fact he screwed up here has zero value in any decisions we make. If the Wikipedia Event he caused gets coverage, there is no BLP violation at the least a one-sentence mention of it, relative to what has been reported so far. None. To totally suppress it from David Boothroyd, should it be created, is laughable and not a defense of anything under BLP, but a defense of a Wikipedia user. Given that it's a single notable event in the life of an apparently notable person's diverse biography (and yes, it looks like as a politician he is notable) a one-sentence mention is not harmful. If the news and the event is harmful as an event to the person, that's not our fault; like any other embarrassing event, he regrettably brougnt it upon himself and it's in the press already. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the process for restoring an article after it has been to deletion review and the deletion was sustained? WP:DRVRV seems to be a redlink. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no process, as far as I am aware. An article on Boothroyd can be recreated, but like a case involving just an AFD, it must not fall foul of the reasons why the original article was deleted, otherwise it can be speedily deleted. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Typically, someone does a noindex userpage draft, gets a working model that would 'pass' AFD trivially, and brings it back to DRV. If When DRV signs off, someone kicks it back live, and sometimes the old history is merged in (if old content is used) otherwise, new history. Since the draft in Josh's side is used, the history needs to be merged in fully I think when it goes live eventually. Given Boothroyd is a notable politician in the UK that is apparently even getting all over the news for events unrelated to Wikipedia after that mess, I think it's inevitable. rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As rootology says. Although, if one thinks the closing admin of the DRV made a mistake in judging consensus, DRV should be the right avenue to contest this as well, although it usually is brought to AN or ANI. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked from if>when DRV, any article that would trivially pass AFD can't under policy fail DRV (politics, social reasons, sure, but we can't judge content inclusion based on such factors outside of policy). 0:) rootology (C)(T) 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yea, I don't think this was a request to overrule the DRV. Rather a comment about how BLP is being used here as a means to suppress unfavorable information. For example, this threat to block over the reintroduction of the WP controversy is completely inappropriate. This is not a BLP issue, and citing BLP where it doesn't apply does the project no favors. لennavecia 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I said, Recreation in the same form is potentially a blockable action, or perhaps the article will just be deleted again. I really hope it does not get to that point. Not sure I'm seeing a threat there as much as a statement of fact or a warning. I'm not going to block anybody or delete anything further, as this issue is now on the radar of multiple administrators. At the moment I am digging through the deleted edits and some other history where I've found multiple accounts and IPs that appear to be connected to an infamous banned editor. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether David Boothroyd should be a red or blue link, but it's odd to suggest that there are not BLP issues here. Leave all of the Wikipedia stuff to the side for a minute. The subject of the article requested deletion—once four years ago (I think before we did that kind of thing, i.e. courtesy deletions) and once more recently. Regardless of how big of a deal this recent controversy is (and I think it's not nearly as big of a deal as some suggest—as of now there are a whopping seven news articles on the issue that I can find, few of which seem to contain any original reporting), Boothroyd is most definitely "relatively unknown" in my view. I'm not sure what the current thinking on deleting BLPs at the request of such subjects is at this point, but in the past my understanding was that this was something that is acceptable and somewhat up to admin discussion per various ArbCom rulings. Maybe the consensus now on this particular case is that there is too much coverage now to not have an article on Boothroyd, but let's not lose sight of the fact that: A) the subject has repeatedly requested deletion; B) the key subject matter can easily be covered elsewhere (since the key subject matter is the Wiki controversy, not the fact that he is a local politician, of whom there are hundreds of thousand across the world); C) BLP is something we all obviously care about—even when it comes to Wikipedians who have articles. To suggest that there is no BLP issue here at all is just bizarre in my view, and I think it would be easier to see that were there not concerns about a coverup of information relating to Wikipedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I already commented in the MfD of the userspace draft, which didn't look at all like a NOINDEX draft to work on a better article, but a parking place for the article because it had been deleted at AfD against his own opinion. I already commented on the MfD about how the sources before the wikipedia "incident" only quote him to show the opinion of a member of the Westminster Council, and how he didn't take any of those controversial decisions himself, it was the council that made them. TAway can make as many claims of censorship in his user page as he wants, but those are not supported by evidence, since both the MfD and the DRV were closed by uninvolved admins. Sooo, I'd suggest that is marked as resolved and that TAway heads to WP:DRV to contest the DRV close, and that trying other noticeboards should be considered forum-shopping (and give him +1 kudos of unnecessary drama for every claim of censorship that he makes, please). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe another Essjay-type scandal

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

Resolved

 – Not going anywhere productive, no administrative actions are required here, and this is not an "incident" ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

With the already existing coverage of the Sam Blacketer controversy in the media, and on Wikipedia in the form of the relevant article and various discussions such as a large one currently going on above, the apparent news that The Times is preparing a new piece on what's happened and with ABC having caught wind of the story, I'm concerned this controversy may escalate into something, whilst probably not as grand as what happened with Essjay, rather bad. What should we do if this happens? OpenSeven (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a new and weak project anymore. It needs not shake over any possible negative mention in media.

Just do as instructed in Yes Minister, and everything will be fine. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's great if the media wants to cover sock puppetry. This sort of problem is a big issue for many websites, not just Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As a criticism of wikipedia, all it proves is that being totally open to the public can bite you, and that wikipedia might need to become more restrictive, maybe not as restrictive as citizendium, but maybe some steps in that direction. This so-called "scandal" only shames the sockpuppet, not wikipedia. But it should be a wakeup call to tighten the reins a bit, somehow. I wonder what Wales' take is on all this? Has anyone asked him? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked... shocked to hear that sockpuppets have been editing en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We could rename it "shockpuppetry". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And every time we see it happen, it's a case of shock and 'Aw, damn...' HalfShadow 16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the politicos and mainstream media have taken a fancy to this controversy. The Daily Mail report a few breathtaking inaccuracies, but this goes a long way toward making this situation a lot more complicated. Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, they're lambasting Boothroyd (fancy the newspapers chastising Labour party members...) much, much more than they are Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 16:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As if he's the only one to have done it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Still, at least they're aiming at the right target; this is the fault of the editor, not the site. HalfShadow 16:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If he's suffering slings and arrows in real life, it's a fitting punishment, although it still doesn't make him notable enough for his own page. It could be a footnote in the Criticism article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fitting punishment? Gross. Who elected you, or indeed any of us, judge and jury? The user known as Sam Blacketer clearly erred here, but it was hardly the most dastardly thing we've ever seen on Wikipedia, and now the real-life person might be facing very real-life consequences based in part on some unsurprisingly sloppy reporting by a British tabloid. I hardly think that's something to celebrate, and a bit more sympathy for the actual living person affected by this - regardless of mistakes they made - would be appropriate (and I say this as someone who has never interacted with the person in question on Wikipedia or anywhere else). This isn't a goddamn video game, and this discussion is rapidly moving in an unseemly direction with little regard for real-world consequences. If there is continuing coverage then presumably Sam Blacketer controversy or something similar will stay an article and we'll talk about this situation there. All I see here right now is unhelpful, and not very thoughtful, speculation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam is going to initiate an admin recall of himself on June 15. Do people think his adminship should go? OpenSeven (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not an 'Incident' and it doesn't require administrators' technical action. Closing, there are other venues for this, if it must go on at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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

David Boothroyd deletion - do we have a process or not?

One of the most annoying things about the Wikipedia community is the desire to have instant outcomes when we are supposed to be deliberating thoughtfully. We can see this at Articles for Deletion, where the guideline says:

When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly.

This rarely comes into practice. The idea that we discuss whether to delete an article for a length of seven days is pretty much non-existent. Case-in-point: the recent AFD for David Boothroyd. There were three for this article as follows:

1. First AFD on August 8-August 14, 2005 - 7 days, KEEP - 10 votes total
2. Second AFD on May 23-May 23, 2009 - not even one day. DELETE - 6 votes total
3. Third AFD on May 27-May27, 2009 - not even one day. DELETE - 7 votes total

There is no way--no way--those last two deletion discussions should have been closed on the same days that they were opened. The third one was open for an hour and a half. The second one for less than that! The admins closing and deleting under these circumstances are derelict in the guidelines that this community has set up. If there were problems with the articles, they could be addressed. This is a very problematic trend for people to enact WP:SNOW, often not even citing it, to close off debate. Censorship, indeed. -->David Shankbone 17:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should have run the full period, and yes it was, in my view at least, a mistake to cut it off after one day, and yes it is annoying when we don't deliberate thoughtfully. Jehochman could have handled this better. But crying "censorship" is a major failure to assume good faith and is not really borne out by the facts. In both AFDs Jehochman cited BLP enforcement as his rationale and I see no reason to not take him at his word on that (i.e. I think he had good intentions here), particularly as the article subject requested deletion (twice actually, counting four years ago). We do do, or at least have done, deletions of marginal BLPs when subjects request them, and I think the real issue here is whether or not that was appropriate in this case. If you want thoughtful deliberation, let's stick to that rather than making unfounded accusations of censorship.

Also, there's a very related AfD still running and I have a feeling the Boothroyd issue will be resolved over there eventually. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was userfied to User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. —EncMstr (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares that Boothroyd asked for his article to be deleted, just like we don't care that Don Murphy wants his deleted (also for BLP concerns). It's irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, this is Wikipedia self-censorship, removing articles about incidents that cause us embarrassment. The article existed for four years after a seven-day long deletion discussion. The last two AFDs are completely illegitimate. They weren't open for one day. They were open for less than two hours. There is no possible way that we gained any consensus in that time frame, especially given that there was consensus reached to KEEP when the process was done properly. Admins have to follow the guidelines we set up, and not go around deleting articles based upon their own judgment. I take extreme issue with Jehochman over how he has conducted himself with these AFDs. There is no AGF when our governing policies and guidelines are shirked so heinously. -->David Shankbone 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I concur that the two last AFDs were closed too soon. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review is that way. I don't think getting worked up about "censorship" issues is very constructive at this point; if these closures were outside of process or otherwise erroneous, then they should be reviewed by the normal process, not at this noticeboard. Shereth 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong - this is an admin issue about not following guidelines, procedures and policies. DRV is separate. -->David Shankbone 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the larger issue of percieved malfeasance by one editor is a seperate issue from the deletions themselves, but the above statements seem to be conflating them. The closure of these discussions has already been mentioned in the deliberation about the larger issue at hand; I'm not sure what this new subsection is adding to the argument. It reads more like a request to review the closures rather than contribute to the discussion about a user's behavior. Shereth 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Like you David I don't agree with the last two AFDs, as I already said. But also bear in mind that Boothroyd asked that the article be deleted back in 2005 in the first AFD, well before any of this stuff went down. At the very least, there is a split in the community about whether we do courtesy deletions of BLPs when the subject requests it, and when the subject is of marginal notability. Don Murphy is not marginal because he produced a massively successful Hollywood film and someone wrote a book significantly about him, Boothroyd is marginal because he is a local politician who has recently achieved some (at this point) minor notoriety for one incident. We can debate about whether we should take the subject's wishes into account in the latter circumstance or not, and we can agree that Jehochman did not handle the AFDs well (though I'm less concerned by that than you are apparently), but don't pretend that "nobody cares that Boothroyd asked for his article to be deleted" because some people clearly do, and because we have done subject-requested deletions before (though I don't have an example at hand). There is a larger BLP debate here which remains unresolved, but things like WP:BLPBAN and the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom suggest that Jehochman's actions were not completely off-the-wall. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion at WP:DRV, at least a week, and the deletion was sustained. How many more discussions are needed? Why don't we just let the matter lie for a few weeks and then see if there are enough sources to write a proper article? What's the rush? Wikipedia is not news, and if you want to write news, try WikiNews. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are WP:SNOW closures even permitted? What is the point of establishing policy if nobody is required to follow them, or even remarked on when they don't? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've tried Wikinews; an article that was around for four years after a KEEP AFD, and whose subject only became more notable recently, is a problem for you to delete in under two hours, Jehochman. I don't see how you could possibly defend your actions here. It's a slap in the face to the community that has given you trust to follow how we write how things will happen. -->David Shankbone 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that way than take this to another level of dispute resolution, but please have a bit of respect for the BLP issue, which is clearly present, and by which these actions are at least somewhat defensible. You seem to be plowing right past that (along with some others). This is a fairly complex situation (particularly as its literally still unfolding in the news and in an active AfD), and I'm skeptical of anyone who tries to make it sound simple. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bigtime, I see no BLP issues mentioned in this thread that would excuse this behavior. If I want to discuss article content, I will do so at DRV or on the article Talk page. Yes, I think it's irrelevant that the subject wants their article deleted (or doesn't want the New York Times to write that story about them, etc.), and I always have (but I also think FlaggedRevs is long overdue). Here, the issue is with Jehochman deleting, twice, in under two hours, an article that was previously kept--strongly--by consensus. This is not the way we do things. -->David Shankbone 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That first RfD, 4 years ago, was hardly a ringing endorsement. Notability questions arose even then. After that, the article skated mostly under the radar for nearly 4 years, with only about 80 or 85 edits during that interval. Once the user got himself in trouble and that became public knowledge, then there was a revived move to delete it. You can claim wikipedia is protecting itself, but it's actually that guy who is shamed, not wikipedia, and making a big thing out of it in his article raises questions of BLP violations; undue weight; coatracking; and, frankly, wikipedian narcissim. Unfortunately, the quick closure of the RfD's looks fishy. But the DRV was open for a week, so there was ample opportunity to defend the article. It did not, and does not, belong here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several highly problematic deleted edits to that article by Grawp. The situation here is more complex than meets the eye. I've got a checkuser working on this. Jehochman ^Talk 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman has asked me to inform the community that he and I have had prior conflict. That said, questions about the above comment: were the edits to that article substantially more problematic than edits to other borderline notability BLPs that get a spurt of negative attention in the press? Durova^Charge! 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are edits in the history that are as problematic as edits can get. As in, worst I've seen on Wikipedia. This article is a very high risk of doing serious harm to the subject. You've seen the sloppy reporting at The Register and the Daily Mail. Do you want to pick up one of those papers tomorrow and see them repeating an unsubstantiated allegation of pedophilia or bestiality? I know for absolute certainty that Grawp has edited this article at least twice, and there are a bunch of other edits that appear to be coming from his sock puppets or friends. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The normal way of handling AFD vandalism is semiprotect, watchlist, and ask for assistance at ANI to deal with remaining vandalism. Isn't that true? BTW there's a question at my user talk also. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• So...you close two AFDs when they've barely been opened instead of asking for oversight? -->David Shankbone 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy is ongoing in case people want to debate whether the content should be in Wikipedia and where it should go. I don't think WP:ANI is the correct venue to resolve content disputes. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

JE, even if there were BLP problems, you could have removed those problems and allowed the AFDs to proceed. Do you or do you not see why your closing two AFDs, in the midst of recent news events, is a problem that violated your responsibilities as an admin, when you should have followed the guidelines and just removed problematic material from the article? -->David Shankbone 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole point of closing the third AFD according the WP:STEAM was done to force a DRV which by default deletes where an AFD keeps. On a whole this is a matter of admin conduct and not anymore about if DB should have an article or not. Agathoclea (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agathoclea has hit the nail on the head with this comment. A 50-50 no consensus AfD defaults to keep, but the same at DRV defers to the deleting administrator. Why can we not have a normal, 7-day AfD discussion on a public figure who has and continues to be covered extensively in the press? TAway (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not about a content dispute, Jehochman. This is about your involvement in manipulating the encyclopedia via

1. speedily deleting out of process twice in a row
2. incorrectly blocking with false rationale
3. threatening editors with blocks
4. selectively restoring versions without certain reliably sourced content
5. wiki-lawyering editors out of a real AfD by throwing DRV in their faces
6. trying to change the BLP and Speedy deletion policies to accommodate and validate your actions

to (by our own admission as a search engine optimization expert) obscure search engine results. You were approached by other uninvolved editors (including another sysop) over these past several days and ignored them, so it is now here where it cannot be ignored. TAway (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread needs to be clarified. Expressions of concern about Hockman's conduct belong at certain forums, and debate over the articles' existence or non-existence belongs at certain other forums. As of now, this discussion is an unproductive amalgamation of the two. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they belong together. Because if there was no debate over the article's existence, there would be no debate over its allegedly too-rapid deletion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I still disagree. We have AfD for a reason. And we have <a large number of abuse forums> for allegations of administrator abuse (not that I'm asserting this has happened here, but it's the fact of the matter). To assert there should be unnecessary and encouraged cross-over is not tackling the situation properly. Of course, the problems with Jehockman's response to the content might be referenced in some discussion about Jehockman's conduct, but we should separate talk of the content itself where possible. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Anonymous Dissident. The opening poster raised admin conduct issues, and it was necessary to ask questions about process and policy in order to explore that. Was a bit hard to keep that on-focus. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes feel that Durova has a longstanding grudge against me. I'd really appreciate if she stopped engaging in dispute intensification. Durova, how about you stop commenting on me. There are plenty of other editors who can provide useful feedback, when needed. Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• My initial reasons for starting this thread were 1) to express extreme dissatisfaction with Jehochman's premature closures of the AfDs; 2) to express discontent that our rules of governance were not followed with a "hot" issue; and 3) to raise the larger problem of way, way too many WP:SNOW closures on AFD. On Durova's talk page, Jehochman expressed regret over how he handled the early closures, and it's my opinion that he did so with only good, if misguided, intentions. He would not repeat these actions. That he had good intentions, and would not repeat, is good enough for me to feel that continuing the pile-on is WP:STICK. -->David Shankbone 20:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, David. To give credit where due, Durova above suggested protection as a better solution to the problem, and I think that is good advice. Jehochman ^Talk 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, David, I just discovered this thread and feel like I should pile on. This happens when admins don't follow process. I'm really annoyed with those of us, like Jehochman, who occasionally believe that they don't have to follow process because they know better. (Although I may have been guilty of this once or twice, too.) Seriously, AfDs are supposed to run for seven days. If the first or even the second one had been allowed to, or if DRV contributors had remembered that it is DRV's job to examine violations of process exclusively and restarted the AfD, we would not have this drama. What we should consider is a rule, similar to WP:DP#NAC, whereby any premature AfD closure can be undone and the AfD relisted by any other administrator.  Sandstein  18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A reminder

While it may be fun to devote time to drama about Jehochman's actions, editors who wish there to be a Boothroyd article are better served trying to work on actually improving the draft. I'm not at all convinced there should be an article but every pair of hands helps make it better. There are now roughly 6 days remaining until this is going to go to the community for some form of decision. Effort should be made into allowing the community to make that decision with the best possible version of an article on Boothroyd, not in bickering. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but I've been told by Jehochman that he will block me again if I "restore this content anywhere on Wikipedia." It is not "drama" when a user has been blocked for developing content and told they will be blocked again for continuing anywhere else on the project. Will he rescind his threat and agree to recuse himself from taking actions against editors working on the Boothroyd article? TAway (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that I'm not going to involve myself further in this matter. I am happy to let others deal with it. Please mind WP:BLP and other relevant policies. Before moving that article into mainspace, get some sort of community consensus to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recusal is too late. The damage is already done. The draft you thought could not possibly exist won't now get the same attention in obscure user-space for improvement as a proper AFD'd article would have, and due to the massive amounts of half-truths and smoke and mirrors already put out there over this article and its previous histories and 'precedents' at AFD/DRV, any future attempt at resurrection (presumably at DRV?), is just going to resemble nothing more than a procession, fed by ignorance. Too late. Far too late. The job is well and truly done and dusted. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Stalking and Harrassment of Nassim Taleb by Ulner

I am a connected to the Taleb family (Nassim Nicholas Taleb) whose living biography wikipedia is handling; I only act to correct distortions and harrassment and do not add new material. I would like to report userUlner as obsessed with Taleb and making every single change possible on every item and bickering, in a way that exhibits web stalking of a living person, causing much DISTRESS to Taleb's family. I would like to seek Ulner refrain from further harassment of Taleb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC) IbnAmioun (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with User:Ulner? I don't see any messages on their talk page, but I may be missing something. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered that you might have a WP:COI conflict of interest and that maybe you shouldn't be involved with the Taleb articles? Who cares about minor misrepresentations on wikipedia? They hardly matter but having someone so dedicated to observe your articles sorta raises the suspicions of users that there really might be something unwritten worth knowing regarding the matter. Anyway I'll be keeping a closer eye on Taleb related articles from now on.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

194x144, that wasn't entirely helpful. Please WP:AGF

IbnAmioun - Also, please assume good faith about other contributors. You seem to be reacting very defensively to other editors who want to help improve the article. I've reviewed a dozen or so changes and none of them seem to be abusive or vandalism. If you have specific examples that you're concerned about, either on the article or the talk pages, please provide them here.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the help. My problem with User:Ulner is that he seems obsessed (to make 50 entries in such a short span betrays obsession) and he bickers over the smallest thing as he is doing now --any small detail seems to be a stumble to him. There is no problem if you have editors going back and forth on a point but you should realize that someone FROM THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE INDUSTRY (of which Taleb is extremely critical) making 50 edits on a living person without others intervening can be extremely distorting. IbnAmioun (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This basically seems to be a content dispute at Nassim Nicholas Taleb. That article seems over-written, and might be trimmed down a bit. It is a bit laudatory; the guy tanked two hedge funds with his strategy, but that's not mentioned. (His basic concept was kind of cute - buy options on both sides that are way out of the money, on the theory that the market underprices options far from the current price. This pays off when something drastic happens, and bleeds money when markets are relatively stable. Hence his paper "Bleed or Blowup", and his "Black Swan" book.) This needs attention from someone who understands derivative strategies. Is there a laid-off quant in the house? --John Nagle (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The trading strategies are marginal to Taleb thought books and papers. While Taleb published a cherished book about options 12 years ago, his later two books (Fooled by randomness and The Black Swan) are about knowledge, science and making decisions in life. He is mostly known for his books. His sceintific works are also much about knowledge extremem events and risk, and rarely touches the hedge fund strategy. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The situation is far more serious than you think. Taleb and the Taleb family has been getting threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB. These threats have been reported in the WSJ journal. <ref.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457658749086809.html?mod=rss_topics_davos#articleTabs%3Darticle</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 08:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the following text from the talk page of Taleb to be a personal attack in violation of Wikipedia policy: "The harassment situation is far more serious than you think, which is why we worry about such obsessive users as Ulner . Taleb and the Taleb family has been getting threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB. These threats have been reported in the WSJ journal.". Ulner (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

IbnAmioun seems to be making legal threats on the Nassim Nicholas Taleb talk page: "You should look at the consequences of obsessive stalking a character" [12], and "When someone like Ulner spends his ENTIRE time obsessed with a subject, this raises issues of stalking that may play a role in a COURT of LAW". [13] He's also accusing the other user of mental disorders. --Anderssl (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Discussed above somewhere.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Legal threats on talk page of Taleb" and "Stalking and Harrassment of Nassim Taleb by Ulner" are the two I see at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry, my bad. There was no notice of this at the talk page of the article, so I didn't realize this was already being discussed here. --Anderssl (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Threats from associates of Taleb are apparently a known problem. See [14], where J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., a well-known economist, describes his run-in with Taleb and his supporters. Some short-term blocks may be in order here. --John Nagle (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated unprofessional administrator conduct.

Recently I was banned for 24 hours for incorrectly posting to the wrong notice board personal attacks on me and edit warring on the Talk:Ayn Rand. At least two other high level administrators pointed out that the action of me being banned was questionable. It pissed me off enough to believe that wikipedia is corrupt. Enough to get me to retire. Now when a Professor whom I am an fan of and have no connection with in my personal life gets another set of Axe to Grind harrassing Editors on his article when I comment on the inappropriateness of their conduct. Not they, but me get a singled out of the blue with a completely erronious comment posted on my talkpage. 1.[15]

For the comment above and as a by product of my past banning, I have went and attempted to address this with the administrator on his talkpage. Rather then note their oversight and actually reign in other editors who are attacking the Taleb estate rep and are incorrectly using Wikipedia policy to do it. This administrator blamed me and has and obviously will do nothing to address the inappropriate behavior even as it appears to continue. If the administrator was concerned as they claim why no more involvement in Taleb's issue? Say on the talkpage? Why was the issue allowed to be escalated to an WP:Office? Well I think that no administrator cared to stop the behavior and would rather comment at the time on mine.
I would like an apology from the administrator in question. Do not bother to blame me or attack me with for this nonsense. I have no control over administrators here in wiki. Their short sightedness and knee jerk and incorrect reactions do not belong to me as I did not have control over them and make them screw up. I would like an apology first for being blocked arrogantly and unjustifably. Also an apology in relation to the Nassim Taleb article for being separated out from pack for direct and very public criticism, for comments that where completely restrained and appropriate. Comments in hindsight that most definitely were within reason in light of recent information posted to the article.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since I don't know how to defend myself against a statement that telling him to comment on the content, not the contributors, is a threat, I'll just sit this out for now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's just bizarre. There are serious problems at Nassim Nicholas Taleb and its talk page that might use some more Admin eyes, but no apology is required here from you. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• LoveMonkey, you need to provide evidence and links and diffs. I honestly can't understand the point that you are trying to make. Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why has SarekOfVulcan singled me out and make no attempt to stop the harassment on the Taleb talkpage? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Taleb has already contacted the Wikipedia office. And yet nothing is being done to stop the harassment. Look at the ANI on this page where the editor is reporting Taleb's legal representive for Wikipedia Policy violations. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Why was I singled out? Taleb has a WSJ article about potential death threats. I post a defense that inappropriate behavior is going on by other editors on the article and I am the only one getting comments posted on their talkpage. Why? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Why has SarekOfVulcan not addressed the other editors misuse of Wiki policy to frustrate and discourage Taleb representative from posting to address their percieved harassment? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • SarekOfVulcan's note to you seems quite mild and entirely appropriate to me. Even if there were other issues with the page, if it was yours that he saw, he was right to remind you of Wikipedia behavioral expectations: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are standards which every editor is requested to follow, even if he or she feels others are not. Perhaps you did not intend it that way, but the statement that he pointed out to you seems like a very loaded one that could perhaps be paraphrased as "You must be deliberately subversive, because you can't be that stupid." Wikipedia requests that we point out the errors in somebody's reasoning, not suggest that either they have (a) deficient understanding or (b) are faking it so they can get away with something (unless we have very strong evidence, it's best to assume good faith in conversations). If Sarek had blocked you for incivility without investigating or noticing if others also needed to be addressed, that would be one thing, but a mild reminder seems well within reason. If you feel that others are harassing you, you have the same recourse to remedy as any other contributor, as set out at WP:DR. Administrators, too, are human and not all-seeing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I am requesting an explaination on how a talkpage can prompt the living breathing human being it is about to pick up the phone and call the foundation. And the only person who get commented on isn't even the target of the living persons complaint.[16] I have every right and justification to complain.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • SarekOfVulcan has done nothing to clean up the mess. Why are opposing editors allowed to misuse WP policies to attempt and silence someone's restate representative? Where is SarekOfVulcan at? Making remarks about me on my talkpage. One of the editors had already filed an ANI on here as can be seen above. Where is SarekOfVulcan's involvement. Where is his comments to them? Nowhere. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I do not know what drew SarekOfVulcan to the conversation, but unless SarekOfVulcan is the individual who received that phone call and unless he responded to an investigation only by singling out your edit specifically, I'm not sure that the two situations are related. If he has not accepted responsibility for investigating and addressing any global issues, then he is not solely responsible for addressing the BLP concerns in the article. Such concerns should be taken very seriously and investigated with due diligence, but if Sarek may be approaching your comment as a separate issue. I have read his note to you, and, again, it seems mild; it even says that your comment "is probably on the wrong side" of the proper approach in conversations instead of flatly accusing you of incivility or a personal attack. Certainly, if no other attention is paid to BLP concerns, I would see why you might be upset, but demanding it of this administrator in particular may be misguided. Perhaps if the whole situation were less emotional and you had not recently been blocked by another administrator in a way you felt unfair, Sarek's behavior here might not seem so extreme and objectionable to you? If the BLP concerns are not being addressed, they should certainly be pursued, but you might find it more productive to focus on that rather than Sarek's concerns with this one statement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • (Your repeatedly asking your question may be preventing responses. I got three consecutive edit conflicts in my attempts to answer you and would have given up if I had gotten a fourth. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
            • OK now that is exactly the reasonable and respectable response I have been seeking. I am not OK with getting called out and then having my grievences ignored or sarcastically rebuffed. THANK YOU. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I apologize about the edit conflicts I have been getting them too and they have really made me frustrated. You are an angel. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarekofvulcan seems to be the spotlight of many unsatisfied editors and complaints, Please see this for other examples of Sareks misconduct here on wikipedia. It is my honest opinion that this user should indeed not have access to any admin tools and I am going to have to file a review of conduct regarding this admin at a later time but in the meantime I'd ask you LoveMonkey Please to discontinue posting messages here for the time being and to let uninvolved administrators review your complaint in peace.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Who is this editor. Who are you to speak to the process and the policies here? Are you still keeping an eye on Taleb's representive? Are you still pursuing getting him blocked from the article or banned. For WP:Policy vios? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a little difficult to figure out from the above exactly where things are. If somebody has physically called the Wikimedia Foundation and a Wikimedia Foundation representative has indicated that they will investigate and/or deal with this, then this matter is out of the community's hands and even administrators should leave it to our legal representatives to address. Almost everyone you encounter on this page, administrator or not, is going to be a volunteer, and few of us are empowered to address concerns at that level. If, however, there has not been contact made to the Wikimedia Foundation or a Wikimedia Foundation representative has advised that the community must resolve this, it would probably be best to open a section at a forum established to address these situations, like the biographies of living persons noticeboard, if the material being introduced to the article is libelous. I have to admit that reading the notes above doesn't help me see the core issue here. If the problem is simply that a contributor is editing the article too much, I can't think of any policy we have that would forbid it, as long as (a) material meets the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, (b) the content is consistent with WP:BLP, and (c) the editor works within behavioral guidelines to build a consensus with other contributors consistent with those policies. If an editor is not meeting these three points, but is exhibiting ownership of an article, dispute resolution may be necessary (though unless material is poorly sourced contentious text, immediate admin intervention may not be). If there are concerns that material being added is libelous, it may be very helpful to point out a specific problem so that other contributors who do not know who the subject of this article is (like me) would better be able to see why there are concerns. Not knowing anything about him, I mean no disrespect when I say that even if material is negative, it's not a violation of policy if it is (a) verifiable and (b) not overly emphasized. I am very sorry if the subject of this article and his friends and family are feeling unsafe, and I hope that your concerns about the situation can be swiftly resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Since diffs have been requested, here are some that a quick review turns up:

• "Please stop making the unneccessary attacks on Ulner, he is not a stalker but working hard, in good faith, on a wikipedia article […] If you do want to contribute, please do so in a positive way - you are more than capable - and use reliable third party sources to bakc your arguments. Thank you."
• "Your pedantic wrangling is nothing but a ruse you are here to defame."
• "Do you agree with Ulner on all points there? Why are you defending him?"
• "You know what you are doing, you are all grown up and your motivations can not be masked by your seemingly deficient understanding. I bet your probably abit more then just someone with a passing interest. "
• "Please clarify why you are responding to my comments as such. It appears as if the very devil himself has materialized."
• "Please clarify why you are responding to my comments as such. It appears as if the very devil himself has materialized."
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&oldid=295584044#Your_comment_on_my_Talkpage
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&oldid=295584044#Wall_Street_Journals_comments_on_Death_Threats_to_Nassim_Taleb

This may shed some more light, here.

The actual dispute at hand in the article itself? Apparently it's over whether this person is a "writer" or "literary essayist", and whether he is a "scholar". SarekOfVulcan has no involvement in the dispute whatsoever that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nassim Taleb picked up the phone and called the foundation (or had legal rep do it) because of the dispute over him being a "writer" or "literary essayist". Gee could someone wonder why I might be frustrated at the handling of this? How does that address why Sarekofvulcan just addressed me? Did nothing before or after until I raised caine?

Anybody? This above appears to diminish the gravity of the situation? And also grossly mispresent it.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what your question is here. It seems to be, "Why was the issue allowed to be escalated to an (sic) WP:Office?" Which, we have no control over. If Taleb called the Office, that's beyond our control. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop

We have been allowing this to continue for some time, in the interest of giving those associated with Nassim Nicholas Taleb an open forum on issues related to our policy for biographical articles.

However...

LoveMonkey - you have made numerous threats and negative comments about other editors and about administrator SarekOfVulcan's involvement here. This must end immediately. Wikipedia policy is clear: you must edit in a civil and collegial manner, and personal attacks against other editors are unacceptable behavior. Editors should assume that others are working in good faith, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Comments and warnings made earlier all appear to be consistent with Wikipedia policy and in direct response to your series of threats and abusive messages.

IbnAmioun - this warning applies to you as well. You have described as threats, harrassment, or stalking edits which to others appear perfectly reasonable attempts to improve articles and follow Wikipedia policy. Attacking other editors in this manner is unacceptable behavior, and it has continued for some days.

If there are further abusive comments or personal attacks in this discussion editors will be blocked from editing briefly. This discussion cannot happen in a reasonable and constructive manner if key participants refuse to communicate in an adult manner.

Please communicate what each of your relationships are with the article subject.

LoveMonkey - you refer to being blocked earlier today or yesterday, but there is no block log record of that. Please clarify.

There has been extensive mention of real life threats. However, there is no evidence presented that anyone participating in Wikipedia is connected to those. If Taleb or a representative called the Wikimedia Foundation, please let us know if you have evidence of or asserted any such relationship between editors here and actual real life threats.

Please explain, briefly, and without any further attacks or insults to other users / editors / administrators.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are serious problems with the article, about both unreferenced puffery--and the practice of trying to balance it with negative comments about the subject. Rather, a NPOV article needs to be written. A editor who lists "Fields: Scholar, Essayist, Public Intellectual, Statistician, Risk Engineer and Trader" in the infobox is not following NPOV policy, and neither is one who selects negative quotes from reviews. I'm not that happy with Taleb distribution either, which includes the phrase "The term is therefore increasingly used" , wording that typically indicates using WP for original research. I gather from the article on the person that there is criticism to be added here for a balanced article. I would suggest that both Ulner and those who have been called here the Taleb representatives stay clear of editing these articles. Whether or not people with COI should start their own bios, once neutrality is questioned, then they need to refrain. IbnAmioun's complaints amount to a claim of OWNership. DGG (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made no threats to anyone. Please clarify.

"LoveMonkey - you have made numerous threats"

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG it would an honor to have you edit the article. The issue is that a very busy editor (with a buddy or two defending him) is editing the article in a negative direction. Fights and questions when their edits are shown to do that. No administrator got involved and or has addressed this. They seem to like to comment on my behavior exclusively. And you know I think no one would really be that up in arms with the editwarring (enough to make the issue WP:Office) but the questionable editor is not only misrepresenting Taleb but a Nobel Peace Prizing Winning Myron Scholes. Bad bad misreprentation of allot of important persons getting inappropriately thrown in the mix, and it really doesn't belong here. Now this in real world context with the WSJ mention of potential death threats to Taleb&family and I would imagine him abit ansy. Some much for sympathy to living people, policy here is more important. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(I mentioned this above in a previous Taleb section. We probably need to consolidate Talib discussions on a subpage.) See [17], where J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., a well-known economist, describes his run-in with Taleb and his supporters. This is a must-read for anybody dealing with this matter. --John Nagle (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for the link, John. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The article from Rosser mentions no supporters at all. Why the assertion?LoveMonkey (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Rotational, again

Note, this user was last bought up here in May, due to MOS conflicts Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive539#Rotational.

This user has taken to creating articles in his userspace, which I feel go beyond using it as a sandbox, I feel that it is being used to create his preferred versions of articles, as he does not wish others to edit them. He creates articles in his userspace every few days, edits them for a while, and rarely goes back to them later, this suggests that it isn't just a sandbox.

On 10 May, he created redirects from the mainspace to his userspace articles, which were speedily deleted by User:Rkitko and he was warned about this. Three of his original pages were originally categorised, which I commented out per WP:BADCATS.

WP:USERSPACE states: "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."

This discussion on his talk page suggests this, though he refuses to give a definitive answer. Note these are all in his preferred format, which is not MOS compliant.

This is a list of the offending articles, in order of when they were created

• User:Rotational/Berthe Hoola van Nooten - Created 29 April, last edited 1 May
• User:Rotational/Charles Telfair - Created 3 May, last edited 23 May
• User:Rotational/Benjamin Maund - Created 4 May, last edited 5 May
• User:Rotational/William Clarke Wontner - Created 13 May, last edited 13 May
• User:Rotational/Ambroise Tardieu - Created 5 May, last edited 12 May
• User:Rotational/Alan Cunningham - Created 17 May, last edited 17 May
• User:Rotational/Agnes Goodsir - Created 18 May, last edited 21 May
• User:Rotational/Henri Meunier - Created 21 May, last edited 2 June
• User:Rotational/Henri Gabriel Ibels - Created 22 May, last edited 27 May
• User:Rotational/Felix Pfeifer - Created 26 May, last edited 26 May
• User:Rotational/Jeremiah Gurney - Created 29 May, last edited 29 May
• User:Rotational/Loÿs Delteil - Created 5 June, last edited 6 June
• User:Rotational/Louisa Anne, Marchioness of Waterford - Created 6 June, last edited 9 June
• User:Rotational/Lady Trevelyan - Created 9 June, last edited 9 June

I haven't nominated for MfD as they are useful articles, and its about time most of them were moved to the main article space so that they are useful to everyone. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, s/he doesn't seem happy about having them in the mainspace. But they seem good articles. How awkward. I'd be inclined to suggest someone - you? - be bold and move them to the mainspace and wikify them. S/he can then show her/his hand by moving them back or unwikifying them. Either would thus provoke a community response. S/he should be trying to get the MoS changed rather than creating a shadow 'pedia in userspace. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to move them, as I have been involved with the issues with Rotational for a while. However, if a few people here are happy for me to go ahead and do it, on that basis, I will Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My view, which is taken from the "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it" message in the edit page, is that the content can be placed in article space - and modified to suit the current MoS. Providing that the origin of the content is acknowledged then it is license compliant. It may be that this scenario may be mentioned to Rotational in the hope of more co-operation, but if there is no such interaction forthcoming we might consider using this editors use of WP space for the benefit of the project regardless of their wishes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Around about the same time that Jenuk posted this thread (and whilst I was unaware of it) I began moving these into the mainspace. I didn't (and don't) see any need for discussion on this. Rotational has made it clear that he retains them in his mainspace for reasons that are a violation of our ownership of articles policy,[18] so ignoring his wishes on this point is hardly controversial. Hesperian 00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Of the articles you have moved, I have now bought them up to the MOS guidelines as much as possible. Now we wait for the proverbial to hit the fan ;-) Jenuk1985 | Talk 01:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

When I consider the options before Rotational at this point, I can see little prospect for anything hitting the fan. His editing restriction prevents him from reverting your edits; reverting my page moves will achieve nothing, as his editing restriction still prevents him from reverting your edits, and I don't imagine he fancies hosting MOS-conformant material in his userspace. All we can really expect is a talk page rant; and whilst I welcome scrutiny and discussion of my edits, and I'm sure you do the same, we're under no obligation to respond to him if all he has to say is the same old stuff with a few new insults. Hesperian 02:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rotational has now moved them all back into his userspace. I think it is time an uninvolved administrator had a close look at this. Hesperian 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am uninvolved and made a polite request there. --John (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. User is making conspiracy charges.--M^ask? 07:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, since it'll have to be cleaned up, the editors reversion of the move left an absurd number of cross namespace redirects. --M^ask? 07:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oi, this has definitely moved into the area of WP:OWN. While I applaud the work that has gone into creating these articles, user *must* understand that he can't retain indefinite and unquestioned control over content here. If they are good enough to be mainspace articles, and most appear to be so, that is the appropriate place for them. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact the user has made no attempt to make any comment on his actions anywhere other than on a random users talk page, says it all really! Jenuk1985 | Talk 12:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the articles back into the mainspace and protected them from being moved again until Rotational comments on the matter on their talk page or here. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 14:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this action. --John (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There was peace and quiet until Jenuk1985 and Hesperian decided to stir up trouble - again. The guideline quoted states While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Does "indefinitely" mean more than a week, a month, a year or perhaps even a lifetime? - it is not stipulated, leaving any interpretation open to administrators with impaired faculties. My reasons for working on the articles in my userspace were clearly stated on my talkpage: "They're created in my userspace because that is the only way to edit in peace without being harassed by a band of 8-10 editors who don't like my layouts and have made a crusade of stalking my contributions." There is an implied sanctity about one's own userspace which should not readily be invaded without a compelling reason - it is tantamount to WP rape. The unfortunate combination of over-achieving and impoverished intellect seem to crop up frquently whenever these editors are involved. Improvement of WP is the last thing on their minds. Rotational (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to write that again, without the attacks and hyperbole, so we can see exactly what the issue is? ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 09:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it not have been a good idea to look into the issues before you "moved the articles back into the mainspace and protected them from being moved again" or -radical thought- protected them from being moved from my userspace? The automatic assumption that I must be in the wrong places a great strain on your being seen as a disinterested party Rotational (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be quite blunt, shall we? Userspace is intended as a collection of personal thoughts and correspondence, as well as an off-the-beaten-path area for working on projects. It is not intended that it be a locked door closed to everyone else. Quite the opposite; as with any other location in Wikipedia, it can be edited by anyone. Let me put it this way, Rotational: if you want to keep a copy of those articles in your Userspace (best an earlier version that only you had edited) to change around at your leisure, that is your prerogative. But you cannot forcibly keep these articles out of the mainspace if editors feel they are ready for inclusion. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What Huntster said. I note you haven't withdrawn the attacks (I hoped you'd pick up the hint) and are now spreading them around to include me and my actions. This is not the way to make friends and influence people. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 10:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated repeatedly - my aim on WP is to contribute material. It is one of the tragedies of WP that little seems to be possible without cementing alliances, joining gangs, fraternising, sucking up, awarding and receiving barnstars and generally treating the place like a Country Club. All of which is very useful when seeking that Holy Grail of Wikipolitics: community consensus, which means nothing more than getting a few of one's buddies around to register support. Look at how extensive the involvement is of editors in the present discussion - are any really concerned or is it more a case of grandstanding?. No doubt at the end of this the cry of 'consensus' will go up and this issue will be marked as 'resolved'. So are you surprised that I label Jenuk1985 and Hesperian 'trouble-stirrers' - at the end of this exercise WP certainly will not have gained anything. Rotational (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, you have issues with Wikipolitics. I can understand that, I think most of us around here do. But there's a specific issue here that I'd like you to address. From what you've said, it sounds to me like these articles you have written - and they're good, very good - are not intended for the mainspace. Or are intended for the mainspace when certain editing styles/patterns/techniques/cliques/etc are changed or abandoned. Am I right so far? Now, you and I both know that change in this place is pretty well impossible. So these articles are planned to sit in your userspace forever, to make the point that you disagree with the Manual of Style and its enforcement. Wikipedia therefore has in its grasp some great articles, but can't have them.

If I'm right, and I'm no stranger to making a stand on similar matters myself, then I can see where you're coming from. Alas, Wikipedia cannot and will not: the system here is "contribute or go away" (I'm not celebrating that or telling you to do that, I'm just saying, that's how it works). The policies and guidelines we have are designed to stop people from making the type of point you want to make. So, and I'm sorry, I really am, you'll need to find another way of making it. You have to play the system to win against it. You can't fight the system and win. So, WP:RfC is the place if you truly have evidence (actual diffs) that your articles are being targeted; WP:DR is another route to consider. You might like to build a userspace essay on what is wrong with the Manual of Style and specifically what should change and why. But fighting the existing model of collaborative editing is a very big thing to take on, and keeping articles in userspace is not the way to do it. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course the articles were written for mainspace - I'm not a tycoon who hides the good art in a cellar so that he may gloat over it at midnight. But that is not the issue - the issue here is whether any editor, and in particular one who has made a crusade of stalking me, has the right or wit to override me and decide when an article is ready to be transferred to mainspace. If you have ever created an article in your user subspace, I am sure you would be heartily offended by such an action. As for "contribute or go away" try to apply that to Jenuk1985, Hesperian and their cronies and see whether they measure up. I enjoy contributing to WP, but not with their likes peering over my shoulder. As I have stated elsewhere, if they have issues with my layout style and truly believe that they have the support of the community at large, then let them step back and allow the chance editor to modify the articles to conform with MoS, but not dog my contributions and pounce the moment I leave. Rotational (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Golly, what a great idea, Rotational! Yes, do let's apply "contribute or go away" to Hesperian, and see if he measures up: 125,000 edits, of which over 100,000 are to the mainspace; well over 1000 articles created; 5 featured articles; and a tiny fraction of the drama generated by Rotational in half the time. Over 20,000 Wikisource contributions; over 7000 Commons edits and over 8Gb of Commons uploads. But apparently Hesperian doesn't contribute; Hesperian has nothing better to do than stalk Rotational. Poor Rotational, who merely wants Wikipedia to use a layout that everyone but him finds butt-ugly, and who has the integrity to stop at nothing to achieve that humble goal. Hesperian 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hesperian, if your 125 000 edits are of the same quality as the ones I've been subjected to, then you shouldn't shout it abroad. Rotational (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. My edits are all crap. Yours are much better. Like this stunningly beautiful sequence of eleven reverts:[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29]. You must be so proud. Hesperian 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to bring my actions/contributions up then I suggest you start a new ANI thread! I have nothing to hide. Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You may have nothing to hide - you also have little to show. Rotational (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Jenuk1985 | Talk 13:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jenuk985, Hesperian, & Rotational, your comments here are becoming unproductive. (Especially Rotational.) Either discuss the issue -- whether Rotational can store articles indefinitely in his userspace -- or take a break from this thread. Squabbling like this will only lead one or more of you being sent to the penalty box. -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bobak's block messages

Bobak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has designed some custom-made block templates that he uses after blocking vandals, and I believe they are not constructive. Here are some examples: [30][31][32][33] These sorts of templates go against our guideline of RBI and not feeding the trolls—everyone knows that a large number of vandals do it because they like to see if they can get us Wikipedia nerds riled up, and responding to them in this fashion just encourages more disruption. Furthermore, they reflect badly on Wikipedia, giving people the impression that Wikipedia is ruled by all-powerful admins who are rude and dismissive like this.

A couple weeks ago User:GnarlyLikeWhoa raised this concern with Bobak (see the discussion here), and Bobak was not very receptive. I also chimed in just today, and Bobak responded by archiving the talk page. Is there any way the community can ask him not to use these kinds of block templates and messages? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I use the more humorous blocks in two cases: specific (not range) IP blocks and blatant vandals. I keep all my blocked pages on my watchlist, and I have not seen any uptick in post-ban problems --at least no different than when I used the sterile templates: I receive the same number of personal email insults and talk page vandals (if not a little less). GnarlyLikeWhoa was slightly different, and claimed that I was out of place to note that the IP address of a military base shouldn't be used to vandalize wikipedia (which is wasting tax payer dollars... gee I wonder how he found out the IP was blocked?), and included a veiled e-thug threat (which I tend to see in web forums, not here). It is not the responsibility of an admin to please everyone they ban --as WP:RBI notes, there are opposing views to Rjanag's. As such, there are fans of my templates (Rjanag isn't one of them, but I respect that). Honestly, an ANI like this reflects badly on how Wikipedia can be used to punish creativity and put undue pressure where it is not required. To think, this was all started because I nominated an article for DYK! :-) --Bobak (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

aside I didn't notice this before, but particularly disturbing is this block, which happened 5 days after the user had last edited and the user had never been warned. Because the user's offense was spamming, rather than vandalism, it's also possible that the user just didn't understand Wikipedia's spam and EL guidelines, and Bobak's block message may well have driven away a potentially constructive user. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at his contribution history? The ability to request an unblock is still available. I haven't seen an attempt yet. Or perhaps I could've used the also-popular method of simply not notifying him of the block or doing massive collateral damage with sloppy IP-range blocks (which I think is are much greater problems). I make a lot of blocks, so if this one is so terrible, you're an Admin, go ahead and unblock --I'm not saying I'm the ultimate authority on that. Will this negatively affect my DYK nomination? :-p --Bobak (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the user's contribution history, there's no reason for blocking him with a message like this. Yes, he's a commercial spammer who will probably never make any constructive edits, but the sarcasm is still unnecessary. That goes for your blocking templates, too...I think they're funny, but I doubt the blocked users do, and blocking and joking don't mix very well. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither does lawyering and humor, but god knows we try. I can see how the block on Matthewkbaldwin was perhaps too much, so I've lifted it (hurray? Is that a victory?). I got curious so I checked myself: I've instituted somewhere in the range of 700+ blocks, and about half were with the funny templates, and half weren't. I can say, without hesitation (and a user page history to back it) that I have seen no extra uptick in anything since I started letting vandals know that we have the ability to block now and often. Honestly, I can respect that some of you, like Rjanag, can find this stuff not to your own particular style, but that doesn't mean that those of use who are a bit WP:ROUGE are causing any serious harm to the project --especially without any serious evidence. As for the blocked users not finding the templates funny... did they before? Here's an aside: Rjanag, I noticed you've blocked 29 times since you joined the project 9 months ago. Did you know that if you block 1000 people you get a free toaster? Get cracking. --Bobak (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no fair. Non-admins can't get free toasters? The Toaster Cabal must be stopped! --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin view? This is clearly inappropriate. What is the policy basis for a block on the grounds of idiocy? Look, I fight this stuff every day too, and I think a lot of it is pretty funny - but that's an inside joke, not something a professional organisation presents as its outward face. Laughing at misguided fools should only be done behind the curtain - lord knows we could all make the exact same comments in orange boxes on quite a few admin talk pages...

Blocking is srs biznes - please keep it that way and use proper templates. Adminship is not a platform for dispensation of ridicule, it's a crappy job. Save the humour for the lunch-room. And idiotic editors need even more love than the normal ones. :) Franamax (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand the sentiment here by Bobak, but I would caution against continuing this level of sarcastic commenting at blocks. Sarcasm is a skill that is hard to pull off well when speaking; it is impossible to do so when typing. In the course of blocking users, there is no need to be rude and insulting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the above comments. Think it if you must - most of us have - but Wikipedia is a highly public site closely watched by the press (amongst others). If you feel tempted in future, I'd recommend a spot of self-flagellation ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree that Bobak's block messages are highly inappropriate. To me they don't come across as sarcastic, but rather as simple childishness. Wikipedia already has somewhat of a reputation as a place run by kids, and if hundreds of people are being blocked with Bobak's messages, that bad reputation is just being reinforced. We need mature admins, not apparently childish ones. Deli nk (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing should be beyond dispute here, I think, is that these messages should never be used on IP talk pages, where an innocent user may be on the receiving end. Personally I feel that they're also inappropriate for registered users. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The community have said plainly more than once that block log entries and user talk notifications of blocks should, except under special circumstances (which don't seem to apply here), be serious, and especially should not mock affected users. One may think that injunction to be unnecessarily rigid, but it is plain that it is one for which a consensus exists, and inasmuch as no encyclopedic purpose is served by the jocularity, there is no reason to act in a fashion inconsistent with it. Joe 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this just a tiny bit further:

• Bobak is basically accusing GLW of "wasting taxpayer dollars", implying above that GLW is the vandal associated with usage from a US military IP address. I believe this is the reference ABF from an admin, that's great. I'm unable to find the SPI/CU case establishing the linkage.
• You know what? None of my taxpayer dollars were wasted, I live in Canada. Why are administrators of an international project pursuing their own notions of waste using the bully pulpit?
• ArbCom has previously considered this notion of "you're using an American military IP connection, I must expose you!" and arrived at a definition of good-faith concerns. I see no such good-faith in the message to the IP talk page linked above. "Stop wasting taxpayer dollars" is not a valid leadin to a block message. Discussion at the time of the cited AC case was relatively clear that US military personnel have wide latitude, despite the written regulations, to use the Internet (note the exception for "when authorised"). I don't find it acceptable for an administrator of a supposedly international project to bring their own personal view of what constitutes "waste" within their own government onto en:wiki, much less under the official guise of admin status. Besides, use of an IP connection in an idle moment, even if it's for vandalism, costs far-far-far less than a dollar. Far less, micro-pennies maybe.
• And I've just removed Bobak's year-old "VANDAL IDENTIFICATION" message from the IP talk page in question. [34] If anyone wishes to replace it with a proper template, please do so, but hopefully avoid using the term "vandalicious".

I have the uncomfortable feeling that this admin has somehow discovered the golden sword with which to smite their enemies. This is not conduct becoming of a site administrator, it looks more like having fun blasting down the next monster who shows up in the corridor. Franamax (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As an outsider looking in, these blocking templates come across to me as childish and mean-spirited. Humor may be subjective, but I don't see why anyone should be subjected to such puerility. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with what everyone else is saying here. These "funny" blocks are completely inappropriate and should not be used any more. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Replace them?

There seems to be a clear consensus that these block messages are completely inappropriate. According to statements above, they have been used on hundreds of pages. Since these messages may be doing harm to the project, should they be removed or replaced with a more appropriate standard block template? Can a bot do this, perhaps (if necessary)? Deli nk (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This entire thread reflects one of the weaknesses of wikipedia - being polite to belligerent users, and being belligerent to those who try to defend wikipedia against vandals. The admin should probably tone down the sarcasm a bit, but frankly they are no more offensive than those sternly-worded boxes with the big red X's in them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Characterizing the above conversation as belligerent seems quite inaccurate to me. If anything, there is quite a bit of sympathy for Bobak despite disagreement with him over his block messages. Deli nk (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"...I think they're funny, but I doubt the blocked users do..." News flash: Who cares what the blocked users think? They are blocked because they damaged wikipedia in some way. Whether they get a cute comment or the standard, sternly-worded blocking box, either way they're typically not happy about it. Many times they will blank the page to get rid of those standard messages, and fill the page with rants. So a lot of good it does to "play it straight". Maybe the right thing to do, if you're wanting to take the "coddling" approach, is to re-word those sternly-worded standard messages to express deep regret that we have to do this: "This hurts us more than it does you", or some such. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked users still go around and talk to their friends. They might grow up and, a few months after their block, realize that yeah, they had it coming. Or they might go tell their friends that Wikipedia is just a bunch of dicks who don't let you have any fun and are rude to you. I wonder which they'll be doing more often after getting one of Bobak's messages/

Consensus is clear that he needs to stop using them. The only question now is, as Deli nk asked, whether the templates should be replaced. Personally, I don't think that is workable, since they are not transcluded templates—it looks like Bobak copied and pasted the code of the regular block messages, because I don't see any user subpages that he could have been subst'ing. I think it should be sufficient just for him to stop using them in the future. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a bogus argument. The belligerent users out there who go running to wikipedia review and the like, have nearly all been recipients of the standard, sternly-worded message. Rather than picking on this flea, you should be picking on the elephant that the standard messages are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Too little, too late. I count 9 editors in good standing above who say they don't want Bobak using these messages anymore. It seems pretty clear to me that a decision has been reached; I don't see much more to discuss, and will just sit back and hope he has gotten the message and doesn't use them in the future (he hasn't used them since this started, so hopefully everything is already resolved). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, you've won this little battle, and have accomplished nothing that will benefit wikipedia. Good for you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone! This crap has been going on for ages and you only notice it now! Here's a message for you, courtesy of a long-time admin:

Congratulations! You've won yourself a short break from editing the encyclopedia! Go down to your local shop, buy yourself a crate of Bud, and have a drink - you deserve it!

He delivered this message to four IP users in 2007. Ergo, it is allowed. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think a lighthearted message like that would be much more likely to be received positively than the "Bang! You're dead!" standard notices. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kasaalan on RFA, approaching disruption

Kasaalan (talk · contribs) apparently is trying to take some odd ownership of an RFA as seen here, apparently to derail it. Full RFA edit history here; his WP space edits here; his WP:TALK edits here. Evula, a crat, refactored some excessive formatting by him at one point, and he's now apparently edit warring a bit to keep it in, and keeps expanding his Oppose... quite dramatically. Might need some extra uninvolved eyes here. I have no idea why he has such a bee in his bonnet. Talk page chats asking him to please calm down and a vandalism warning on the RFA are here. I'll leave him a note pointing him back to here. rootology (C)(T) 06:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• I concur with Rootology's brief summary. I have also recently left a warning on his page and tried to discuss this with the editor as amicably as possible.--VS ^talk 06:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't have any edits to the page any further, yet I don't have any objections to ANI either, if the nominated users' behaviour will also be investigated as I discussed in talk page "excessively" [35] based on mentioned users' May 2009 edits and actions. I will just note both parties supportive of the user, while VS is "excessively" involved in previous discussions. Also I will note, I added last comment on user's page, because I don't feel his answer is anywhere accurate. He claimed he didn't recall any recent edit conflict, while we actually had a serious one in May. An independent admin who can read a lot for an investigation will do fine. Kasaalan (talk) 07:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I seriously reject vandalism claims. But I do state I made an extensive research (which I spent a about 3 hours cumulatively) for nominated users' integrity and recent behaviour of May 2009, because my religious based edit bias claim, his 3 days long wikihounding and I seriouly claim he doesn't answer 2 of the adminship questions accurately. [36] Kasaalan (talk) 07:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If we have a real discussion I can make detailed a defense, if accusations detailed, and my reply needed. Kasaalan (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that Kasaalan reverted once to re-add bold formatting to his own comment, and has been quite loquacious (not to say irritating) in his comments at this RFA. But I don't see anything that requires administrator oversight. I don't see vandalism, major edit-warring, or comments in bad faith. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked in on the details too closely, but if I had the time, I would closely examine this user's editing history, just as they have tried to do so with Enigma, but I've spotted issues with this user that are obvious to the eye, so Kasaalan should remove the log from their eye before they remove the splinter from Enigmas. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 19:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

My edit history is open to any user, anyone can track my edits (except comitting wikihounding to delete or reverse my edits with no apparent or good reason and with no clear explanation), to see over 95 percent of my editing is inclusionist and consists of various additions and improvements to the current hundreds of articles. I don't prefer to waste other editors precious time or hard research, by trying to delete the opinions I don't agree with, even the ones I can't stand with. Instead I add counter sources to balance them or criticism, if I feel article has POV concerns. And I can easily say, except the deletionist approachs (generally claiming notability or wikipedia is not a directory in a few cases) and some religio-ethnic sided approachs (mostly by dedicated supporters of Israeli states' every action including apparently wrong ones, again in few cases), my edits generally never get reverse (only 2 of my proposed edits got deleted for original search as far as I recall up today), and when they got deleted by editors who feels it needs more reliable sources but do not bother to search for them, I spend my time to find more so readd them by more reliable coverage. Because my edits based on research and reliable coverage, I even had to waste discussing with them weeks of my time to be able to add Human Rights Watch as a source. Also splinters are dangerous if you ask me, you should give out better examples. [37] Kasaalan (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ice Cold Beer

Can an admin just call another editor a dunce in an edit summary here and here where they exlained and not be sanctioned all because an editor doesn't agree with the blatant POV they have shown. BigDunc^Talk 08:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not very nice for an admin or any editor to behave but nothing that requires immediate admin actions. I suggest you take it to WP:WQA. Regards SoWhy 08:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a POV tag on the article? What is the specific issue? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See here possible BLP issue. BigDunc^Talk 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. This is not a POV issue, it's a wording issue due to the fact that the sources are in conflict with each other. As regards the "BigDunc(e)" issue, yeh, that was tacky, and WQA is the right place to take it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes is the wording POV or not, I did not add the tag to begin with I reverted it's removal on spurious grounds IMO. BigDunc^Talk 08:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some users will add a POV tag just because they don't agree with the consensus in the article. I assumed it had to do with someone claiming that not enough (or too much) weight was being given to the conspiracy theorists. If it's just about whether that one guy was "alleged" or "admitted", that's not a POV issue, it's a conflict among reliable sources. And if the guy admits it (whether he's telling the truth or not), then it's not a BLP issue either. What's he going to do, sue somebody? All they have to do is say, "Well, here's where you said you did it," and that would be the end of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand user removed NPOV tag against 2 other users will. And replied kindly for a question for comment about notability of the article. If any more "wrongdoing" than that, can you possibly refer more clearly. Kasaalan (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not about the removal of the tag it is the personal attack from an admin. BigDunc^Talk 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If so might not be so cool, but I am not a native English speaker so can you possibly explain what "you're missing an 'e'" means as a personal attack. Kasaalan (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunc + e = Dunce, which is a word for a stupid person. So BigDunc + e = Big Dunce - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is spelled out by Ice Cold Beer here. Unomi (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I would say that the edit warring over removal of the npov tag warrants a bit of looking at as well. Removing an npov tag with what could be construed as a personal attack as the only ES is unbecoming of any editor, an admin who has previously brought this very sphere of articles to arbcom should be especially careful to live up to arbcoms admonitions regarding maintaining an editwar free and collegial atmosphere. In this case it seems (I haven't been following this closely) that there is a conflict between what various RS state. The correct solution, in my mind, would be to state that there is such a conflict or to choose the more careful wording available. The version that Ice Cold Beer is editwarring to keep is in conflict with text carried by BBC, Reuters, navytimes, fox news, washington post and others. This is silly in the extreme. Unomi (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I took the liberty of informing User:Ice Cold Beer about this ANI topic. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what that means, thanks for the explanation. The word is not cool on the other hand their personal or page based conflict history should also be well investigated. Saying "someone not getting it" in an indirect way definately not nice, and possibly a priviledged user should care better in conflict like this, but not sure if it should result "depowering". Being nice is nice, but wikipedia is not a kindergarten either. Sometimes voicing conflicts openly is better. Kasaalan (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Excirial I had informed Ice Cold Beer in my last post on their page. BigDunc^Talk 10:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The posting of the tag was, itself, a form of POV-pushing. There is no POV issue with the article, nor any BLP issue. It's just a couple of editors trying to prove a point. And trying to get an editor blocked for making a childish play on your name is, itself, childish. "Mommy! He called me a dunce!" Gimme a break. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how you are reaching your conclusion regardin POV, feel free to explain your reasoning. Furthermore consider what you stated as the first lesson from your previous rfa Spend less time on ANI and more time on other work. Telling an editor that it is 'ok' for an admin to call someone a dunce as the sole message in an ES in the middle of an edit war is just plain wrong. Ice Cold Beer seems to be an experienced editor who is deeply involved in the 9/11 articles both now and while it was under arbitration, indeed he seemed to be one of the parties bringing it to arbcom. Arbcom explicitly stated that these articles should be free from edit warring, respect NPOV and attempt to be as non adversarial as possible. You yourself state that there seems to be a conflict in RS', so surely edit warring to keep in a particular wording which does not respect the sources and is objected to by multiple editors signifies a departure from NPOV. Best, Unomi (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The POV tag was used inappropriately, and your comments about by RfA are of no importance, since I did not seek that job in the first place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To start off: should I have used that edit summary? Of course not. Was it childish? Sure. Do I feel bad for BigDunc? Not at all. BigDunc is one of a number of users who, when unable to gain consensus for their nonsense, edit war to add a NPOV tag. This is not the first time BigDunc has done this and I'm sure it won't be the last. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What are the claims you are talking about and what is the nonsense? It appears at least 4 editors have reservation about the neutrallity of the article, so again you just appear and throw accusations around as some sort of justification for you actions. BigDunc^Talk 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no "neutrality" issue. It's a bogus claim. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not speaking for editors but it appears TheFourFreedoms , Wayne, John, Unomi and myself have some kind of concern. BigDunc^Talk 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a neutrality/POV issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's unremarkable that admins and others occasionally lose their temper with conspiracy theorists, fringers, and other purveyors of The Truth^TM. In fact the remarkable thing is that it doesn't happen more often. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the content issue, which seems relatively minor and should be easily resolved with a bit of willingness to work together (the proposed versions are not really that far apart). The edit summary in question was unfortunate, but as long as it's not an ongoing, escalating problem I see no need for urgent admin intervention here. Actually, strike that - someone should probably work out which banned user is operating TheFourFreedoms (talk · contribs), and block accordingly, but I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the behavioral quirks of 9/11 agenda accounts. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Boris who would you be talking about with your flippant remark conspiracy theorists, fringers, and other purveyors of The Truth^TM comments that make sweeping generalisations like that are far from helpful. BigDunc^Talk 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To BigDunc; with regards to ICB's edit summary, walk it off. Yes, lame joke at your expense, but what's the better reaction? Umbrage or a chuckle? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists just try to bring out info on governments' covert actions to public view, whether they are successfull or not with the theories they argued. Kasaalan (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TheFourFreedoms is "a pretty good match" with User:Tachyonbursts (indef blocked), according to a private checkuser I requested. Jehochman ^Talk 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK as well. Why not just block and be done with it? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I edit 9/11 articles, so I'm not an administrator as far as this thread or user are concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 22:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Obvious, checkuser and DUCK confirmed socks can be blocked by any admin. It falls under "blatantly, clearly obvious" actions in WP:ADMIN. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but 9/11 is such a highly contentious area that I'd rather let somebody else place the block. This is not an emergency. Jehochman ^Talk 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to ask User:TAway first. :) At your leisure, as the sock is ducking out. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So here we are, in the rabbit hole that is. We have all the usual mishaps, foremost, the failure of logic. It is not logical to call the whole mainstream fringe; it is fringe to do so. You boys and girls are discussing well accepted terminology which we avoid for the reasons unknown and you refer to this well accepted terminology with most unfortunate terminology which holds libel and defamation of ugliest kind. This sort of conduct is pitiful, to say the least. Now, user User:Ice Cold Beer will act on the related page as it is his own, he will ignore the discussion, he will not participate in building consensus, he'll revert without any valid explanation and break each and every principle stated in ArbCom decision and he will show needless incivility and this appears to be accepted behavior worth of praise and applause? Why in the world the term with thousands of references cannot be added to article, why in the world would the facts about waterboarding of alleged suspect which are topic of news reports over and over and over again be omitted (yes, that is the word) from the article and how in the world can such suggestion succumb to 'twoofer conspiracy talk' and 9/11 agenda? As you examine the 'behavioral quirks' of this post, I'll bid you farewell. Good riddance. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And no, I'm not the user who has been blocked; I'm the user who endorsed the block forced upon him by the people who are at this point in time banned from 9/11 articles themselves. I've never committed any crime but apparent 'though crime' and I've never broke any rules. And that is a rock solid fact. I felt the need to state it as it is, for those long-lasting editors and administrators to hear, and feel. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since no one stepped up, I've gone ahead and indef'd TheFourFreedoms as a sock. Shell ^babelfish 01:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know the users at all or know the case much, but what proofs you got from check user can you possibly share with the community, since the user apparently denied having double accounts. Kasaalan (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. Another three weeks of disruption by another Truther. Next week, or the week after, we can do it all again - assume good faith, discuss, compromise, fill out requests for arb enforcement, etc. Or rather, someone else can do it all again, because I'm heartily sick of the whole business. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested

Re: CORNELIUSSEON (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've just blocked the above editor indefinitely pending a review of their edits. It seems that they may have been engaged in long-term cut & paste copyright violations (since 2005 according to the first message on their talk-page). From reading the editor's posts on their talk-page, they defend their actions by claiming that all the materials they post are in the public domain.

The most recent example is here (source here). The source website, history.army.mil, states on its Security and Privacy page "Unless otherwise noted, information presented on CMH Online is considered public information and may be distributed or copied for non-commerical purposes. Use of appropriate byline/photo/image credits is requested. If copyrighted or permission restricted materials are posted on CMH Online, the appropriate credit is given. Visitors wishing to repost or use such materials for their own projects should make separate arrangements for permission with the owner." ([38]). The potential problem is the and may be distributed or copied for non-commerical purposes caveat - I'm not familiar enough with the nuances of copyright law to determine whether this is compatible with the GFDL, though from reading around this area in the past I have the feeling that it isn't.

I'd greatly appreciate other input on this, as if the material is copyvio it'll need a significant amount of cleanup and the sooner I can let WP:MILHIST know the better :P I won't provide other diffs (though can if they're needed; googling the text from much of the editor's work throws up many other examples). I've left CORNELIUSSEON a message on their talk-page, and while I'm around will try to cross-post any responses they make. EyeSerene^talk 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Though I don't believe my actions fall under the admin COI guidlines, in the interests of full disclosure I spotted the problematic edit above because I'm copyediting the article in question. EyeSerene^talk 11:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Anything for non-commercial use only would not be compatible with the GFDL. I'm not certain that its indiscriminate copying though - it seems that some of the prior complaints were resolved when it turned out the information was in the public domain. CORNELIUSSEON seems to be trying to stick to PD US government sources - its easy to get confused about what government/military works are actually PD and which fall under a more restrictive license. Still, its up to him to verify that sort of thing first. Shell ^babelfish 10:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did he fully copy paste the paragraph or did he used any parasphrasing or editorial work but wikilinking. [39] [40]

Did you block him from US military related pages, mentioned page, or all of wikipedia.

I didn't investigate the user fully, but it appears he might be a long time member of US Army, so he could thought he has the right to post such content to a US military base article. For the license part the copyright warnings except rare cases only put against commercial "work". But taking credit to yourself as an editor without mentioning source is not cool. He should strictly be warned for posting the actual source. Yet blocking should be the last case resort.

This is somewhat US Military POV "advertising", and I really suspect if US Army will ever have any concern about copyright. But other issues like NPOV non sourced copy paste without providing reference might be an issue. Kasaalan (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Addressing both the above posters:

• Some of the plagiarised text added by this editor may have been released under a completely unrestricted license, but some (like the example above) clearly isn't.
• The example is a word-for-word copy/paste with minor formatting tweaks.
• My block, which was enacted to prevent edits that could put WP in legal difficulties, is site-wide (there's no other type).
• I agree that there are additional ethical issues, and the content is often unsuitable, but this is strictly about the potential copyvio. I wouldn't have issued an indefblock without warning for anything less.

EyeSerene^talk 10:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the editor seems to edit primarily articles on US military formations, and many of his edits seem to be copy-pastes without any citation - perhaps Moonriddengirl (hopefully that's the user's correct name) should be informed? Skinny87 (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, I've dropped Moonriddengirl a note. EyeSerene^talk 11:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to drop a note, I've came into contact with Corneliusseon before, as seen on his talkpage, as he's done this kind of thing before; he doesn't seem to communicate very well and he was kinda patronising the one time we debated the matter. But I think he's a good editor who just needs pointing in the right direction over copy-vios. I've offered to help him out on his talkpage if he wants that. Skinny87 (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

←Hi. The question is whether the sites that publish the text are the true origin or if they are originally from public domain sources. For example, [41] states that it is originally taken from The Army Almanac: A Book of Facts Concerning the Army of the United States, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1950, pp. 510-592. Since official Army publications are PD via the US Government's choice to opt out of copyright protection for its works, that one is okay. The website that reproduced it can't impose additional restrictions unless they've added new copyrightable elements. Not everything at that website is PD, as it indicates that "If copyrighted or permission restricted materials are posted on CMH Online, the appropriate credit is given. Visitors wishing to repost or use such materials for their own projects should make separate arrangements for permission with the owner." In this case, a proper attribution template should be used. I'll look at some of the other contribs to see if they are likewise PD. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that I'm looking, but this is a slow-going process, particularly without edit summaries. If it proves that this contributor is copying from public domain sources without fully indicating that, he should be advised of proper attribution ala Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Current consensus is that even if a source is PD, indication needs to be made that it has been copied. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not yet found any indication that this is public domain, placed here, though I have been looking. (adding: It seems to have been previously published here, but there's no indication that's free for use. It is a private website.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

After investigation, I don't believe that that page is PD. I believe it's a copyvio, and should be reverted. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The book is Thunder from Heaven. It appears to have been originally published by Boots Press of Birmingham, Michigan, as here. I see absolutely no reason to suppose it public domain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing untowards about pasting PD content into an article so long as a footnote cites where it came from since a) PD text must be verifiable as such (free of CR worries) and b) all content must be attributed to a reliable source either way. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

True enough, and addressed in the note I was composing immediately below. :) But I'm still not able to verify that the text immediately above is PD, although it may be. Since this contributor doesn't say where things come from, it's hard to tell. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This may or may not be PD, duplicated from [42]. While they indicate their material is free for duplication, they don't explicitly release it into PD, and they don't mention modification, which is required for Wikipedia's license. Public record is not automatically synonymous with public domain. We would need to verify that it is in New Jersey to use this text. Note that whether it is copyright violation or not (which depends on NJ's interpretation of "public record"), it was again placed without credit, which Wikipedia defines as "plagiarism", a problem in itself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If the text is not straightforwardly PD and verifiable as such it can't be picked up word-for-word by en.Wikipedia under GFDL. Instead, the information it carries must be rewritten and the source attributed. Wikipedia:Plagiarism is only a guideline. Ethical worries aside, copy-pasting copyrighted text is a copyvio, which is already verbotten. Pasting it in without a citation is yet another worry, since content must be sourced anyway. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This one is more complicated than that. (And this would be why this is a time-consuming process.) It seems to have come with other material in that edit from [43]. The question: is it reproducing the statutes, which would be free, or describing the statutes, which would not? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That looks like a rewritten summary to me and hence (from what you've said about the restrictions) non-GFDL compatible. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's correct. Although laws are PD in the U.S., courts have ruled that summaries of laws may not be, even if they are written by state legislatures. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3) This assistance is massively appreciated. It looks so far like there may be some concerns with copyright (though not to the extent I had feared), and that plagiarism is a significant issue. Like Skinny I believe the editor is contributing in good faith and has made many useful edits, but apparently has difficulty in following our guidance on attributing the work they've made use of. This could be genuine incomprehension or simple unwillingness; I'm reluctant to unblock just yet without some assurance from the editor that they understand the difficulties that adding plagiarised material to articles, failing to thoroughly check the copyright status of such material, and failing to communicate causes. Skinny's offer of mentorship may be the ideal solution, but I'm open to suggestions (and won't regard any undoing of my block as untoward if another admin thinks it's warranted). EyeSerene^talk 12:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say there must be some straightforward acknowledgement from the editor that there are meaningful worries and that all content contribs (other than cleanups and rewrites of existing article text) will be attributed to a source. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you're probably right, EyeSerene, and I'm with Gwen. (Note: New Jersey has the most unuserfriendly statutes online of any state I've ever checked, but I believe these are probably descriptions and not taken from the statutes themselves.) I don't have time to help out with addressing him extensively myself at this point (I'm barely on top of what I've already got. :)), but I think we have issues here with WP:V and Wikipedia:Plagiarism as well as probably a misunderstanding of our licensing. Even if it is a "public record", we can't copy it unless it's public domain (or we're quoting, as with WP:NFC). I wonder if the military history project can help out with an overview of his contributions? We're currently a bit strained in that department at WP:COPYCLEAN. (Join! </ad>)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You've done more than enough already Moonriddengirl, and have my undying gratitude for taking time away from stuff you'd rather be doing to look at this ;) I think Gwen's suggestion is reasonable too, and I'll leave the editor a note to that effect. I'll also let milhist know. Thank you to all who've commented. EyeSerene^talk 13:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Let the user know that (1) to avoid plagiarism, any cut-and-paste contributions must specify the source, and (2) we may not cut-and-paste from any sources that we aren't certain are in the public domain. I'd recommend unblocking him, but with an unambiguous block warning, and we ought to watch his contributions to block if it happens again. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a summary on their talk page per the above; if you want to look it over and make any adjustments, feel free. As Gwen suggested though, in the light of their recent non-communication when other editors have attempted to engage with them, I think it would be helpful to get some kind of positive response before we unblock. Besides the above issues, some of the recent edits have been unhelpful (the one I saw on the article I'm copyediting was a text dump near the top of the page; the editor obviously hadn't read the article as all the information they'd added was already covered - with cites - further down). EyeSerene^talk 13:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Update: Dialogue is underway between Corneliusseon and other editors on his talk-page. As the blocking admin I'm staying out of it for the present (and will likely be going off-line soon), though I'd like to reiterate that bearing in mind the consensus here and on his talk-page about our need for some assurances regarding future behaviour, I have no problem with another admin unblocking if they feel it's justified. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 17:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I support EyeSerene's proposal that we wait for an assurance from Cornelius about his future behavior before doing an unblock. If we don't, we should expect to see continued cut-and-paste additions from unattributed sources that others will have to clean up. He doesn't seem to understand WP:COPYRIGHT and he sees no problem with his edits. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've commented as an uninvolved admin & milhist coordinator on his talk page as well. Cam ^(Chat) 23:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good plan; the lack of communication or acknowledgment of the possible problem is an issue. Shell ^babelfish 01:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and violation of WP:NPA by User:Sampsonite5

• Sampsonite5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This account has engaged in disruptive editing, adding unsourced info to articles, vandalized my user talk page, and finally blatantly violated WP:NPA. Requesting another administrator to look into this matter and take action here.

---

Disruptive editing by the account, repeatedly adding unsourced information to articles about television episodes (example [44]). When this was pointed out to the user, he blanked the warnings from his talk page [45] [46], and changed course, disruptively adding and re-adding information about UK airdates of television programs to articles (example [47]). After this changed was removed from a WP:GA article, the user chose to vandalize my talk page: [48]. I posted to the user's talk page in a new subsection entitled Please stop adding UK airdates. The user's response was simply to violate WP:NPA, with this comment [49]. Note: the user had already received multiple level-3 and level-4 warnings, prior to my getting involved [50].

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours, which is lenient (indef probably would've been fine too). Any repeat of this behaviour will result in an indef block. PeterSymonds (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Be nice to that user. He's got a lot of baggage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:James von Brunn

At Talk:United States Holocaust Memorial Museum the following complaint appeared:[51]

Request that page of User:James_von_Brunn be locked ASAP Billbrock (talk) 18:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Although obviously not something for that talk page, the complaint does appear to have merit, so I've moved it here. Rami R 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This user's page is on my watchlist (because I reverted his only article edit and issued a warning), so I am aware of the huge amount of edit activity there related to the Holocaust Museum shooting. I full-protected the user page for 24 hours due to the massive interest in editing the user page. There's no reason for anyone to edit the page. The talk page is not protected. --Orlady (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was the page blanked before locking? There was no activity on the page for a month (hmmm, curious, perhaps?), since the day it was created, ostensibly by the user himself... Then today Billbrock requested that his (Billbrock's) edit be removed and the page locked. After 3.4 zillion anon edits, Hipocrite shows up and blanks the page and Orlady blocks it. Why? Tomer^talk 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, the blanking has been undone. I withdraw my inquiry. Tomer^talk 19:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The blanking has been redone. The page was a violation of WP:USER or, failing that, good sense and propriety, which are covered under the auspices of WP:IAR. —Animum (talk) 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the insane neo-nazi guy behind the username just shot up a memorial and we're hosting his autobio. It should be reblanked, preferably deleted, post haste. Hipocrite (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the story. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have blanked the talk page, and Bjweeks has protected. The same has been done to the userpage. I recommend contacting comcom. Tiptoety ^talk 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if an abuse filter could be created that caught the phrase "international banker" and warned the editor that they were an "insane neo-nazi"...?! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Both user and user talk have been blanked and fully protected. BJ^Talk 19:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've e-mailed the Communications committee. They should be apprised of the situation. Valley2city^‽ 19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I should say so! The Times, according to 2009 U.S. Holocaust Museum shooting, has already reported that he maintains a user page on Wikipedia, which (and wait until the howls of censorship start over this one) is even linked to in the article...of course his user page is now blanked and locked, in what appears to be a misbegotten effort by some here to conceal the fact and probably soon to sweep it under the rug. Given the philosophy that supposedly governs the Project, this activity is rather shameful. Tomer^talk 19:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The article from the Times can be found here, by the way. Valley2city^‽ 20:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Good call contacting COMCOM, the fact that this guy (apparently) had a Wikipedia user page has obviously already made it into the press. Presumably law enforcement folks will be contacting the Wikimedia Foundation at some point since they'll necessarily chase down every piece of information about their suspect. The situation is well beyond anything that can be taking care of at ANI and I'm guessing we've probably done about all we can now (I don't see anything wrong with deleting the user page - the information from it can easily be recovered, and there's no need whatsoever to continue hosting that hateful garbage, and many reasons to get rid of it), unless there is someone else who should be contacted other than the Communications committee. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd support undeletion, but keeping it blanked and protected. Martinp23 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have speedy deleted his user page and indef blocked the user if I came across this before the shooting. We have to keep it now because of "censorship"? BJ^Talk 20:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleting it won't hide anything that the media hasn't already published; therefore, I've undeleted. Feel free to revert me if you wish. —Animum (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the right call. I find it amusing that it's almost impossible to get, say, the 46th most important pokemon character's unreferenced article deleted, but that when a real life terrorist chooses to use wikipedia to host info about himself shortly before he commits a horrible crime and gets caught, that our instinct would be to immediately delete the info. Law enforcement will want it, and if it's that interesting (and it is) we shouldn't stand in anyone's way of getting at it. So fully support the restore of the history, and a permanent locking of the page. This guy is about to become the subject of itense, intense media coverage, and his autobio will feature in almost all of it, rightly or wrongly. Wikipedia itself is going to end up with an article about this fellow that sources to the autobio (though of course via the reliable sources that site it and not directly -- the gods of original research forbid!).Bali ultimate (talk) 20:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's not about hiding or censoring (as Animum says the information is out there already), it's the fact that we're hosting racial hate speech from an accused murderer - plain and simple. It doesn't matter if it's only in the history and if the page is protected, the old version is still present in Wikipedia user space. If law enforcement needs to look at it they can (any admin has access if it's deleted) and the info can even be released to reporters, but I don't see a good argument for us keeping it visible to anyone who knows where the history tab is, particularly since this is the kind of thing we would routinely delete anyway and particularly since this man has apparently just done something extremely heinous and we're under no obligation him to give him an additional platform for his awful views. But again maybe these are issues that Foundation people should be dealing with, and we might want to hear what they have to say about this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Support deletion -- if law enforcement needs it, it's still there, and we wouldn't tolerate it if we had spotted it today for other reasons.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The page was mostly about himself (describing his personal history and beliefs) and it was not particularly coherent. The December 2007 edit that I reverted ws more clearly a political comment on a topic other than himself. Perhaps his most significant interaction with other Wikipedia users was this (not much there to see, folks). --Orlady (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey now... Until ArbCom or someone else decided to start ruling on content, his page isn't exactly extreme by the standards of a lot of other crap on here. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the old version of the user page closely? If so you have a different view of "extreme" then I do. I'm certainly not going to quote it, but I see a wildly anti-Semitic statement combined with a plea for eugenics. This isn't a "content" issue (where does that come from?) it's an issue of whether or not we tolerate blatant racism on user pages. Last time I checked we don't. I still think his user page should be deleted, but I think maybe Foundation people should handle this in the end. Regardless, I'm shocked that anyone could suggest that the views on that page are not "extreme," particularly given what just happened today. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. It is hate filled garbage, no different from many of our articles. My point is not that it is acceptable. My point is that many of our articles are equally unacceptable, but we are too incompetent as a project to clean house. Don't get upset that I'm pointing out that Wikipedia is a vehicle of hate unless you are willing to put in the time to fix it. Hiberniantears (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep it undeleted. Deleting does nothing more than either damage transparency or create an appearance of damaged transparency. We accomplish zero by deleting the page. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Following standard procedure, I've deleted the page and also, though not a part of standard procedure, protected it just in case of vandalism by autoconfirmed users. The deleted revisions will be available to the authorities if they request them. The ComCom or Foundation should probably take over from here. —Animum (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you point to where this is standard procedure? I see neither policy nor good reason to delete. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

When it came down to keeping the page deleted or restoring it, the ultimate question was, "Do I treat this as I normally would, or do I treat it differently?" One could figure out what was on the page by reading the news articles (and if you didn't know you could, now you do), so it wasn't a big issue of transparency—in fact, probably 80% of the deleted revisions were vandalism or a revert—and this discussion isn't one that involves diffs. As there was no compelling reason to treat the page differently, I defaulted to normal practice, which would have been deletion. —Animum (talk) 22:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec with JoshuaZ) I support that obviously, and would hope that other admins would not wheel-war over this. If someone at the Foundation decides it makes more sense to restore the history for whatever reason then we can do so, but personally I feel we should wait to hear from them. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure all this isn't stopping anyone who wants it from getting it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the timing of the interest in "waiting for ComCom", to paraphrase, to be a bit peculiar... Tomer^talk 22:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree. The "please don't let us wheel war" comes with the switch sitting comfortably in the desired position. Frankly, there is not much there. I've looked at it. It's brief. There's indications of hatred, but if he hadn't shot up a museum, his statements might raise eyebrows, but would probably not be deleted if it came to official notice. I think what we are seeing is revulsion over having the words of an accused murderer on our pure as driven snow web site. Not sure that's a good enough reason, though I'm not going to take any action myself. --Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec with last Wehwalt comment) To Wehwalt, I'm sure it isn't, but I'm also pretty sure that isn't really the point. It's not about suppressing information (the info is already out), it's about removing hate speech by an accused murderer from Wikipedia. My apologies if I'm reading your comment incorrectly, but I just don't think this has anything to do with censorship.

And Tomer you might want to just come out and say what you mean, because your comment is quite frankly rather inscrutable. Hard to tell who you are talking to or what you mean, but personally I've said we should be "waiting for ComCom" from the beginning, both when the page was sitting there undeleted and after it was re-deleted (both actions were taken by the same admin, incidentally). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the one who's crying censorship, for the record, I'm the one who foresees this being used as another example of heavy-handed WP admins basically acting less like good editors, and more like biased schoolmarms. Blanking the article was bad enough, deleting it outright was just a downright bad idea after the page was reported on in the media. The contents of the page speak for themselves, and they're in User space, not article space, so any fear that the page's existence compromises WP's sterling reputation as a source of everything that is known and knowable are trivial. Tomer^talk 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So you did. I apologize, I had the timeline confused. Tomer^talk 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And I can say that if I had stumbled upon his page, the only thing that would have possibly kept me from deleting it would have been the firestorm of drama that probably would have ensued. —Animum (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the ec. Then why blank the talk page? And why blank the parts of the user page that are purely biographical?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I presume the above comments are somewhat directed at me, so I'll point out that while the page was sitting there undeleted (after Animum had restored it) I said "I still think his user page should be deleted, but I think maybe Foundation people should handle this in the end." Meaning I didn't like the current situation, but I'll leave it to Foundation. Now I like the current situation, but I'll still leave it to the Foundation. An admin undid their own decision back to their original decision, and I think that's what ought not be wheel warred over. I don't see an inconsistency there.

And, yes, I am concerned with "revulsion over having the words of an accused murderer on our pure as driven snow web site," except without the unnecessary superlative about being pure at the end. Mainly because I can't think how I would justify, to a family member of the victim who was angry that hate speech from this guy was sitting there viewable to the public on this web site, why keeping this crap undeleted is necessary. Kind of a no-brainer to me and it doesn't actually have much to do with Wikipedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If it was a no brainer, then I doubt if this discussion would have ensued. So instead of having it on our p.a.t.d.s. webs site, now it will be exensively quoted on blogs, news articles, and probably in the wp article on this incident.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to leave off after this comment, but again the issue for me is not that the the information from the user page will exist out there in the world (it should, I'm not interested in suppressing it) the issue is whether we ought to be hosting hate speech from an accused murderer. You seem to be saying this entire discussion is causing more of a problem than the info on the user page (which you deemed something that, in what I would call a large understatement, "might raise eyebrows"), and I just find that strange. It suggests that you wish we had just left the info there without even discussing what to do about it, and that this obscure Wiki thread is somehow going to generate some sort of massive interest in the user page content which otherwise would not be there. That makes little sense given that the info was already being reported on before we started talking about this. To me this discussion is just about doing the right thing at the end of the day and that's what's important.

You didn't respond to my point about the theoretical family member, but I still think that's the way we should be thinking about this. Or you might imagine an alternative scenario: picture a prominent blogger, say someone who blogs regularly about anti-Semitism, getting wind of the fact that we were still hosting a hateful message from this guy and had actively refused to delete it. Said blogger posts the link to the historical diff and tells his or her thousands of readers to ask the WMF why they think it's okay to keep hate speech connected to a murder on their servers. Would you have a good answer for that, or more to the point would you help with the complaints that would follow? Maybe you think it would somehow be unfair for someone to get all righteous about a user page comment that the WMF is not directly responsible for, but in the real world it's quite possible something like that would happen (and really they wouldn't be wrong). To me the better solution is to delete it, make it available to reporters and cops, and put out a statement that "The Wikimedia Foundation has permanently deleted this material as it is our policy to not let our users post hate speech on their user pages. It is available to law enforcement and the media." I think it's kinda hard for anyone to argue with that.

As I said above it's a "no-brainer to me," but as you say apparently not to everyone. Frankly I'm surprised we even have to have a conversation like this, though I guess I shouldn't be. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 23:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the liberty of placing my comment a bit out of order, since the last was directed to me. There strikes me as some what of a conflict between a fearless encyclopedia which is proudly not censored, and fearing what Mrs. Grundy or a hypothetical relative whose views we have no way of knowing might think. But also, you didn't answer my query. Why not delete any hate speech, leave the rest of it up (much of it is personal biography) and also leave up the talk page, which contains no hate speech? It seems to me that disposes of your hypothetical as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is covered under WP:UP#NOT, item 9. Proper procedure is to delete polemics from user pages, independent of the subject matter. It's not normally considered grounds for page deletion unless the user reintroduces the material. There's something to be said for leaving the historical record intact. --John Nagle (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Posting a brief note here to say that there has been discussion of this incident (what to do with the user page in question) on the functionaries-en mailing list. I'm posting here to pass on the general tenor of what was discussed and to ask that admins be calm here and not take precipitate action further to what has already been done, or to undo what has been done. One conclusion was that oversight is not needed here, as that would hinder the release of information later if needed. Both Mike Godwin and Cary Bass (both deal with WMF office matters) commented there, and are happy to leave this to the community to deal with. If requests are made to the WMF from law enforcement officers, it can be handled at that end. If individual admins or editors get requests from law enforcement officers or reporters, could they please direct the enquiries to the Communications committee or the WMF (Wikimedia Foundation) office, as needed? Those people will be better able to confirm the identity of those requesting information. When consensus has been reached by the community as to what to do, could this thread be put in archive tags to avoid dragging out the discussion? And could admins and editors keep an eye on the article on the shooting and its talk page? Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• The actual question is whether we would have deleted the page based on the original contents had it been noticed. If we would have, obviously it should remain deleted. Looking at it, I'm not sure. I also notice [52], replied to at [53], since automatically archived. DGG (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Now reference to The Times mentioned his having a WP account has been removed from the article altogether. I'm not sure the fact that he had a WP user account, or that someone purporting to be him did, is really encyclopedic content. I guess the fact that nobody's claiming that their acct has been deleted probably means something... Eventually the subject may come back to the fore, but I, at least, am content to move on to more important matters... Tomer^talk 01:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I agree that the question is deletion versus undeletion. My post here was to say that the question of deletion or not is being left open for the community to decide (the WMF Office don't currently want to get involved), but with a caution against wheel-warring over this. Calm discussion for a suitable period of time, and then some judgment of consensus or policy (or a call for some addition to policy to cover this sort of situation). In any case, I'd say protection of the pages is needed. I noticed the archived request for feedback as well. Don't think it is incredibly relevant (unless people want to look at the Willis Carto and Revilo P. Oliver articles). No comment on the user page itself, except to say that only one revision is strictly relevant (the one where the user created the page). The rest is just people adding or removing stuff after the news broke. The only other contribution was this one, removed with these two edits. Those three contributions (one to an article, one at requests for feedback, and one creating an autobio on his user page) appear to be the sum of this user's contributions to Wikipedia. And seeing that there is a federal investigation into the shooting, it is probably best left at that. Carcharoth (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Delete it. Salt it. Then block anyone stupid enough to revert that action. If the media make a storm about it (the suppression of the page), then use it as an example of how while Wikipedia is open to anyone, we are not a free host for the nutjob extremists of the world. Then we explain that while many of these nutjobs do currently undermine our legitimacy as an encyclopedia, we are taking steps to actively ensure that Wikipedia is not a vehicle of hate... unless of course this isn't the case (as we all know), and we really are a vehicle of hate (which, sadly, is the truth). Hiberniantears (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I concur with David (DGG) on this one, in that if this would have been deleted as an unacceptable userpage prior to this morning, it should be left deleted now. In my opinion, the probable reason why this was not deleted prior to this morning was that no one knew it existed. With 60,829,428 pages, it was easy for this to have been missed. -- Avi (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I consider it more likely he would have been asked to remove the Judaism reference, and if he had not done so himself, it would have been done for him. The rest of the page probably would have been allowed to stand.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The user page was a "self-introduction" to the user, written in the third person and including a short description of his beliefs along with other material. The short "hate speech" statement was presented as a quotation from the user. If this entire user page is considered to have been clearly eligible for speedy deletion, would Wikipedia also delete entire user pages that say (for example) "This user believes in the right to bear arms and always carries a gun"? Or how about "This user believes in the right to bear arms and always carries a gun to protect himself from [fill in name of hated group here]"? Are users allowed to say things about themselves only if what they say is "socially acceptable"? The line is not at all clear. --Orlady (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like WP:DRV would be the place to take it to now. Just a suggestion, when I go to the deleted user page and talk page, I do get the deletion log thrown right into my face which could just make it worse. Might I suggest someone now create a blank page so the deletion log doesn't pop up? --64.85.221.124 (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that at this point we leave the situation alone. There is no need for any further action. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

TShilo12, Wehwalt, as administrators you should be aware of our Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox official policy. If you are not, please make yourself aware of it, because it is a policy so fundamental that its written form pre-dates even that of our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. That is what we, as editors and administrators, enforce here. Our actions are always to support that policy, and to keep the project on track. We are not here to pander to people who don't have a correct understanding of what censorship actually is. (The fallacies in the "It's censorship!" argument have been discussed many times before, so I won't reiterate them.) Nor should our project goals be compromised and subverted by the news story of the day. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not a soapbox. What external observers will, or at least should, observe from this is that, either by using the deletion tool or using the editing tool (according to specific circumstances), we will take that soapbox away, when we learn of it, from beneath someone who abuses Wikipedia by using it as such. We will pursue our stated goal, and not let that goal be altered by people coming to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons, be they soapboxers or those who are looking for such soapboxing. This is a project to write an encyclopaedia.

As an aside: Yes, deleting user talk pages is an unusual step. We usually keep those. However note that in this case there was no use of the user talk page to communicate either to or from the user apart from a boilerplate vandalism warning and a notification of this noticeboard section. Some of the edits to the talk page were people posting news reports and writing personal commentary on those news reports, for example. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, either. If anyone is looking for a wiki-based newspaper where such reports can be written, notice that Gunman kills one at Holocaust Museum in Washington is the lead article on Wikinews' main page right now. That's the project to write a newspaper. Uncle G (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the thoughts. It's a good thing I have a thick skin, many would find your suggestion that I and another administrator are unaware of fundamental Wikipedia policies somewhat offensive and patronizing, and I urge you not to repeat it to one less tolerant than me. Leave that aside. Disagreeing with you does not equal ignorance, it simply means we do not agree. I must say, I admire your attempts to shoehorn the result you want (deletion) with WP policies even though you admit that the user talk page are generally not deleted, still you find an ad hoc reason not based in policy for it. Have you actually read what he wrote on the user page? Much of it is biographical. I'm not clear how that falls under soapboxing. Let's face it, the true objection is "we don't want that here", and we have the use of wiki to, as a child would say, "make it didn't happen". Frankly, I would undelete, protect, and preface both pages with a note explaining what it is, that we don't agree with it and that we are appalled at Brunn's actions and our sympathies are with the survivors.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Of course the reason is that we don't want it. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and its related policies, of which Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox is one, is a statement of what we don't want, and what our project is not. We've never wanted this sort of thing, from the very start of the project (hint), and we blank or delete such things regularly, just as other WWW projects, with other goals, remove or erase material that isn't in accordance with what they do. Far from "We don't want it." being a bad reason for removing something, as you have it, it is in fact one of the primary reasons for removing things. We have a formal list of things that we "don't want" at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (our second-oldest official policy), and we use the tools at our disposal (as appropriate for specific circumstances) for removing such content.

    No, we should not keep such things prefixed "with a note explaining […] that we are appalled". Wikipedia isn't for advocating contrary views on such things either. We are here to write an encyclopaedia, and stay out of such debates and advocacy entirely.

    If, moreover, you don't understand what is soapboxing about someone, with no intention in the slightest of contributing to Wikipedia, creating an account so that xe can write about xyr personal political views (in the entirely unsubtle guise of an autobiography written in the third person) on the user page that that account hands to xem, then you very much do need to familiarize yourself with the policy (which explains it), or at the very least read soapbox.

    By the way: If you view deletion as "make it didn't happen" then you don't understand the tool that you possess. There is an explanation of what actually happens when the deletion tool is used at MW:Manual:Archive table. Uncle G (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, hate (or at least hateful) speech tends to be widely tolerated on userpages here. I don't agree with that, but it's the status quo. In this case, I think what he wrote should be left up as a matter of historical record, with perhaps an explanatory note "Wikipedia does not condone these remarks" or words to that effect. I know that's unusual, but I think it makes the most sense. IronDuke 17:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with IronDuke (I often do, he's very sensible). Look, I'm Jewish and a former synagogue president, this thing appals me. But pretending this guy was never on WP is not the answer. We own up when we're hoaxed and mention it when we get media attention. We should put the pages back with a factual comment, fully protect it, and leave it at that.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not a question of "owning up" to anything. Wikipedia isn't involved in this, takes no position on this, took no position on this, and should continue to take no position on this — which includes not taking an "appalled by this" position. Wikipedia is not for any point of view, be it M. von Brunn's, the point of view of the editors who were editorializing on the talk page, or yours and IronDuke's.

    Nor is it a question of "pretending" anything. It is, simply, removal of content that this project is not for — the sort of removal that we do, either speedily or after discussion, hundreds of times per day, using the editing tool or the deletion tool. One editor here used the edit tool. Another used the deletion tool. One can argue as to which tool was the correct tool to use, but let's be clear here: reversal of the actions is wrong. Our project is not for what this person was using it for, not for the responses to it that were made by others on the talk page, and not for the responses to it that you and IronDuke want. It's not M. von Brunn's soapbox. It's not the soapbox for actual Wikipedia editors, either. Our best, and most proper, response, is to remove an improper use of our project, and, as Newyorkbrad said above, do no more. Uncle G (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for the excellent example of soapboxing. Tomer^talk 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Media attention to Wikipedia's actions

This New York Times blog discusses von Brunn's history here and notes the "deep level of removal" that has occurred. --Orlady (talk) 18:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Block on James von Brunn, blocking for "crimes"

I left Dragonfly a note about this, but haven't heard back. Is that block log really appropriate?

block log for User:James von Brunn

The last time I checked we don't (and probably shouldn't) have the ability to block people for conviction of a crime, let alone alleged conviction. rootology (C)(T) 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Why would any reasonable person care? Do you honestly believe any editor here should have to interact with a user such as this? Is everything a WP:Point to be covered by some policy somewhere? Is there not any room for common sense actions anymore? Rhetorically, R. Baley (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So, rhetorically, if I see in the newspaper that R. Baley of New Orleans (picking that as you the photo on your user page) was arrested and accused of grand larceny, drug dealing, rape, or homicide, and it was obviously you, you can be blocked from editing? The block log itself was oversighted by Thatcher I see now, but I'm asking about the block itself simply because I literally can't recall ever having seen someone blocked for a reported crime before. rootology (C)(T) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Whatever. I have neither the time nor the patience to discuss your ridiculous preposterous and hypothetical scenarios. I fail to see how discussing the block conditions of someone -- who literally kills people he disagrees with --is productive. Checking out, R. Baley (talk) 18:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that Rootology's point is twofold:
    • The "common sense" that you speak of should tell anyone with it that someone in critical condition in hospital is in no position to be using a Wikipedia acount to edit.
    • We don't block accounts because we think that the account-holders are criminals. We block to prevent account-holders from editing the project, to ensure that the project is not damaged.
  • Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• The block summary has since been removed from the log. I've taken the liberty of removing it from the hyperlink above, too. Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not for the reason Dragonfly gave, but I doubt any reasonable person here would argue he ought to be allowed to edit. (He's definitely not someone I'd risk getting into an edit war with.) I wouldn't object if he was reblocked by another Admin for a more neutral reason, say "performing actions that place users in danger". (That was cut-n-pasted from WP:BLOCK.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Should those who blocked him/deleted his stuff ask for police protection? Anyhoo, I suspect that any furhter discussion here is just wheel spinning. If anyone is sufficiently motivated to take this to WP:DRV, go for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been pointed out that one of the more sensible reasons to avoid explicit block log summaries like that is to avoid autoblocks (if that was a dynamic IP) being triggered, leaving some innocent user staring at their screen wondering why Wikipedia is accusing them of being a murderer. Look at the block log, and you will see that Thatcher has reblocked with autoblock disabled. Personally, in a situation like this, I would always keep the block reason vague and generic. No reason at all to be explicit. Carcharoth (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Undeleted

Undeleted by User:Y, without, from what I can see, any discussion. Hipocrite (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Whoops... I've been alerted that there's an ANI thread on this... Well, I did it in the interests of transparency, in part because NYT has questioned the deletion here: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/traces-of-shooters-online-life-begin-to-vanish/ . I'm gonna read the thread now, and reverse myself if there's consensus to delete. -- Y not? 20:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the restoration for the following reasons:

1. The page is a clear violation of WP:USER
2. The NYT does not determine Wikipedia policy
3. Any admin can see the page, it is not suppressed; thus not deep expunged.

I have asked Y to re-delete it. -- Avi (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that's it's soapboxy, but the page is a matter of public record now anyway (NYT reposted it, for one), and for us to pretend it wasn't here is silly. I just read the thread and it looks like we're divided. Maybe let's MFD the thing? Anyways, a WP:USER violation is not a speedy deletion criterion. -- Y not? 20:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion and understanding of wikipedia's policies and guidelines, for what it is worth, public record is irrelevant. We have guidelines on what is allowed or not on user pages, and the editor's legal status (innocent, accused criminal, convicted felon) is irrelevant. Were any one of us to have seen that user page last week, it would have been an MfD candidate, if not a straight speedy. The NYT has a copy; and ArbCom can supply them with one if they need (as it is not suppressed, just deleted). We are not pretending it wasn't here; we are acting on it without regard to whatever other actions Brunn did. It is unfortunate that it took the shooting for any of us to notice it. -- Avi (talk) 20:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to have unilaterally undeleted this without consulting the deleting admin, and without even bothering to look for an ANI thread or some other discussion of something that had made it into the media, was a huge mistake. You cannot come in and say, "Oh, I read the discussion ex post facto, and we seem to be divided" and that suddenly justifies that you undid another admin's action without so much as speaking to them or engaging in an ongoing conversation. Please undo your action - I believe I'm now the third admin to formally request this based on comments on your talk page. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly the best way forward at this point is to either leave the page blanked (it has just been blanked) or to place a message there explaining to readers arriving from news stories what happened to the content. Explain the content is still available in the page history. Link to our article on the shooting. Direct further enquiries to the communications committee. Carcharoth (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the blank page with a box explaining our actions, and with a link to the text in the history, now that it has been undeleted, based on discussions on functionaries-en. I believe that this complies withWP:USER while simultaneously allowing access to the original text. It also points to the incident article and ComCom. -- Avi (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec with Avi) Perhaps the mistake here was the WMF essentially leaving this up to the community, particularly when multiple users on this thread specifically asked for some guidance (it's not as though it got them out of making a statement to the press, they still did that, it was just wishy-washy, as are the goings-on here). If they would have taken a firm stand one way or another few would have argued with it, but now we have one admin undoing another one without discussion, and the word coming from Carcharoth and other functionaries (and I don't fault you/them for this at all) seems to be "leave it as is," except the status quo keeps changing. We don't need a protracted discussion on this, we just need a decision. Three people, including me, have now asked User:Y to re-delete the article (which would be the second time we've done that), i.e. this is even messier than before. I think the undeletion by Y was a huge mistake (particularly since that admin didn't even read what was going on), but at this point I don't know what the best way to proceed is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

@Bigtimepeace - I think the current situation is the best. The hate speech is not visible on the page without deliberately clicking on the link to the history (similar to a courtesy blanking) and the decision is explained in the box itself together with pointers to ComCom and the incident article. -- Avi (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Based on all this, I am sufficiently confident in my decision to not reverse myself, but I promise not to do anything else stupid. -- Y not? 21:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To Avi, I don't think it's best, and it was arrived at via an admin wheel warring and ignoring a larger discussion, but at the same time I'm not going to argue against it anymore because this doesn't need to be any more FUBAR than it already has been/is. If some discussion on the functionaries list (alluded to above) decided that we need to host that bile in the page history (which can be linked to directly by any blogger or website on earth, which is what matters), and/or if people at the Foundation have decided that, then so be it (though I have no idea what kind of discussion has been happening or if one actually did happen). But let's not pretend this decision was arrived at by the community because it was not. There was a mini admin edit war and we're apparently just deciding to let the side who did the edit warring win because deepening the edit war is even more stupid and annoying. None of us deserve any credit for how this was handled since the whole thing has been pretty damn bush league, if you ask me. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:PZJTF: silent removal of sourced info, accusing others of being Nazis & several other issues

PZJTF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been repeatedly removing sourced info or tweaking the text to contradict the sources on John Hunyadi - [54], [55], [56], [57]; and on Matthias Corvinus of Hungary - [58], [59], [60]. Only the very last edit features an edit summary, addressed to me, and which I find highly insulting: "LOL, some nazis are very jealous and envious people, as Romania was always a nazi country, not surpise for me. (Ps Hungary, Slovak, Romania are nazi countries)". This comes immediately after I reverted his unexplained and disruptive changes, leaving edit summaries which tried to explain that, while the Vlach origin of the two characters on whom we have articles have been grossly exaggerated in Romania by nationalists who ignore the fact that they were both political leaders in Hungary, neutrally mentioning that origin among the several theories is not the same thing. Now, not only do I find it highly calumnious when my ability to edit neutrally is questioned by people who falsify data, but for me to be deemed a "Nazi" is exceptionally so, given the nature of my contributions to this project. What's more, name-calling an entire people, particularly with this sort of names, is a gross breach of civility and a serious bias concern. In fact, my motivations are outlined here.

He recently added a message on my talk page, where he uses reverse psychology to accuse me of vandalism, and states a claim (a false claim, as far as I or anyone can tell) according to which I had removed one of the references.

Also note that PZJTF's edits and his summaries come in-between or exactly after similar edits by an IP: [61] (note the edit summaries - "Romanian vandalism and fascism", "Romanian lies, Romanian fascists please leave alone the Hungarian articles!!", "Damned nazis! Romanians go back to India, LEAVE THE HUNGARIAN ARTICLES !!! ). I have personally warned the IP user on his talk page - you will note, from his few but highly disruptive contributions, that he has a history of racist remarks, edit warring and vandalism. I would urge admins to assess the possibility of multiple accounts being used to circumvent wikipedia policies - although I do believe that, in each individual case, the nature of the edits is enough to warrant a block.

In addition to the fact that PZJTF has not learned anything from his previous blocks, I also note that his style of editing also poses serious concerns regarding his advocacy and even his self-declared affiliations, all of which he drags into mainspace: [62]. Dahn (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that 195.199.142.33 (talk · contribs) = PZJTF. However, it is possible that the user was logged out. MuZemike 21:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

For transparency for other readers, PZJTF (talk · contribs) is the recent rename of MagyarTürk (talk · contribs). weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, with the history, that comment was just too far. This user is not here to build an encyclopedia. They're a walking WP:BATTLEfield. I have indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse that block... not that you needed it, but seriously, we don't need that crap around here... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Historičar

A quick heads-up: the indef blocked sockpuppeteer User:Historičar is predictably continuing to edit on the Bosnian language article with his IP regardless of the block. His IPs are:

• 85.158.38.4
• 85.158.36.176
• 85.158.39.182

• 217.75.202.131

I recommend a range-block. The man apparently thinks its ok to evade his block. When asked if that is him again, he replied "of course, and I am contributing by Wiki policy, completely by the rules" (see History page of the Bosnian language article [63]). I asked him a number of times to "please stop", to no effect. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I have to say that DIREKTOR is not telling the truth. I irronically said "of course", and "I am whatever you think I am just please try not to delete the source". The problem is, that I included the required source, which some users are not satisfied with:

• User:DIREKTOR
• User:Ivan Štambuk
• User:Aradic-es

Those users are probably the same one (DIREKTOR said: "Yes we're all the same user"), because they cover each other on Bosnian language when they want to avoide 3RR.

User:DIREKTOR already broke 3RR:

• Revision as of 10:51, 10 June 2009
• Revision as of 14:37, 10 June 2009
• Revision as of 21:38, 10 June 2009
• Revision as of 22:36, 10 June 2009 etc.

85.158.39.182 (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone, meet User:Historičar. The guy who reported me for sockpuppeteering without any idea who my "sockpuppet" is. :) Of course, his allegations could not be more obviously nonsensical. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Quack. At least I'm not fooled. MuZemike 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend semiprotection of the article instead of a range block. That may work better and will have less collateral damage. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That works too, I suppose... though it has a downside: it may be necessary to protect other articles as User:Historičar moves on. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 00:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The upside is that semi-protection would suffice (if you want to call it an "upside"). MuZemike 02:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with either option. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a month; other articles will be protected as necessary. EyeSerene^talk 18:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Facto socking to create disruption

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

The second listed user has been found to be a sock of the first, per this CU request. Now, what is troubling here is the apparent purpose of this account. Sure, they start off making some constructive edits, but the main ones that concern me are the blatant personal attacks, as seen here, calling me racist, and here, calling me insane. Perhaps I am a little paranoid, but it isn't without merit. If this second account is just going to be used to avoid scrutiny, it needs to be blocked. Opinions?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's standard procedure: they do enough edits so they have autoconfirmation, then they go nuts. HalfShadow 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And obviously they should all be blocked. Presumably that will happen in due course. The admins are on a retreat at the moment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Block the sock indef and block the user for a few weeks. Nothing to talk about. Syn 01:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked indefinitely. Tan | 39 01:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I brought it here was because it was stated in the SPI that Facto was an established user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Eyes on RHAM High School please

RHAM High School. I've had the most troubling diffs oversighted, and now feel able to bring this to administrators' attention.

A teacher accused of paedophile offences' name and address was posted. A number of IP addresses are involved in editing the article, and I think it best if administrators kept an eye on the matter in case of any recurrence.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems the oversighter has now protected the article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

need review of the topic ban of two editors from Cold Fusion

A topic banned editor is claiming that the banning admin is involved[64], so I'm bringing the topic ban here for review before it becomes a total trainwreck (read below and you will understand).

In the last few days Hipocrite and Abd had both edit warred in Cold fusion resulting in two consecutive protections, and both had started several competing polls at different times, with the last polls finishing in this ANI thread. The last protection was made by User:William M. Connolley (WMC), who later reverted the protected article back to other version after a request on the talk page by an editor(request, acknowledgement of change), and who finally decided to topic ban both User:Hipocrite and User:Abd from Cold fusion and its talk page for one month and simply unprotect the article, (see ban notice in talk page diff full discussion), later noting that it was for an indefinite period and not just for a month[65], pending their behaviour in this mediation process (which is exclusively content issues).

Abd says that "Administrators do not have authority to issue page bans without the consent of the editor"[66], that he can withdraw his consent to be banned[67], that he is not banned [68] and that the best way forward is to defy his ban to see if he gets blocked [69] (I prepared a longer explanation with more diffs, but this is not a RFC/U, it's just to give you an idea). All between constant references to going to Arbcom. This is all worsened by WMC refusing to give a formal policy-based reason and pointing instead to WP:TRIFECTA [70] even although many editors have asked for a topic ban before and have given plenty of material and reasons for it.

As for why the topic ban is good for wikipedia, see the explanation of why the two editors were being disruptive to the project in that page, and how. Also, see the admin who made the first protection of Cold fusion saying that WMC has the situation under control[71], and another admin explaining how he should appeal the ban[72]

So, please could some uninvolved admins review the topic ban and say if it's ok? --Enric Naval (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Drama, drama. If I have a complaint, surely I could bring it here. I could have, in fact, gone direct to AC on this one. However, I concluded it was more efficient to just ignore the ban, so I let WMC know, I thought that a courtesy. He disagrees that I can do this. So what? There is a faction of editors who've been agitating for my ban since I filed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 which turned into Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG, WMC among them. I could provide evidence about WMC's involvement, about how he was in dispute with me about an edit he made to the article while it was protected, not only without consensus but contrary to consensus, and then he declared me (and Hipocrite) banned for unspecified reasons -- but so what? The threat could simply be hot air. He hasn't blocked me; his edit-under-protection wasn't worth a filing, and that's the only policy violation so far. If he were to push that button, I do know how to put up an unblock template and to appeal. Enric Naval is one among a few who were thrilled to see WMC do what they'd been praying for, and he's dismayed, apparently, that I'm not going to slink off quietly into RCP, (come to think of it, sounds nice), so he brings this here. If I'd actually challenged it, this would have been ArbComm fodder, and I'd much rather work on articles than compile diffs. The alleged ban is moot unless an admin decides I've violated some policy and blocks me; an administrator can threaten to block someone if they do X, and you can call that a ban from X, but it's not a community ban or an ArbComm enforcement ban, and WP:BAN doesn't contemplate this. WMC invokes IAR, and so can I; and there is no point debating this here, there has been no disruption on my part, there is no emergency, so AN/I is inappropriate. --Abd (talk) 03:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Abd here. Unless and until one side or the other takes some definitive action (i.e. Abd editing against wikiedpia user WMC's claim of a ban, or WMC blocking Abd for something) there's really nothing to talk about. There is no policy against two editors making bluff charges at one another on their talk pages, is there? The current state is that Abd has NOT violated the "ban" and wikipedia user WMC has not enforced the "ban" with a block. So what specifically are we here to talk about at this point? This thread is premature and therefore unnecessarily disruptive in its own right. --GoRight (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There has been definitive action - WMC has banned Abd and Hipocrite from Cold fusion, and thus reviewing that ban before things escalate any further seems wise to me. - Bilby (talk) 04:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on what you mean by "definitive action." Technically WMC has simply made some official sounding statements, and Abd has said he doesn't accept those statements as being valid. So what? None of that definitively violates any policy, and is therefore not actionable. So my meaning was basically, that until either one actually does anything to violate a policy in such a way that it requires a remedy there is really nothing to discuss here. Let Abd and WMC bicker amongst themselves on their talk pages all they want. --GoRight (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflictx2) (As Bilby says, I'm asking to review a clear action: the topic banning of two editors by an admin that appears to be involved) Since Abd claims that WMC is involved, and since he has explicitely expressed his wish to defy his ban "a little later today"[73] for that reason among others, I brought it here so it's no longer a topic ban by WMC, but a topic ban by the community. Or, if the community thinks that the topic ban is bad, that the topic ban is lifted. This is normal procedure at ANI, even if it's not written down anywhere. I humbly suggest that Abd forgets about WMC and explains to these uninvolved admins why he don't deserve a topic ban on that page. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I'm with you on the need to have a definitive policy on whether an Administrator is able to unilaterally declare a ban on some user without direct and definitive community consensus on that point. I tried to get such a statement back when we were discussing the Jed Rothwell "ban" which I still contend is NOT a ban. That case was put to rest by an indefinite block on a user that no one is going to seriously defend. That defense would be the responsibility of the user himself. But unfortunately AN/I is not the place to resolve that particular point because no one here has the authority to declare or implement such a policy change on their own. --GoRight (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the topic ban for both editors. This is getting tiresome between these two. Additionally, Abd seems to clearly be on a WP:POINT-making streak, and additional action may need to be taken, unrelated to his involvement at Cold fusion, but related to his disruption since than, such as taunting admins to block him and reneging on a perfectly reasonable voluntary self-ban for no good reason. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused, Jayron32. "Between these two?" There has been no dispute between Hipocrite and I over this. What WP:POINT "streak"? All I did was tell WMC I wasn't going to respect the ban, so, if he'd banned me in lieu of blocking, he could reconsider. What disruption? You want disruption, file an AN/I report! Voluntary self-ban? WMC disregarded the self-ban offer and imposed a quite different ban. What admins have I taunted? WMC? How? I'm getting a bad feeling about this, Jayron. What's the basis for the ban? That I objected to being banned? Isn't that a tad circular?

Jayron's comment shows why I try to stay away from AN/I. He endorsed a ban here, without seeing any evidence on which the ban was supposedly based, and showing an unfamiliarity with what had actually happened. That happens all the time on AN/I, people pile in and vote for "their side." Facts? Who cares? Well, ArbComm will care, I assure him. What's the purpose of this discussion? The most likely outcome is no consensus, a waste of time. But if some admin closes with a ban, fine. I would almost certainly appeal, and this time it all gets considered with evidence and procedure and order. For a few days I considered taking the ban to ArbComm directly, there is a basis for that. I concluded that it was much less disruptive to simply ignore it, and I discussed that with a few editors in a few places. Before deciding to not go to ArbComm, I emailed one admin whom I thought WMC might listen to, because I'm convinced that if this goes to ArbComm, the least consequence he sees is another reprimand. He didn't like it, so I let it go. I'm going to bed. You guys can handle it, and if enough people show up, it will be fine, except for the wasted time. --Abd (talk) 03:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's odd to accuse Jayron/ANI of rush to judgment and acting without seeing the evidence. You just made a long series of charges against William Connolley, and then indicated that you couldn't be bothered to actually provide diffs. This is mostly ArbCom's fault, for not making it clearer in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG that Abd's approach was problematic. But of course, this will undoubtedly end up before them again in short order, which will be punishment enough. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not odd that Abd didn't waste time digging up diffs here. Diffs to defend against what? What is he accused of? What policy has he violated by telling wikipedia user WMC that he disputes his right to declare a ban and, therefore, intends to ignore it? Until Abd does something to violate the declared ban and WMC takes action as a result of it there is nothing to do here. There are no diffs to even dig up if one wanted to, are there?

This is the exact same scenario as we saw with Jed Rothwell and you know how that turned out. No one is actually going to seriously defend Rothwell against your indefinite block, that would be for Rothwell to do. But Abd? There would be lots of support to defend him against such a unilateral and punative action. Care to test the waters on that front, MastCell, like you did in the case of Rothwell? --GoRight (talk) 04:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I already gave links and diffs in my opening comment, I am not going to repeat them here just because you say that I didn't give any. Uninvolved admins can look for themselves at Talk:Cold fusion or at Abd's contributions, or they can ask for more diffs if they think they need them to form their opinion. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you must have misread my statement. I never claimed that you didn't provide diffs, I said that Abd didn't provide diffs. But just because you provide diffs to point to some related topics, it does not mean that either Abd or WMC have done anything to violate any policies. Until they do there's really nothing to be done here.

On the other hand, if uninvolved admins want to look into this case I don't have any problem with that. The more sunlight the better in these cases. I just don't think that (a) they have anything to actually look into since there have been no policy violations from either Abd or WMC relative to WMC's declaration that a topic ban is actually in place, or (b) the admins here [Update: do not] have the authority to to fix the issue you raise, that is for ArbCom to address as far as I can see. --GoRight (talk) 04:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse the current topic ban for both editors as well. As someone who headed up the original mediation for Cold Fusion a long time ago, the current tit-for-tat pointy debates and long-winded tirades have grown tiresome. Additional action in the way of blocks or request for additional sanctions may be necessary if this trend continues, especially in regards to the recent non-Cold Fusion actions. seicer | talk | contribs 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse topic ban. Hipocrite has raised no objections. On the other hand, since the ban, Abd has gone into full blown wikilawyering mode. His posts are unreasonable, highly provocative and can verge on rants. When he took me to task for being a pure mathematician on the talk page of User:Kirk shanahan, I revealed that, as such, I might actually be familiar with quantum field theory and with discussions of research in chemistry (including fraudulent research). His reaction - quite ill-considered - was to ridicule me. This all arose from a discussion of the use of secondary sources in science, where multiple science editors have explained how this works in practice. Abd would like it to be otherwise for his purposes. He frequently writes that he is working towards consensus, but this does not seem to be the case. He is hostile to most scientists and is slowly, persistently and not-so-politely pushing his extreme point of view. It's time for a lengthy break for Abd from this topic area. He seems to have completely lost track of what is involved in editing uncontroversial wikipedia articles in science. We do not have large speculative sections on poorly understood, unestablished science in wikipedia articles. Abd's editing has regressed to that of WP:SPA. It reflects his active correspondence with cold fusion advocates Steven B. Krivit and banned editor JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). By trying persistently to rebrand cold fusion as "emerging science", he has become a disruptive fringe POV-pusher. The article is progressing quite smoothly without him. Abd does have his faithful supporters (Coppertwig, GoRight, ...), but they are rarely able to justify his stance in fringe POV-pushing. Mathsci (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Small correction just to keep the record straight in all of this. Jed Rothwell was never banned. The Arbcom specifically declined to endorse such a ban favoring instead that the community use the existing tools at their disposal to deal with him. As a result User:MastCell issued an indefinite block on Rothwell's and immediately recused himself from further action. No one has appealed this action, but it is important to know that a block and a ban are not the same thing. Carry on ...

  "they are rarely able to justify his stance in fringe POV-pushing." - I also dispute this characterization of Abd's actions. Abd has been working to bring the article into conformance with the rulings related to Fringe Science, which is not POV pushing but rather the more laudable goal of supporting Arbcom rulings and Wikipedia policy. --GoRight (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse the topic ban. The cold fusion editing environent has improved immeasurably since this block was enacted. Abd's threat of ignoring the ban is simply disruptive, and his baiting of WMC and pointy wikilawyering is just further evidence that the block was justified. Abd is hostile, and longwinded rants such as his were directly criticised recently by ArbCom, as was Abd's failure to use DR correctly. These have both repeated in this case. If Abd continues with this behaviour a full block may be in order. Hipocrite has, on the other hand, behaved properly since the block and engaged in mediation in good faith. Verbal chat 06:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support one-month ban. Time to take a break. There's plenty of other things in the world worth writing about. If Abd is really motivated, he/she can spend that time gathering materials to replicate cold fusion... II | (t - c) 06:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse one-month. The behaviour on the Cold fusion page looks both tendentious and disruptive, and seems to meet most of the criteria for both per the related pages. I'm hoping a break will give Abd a chance to look at why some editors are finding his behaviour difficult, and perhaps time to consider some of the feedback. - Bilby (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support the ban. Abd's comments on the subject seem to be rather poor attempts at justifying his behavior or finding a loophole that would excuse him. If he's interested in resolving the issue, there's a mediation open that he can participate in. Shell ^babelfish 07:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I'd like to thank everyone who notified me about this thread, via email and my talk page. While I was a little shocked to be banned along with Abd, I decided then I didn't care enough to argue about it, and I still don't. Because Cold Fusion is just one of thousands of articles that have problems on this encyclopedia, I just moved on. I am happy to remain banned from Cold Fusion as long as it gets Abd out of the hair of the editors who appear to be productively improving the article. I intend to continue to work in the hopefully productive mediation, and apologize again to that mediator, but note that I did warn him! In summary, and as I've espoused multiple times (diffs on request, but ask Roux for a recent one)- ban everyone, and then find the person that complains, and keep them banned, because they're the one causing the problem.

PS: Even though I didn't read the walls of text below this from Abd, I'd merely like to say that any conclusions he has drawn about me or the reasons I have done or not done something are disuputed by me. If anyone would like further comment about my specific facutal dispute with whatever Abd has assumed of my motives or actions, I can be reached on my talk page. Hipocrite (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"I am happy to remain banned from Cold Fusion as long as it gets Abd out of the hair of the editors who appear to be productively improving the article." - I am perfectly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and WP:AGF here, but anyone who thinks about this situation critically does have to wonder if this was not your intent all along (i.e. to intentionally provoke a confrontation and then voluntarily fall on the sword for what you perceive to be the greater good). --GoRight (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. From the back-and-forth I've read, apparently Abd is unable or unwilling to express himself concisely, and has additional problems with bowing to consensus once consensus is reached. The harangues I've waded through add little to the discussion in which they're placed, and seem to serve to quite annoy those who are working to actually improve the article. Unitanode 13:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse particularly in the case of abd, about whom i think its a pity this isn't indefinite. Really, some bold admin should do the encyclopedia a favor and just make it a permenant ban from the topic now and save a lot of time and tears.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I've been watching this ongoing dispute since around the arbcom case with Jzg and Abd. I have never edited the article in dispute but I have been watching the developements due to my interest in the WP:REHAB project and doing research for the project. Watching Abd wikilawyering like s/he has been is very sad to watch. I did read all of the threads here including Abd's long response below. I don't understand why Abd keeps bringing Hipocrite into discussions here since he is not disputing the ban. I think from all I've read that Abd has worn out the patience of the editors at this article and pretty much every where else. I find some of what Abd has said to WMC about taking it to arbcom or other places about the ban is crossing WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Abd has to stop the WP:TE and WP:Wikilawyering. If this does go to arbcom, I am guessing they aren't going to be too pleased to see another case so soon. So yes I think it's time for Abd to find something else to do and leave this alone for awhile. If not, than maybe a wikibreak maybe in order to think about what everyone is saying. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Responses of Abd

To Bilby: Escalating to prevent esclation?

Bilby wrote, There has been definitive action - WMC has banned Abd and Hipocrite from Cold fusion, and thus reviewing that ban before things escalate any further seems wise to me. Reviewing the ban here was escalation and disruption, when it was possible that no escalation was needed and that no further disruption would take place. Had either banned editor acted disruptively, they could be blocked for that, the issue being reviewed in response by a single presumably neutral administrator, examining the evidence. If further escalation was needed, one step at a time. Considering this in the hot environment of AN/I, where editors and administrators, too-frequently, make snap judgments based on AGF of the reporter and some superficial resemblance to cogency, is likely to produce further disruption. Discussion with WMC had completed. He wasn't complaining here. I wasn't complaining here. Why did Enric Naval complain here? We do not resolve disputes by inflaming them with deception, and I will show below that he did just this. --Abd (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC) and

You have been disputing the ban since it was issued, on your talk page [74] and that of WMC. [75] Mathsci (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention on my talk page and my email inbox, Fritzpoll's talk page, and even in the Cold fusion mediation. You included explicit threats of escalation directly to ArbCom, and intimated that WMC was risking his admin bit by crossing you. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I claimed that WMC risked his bit by acting to edit the article under protection, when the version picked to revert to was not among those which had been proposed and considered by many editors, and with an expressed contempt for "polls," -- whereas there is no controversy over the poll results, they became only more obvious after I was banned -- and which version essentially ratified Hipocrites prior edit warring; the only good thing that could be said about that version is that it was better than what Hipocrite had created while waiting for protection to arrive. WMC edited an article to a preferred version, not only without consensus, but against obvious consensus. To a lesser extent, he risked his bit by declaring a ban when he was involved in a dispute with the editor. However, WMC is not responsible for the disruption here. He did not bring this report, triggering a premature consideration of an issue not ripe for conclusions, thus making an appeal to ArbComm practically inevitable. That appeal might cause consideration of WMC's actions, though I don't consider them the worst part of this affair, and he showed restraint when I rejected the ban. --Abd (talk) 17:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the action Abd refers to as WMC "edit(ing) the article under protection" was solely to restore the article to the pre-edit war version as suggested by GoRight. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Further clarification, you are correct however it is also worth noting that wikipedia user WMC took action without any showing of community consensus for my proposal (I had intended there to be some discussion of the proposal) whereas the versions in the polls had already received some level of community support. --GoRight (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

However the poll(s) were disputed and had been brought to ANI already. WMC chose a suggest pre-editwar version, and the remaining editors can restore the text (hopefully by consensual editing rather than by a revert) to any version they like, or improve beyond those versions. The revert and banning do not in any way show that WMC is involved or acted improperly, as Abd claims. Verbal chat 19:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Either you had to bring the ban to ANI or ArbCom, or you had to observe the ban, or you could have flouted the ban. As you made it quite clear that you didn't respect the ban, then option 2 is ruled out. Forcing 1 upon you seems the least disruptive way of proceeding. Hipocrite has accepted the ban, and the community seems so far to have endorsed the ban. WMC is clearly WP:UNINVOLVED. Also, EN didn't complain here - he brought the ban here to see if the community approved of it. Verbal chat 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why was he interested in seeing if the community approved of it? Idle curiosity? No, he's wanted this ban for a long time, that can be shown. But not here. I suggest that my editing record stands on its own, and that I should not be banned except for disruptive editing, and upon specific evidence of that. Most of the claims of disruption that have been raised here and elsewhere are old charges, recycled, that have already been presented to ArbComm, which did not accept them. Some of those commenting seem to think that I've misunderstood ArbComm. Consider the obvious implication: perhaps I have, and perhaps I should consult ArbComm to find out, and not a series of editors, some of whom I already know are hostile to relevant ArbComm decisions. --Abd (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Either you had to bring the ban to ANI or ArbCom, or you had to observe the ban, or you could have flouted the ban. As you made it quite clear that you didn't respect the ban, then option 2 is ruled out." - This logic is actually faulty. Option 2 is not ruled out unless and until Abd takes action to move it to Option 3. He has taken no such action, has he? --GoRight (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look at my opening comment, I linked to Abd saying explicitely that he intended to edit "a little later today" in defiance of his ban[76]. I posted in ANI just five hours 17 hours after that post. Also see several previous comments where he concludes that, according to WP:DR, the proper procedure for escalating was 1) editing in defiance of his ban 2) using the unblock template if he was blocked (in order to get an uninvolved admin to review his ban!) 3) reserving his right to go to Arbcom at some point later. Also see the linked posts where he says unambiguously that he is not banned. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

On Enric Naval's complaint

Enric Naval (talk · contribs) is a long-term, highly involved editor at Cold fusion with an axe to grind, definitely supportive of Hipocrite. Hipocrite, through the ban, had accomplished his mission at the article, we might notice the total absence of response from Hipocrite to the ban. WMC may have been guilty of an overreaction, an understandable one, but Enric Naval knows what he's doing. To set the stage here, he was, at the least, in reckless disregard of the truth, framing and presenting a highly misleading picture, and disruptively so, because once false impressions are created and editors have committed to them, it can take a lot of work to disentangle the mess.

Claim: "topic ban." Not a topic ban, a ban from editing two pages, Cold fusion and Talk:Cold fusion. The difference is important. I've been in much discussion on the topic, and it was encouraged that this continue; for example, seeking whitelisting of links to lenr-canr.org, which has been almost entirely successful, or engaging in a mediation, or discussing the topic on User Talk pages. Explicitly, this was not a topic ban.

Claim: "In the last few days Hipocrite and Abd had both edit warred in Cold fusion resulting in two consecutive protections, I almost never use a bald revert, or more than once. Hipocrite, however, showed up at Cold fusion about May 1 and began undoing sourced changes to the article, with bald reverts. This triggered much discussion, which is how I normally respond. On May 21, however, I did use reverts, and, while I did not believe that I'd broken 3RR, I had strayed into edit warring, and I responded with gratitude to article protection. I now believe that Hipocrite's goal was to provoke responses from me that would result in a ban or block. I used the time to discuss the changes over which edit warring had taken place. Some of those changes had been accepted. On June 1, however, I replaced two sections that had seen either no opposition in Talk, or where consensus had been negotiated. Hipocrite reverted them. I did not revert. Other editors attempted to restrain Hipocrite, one of them reaching 2RR. Hipocrite hit 3RR, then realized that he was going to be unable to maintain his content position, so he reverted himself down to net 2RR and went to RfPP, claiming I was edit warring, and requested protection. Then he went back to the article and immediately made a major edit to the lead, an edit which he clearly knew had no chance of being accepted, it was long-term consensus not to call cold fusion "pseudoscience" or to emphasize "pariah field" in the lead. Later, when versions were reviewed for a quick-fix edit under protection, nobody, not even Hipocrite, supported the version he created while he knew protection was imminent. He knew that admins there don't dig deeply; I'd say they should be a little more careful when the principal, long-term and immediate, edit warrior is the one complaining. I have to take the kids to school, I'll return, later, with more analysis and diffs. --Abd (talk) 11:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you mean bold. Verbal chat 13:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he means that he disguises his reverts a bit (makes them "not bald") by making other, minor changes. I could be wrong here, but I think that's what he means. Unitanode 13:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha... maybe he means "empirically unsupported", like his attacks on Enric Navel and WMC above. Verbal chat 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If an administrator were to dig deeper, he would discover that it was Hipocrite that requested article protection because of Abd's edits. [77]

He meant just what he said. A bald revert is one that does not even attempt a compromise position, which Abd typically does as a means of seeking consensus. A bald revert merely undoes a user's action in its entirety. --GoRight (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The first step in WP:DR is discussion between the editors engaged. I first disputed the ban, WMC rejected that, and I dropped it while I considered what to do. I realized that it might avoid disruption if I ignored the ban, rather than challenging it up the ladder, I notified WMC. He rejected that, as well, but he did not seem inclined to do anything rash, and he apparently saw no need to escalate. In spite of baiting to violate or escalate, I declined. I did not edit Talk:Cold fusion yesterday because I didn't get to it, and saw nothing urgent. Today I'm not editing the article or its Talk because of this discussion; at this point there is a clear majority in favor of a ban, so I'm bound to respect that pending, even if I think no legitimate basis exists. Due respect for consensus is fundamental, and I appear to dispute it only when I believe that deeper consideration will confirm my position, and that dispute never extends to defiance. Even without a ban, I would not be editing Cold fusion itself at this point except with uncontroversial edits. My approach to Wikipedia involves seeking real consensus, not just an appearance of consensus produced by banning editors with a significant point of view. That's why I don't edit war and why the incident of May 21 stands out as very unusual in my record. Seeking real consensus requires, often, discussion in depth, and where discussion is suppressed, we can expect continued disruption. I try to make sure that the presentation of evidence has been completed before seeking wider attention, if necessary. Often, that presentation is quite enough, as happened at Martin Fleischmann. I'll come back with diffs about that protection "because of Abd's edits." The reality is that Hipocrite gamed RfPP to make and freeze an edit worse than a mere revert, and I was not revert warring. I'll show the history. --Abd (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Who baited you? Do you have diffs? In fact it looks as though you have been baiting WMC - I quote from above "but he did not seem inclined to do anything rash". I've only seen people advise you to follow the ban. Verbal chat 17:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To the community that has !voted here

I am ceasing response to this report, because of the WP:SNOW result above, and I ask that those inclined to defend me please cease it at this point. If you want to be informed of further action related to this, which I would expect would only be an RfAr, anything else would be uselessly disruptive, please watch User:Abd/Notices, or my Talk page. If other editors arrive who are familiar with the issues, who know how deceptive the filing here was, and who try to counter it, it would only increase disruption. There are arbitratable issues established here and in prior events, and I could have gone to ArbComm over the ban; I would not have brought it here, AN/I deals with emergencies and does a poor job of making deliberated decisions based on evidence. I see no chance that this discussion could reverse itself without major disruption, therefore, please stop. I will take the issues here, as may be appropriate for ArbComm, there, because it is clear to me that process short of that will lead to simply more dispute, for reasons I will make plain in an RfAr. I request a neutral administrator to close this discussion; even if the admin were to decide that the ban was mass hysteria and not founded on evidence, I would still not defy such a massive expression of support for the ban without finding confirmation in a more careful, deliberative process, as happens at ArbComm. I thank GoRight for his efforts to defend me, and, as to the rest of you, well, see you around. (If the close is a neutral administrator, there would be someone to administer the ban, to decide on enforcement, etc., someone with whom I can negotiate. Given the !votes above, it would be preposterous of me to imagine that an uninvolved administrator had closed with bias. I ask that the close be done by an admin who would be willing to consider evidence that was not presented here, for reasons I've explained. Simply "endorsing" the ban leaves administration in the hands of WMC, a task which he should not have taken on because of recusal policy. That is, the close should confirm the ban, not the banning administrator. --Abd (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• It should confirm both. I do not see anything that WMC has done wrong in this case. He stepped into a sticky situation, as an uninvolved administrator, and handled it with relative aplomb. Hipocrite has accepted the ban (and, by extension and common sense, WMC's placement of it), as should you. Unitanode 21:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd's editing behaviour seems to have regressed to that of an internet troll. Mathsci (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:USEDfan again

Resolved

USEDfan was indef blocked around a year ago, and since then has created more than two dozen sock puppets (most of which were confirmed by checkuser). His actual master account is User:Xotheusedguyox but he is better known by his sock puppet User:USEDfan. Last month User:Felix 12 22 was blocked as a sock puppet of USEDfan, and just recently User:Hardtosay11 turned up and the accounts very first edits were restoring all of USEDfan's latest socks edits, the edits of the Felix account. Thanks. Landon1980 (talk) 05:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, every single person who edited the used page over the last year gets their edit reverted by this user and some are most likely regular users that got screwed and didn't know about themselves being reported. Luckily I am smart and know how to see when someone makes an edit. Please take a look into the negative and vandal edits made by ^ the user Landon1980 because all they every do is stalk the page and revert an edit and say USEDfan. -Hardtosay11 (talk) 05:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have never been wrong about a user being USEDfan. In fact, all of the accounts I accused but one (maybe 2) were confirmed by a checkuser. Landon1980 (talk) 05:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Quack!. Anyways, the account has been indef blocked by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Tiptoety ^talk 05:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• You just don't show up, immediately understand everything that's going on and manage to revert multiple articles to a banned user's preferred version. It quacks, so I've indef blocked. Shell ^babelfish 05:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a checkuser run anyway, just for the record. And it might give us more data for when USEDfan figures out how to be a little more subtle about his approach to things.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That, and it would clean out his sock drawer. The last time a checkuser ran USEDfan they found 4 different sleeper accounts, all waiting to be auto-confirmed. He most likely has more sock puppets out there, some of which are editing Ratchet & Clank and it's related articles. At first he would use the same sock to edit all his favorite articles, but he later started creating socks for specific articles he likes to edit. Landon1980 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible COI at Montana Meth Project and Thomas Siebel

Ongoing low-level edit war at Montana Meth Project between User:FirstVirtual and several other editors. FirstVirtual is the name of the company chaired by Thomas Siebel which apparently funds the Montana Meth Project ads. Since September 2008, several editors have expressed concerns at article Talk about possible COI between FirstVirtual and the Montana Meth Project article, yet editor FirstVirtual invariably returns to heavily edit the page, removing all criticism of the ads and of their efficacy in reducing methamphetamine use among teens. A similar edit pattern has emerged at Thomas Siebel, with FirstVirtual's edits dominating the page. FirstVirtual also made a minor edit to Siebel Scholars. (Possibly of note: these three articles are the only articles that FirstVirtual has ever edited.) Please assist us with restoring NPOV and addressing possible COI at Montana Meth Project and Thomas Siebel. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on the edits, but the username is that of a company, and it should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, and that username will be blocked per Wikipedia:Username policy#Company/group names, unless an admin so choses to block them here and now for other reasons. --64.85.214.230 (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I chose to notify the user of the username issue with a comment at their Talk page; in order to give them a chance to change their username and retain their edit history. Whatever404 (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FirstVirtual continued deleting sourced criticism of their project after your warning, so I blocked them under the username policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Grandma Dottie

Grandma Dottie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Obviously not a new user. First effort was to go to BQ to try to get User:BQZip01's goat. Soon after went to my page and started talking about Axmann8's various impostor accounts. No way a new user would know anything about that. Probably a sock of the one who tried to impostor Axmann8 a couple of months ago. Went to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan and denied any connection, but conveniently informed us of its IP address (Iowa). In any case, looks to be up to no good. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Concur. IMNSHO, this could also be User:TomPhan: a user who has left death threats and accusations that I murdered someone on my talk/user pages (edits were oversighted). The WhoIs function returned information about the IP address which appears to be registered in New Jersey (not Iowa...???) and several IPs related to TomPhan have also been from New Jersey and nearby areas. Given this person's first edit (clearly not a rookie...lots of evidence abounds that this is not a new user) and their attempts to quickly elicit sympathy ("I am only trying to edit, not cause any problems...This does not seem like a friendly enviroment. I cannot contact the editor here on his talk page. I do not have an 'edit this page' button when there to discuss this with him. BQZip01 what is the issue? It seems like no one else can edit on the 'BQ' page."), this seems to be an attempt at a "good hand" account of someone previously blocked, if it isn't TomPhan. — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

12.50.75.194 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which claims to be Dottie, shows NJ from WhoIs but shows Des Moines for Geolocate. If that's actually the Axmann8 impostor, this could give us some possibly useful information in trying to track it down and put a final stop to it. Of course, it could be an impostor of the impostor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, point taken. It could also be an attempt to bypass WP:3RR, a problem with ThreeE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). A largely dormant account that suddenly becomes active hours after Grandma Dottie and then compliments this account? On its face, this doesn't appear to be a coincidence. It's a sockpuppet of someone, if not a meatpuppet. — BQZip01 — ^talk 14:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, and that does seem to be rather odd. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is it that everytime someone disagrees with BQ, a conspiracy must be involved? Perhaps consensus just doesn't support him? Sounds like the same old temperament issues again. ThreeE (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Now grandma dottie is blaming her grandson...

This isn't a conspiracy. It is sockpuppetry, IMNSHO (mind you I didn't start this page). It is only a matter of figuring out who the puppet master is.

I've disagreed many times with many people. But there are only a few people who try to stack the deck and their behavior is pretty obvious and seems to be confined to specific pages.

I've stepped aside when consensus doesn't go my way on many occasions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is classic sockpuppetry. Grandma should be blocked immediately, and ThreeE needs to be investigated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Would someone here please take the time to identify edits that were disruptive? I see an awful lot of huff and puff and no evidence of abuse. I don't see anything showing this user accused BQZip of murder, or anything else. What the hell happened to WP:AGF? Zero call for blocking here. Zero. Come up with something that indicates abuse, then you can start making claims. Otherwise, this thread's resolved. So what if this user started off apparently experienced? Just because a person has prior experience doesn't mean they get blocked. That's not a definition of a sockpuppet. Look it up. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Addendum: Glad to see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TomPhan was declined. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Spare us the naive AGF nonsense. One of the user's first edits brought up the Axmann8 impostoring. There's no way the user knows about that unless the user itself is that impostor. Now the user is invoking the classic sock "someone else must have..." argument. Hopefully this will scare away that obvious sockpuppet, but if not, it will eventually get dealt with. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppets need not be disruptive or abusive, but can also be accounts of users that are blocked/banned; these kinds of accounts should also be blocked and blocks extended. Baseball Bugs hit the nail on the head with this one. Hammersoft, you and I have a disagreement on a single issue of which I think we have a reasonable disagreement. I am curious as to how you are involved in this (not saying ANYONE'S comments aren't welcome, but this feels a little like Wikistalking to me). — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh good Christ. Go attack someone else BQZ. All I'm saying is there's no evidence of abuse, and you've now turned this around into me Wikistalking you? WTF????????? Go sell conspiracy somewhere else. We're all stocked up here. Come up with some actual abuse conducted by Grandma Dottie, or drop it. If Grandma Dottie actually starts some abuse somewhere, we'll deal with it then. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I said it feels like wikistalking. You haven't been involved on any of the pages in which this pertains so without perusing my edit history it strikes me as odd where you found out about it otherwise or why you'd weigh in on the matter. Someone using an account to get around a block or ban is not permitted and is the definition of sockpuppetry, whether abuse occurs or not. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Pray tell what you are going to investigate me for? Or are you just coming up with a case study for another article? ThreeE (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I see that I myself fell into the naive AGF trap by posting this here. I should have taken Grandma straight to AIV, as "obvious sock of the Axmann8 impostor", and let them dispatch that user straight away. No, I had to bring it here to get other opinions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Sarcasm is so useful... :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

That, and a complete lack of evidence for most of the "wrong doing" you have pointed out. ThreeE (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been blocked 4 times for violations of WP:3RR. That's the only wrongdoing of yours I've pointed out. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, and speak when spoken to. ThreeE (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm nothing like you or your blocks and you responded to my comment. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

How did you come into this discussion out of the clear blue sky? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I used the internets. Why do I have to explain how I got here? ThreeE (talk) 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Because your activity looks suspicious, and if you provide a logical explanation, it would make everyone feel better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have done nothing suspicious, I certainly don't have to explain anything to you, and I can't help you with your feelings. ThreeE (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft, are you really trying to claim that a banned/blocked user, even if it's proven that they have come back as a sockpuppet, has a right to edit here, even if they're being disruptive as the new account? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not saying that have that right. I am saying that until a new account actually does something disruptive, there's no way to tell unless you just assume bad faith and start checkusering every single new user that comes onboard here. This place has become a flippin' witch hunt. Now I find the user in question has been blocked, pending a checkuser THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLINED. What I see as disruptive is users crying foul when there's not one single diff reported as being abusive. Then when someone (me) objects, gets accused of wikistalking [78]. Then when someone else objects, the objector's block history is raised [79] (as if that has anything to do with it). Absolutely unreal. There's a damn good reason the sockpuppet investigation was turned down. Read it, and unblock User:Grandma Dottie now. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• The only reason I brought up the user's history is to show that this could be a motive for creating such an account to avoid a violation of policy. Given the fact that this user has only recently become an active editor again, and on the same page, it could be coincidence, but appears suspicious. As for the results of the checkuser, no actions were performed, so no checkuser has been accomplished, ergo, no evidence of innocence and no unblock. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• You have GOT to be kidding me. The checkuser is declined for lack of evidence, but because you have a sneaking suspicion he's someone out to get you (like I'm out to get you apparently), he remains blocked??? Guilty until proven innocent? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• After looking at the evidence, the Grandma Dottie account does look suspicious. BQ is editted as the first of a series of disambiguation articles of two-letter acronyms. In fact, the edit seems to conform to the MoS (i.e., one link per line). BQZip01 reverts the edit, citing WP:LINK; okay, maybe I don't know what the current draft of this part of the MoS says. Now if I were in Grandma Dottie's position, my next step would be to post to BQZip01's talk page & discuss the matter; what Grandma does instead is to post on Bugs' talk page, who isn't even mentioned on BQZip's talk page, to ask a question about an editor who hasn't editted any of the pages in question. There's something fishy here, & it's not because of a lot of trout-slapping. -- llywrch (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• The checkuser request having been denied has been reversed after I noted the absurdity of the situation at hand. Given that Grandma Dottie revealed their IP on their own, I strongly suspect that nothing will come of the checkuser. So, baring presentation of evidence of abuse (which has been requested multiple times now without result), there's nothing to do here. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"no evidence of innocence and no unblock" -- I look forward to playing that one back right before your fifth RfA is denied. ThreeE (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• The behavior being exhibited of guilty until proven innocent is indeed very shocking. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The typical non-denial denial of a sock. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Huh? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was paraphrasing the blocking admin who stated that the block was indef unless a checkuser was performed. I've NEVER stated that people are guilty until proven innocent. Way to assume good faith and twist it to fit your agenda. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To make this absolutely and abundantly clear, I am not stating nor ever will state that anyone is guilty until proven innocent. I was explaining why (at the time) since no checkuser was performed the block should remain since it was a condition of the block in the first place. That is all. Both Hammersoft and ThreeE seem to have misinterpreted (intentionally or not) what I wrote. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The block was lifted for, wait for it, lack of evidence. I'm sure we'll never see this kind of behaviour again... ThreeE (talk) 20:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The block was lifted because of a lack of evidence linked to a single user, not to any other users. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• What the heck is the purpose of re-opening this thread? There is no active investigation going on with regards to Grandma Dottie. The sockpuppet investigation has already been closed, following a checkuser proving that Grandma Dottie is not a sockpuppet. Why is this dragging on? Why? Should we just block every person that claims knowledge of sockpuppets you had problems with? Where does this end? Give us a closing scenario that would alleviate this for you. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is still the matter of other users to whom this user is related. As I stated before, Dottie is not a sockpuppet of TomPhan. It does not prove that this person isn't a sockpuppet of someone else. As this issue is still being discussed on other related pages, it shouldn't be arbitrarily closed at this time. — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Specifically, who else do you think this is related to? Or are you engaging in more McCarthyism? Should we just checkuser everyone? ThreeE (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can I volunteer to be checkusered? Pretty please? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is no matter. Had the checkuser found something linking Grandma Dottie to a sockpuppet master, he would have noted it. He didn't. What is it you want to see happen? The checkuser's already been done and cleared Grandma Dottie. Would you please state specifically what you want to see happen? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I know, they only checked against TomPhan. They don't typically look outside the box. They certainly didn't with the Axmann8 impostor. They closed it as fast as they could. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The checkuser was performed against TomPhan and confirmed-related accounts. It was not performed against, for example, me or you. It was also not performed against other blocked/banned accounts. It could possibly be related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Axmann8/Archive as these all appear to have the same M.O. Moreover, a checkuser need not be performed as TOR nodes tend to obfuscate the actual IP addresses of users; in such cases a checkuser is worthless and a sockpuppet investigation is warranted (as could certainly be the case here). — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Checkusering against the Axeman accounts would yield nothing. They're stale. Now you're maintaining that Grandma Dottie's IP is a TOR node? Any TOR list I see doesn't have 12.50.x.x. If you're going to start a new sockpuppet investigation, I certainly hope you bring more diffs than one in which the user shows knowledge of a sockpuppet master. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Loosmark Gross incivility

User:Loosmark is engaging in edit warring by removing referenced, consensus edits in articles he otherwise refused to take part in the consensus finding process in a meaningful way, and has lately resorted to grossly uncivil 'arguments' on the talk page. In a related article, an RfC was requested, and soon afterwards he resorted to even more personal attacks in that sections.

This user was already warned to refrain from incivility and to engage in meritful discussion and consensus finding. Kurfürst (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks like forum shopping. You are edit-warring against a consensus of half-a-dozen other editors, and since it isn't working, you are trying to exploit the signs of frustration that the other editors are showing -- that's how it looks. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually its a Polish tag team whose members appeared shorty after a Polish editor started reverting sourced edits with the blunt pretext of 'German war propaganda'. The members of the tag team refuse to discuss any specific concerns they may have about the content on the talk page, apart from labeling them variously as revisionism, nazi sources (NB: the sources used were all written by British historians, one from Sandhurst, one from Jane's etc.), controversial or just flat out uncivil burst outs on the talk pages. Their only activity is stonewalling sourced edits. It seems a Request for Arbitration will be necessary because of this attitude. Kurfürst (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish "tag team"? whatever. The sources were discussed at some lenght but i vaguely remember that in one of the talk pages a non -polish editor said that he has the sources you cited and that the things you claim are in the book aren't really there. Was he also a part of the "Polish tag team"?Loosmark (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that user Kurfürst made other bogus reports in the past.[[80]][[81]].Such behaviour is not only unfair to the falsley acused but also to the Administrators who are wasting their time reviewing. There is also this[[82]][[83]] for some background information if somebody is interested in going into it further. In my opinion user Kurfürst should be warned regarding such conduct.--Jacurek (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst seems to be in disagreement with almost every editor on both of those two articles, constantly pushes unreable sources or puts the sources out of contest. He also repeatedly makes controversial edits lying that a consensus was reached for his claims when in fact exactly the opposite is true. Worse than that when somebody reverts his edits he accuses them of removing things for which consensus was reached. Among other things Kurfürst also inserted a completely scandalous claim in the Strategic bombing during World War II article that the Polish Air Force bombed Berlin and his source was that Goebbel made an entry about that in his diary. Loosmark (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the claim about the 'Goebbels source' is untrue, the source was Willmott's Great Crusade, considered by one of the most balanced account of WW2. Willmott himself teaches at the King's Sandhurst military collage. Kurfürst (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You wrote this on talk page: For example, Goebbel's personal diary notes several air raids on Berlin in September 1939. which indicates that you think that the Nazi minister for propaganda, a notorious liar, is a relible source. Loosmark (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The history of the Strategic Bombing article [84] easily shows that there are at least 9 (nine) editors that disagree with Kurfurst's edits. Out of those 9 I think 3 are Polish (myself included). For Kurfurst to claim consensus for himself is just the height of arrogance (and it is, in plain language, called "lying"). This is like a 5th bogus report that Kurfurst has filed on involved editors.radek (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

edit-warring over flags

• Lucy-marie (talk · contribs)

The user above is edit-warring about the use of flags on dozens of Formula One related articles. This stems back to this discussion at WT:F1 where it was in general agreed (after a very long discussion) to have flags distingushed for where the race was actually run, i.e. races in Germany would have the German flag in the infobox, regardless of the official race title (i.e if it was under the European Grand Prix title). This appeared to be OK until Lucy-marie began edit-warring and changing them back to the original version despite the consensus. I told her to stop here and she appeared to have stopped. However, despite being in knowledge of such discussion, she appears to have started edit-warring again, see [85][86] and even marking a controversial change as minor.

It appears Lucy-marie has edit warred before, see this discussion on her user page from March. I don't know if a block is in order here, but I don't think Lucy-marie's actions are construction. I would revert, but don't have any intention of getting into a revert war. D.M.N. (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the talk page it was partly-resolved and the use of the national flags in place if the EU flag was discussed and deemed to be inappropriate and confusing. The user who reverted did so against the consensus of the discussions on WP:F1. Please before Jumping to conclusions do background research first and contact the user(s) concerned before making a big deal out of something which can easily be resolved.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a casual viewer on this particular subject, if the purpose of the flag is to show where the race was run, the specific national flag would surely be better than the EU flag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The flags concern the European GP and not a second German grand Prix or Second Spanish GP. The San Marion GP took place in Italy, but the San Marino flag is still used.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it sounds like the dispute is not so much about which flag to use, but about what the actual purpose of the flag is - to indicate the location, or to indicate the "sponsor". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the flag supposed to be? What information does it add? --John (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Formula one rules prohibit the use of the same race name more than once throughout the season, e.g. no 2 Italian Grand Prix, so we Have the San Marino GP and the Italian GP and accordingly the flag of San Marino is used to represent the name of the country in the race title. This is the same principle for the European GP the FIA use the European Flag on their international broadcasts for the European GP just as they used the San Marino Flag for the San Marino GP even though it was actually in Imola, Italy. as such we need to be consistent and follow the same rules as the sport uses or we are misrepresenting the subject.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A nation's flag is not the name of a race. The original complainant states that the purpose of the flag is to indicate the physical location of the race. You're saying its purpose is something to do with the name of the race. Obviously, there is disagreement about the purpose of the flags. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The original complaint surrounded a nation or nation-like entity which does not exist, the pacific. The discussion evolved into use of lags in general and it was concluded that the name of the race was the flag that should be used. This is not possible for the Pacific Grand Prix so has no flag attached.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If the flag does not show the physical location of the race, what useful information does it provide? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It indicates which Grand Prix it represents rather than where the race physically held, this is done to enable easy identification of the races in lists and to disambiguate from other races held in the same country.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the complainant disagrees with what it means, and as a casual observer, I would lean toward his argument. For comparison, consider the 1992 and 1993 World Series. It would be liking placing the U.S. Flag next to the games in Toronto just because MLB is based in the USA. It's useless in that case. But in any case, this looks like an unsettled content dispute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you put the Spanish flag next to the Catalan Moto GP, us because it was held in Spain, I do though see your point with world series but that is a wholly different sport.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the purpose of the flag is. That's what seems to be in dispute. Presumably at some point the original complainant will come back here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I should note the person that first changed the flags on Formula One articles was Andrwsc on March 20th, see here for an example of his edit. The reason given was "use flag of Japan for Pacific Grand Prix, instead of inappropriate Flag of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, of which Japan is not even a member". He's been doing this for dozens of articles outside of Formula One and sport as a whole, which suggests to me it is a Wikipedia wide issue - has a central discussion taken place about flag issues such as this one? Besides, it doesn't lean away from the fact that Lucy-marie appears to have edit-warred, against consensus on the above articles. D.M.N. (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The changes I made were in-line with consensus and why wast the other editor not pulled up on their reversions on 22 May, this strikes of one rule for me and one rule for the other user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The complainant claims you are acting against consensus. You can't both be right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The complainant is wrong, in this instance, the discussion is long and complex and has not reached any consensus to change the use of the EU flag, it has though agreed not to use the flag of the secretariat of the pacific community.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, please stop edit-warring. I've told you to stop and discussion yet you are carrying on reverting: [87][88][89][90][91][92][93]. Please stop otherwise an adminstrator could block you. The WT:F1 discussion has AlexJ, Cs-wolves, Chubbennaitor, myself, Falcadore, Petera93, and some others agreeing with the changes (look at the table halfway down that section to prove this). Some disagree, but the majority agree. D.M.N. (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)#

I am simply restoring the original consensus, there currently appears to be little support for the edits which I have reverted, the current discussion are focusing on the inclusion of the use of Flags at all. I also say please stop with the double standards of only singling out my edits and not the other user from May 22. The people you are talking off are opposed by numerous other editors and their voting does not change the consensus, that take virtual unanimity e.g. over 80% of all involved editors.--Lucy-Marie 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, can you see the following bit in the WT:F1 discussion?

My proposal is that we adopt the following.

• If a race is named after a geographical entity that is above the level of a country, no flag will be used in the main article and the flag of the host nation shall be used for individual races. Example: The Pacific Grand Prix has no flag in the main article and the Japanese flag is used in 1995 Pacific Grand Prix.
• If a race is named after a country, then said country's flag will be used in the main article and elsewhere, even if the race takes place in a different country. If a flag is required to denote the location of an individual race, the flag of the genuine host country shall be used. Example: The Luxembourg Grand Prix article uses the Luxembourg flag. Individual races use the Luxembourg flag, although if the Nurburgring circuit requires a flag, the flag of Germany shall be used.
• If a race is named after a geographical entity that is below the level of a country, the flag of the country containing said entity shall be used in both the main article and elsewhere. Example: The Abu Dhabi Grand Prix uses the United Arab Emirates flag, because Abu Dhabi is below the level of country.
• If a race is named after something else, no flag will be used in the main article and the flag of the host nation shall be used for individual races. Example: The Glover Trophy shall have no flag in the main article but the flag of the United Kingdom shall be used for individual races.

Would this have support? Readro (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment this was discussed before I entered the discussion so to claim that that is the basis of the consensus is a misrepresentation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. You were opposing the above, hence the reverts as far as I can tell. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

When I originally reverted I was unaware of this proposal as it was buried in an unwieldy and rambling discussion/vote/mob rule.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

After that bit, I count the following that support (or appear to) and oppose (that appear to) :

• 9 Support (Readro [proposer], Bretonbanquet, Diniz, Chubbennaitor, D.M.N., Alistairjh, Cs-wolves, Petera93, Falcadore
• 3 Opposes (Cybervoron, Mattomatteo27, Lucy-marie)

So, I struggle to see what the problem is seeing as we have a majority *new* consensus. Therefore, you are reverting against consensus. D.M.N. (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussions you are talking of are old and have moved on to discuss the inclusion of the flags at all, the original consensus was reached through voting which is not a substitute for debate, I have yet to hear a coherent argument stating concisely why we should baffle and confuse readers by using a flag that does not correspond to the name of the GP. This hough is not the place and should be discussed on WP:F1. Can you also please stop with the accusations that I am at fault either all reverts are at fault or nobody is. It appears as if there is no consensus as to weather there is a consensus so there is no consensus.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not as of old. Even if discussion moves on, it doesn't mean consensus disappears. Besides, I only see 3/4 people supporting no flags, so the majority would still be with above. This is (for the time being) my final comment here as I'd appreciate some input from outside parties on the above. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some favour no flag at some favour the Europe flag for the European GP and some favour the daft suggestion of national flags for the European GP. Also a vot wastaken on that proposal before numerous editors had contributed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A continuation of this discussion can be found on WP:F1.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy you've closed this discussion considering you are in it. D.M.N. (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's about the user's edit-warring. They aren't allowed to close it themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is one sided and borderline POV pushing as the complainant is on the other side is the discussion and is in favour of the national flags, rendering them un-impartial. and has descending into a content discussion and should be discussed in the appropriate location on the WIki project talk page not here. Also there is no edit warring occurring, it is a fabrication to state that there is.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the original complaint was about you edit-warring, so you have no right to close the complaint yourself, without consensus of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough (even if the discussion has descended into a content dispute).--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The other user is now edit warring or at least attempting too I strongly suggest an admin rapidly protects all of the involved pages or this will get out of control very quickly.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly recommend at least 24-hr block for Lucy-marie. Just have a look at the user's contribs and you'll get an idea of project-wide edit warring and showing no indication to stop. This one was less than 15 mins ago even after this and discussion at WT:F1 was started. And the edit summary shows no remorse for editing behaviour. ^LeaveSleaves 19:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me in my opinion i am maintaining original consensus, if you block me you need to block the other user as well or it is double standards just look at the edits which have been undertaken in the last 20 mins, also taking into account the 24 related article edits is wrong as that was a long time ago and have apologised for them.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know were or how (or if) was the consensus about flags reached because i always found the discussion about it a bit boring (and it started already in April if i'm not mistaken). But having said that, in my opion Lucy-marie is 100% correct that we can't have for example a German flag for the European GP, it just doesn't make any sense.Loosmark (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about the content but about Lucy-marie's editing behaviour, which is clearly unacceptable. ^LeaveSleaves 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll offer a viewpoint as an uninvolved observer (having watched the initial discussion regarding flag usage with F1 races). How the flags should be used is not the reason for this ANI. Rather, it appears to be here because User:Lucy-marie has edited F1 articles resetting flags to their liking, even though it is not what the F1 Wikiproject decided. Their initial edits that occurred a month ago (such as [94]) were reverted[95] and the user was directed to the discussion at the F1 Wikiproject[96]. The user has apparently come back this week and made the same edits that they were previously warned not to make as per that discussion. More disturbing, in my opinion, is that User:Lucy-marie made yet another round of similar edits after they were informed that this ANI was created. It's these edits that seem to be non-constructive and a problem. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

She is known for doing this. I have previously intervened when she was edit warring against a few people, claiming that there was no consensus simply because she disagreed with them. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Suman Ranganathan

There is a user User_talk:Mugur_Chandra, who moves the page to "Suman Ranganath" without the -an ending without a source, where this person saying her real name. I have tried to explain this to this user, but he can't follow my arguments. The user insists, that her real name is Ranganath, moving the page back to this name. I'm not sure, whether the page should be kept in this way, or it should be deleted, because it's a real person. To solve this problem I tried to write in the article, that the real name is not clear from the sources. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Suman_Ranganath&diff=prev&oldid=295779507 Mugur Chandra even deletes this, claiming this would make her a Tamil person, which is absolutely not the case. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 13:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is more an issue for the edit warring noticeboard or dispute resolution. You might get more help if you look in one of those places, or find editors at a related WikiProject to offer their opinion. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict) In the meantime, I have moved the page back to the name that seems the most common (Ranganathan), and both full-protected and move-protected it. Both of you are involved in an edit war, which needs to be avoided. Please seek out other editors with experience in this area and ask them to comment at Talk:Suman Ranganathan to help you mediate the dispute and reach a consensus. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I will add a simple fact tag to the names. I have better things to do than this. :) --Stopthenonsense (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to do that for you, since the page is now protected. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do it. Thank you. --Stopthenonsense (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption by Mr Taz

Resolved

 – Blocked for edit warring to include his made up days

• Previously discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542#Persistent disruption by Mr Taz

Mr Taz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to add nonsense in the form of days he has made up to Foundation Day, both yesterday and today (and edit warring to include his nonsense since). He was previously blocked for three days for a pattern of disruption including similar edits to that disambiguation page, please could someone deal with this. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption by O Fenian

O Fenian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to cut days that are real but not celebrated as close to other holidays to Foundation Day, please could someone deal with this. Thank you. Mr Taz (talk)

Are you saying that Foundation Day (Great Britain) is real, as you seem to imply with this, this and this edit? Do you have any references to support that view? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Added additional instances of bizarre claim. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is nothing but a troll report in response to my report above. O Fenian (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are many more diffs This flag once was red, he has been adding this nonsense since March and not once produced a source to prove it exists. See Talk:British Day and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 8 for further information. O Fenian (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh! I was being cheeky changing the one diff to three (has Mr Taz been warned yet, by the way?) but those two links are worrying. The comment at Talk:British Day ("We need to work on other National days Scottish Day, English Day, Welsh Day and Cornish Day like Ulster Day that cover all the People...") suggests an editor who believes they can change the world through Wikipedia. I have no objection to these articles being created - once the days exist. But there's no evidence that Foundation Day (Great Britain) was ever celebrated in the Kingdom of Great Britain, and I am not aware of Foundation Day (United Kingdom) being celebrated now or in the past. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Striking 3RR comment: Mr Taz has been warned and blocked. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Mr Taz (talk · contribs) has been blocked for a week. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article "Pseudo-userfied', lost history.

User:TheGodAwfulTruth/A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010) was cut n paste 'moved' after the actual article was deleted. However, if this is moved back, or to anywhere, it will lack its edit history, which, if I understand correctly, violates the GFDL. Can an admin review this, and either restore, move, and re-delete, or just delete the userfied page as a content fork of what's already on the 'ANoES' franchise page? Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The article wasn't deleted, just redirected. The full history is still in its original location: See [97] --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by DreamGuy, and assumption & accusation of bad faith

I am reporting violations of wikipedia policy by Dreamguy which are vandalism and assumption of bad faith.

Dreamguy vandalized the talk page of an IP user’s talk page by his unauthorized and unwarranted removal of the public terminal notice here which was placed on the talk page by the administrator Xeno.

Dreamguy left a very nasty accusation against the IP address here showing his very strong assumption of bad faith. I request that Dreamguy face sanctions for his negative polution of the wikipedia community. 207.34.115.78 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)