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

DanaUllman

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

DanaUllman (talk · contribs) notified of result. Sanction logged here. Shell ^babelfish 19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

---

• Courtesy link to recent discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:DanaUllman

DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is behaving exactly as he did before the arbcom ban. (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy)

I think that one set of edits will suffice: it demonstrates his WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour very well, where he'll accept something one moment, then bring it up as if evidence hadn't been provided to refute it shortly thereafter.

On the 30th, another user - not Mr. Ullman - asked about whether a study was withdrawn. The withdrawal had been linked a couple times in the thread, but you had to scroll down a bit, so I thought it worth pointing out the relevant sections:

From http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html [Edited slightly to restore lost formatting; Emphasis mine.]

“ Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes

Andrew Vickers1, Claire Smith2

1Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2Weston Education Centre, King’s College, London, UK

Contact address: Andrew Vickers, Integrative Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY, 10021, USA. vickersa@mskcc.org. (Editorial group: Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group.)

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 3, 2009 (Status in this issue: Withdrawn)

Copyright © 2009 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4

This version first published online: 8 July 2009 in Issue 3, 2009.

Last assessed as up-to-date: 19 May 2006. (Help document - Dates and Statuses explained)

This record should be cited as: Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub4.

The editorial group responsible for this previously published document have withdrawn it from publication.
REASON FOR WITHDRAWAL
This review was withdrawn from The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2009 as the authors are currently unable to update it.

”

It's withdrawn. It says as much, three times. Sure, it's a little odd of a reason for withdrawing it, but it still makes it pretty impossible to include it here, when other, non-withdrawn papers exist. That people agreed with its inclusion before it was withdrawn three weeks ago is irrelevant now. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 183 FCs served} 19:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

While it was withdrawn, it has not been disproven, nor was it withdrawn because of an inability to reproduce the results, nor because another paper debunked it. It was withdrawn because it couldn't be modified as time went on. I see no reason why this is not still a perfectly legitimate study, aside from the fact that it doesn't go against homeopathy and any excuse is an excuse to exclude it. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

On the 31st, DanaUllman responds to this, and a few intermittent comments:

We all seem to be a tad confused on the meaning of this "withdrawal," though the review is still listed at their website Ultimately, the homeopathy article states that there are no replications to homeopathic research, and this is now clearly inaccurate. We can cite the Cochrane Report from 2006 or 2009 or reference the Lancet's News and Notes that mentioned that the results of the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology were clinically relevant. Whig suggested a good compromise on wording, and although I'd prefer saying something else, I can live with his suggestion. DanaUllman^Talk 00:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And then today he posts:

In due respect, the Oscillo research is still very much alive on the Cochrane site: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/homepages/106568753/CD001957_standard.pdf -- It seems to be the same body of information as in the 2006 article. I cannot find evidence at their website that it has been withdrawn. Can someone else? Further, if, by chance, someone finds such a reference, we need to understand what "withdrawn" means because there has not been any new research to disprove what their previous analysis provided. Unless someone provides this information, reversion to the original reference and description is in order. DanaUllman^Talk 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The withdrawal - with the link to the Cochrane website - was posted, he responded to this posting, and then - in the same thread where the withdrawal is posted, he claims no evidence of the withdrawal exists.

DanaUllman was banned for a year for his tendentious editing and WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT. Further examples, perhaps requiring more quoting, can be found on Talk:Homeopathy, of him refusing to get a point, or trying to twist words into a concession that he can do whatever he wants.

Furthermore, this is exactly the same as behaviour that came up in the arbitration case, only worse: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#1c:_Part_i is a discussion of Ullman insisting that the findings of a study weren't retracted, even though the authors wrote of said study in 1999:

"The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis [7]. Since we completed our literature search in 1995, a considerable number of new homeopathy trials have been published. The fact that a number of the new high-quality trials (e.g. [14,15]) have negative results, and a recent update of our review for the most “original” subtype of homeopathy (classical or individualized homeopathy [16]), seem to confirm the finding that more rigorous trials have less-promising results. It seems, therefore, likely that our meta-analysis [7] at least overestimated the effects of homeopathic treatments."

Ullman claimed this wasn't a retraction as that word didn't appear. In this new situation, Ullman is claiming that the statement on the Cochrane site saying the paper is withdrawn three times doesn't mean that it's withdrawn by the Cochrane Collaboration.

Furthermore, in the middle of the Arbitration case, Ullman was topicbanned by Vassyana for insisting that Scientizzle agreed with him, despite Scientizzle telling Ullman he did not: [1].

Dana Ullman caused massive disruption for months with his tendentious editing last time. He has promptly returned to his past behaviour.

I would ask that he be community indef banned. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 19:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not an admin, but I've checked his contribtutions and I endorse an indef community ban. Behavior like this is totally unacceptable. --Tenant23 (talk) 19:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse indef ban as one of the editors that has to untangle all the misrepresentations of sources, and who helped in getting the first ban. At least topic ban him from anything homepathy-related, because of his huge COI as a full-time homeopath who writes books and articles saying that homeopathy is scientifically proven. Notice that all Homeopathy-related articles are under probation, so please some uninvolved admin review Talk:Homeopathy and issue a topic ban so at least we can work in peace. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Temporary action and note. Under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom, I am imposing a two-week ban from the homeopathy topic area across all namespaces, broadly construed, including userspace and user talk pages. This should not be construed to prohibit Dana Ullman from responding to conduct reports and complaints regarding him. Additionally, I have advised Shoemaker's Holiday about short-term repeated complaints about the same issue (the last ANI closed barely a week ago) and about his failure to inform Dana Ullman of either thread. The apparent battlefield mentality on both sides is highly disruptive to the project. The topic ban is meant to be a temporary measure, thus its short duration. If Dana Ullman cannot accept the problematic nature of his approach and/or is unwilling to focus on other areas where he does not get carried away, I regretfully endorse a community ban. I would consider this his last chance to reconsider and reflect on his conduct. I do not expect endless last chances to be extended, as we have seen so many other times (including for this editor). If necessary, I will utilize the discretionary sanctions to impose the maximum one year block in order to prevent further disruption to the wiki. --Vassyana (talk) 03:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• As far as my current understanding goes, this is a substantially different situation from the previous one involving the word "retraction". Take the following with a grain of salt because I am simply repeating what came out in the discussion on the homeopathy talk page and have not tried to confirm it independently (I'm a bit handicapped by traveling): The old case was about the authors of a study later saying that the study was probably wrong. Whether they used the word "retract" or not, that's clearly a valid reason not to use the study. The present case is about a study that appeared in the "Cochrane library". Apparently this is a repository for up-to-date, high-quality medical studies. If the authors are unable to publish a new version of their study every X years, then it is removed from the library. This is what happened here. The authors "withdrew" the study because they cannot keep up with the literature. This is something that would not have happened if the study had simply been published in a prestigious journal of the normal kind. Note the wording "Status in this issue: Withdrawn" etc.

The lead of Homeopathy currently claims that (not: almost all of) the few positive findings of effects beyond placebo have not been replicated. If I understand things correctly that's not technically true because the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that one of the positive findings is replicable. In my opinion the relevant language in the lead is still OK. That's because I am generally fine with little white lies in the lead, so long as they are explained further down. But here Dana's opponents insist on both leaving the lead as it is and not even mentioning the caveat in the body. That's at least borderline disingenuous, and it seems odd to take Dana's ineffective attempts to get the situation changed as a reason for a ban.

If you want to ban Dana because he is an undiplomatic, ineffective advocate of homeopathy who, instead of causing the changes to the article that he desires, merely brings out the worst in his opponents, then by all means do so. But don't pretend it's for a different reason that makes no sense. Hans Adler 05:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)To be explicit, my imposition of the ban is simply based on recurring patterns. It is not based on any particular argument about content violations or related concerns. The plain fact of the matter is that DanaUllman's current mode of interaction, including misrepresentation and statements ignoring ignoring valid discussion points (popularly referred to as "IDIDNTHEARTHAT"), is the same scheme of conduct that lead to previous sanctions. I am saddened that he is returning to these old patterns, as his expertise and topic knowledge could be valuable. However, in order for that value to be realized, he needs to accept the impact of his conduct and make a serious course correction. --Vassyana (talk) 05:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe Vassyana could be more specific. Please tell us what we should avoid in the discussion - exactly. Which behavior is disruptive so we can avoid it. Give us 2 diffs. There is a content dispute in Homeopathy -Thanks.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• This appears to be straightforward advocacy which is discouraged by our basic conflict of interest and discussion rules. The following sections are similarly informative, with DanaUllman being obtuse (requiring another editor to puzzle out what exactly he was referring to) and appearing to represent his concerns misleadingly as a new point (the Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum and indeed prior to his ban DanaUlmman was involved in those discussions including about the very points he recently raised again). I know from observation that he is capable is expressing his points directly in a forthright fashion without such vague references and maquillage. Another sign that time has not changed the situation is his continual misuse of the phrase "NPOV" (such as referring to "NPOV sources"). If my point is unclear, there is no such thing as a "NPOV source". NPOV is an article measure based on the predominance of information in reliable sources, not some subjective/personal measure of objectivity or neutrality. With DanaUllman returning after such a harsh arbitration sanction, I would expect that he would take special care to familiarize himself with the expectations of our principles and practices, and especially to avoid the same patterns of conduct that lead to a ban from Wikipedia. Instead, he immediately soapboxed and engaged in tendentious debate. I hope this helps clarify why I have imposed the temporary topic ban while the community discusses how to move forward. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Replying a bit more directly to the subject of your concern, it is not that difficult to avoid problematic behavior. Do not engage in general (forum-like) discussion and advocacy on Wikipedia. Do not misrepresent the content of reliable sources or the statements of other editors. Do not beat dead horses or mislead editors regarding the nature of discussions (such as whether they are novel or revisited). Be forthright in discussions and do not belabor discussion with vague points coupled with strong assertions of specific evidence. Follow these simple points and you will avoid the pitfalls that DanaUllman has experienced at this project. --Vassyana (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Vassyana: 1. The diff you gave shows that Dana referred to his point of view on BBC Horizon but very soon he moved to another subject and did not edit the article. Nothing else.I saw nothing else which could be problematic. Instead Ullman offered many reliable sources to discuss. 2. Lets give to Ullman some tiny credit.[[2]]

"The Cochrane Collaboration material has been discussed ad naseum" is incorrect. Just few days ago or so when Dana Ullman he was proposing to add a comment from the Lancet supporting the efficasy of OSCILL., the editors -they want him now banned, they were saying that the Cochrane review on OSC was a better source . Few hours later they discovered that it was withdrawn. That created confusion since it is still appearing in the Cochrane Library website.

You imposed the ban when we were discussing another issue : whether or not several papers and info from exceptional reliable sources (which express different views on the Homeopathy effectiveness and meta analyses) should be included in the article as you already have seen in the talk page.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. It does not say to exclude the minority view especially in an article on the specific minority view (which according to the policy must be described in detail).4 editors dispute the neutrality of the article and you chose to ban Ullman ban upon request. The editors asked they same question : Is appropriate to exclude minority views on Homeopathy since they are published in many decent RS? Some editors say yes. You agree with this ? Is it appropriate to take a side in a content dispute and ban an editor? --JeanandJane (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we will have the agree to disagree on the impact and nature of DanaUllman's talk page contributions, as we obviously have very distinct perceptions of the circumstances. Moving on, if you review the history of talk page discussions in the homeopathy topic area, you will find that the Cochrane Collaboration material (including the findings in particular that DanaUllman is asserting) has been discussed on many occasions. Part of my concern is this is the same material DanaUllman was discussing (in the same tone and fashion) in the weeks leading up to the arbitration case where a full ban was imposed on him for homeopathy advocacy. Regardless, the topic ban of DanaUllman is short-term and considered a temporary measure. Discussion may lead to other uninvolved editors supporting stronger restrictions, a set of alternate editing restrictions, a full ban, or even no sanctions at all. Let us give a chance for other uninvolved admins to review the situation and comment. I'll gladly follow whatever consensus emerges. --Vassyana (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• I rightfully have said and still assert (and Shoemaker’s quote helps to verify!) that the findings of Linde 1997 study were NOT retracted. Shoemaker even quotes directly in Linde’s 1999 article that the new evidence “weakens” his previous findings, but he clearly doesn’t “retract” his results…he simply found that they were less strong. The quote that Shoemaker provides is: “The evidence of bias weakens the findings of our original meta-analysis.” The fact that Shoemaker asserts that this quote proves the Linde “retracted” his previous findings is evidence of poor scholarship or purposeful antagonism to the subject that clouds his normally rational mind.

Further evidence of Linde’s viewpoint on this subject was his strong critique of the Shang review of research.

Shoemaker is also upset that I did not see the link that he provided that “proved” that this article was withdrawn. http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001957/pdf_fs.html -- However (!), to me, this article is not available without subscription. I could NOT make certain that this article was “withdrawn” with certainty, and further, I provided solid evidence that the 2006 article was still posted at the Cochrane site…and further, that this article was also posted in 2009, issue #2.

Since my return to wikipedia, I have not done a single “edit” of an article. I have only participated in Talk pages…and obviously, my bringing up studies in major medical journals and other RS sources is disconcerting to him. Although I know that we can all sympathize with him and his POV, we all need to make an effort toward NPOV.

The other people here who are recommending sanctions against me are the usual suspects…people who are extremely active on the homeopathy article who have a long history of blocking many even mildly positive facts or information on homeopathy. Then, there are some wiki editors who are claimly to be “uninvolved” but it just so happens that they are seemingly “new” wiki editors, despite many obvious editing contributions to complex wikipedia issues (is someone a sock here?): [[3]]

I have been shown to be a civilized editor. I have been shown to provide important contributions to this discussion; however, just because I seem to provide RS references and facts that differ from Shoemaker, he makes the above complaint.

I believe strongly that my recent “topic ban” has been unfairly bestowed upon me, and instead, I urge Admins to evaluate those editors in the homeopathy article who are showing clear antagonism and bias to the subject and are blocking NPOV information in it. DanaUllman^Talk 05:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban of any length, re-applied as needed. My recent experiences with him give me no confidence at all that he can be neutral about his pet subject. He'll go on indefinitely, wasting the time of other editors, if he's allowed to do so. Friday (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse ban from Homeopathy and related pages. Homeopathy had stabilised and was improving, but Dana has turned it into a battlefield, promoting his own work, or trying to get wikipedia articles to agree with his published work. Doesn't seem to have learned anything from his block. Verbal chat 16:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
• endorse ban Clearly doesn't understand WP:BATTLE. Having him edit these pahes is detrimental to the construction of an encyclopedia. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, all of this antimosity against me despite the fact that I have not edited a single article, have a history of being a civil editor, and have a history of referencing high-impact medical and scientific journals. I have no intent to have wikipedia repeat anything that I've written elsewhere, even various peer-review articles and book chapters. I only have a desire to submit information that seems accurate, reliable, and up-to-date. It seems that most of the above people who want me banned have content issues with me or are friends of those who do... It is not my intention to battle (at all). My intent is to collaborate...I hope that some admins look at my recent short contributions to the Talk pages and see for yourself (and please see context too). Humbly... DanaUllman^Talk 22:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

• Please do something. After a year's ban, Mr. Ullman started right back up with the identical issues (the efficacy of oscillococcinum and the 20/20 episode) that he left off with in 2008. He is unequivocally engaging in advocacy, for which he was blocked for a year by arbcom. It is clear by his statement directly above that he sees nothing at all wrong with this. Sources that he presents invariably have to be double and triple checked to be sure they say what he says they do, which they usually don't. Furthermore, dormant user (User:JeanandJane) and a new user (User:Dbrisinda), both pro-homeopathy SPAs, jumped in immediately to support Mr. Ullman and make his suggested edits to the main article. Edit warring, gross source misrepresentation, talk page filibustering, and IDIDNTHEARTHAT have ensued. The situation before his re-arrival was one of incremental and agreeable collaboration. The final straw, for me, is continuing to argue for the inclusion of a withdrawn paper, after it has been made clear that a withdrawn journal article is unusable. Topic ban him, indef him, whatever, just keep him far away from anything related to homeopathy, please. Skinwalker (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

  Oppose ban. He should be given another chance to stop has disrption, because he doesn't seem to be editing in total bad faith. -- 科学高爾夫迷(讨论|投稿) 13:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban - this user has long since passed his use-by date. His pattern of disruptive and tendentious editing is well established. He's here to further a particular agenda, not the encyclopedia. It's time for the community to flush him once and for all. Crafty (talk) 13:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse ban We are not here to give people chances, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Someone does not need to act in "total" bad faith to be disruptive. We don't need people who turn this place into a battleground. Chillum 13:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose indef community ban, in case it wasn't clear from my TLDR post above. This seems way out of proportion. Arguing with Dana is frustrating and his presence at the homeopathy talk page seems unlikely to improve the article. But as in the case of Dr.Jhingaadey (just look at the groundless agitation at User talk:Avathaar) some people are going nuclear because of a perceived danger from Dana that I simply can't see. I believe any perceived disruption comes from the reactions to Dana at least as much as from what he says. It's not unreasonable to ban such an editor per putting the encylopedia above everything else. I believe the German Wikipedia might do it like this. But here? I am not currently aware of any other topic than homeopathy where a community ban would even be considered for this behaviour. Hans Adler 07:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I think the problem here is limited to the subject of homoeopathy, and probably results from Dana's advocacy and his frequent COI issues there. His failure to acknowledge COI issues may also contribute to the problem. For example here, where I had drawn attention to the fact that advocating insertion of references to "Oscillococcinum" on homeopathy so that it supported an article he has written (and which had recently been republished in several places on the web) about swine flu gave him a clear COI. He responded "why does it matter what I've written off-wikipedia, and have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?" He just doesn't seem to understand the issue here. Note also that in the diff I've linked to he also implies that he hasn't cited or linked to his own articles ("have I ever mentioned any such writings here or linked to them?") despite having done so (albeit having acknowledged that it was his own website) only a week before on the same talk page; in the past he has at least once pasted material from his own site directly into an article (see this diff and this article - incidentally the reference cited in that diff appeared to mention neither William Court Gully nor George Woodyatt Hastings, despite having been cited to support a passage about their alleged antagonism). A topic ban may be appropriate. There's probably no reason for a Wikipedia-wide ban (I assume that's what is meant by "community ban"); however, since all (or almost all) of his edits have been in some way connected to homoeopathy a topic ban may amount to the same thing. Brunton (talk) 13:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, a topic ban on homeopathy would serve the same purpose of stopping the disruption (mind you, only under the same conditions as Vassayana's two-week topic ban above). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• opposeIt is quite surprising that a well known writer who has served as an instructor in homeopathy at the University of California at San Francisco, and as member of the Advisory Council of the Alternative Medicine Center at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons as the chairperson for the National Center for Homeopathy's Annual Conference, and has been consulted by Harvard Medical School's Center to Assess Alternative Therapy for Chronic Illness, he is a regular speaker at universities, medical schools, pharmacy schools, and hospitals to be treated like that in this forum. This does not look good on wikipedia. Even if I understand all the editor's concerns about pseudoscience and I agree with them ( some times ) this animosity cannot be justified. Maybe his style is passionate, maybe he made some mistakes in terms of style in the past but I think skeptics and Wikipedia could use him to improve the Homeopathy article. I don't think we are enemies here even if we disagree some times. I m confident that a civilized solution will be found. --JeanandJane (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• His credentials outside Wikipedia are irrelevant they would be relevant if he used his expertise to improve the articles in wikipedia according to policies and guidelines, which he is not doing. And they are relevant when evaluating if he is violating the WP:COI conflic of interest guideline which seems to be the case here. The reasons for the ban are his continued disruptive behaviour in-wiki, and his refusal to correct it. "He is an expert in Real Life" is not a reason for not issuing a ban unless ignoring this reason worsens the quality of articles. If he behaves in Wikipedia in unacceptable ways then he can fully expect to be banned from it. I remember that User:ScienceApologist was banned (temporaly) in spite of being an expert, and so was User:Peter Damian, and Dana was already banned by one year by Arbcom, and I'm sure that there are other examples. And I don't think that those bans made Wikipedia look bad at all, quite the contrary, it showed that we treat all users equaly. And please don't understate the disruption that he has caused in the talk pages of homeopathy-related articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Brunton writes about my “frequent” COI, where he correctly sited the ONE time I referenced my own site AND where he referenced my acknowledgement of this and my assertion that it is not RS, along with my note that this link was to a personal email from Professor Ennis that provided some direct insight into the veracity of a discussion at hand. Brunton also expressed concern that my Talk contributions sometimes included some of the same references to research in which I provided in articles that I have written. In due respect, I did not reference or link my articles. Is he actually suggesting that a wiki editor who writes about a subject in a non-wiki source creates a COI if he or she writes about this subject on wiki, even when he doesn’t reference his own work? It seems that someone is either extending the definition of COI or simply selectively enforcing it.

By the way, I originally chose to edit under my real name because I seek to maintain high ethics in my life and being transparent seems to be one important way to maintain this standard. While I could have easily used a fake name and thereby allowing myself a lot more ability to refer to my work, this is neither my style nor ethics. If I were really trying to be an “advocate,” I would have done this. Instead, I want to be a resource to people who are working on this article.

User:Verbal asserts that my references and discussions the Cochrane Report and to a Lancet “News and Notes” article are “advocacy.”[4]. User:Brunton then chose to question if the Lancet’s News and Notes was “peer-reviewed” [5], as though something written by their editors or editorial staff of this prestigious journal was suddenly not reliable because it had something positive to say about homeopathy.

What is remarkable is how offensive some editors can be to me personally and to my references to high quality research (as determined by reliable sources), and yet, no wiki editors or admins do any degree of admonishment of them. I can only imagine what would happen if I referred to an editor here as “delusional” as User:NRen2k5 did here [6] or what User:Friday did when he created a section entitled Talk:Homeopathy#It.27s_probably_best_to_ignore_Dana_Ullman.

Because so many antagonists to homeopathy edit the article on wikipedia, it is not surprising when normally recognized reliable sources of meta-analyses are ignored when these sources report positive results from homeopathic treatment. There are many examples to give, but the Cochrane Report on the homeopathic treatment of adverse effects from conventional cancer treatment is ignored in the article [7] My apologies for providing a “content” issue here, but my point here is that wikipedia needs more balance in many of its articles because they are dominated by just one side of the issue, while there needs to be a better effort at balance.

It is surprising how many editors who have sought to reference good research meta-analyses that have positive results for homeopathy have been sanctioned, banned, harassed, or simply overwhelmed by the larger number of antagonists to the field. I would hope that wikipedia would seek to protect some “experts” in order to create a real encyclopedia. DanaUllman^Talk 22:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana Ullman is known to misrepresent sources. Evidence of this appears on the arbitration page, but we can give

For instance, in Talk:Homeopathy#Proposed change on replication of trials, Ullman uses a note, which is not included on the journal's webpage or pubmed; a study's inclusion in a meta-analysis, and various other things to suggest that we throw out all large-scale metanalyses and work showing that homeopathy doesn't work, and replace it with his hand-picked set of studies, raising the weakest results to the status of "high-quality replicated studies". Shoemaker's Holiday Over 184 FCs served 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Shoemaker all the meta analysis are not definitive and are kind of controversial. Look at the talk page Linde's criticism to The Lancet about Shang meta analysis. Adler above says that the study from 2006 that was removed from the Cochrane libraryin 2009 for a purely technical reason indicates that one of the positive findings is replicable. Maybe he meant that? I don't know about the other papers. --JeanandJane (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Dana has misrepresented sources, and also misrepresented the consensus of other editors at the talk pages, and he got that three-month topic ban when was caught red-handed misrepresenting the comment of another editor during the Homeopathy arbitration case, as seen here (at the end of the section). This is not a content problem but a behaviour problem. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For recent (i.e. since his return from the 1 year ban) examples of this sort of thing, see for example this diff, in which he claims that when he cited his own website "several people defended this action": the "action" in question is in the section of the talk page headed "Rephrase please" - there is no sign there of anyone defending it. Or this diff, in which he writes "The wiki community thought that it was important to bring up the issue of replicability in this article, and I have simply provided references to RS and high-impact meta-analyses on the homeopathic treatment of specific ailments": scrolling back up the talk page to the relevant section (headed "Updating Info on Replication of studies") reveals that the issue was brought up not by "the wiki community" but by Dana Ullman himself. These may be comparatively trivial examples, but they would appear to indicate a continuing pattern of behaviour. Brunton (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana - What you are trying to do with Wikipedia is essentially to synthesize a secondary source here, from a number of primary sources. You have been constantly treading on the grey line dividing normal summarization and reporting and paraphrasing legitimate secondary and primary sources, and WP:SYNTH (and in the process, WP:BATTLE, and other related policies).

You are, for all intents and purposes, too close to the topic to be doing what you've been doing here.

If you go out and write overview secondary source / tertiary source articles in reliable publications, those can be cited in Wikipedia. Trying to write that material directly in here - what you've been striving to do (directly with pre-Arbcom-block, and indirectly with talk page discussion since) - is not acceptable behavior.

Fighting the secondary sources battle in Wikipedia is all about what WP:SYNTH and WP:BATTLE show is entirely what Wikipedia is not here for.

If you will not work to understand that, in good faith, then you need to leave the project. In this case, your being an expert (and as experts are, particularly opinionated) is leading to significant mis-use of the Wikipedia project. This type of debate is not what we're here for. Please accept that, or leave of your own accord. You will do your field much better work if you write these synthesizing opinions and reviews and overviews elsewhere and let others include those (presumably, as you're clearly an expert) reliable secondary sources here once you've published elsewere.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. Can you please clarify what do you mean? I agree though synthesis is not in our rules. For instance The lead which is not written by Dana Ullman says "Homeopathy 's efficacy is not supported by the collective weight of the scientific and clinical studies". Since meta analyses have been controversial and inconclusive with the results conflicting somehow each other ( according to our reliable sources ) this could be considered a synthesis and thus should be avoided? I m trying to understand what we should not do. Thanks --JeanandJane (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

In the case of controversial topics, we have to say something. WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE work to support WP:NPOV - we report the general community biggest consensus as our main focus, and present major alternative viewpoints commensurate with their weight in the field.

We can't avoid doing some judgement to determine what is the consensus neutral point, and how much weight, but in the case of Homeopathy (and many related fringe science/medicine topics) we have determined that the "mainstream view" is the consensus neutral point and that the proponents view, fairly reported, is the alternative. An article focused on alternatives like this should probably aim for something like 50:50 balance (the article topic is the fringe / alternative topic, after all) in terms of page space, though that will vary by topic greatly.

Dana Ullman's work, done in an external reliable venue, could then be presented neutrally and straightforwardly in the sections describing the pro-homeopathic research studies in more depth.

Done directly here, however, it's WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and bad for Wikipedia.

We are not denying that he's a major figure in the field - our point is, him being a major figure and being here does not shift the point of neutrality, even though he can both argue in more focused detail and depth than the average editor.

He can write synthetic overviews, in external reliable sources, and we can include them (he should not - WP:COI and WP:RS prohibit that - but others could). He can perhaps provide better, more balanced specific sources for the pro-homeopathy arguments. There are lots of things we can do here.

But what we and he can't do here is use Wikipedia as the venue to synthesize new material that's original research - whether that's new primary research or new secondary source overviews and reporting. You make secondary sources out there - in reliable venues which we can verifyably find and cite. And then, we can include them.

Synthesize here bad. Synthesize elsewhere in RS, then report on what RS said elsewhere, good. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. As an introduction : I was looking to determine if Homeopathy is a fringe belief and I could not find a reliable source which states it. In the contrary, I found a reliable source BBC which states "Homeopathy isn't some wacky, fringe belief." No skeptic argued against this during the conversation. If somebody has a major reliable source which states that Homeopathy is fringe - besides the skeptics organizations, please let me know.

Homeopathy is a highly controversial topic according to our reliable sources. The mainstream scientists have not reached a strong consensus about its efficacy, if we believe again in our reliable sources: World Health Organization is attacked by the Lancet for supporting Homeopathy 's efficacy. The American Medical Association states that "The efficacy of most homeopathic remedies has not been proven.". The early meta analyses are positive but not fully conclusive and definite, some others negative and positive and the recent Lancet meta analyses are negative but its results strongly criticized by other mainstream sources (with letters published in the Lancet and papers at the J Clin Epidemiol.

Meanwhile very notable Homeopaths have published their criticism for the latest meta analyses. Currently excluded from the article!

The main problem is that some of the sources have been excluded and the article reports that the mainstream consensus is that Homeopathy is unsupported by the collective weight ...... which is as you see above at least inaccurate according to the our RS.

I believe that Ullman tries to convince the other editors to use all the RS about Homeopathy's efficacy and not only the negative ones. And also to include the minority view in the article which is currently excluded for instance Fisher's article/J Clin Epidemiol.paper.

I did not see any synthesis from his part but maybe I have to look more for this. If you have seen something please provide a diff so I can also read it.--JeanandJane (talk) 05:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose ban of DanaUllman.

What I've found most frustrating about the editing process for this topic is the screening of allowable RS articles published in respected peer-review journals, and also prominent secondary sources. When a statement that requires support of an RS is advanced, and that source either contends to support the efficacy of homeopathy, or criticizes the results of other anti-homeopathy research, that RS itself is attacked on some obscure grounds, lessening its value by stating it's too old, or it's been detracted (not!), or it's results have been heavily criticized and put to rest, or newer sources invalidate them (as if seminal older RSs suddenly become impertinent). All in an attempt to keep fair and RS supported content at bay. This is not in the least neutral in my opinion. DanaUllman, unfortunately, has been caught in this whirlpool of bias and intransigence. From my perspective, attempting to disassemble it, it seems, has proved overwhelming, to the point where one person cannot be expected to respond to every accusation or criticism made towards him by a group of others (allusion to IDIDNTHEARTHAT). In the short time I've contributing to editing for this article, many criticisms of propositions and suggestions I and others have put forward to make the article more neutral, have been repeatedly attacked even after they have been explained very clearly as to why and the reasons. And counter-suggestions have rarely, if ever, been advanced by the anti-homeopathy quorum. It seems as though a strong case of viral IDIDNTHEARTHAT is sweeping the forum.

As far as misrepresentation of RSs goes -- virtually *everyone* on the homeopathy talk page that has attempted to say anything substantive, has misrepresented sources by selectively quoting from them, selectively summarizing them, or biasely paraphrasing them, and then failing to notice a statement in some other part of the article which puts this interpretation into serious question. If DanaUllman is guilty of this, he is in *very* good company. Even so, I don't really blame editors for this if it's occasional, as perhaps this is due to unintentional zeal of having found what appears to be clear evidence in support of one's POV, to the blind exclusion of all else.

I don't believe DanaUllman should be banned, as I've learned a great deal from his participation in the discussion. He provides a unique perspective that is refreshing in (what I perceive to be) an already highly anti-homeopathy-biased forum. I've addressed specifically in the talk page two of the areas I see as biased, and now I've noticed a third involving the citing of publication bias -- but only in one direction in support of anti-homeopathy views, when there are *many* examples of publication bias in the opposite direction as well (the talk page reference lists many of them). But I haven't yet gotten around to addressing this latest issue on the talk page.

If DanaUllman is ultimately banned (which I don't support or agree with), then I would at minimum suggest banning at least two or three editors from the anti-homeopathy side as well -- those who are especially culpable in creating repeated and consistent obstacles to constructive editing and more neutral improvements based on the merit of arguments advanced and RSs to support these arguments.

Dbrisinda (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The suggestion that "editors from the anti-homeopathy side" should be banned in some kind of cold war style tit-for-tat seems needlessly confrontationalist. Brunton (talk) 09:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with banning

But Agree with Dbrisinda above. While I would support DanaUllman not being able to edit the actual homeopathy article because of a conflict of interests, I see an attempt at totally banning him as the anti-homeopaths just trying to lock away any and all resistance.

I have also said this before, and will say it again: If a homeopathic doctor can not be used for input, research, and statistics on their subject of expertise, then all physicians must be banned from editing medicine related articles, as it is a conflict of interest, regardless of how up in the air the subject matter is.

It's pretty clear that every editor that contributes to Homeopathy puts their opinions first. Anti-homeopathic editors will always search the Earth for any studies that disprove the efficacy, and shoot down anything otherwise, while pro-homeopathic editors will always search for studies that prove the efficacy while shooting down anything that disproves it. To be quite frank and honest, everyone (Including myself) needs to take a break from the subject and come back to it with an editors neutral point of view. - ʄɭoʏɗoiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose ban - I have had some concerns that I have pointed out to Dana and he has been very responsive and understanding. He is a COI editor and he acknowledges this, and he has not recently attempted to edit the Homeopathy article or any related article to my knowledge. What he has done is participate in Talk page conversations related to Homeopathy, a subject in which he has expertise other editors do not. I believe that those most strongly accusing him of bad behavior have engaged in similar actions, cherry picking and selectively representing sources in order to portray homeopathy in the most negative possible light. As far as the claim of synthesis, the policy applies mainly in article space, not to the same extent in Talk space, where editors of all sides frequently synthesize in the course of discussion. The article has been one sided for a long time and I very much appreciate the input of others who can explain the other point of view and help us to achieve a more balanced presentation. I believe that Dana would benefit very much from helping improve Wikipedia in other articles unrelated to homeopathy, but I do not think a topic ban is necessary, nor would it be fair to single him out. —Whig (talk) 03:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Ban - It's time to see if Dana can edit articles (articlespace) other than Homeopathy. I recommend (initially) a 1 month article ban from Homeopathy. If Dana edits nothing else in this time, it's extended to 3 months. If there are still no edits to any other aricles - then indefinite ban implemented. I'm thinking that Dana needs to give the overall Community confidence that he isn't a one-trick pony and is actually interested in the project, rather than just one article out of millions. Of course if he violates the ban, then blocks can be issued per the Pseudoscience ArbCom decision. Shot info (talk) 06:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since Dana hasn't edited the Homeopathy article recently, and has expressed his intention not to do so, I don't think an article ban from Homeopathy is meaningful. —Whig (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana is testing the Communities (short) paitence with him. I congratulate you that you are trying to help him. I'm trying to help him too - I don't want to see him permabanned, so how can he be encouraged to help himself? How about he go an edit another article - or discuss another article? His singleminded focus on homeopathy isn't helpful for him as a Wikipedian. If he doesn't diversify, well what is the Community going to do? Shot info (talk) 08:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Dana is trying to test anyone's patience, but I appreciate that some people are frustrated, and I do agree it would be good for Dana and the project if he would edit some other article. I'm not sure what more I can do to encourage him: I think it would increase both his understanding of the project and his respect from others involved in the project. I don't think a formal ban is necessary to encourage positive behavior, only to prevent negative behavior, but what mechanism can do this? I'm open to ideas too, because the goal all of us share should be improvement of the encyclopedia. —Whig (talk) 13:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Note and reminder

If anyone was in doubt the Homeopathy Wars are now in full blood again after a period of relative calm. Note also that the article remains under Arbcom sanction. If there are admins out there who have rhinoceros-thick hides and want to help sort things out, please do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please, we have even gotten back where people will place POV tags at the top of the article because their proposed changes were all shot down at the talk page because of not being in agreement with what the high-quality sources say. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice how many editors dispute the neutrality of the article? .--JeanandJane (talk) 18:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Which is moot because, once it was discussed thoroughly, they failed to show that the article didn't represent sources accurately. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Or they failed to convince the editors who added those sources that there was a neutrality issue. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The NPOV dispute never ended, and I continue to believe that the article should be tagged, but I have not personally added the tag recently. —Whig (talk) 03:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We're governed by WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience specifically deals with articles such as Homeopathy. That some editors disagree with it, and want a purely sympathetic view doesn't make the article a violation of NPOV. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 07:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing for a purely sympathetic view. Perhaps you would like a purely hostile view? —Whig (talk) 07:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The tag says in plain english that "The neutrality of this article is disputed" (By some editors). This is far from how some editors seem to think it reads: "A new topic disputing the neutrality of this article has appeared" or "This topic is not neutral". The tag simply states that some authors disagree with the stonewalling of the likes of User:Shoemaker's Holiday, User:Enric Naval, User: Verbal, and User:Brunton (And to a lesser extent by a few others to fill the gaps). The tag discussion, however, is for the talk page. If DanaUllman is causing chaos, its only because those 4 previously mentioned editors go absolutely haywire when someone disputes their studies (Which because they've been published later, somehow supercede the earlier studies... But haven't been around long enough for much peer review. Convenient, huh?). Dana has not (And has even privately said to me that he has no intention of doing so) edited the Homeopathy page, and has merely provided insight and discussion on the talk page. This is perfectly allowable. If you can't handle these comments, don't respond to them! - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Floydian, you've been here enough years to know what WP:PSCI says. You've been here enough years to know that, for any subject, no matter how wacky, a few ostensibly reliable sources exist supporting it. You ought to know that some articles are the subject of continual campaigns to push them to meet a non-scientific point of view. Homeopathy is akin to Creationism. If Ssomeone showed up to the Evolution article with books by various Intelligent design proponents, and was abusing the scientific literature to find random quotes that seemed, out of context, to support his point, but, when you looked them up, didn't, would you still be complaining that the pro-science side was stonewalling? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 184 FCs served} 00:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of the policies regarding this, and I only believe that the term fringe belief needs to be changed, as the common person reads that as "Very few or next to no people on the planet believe in this." I am also aware of what history can teach us, and that's not to trust everything that is handed to you immediately. The merits of this medicine are not widely understood, and studies are bouncing back and forth every decade changing the opinion of it. I am aware of what money can do to the world and that things that aren't marketable are always at a disadvantage to the things that are. Just like at Wikipedia, consensus is not always achieved merely by numbers. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There was just a long discussion on the Talk page about this and it was pointed out that the article does not call Homeopathy a fringe belief. It remains that some editors continue to refer to it as fringe in comments and edit summaries, however. I don't think there is reliable sourcing for characterizing it as such, and evidence of prevalence to the contrary exists. —Whig (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If I might get back to the original point... all of the above only reinforces that we really need some uninvolved admins to maintain order. Pretty please? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This I will agree with. A neutral admin who has no opinion of the topic either way needs to stand as a mediator, and possibly an overseer of edits. Consensus should be declared by this admin as opposed to the passionate editors of the topic. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This ANI shows that it is important, perhaps essential, for some non-involved admins to participate in the homeopathy article. The ANI is evidence of one group of editors, who have a strong POV on homeopathy, who want to mute someone who doesn’t have their POV. Even though I have not made a single edit (!) to the article and have provided references to RS, their solution is to mute me. I sincerely hope that non-involved admins consider policing these editors who may be abusing wiki policies.

As for specific assertions above, I take issues with Shoemaker’s statement where he asserts I am “known to misrepresent sources,” but his “evidence” is simply not there. I encourage people to read his link to the Talk pages and see for yourself.

For the record, homeopathy does not simply have “some” studies that show efficacy; there are meta-analyses on the treatment of specific conditions that show this, and there is evidence of replication of studies, and yet, the article at present says that there are no replications of trials with positive results. Ironically, the reference that presently exists of this statement is reference #12 that is dated 1995! Despite my and others efforts to change this misinformation, this outdated information still exists, as does the 1995 reference. DanaUllman^Talk 03:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested resolution

• DanaUllman (talk · contribs) is strongly warned against general discussion of the topic, especially for specific issues where he is (or has been) directly involved or acting as an explicit advocate. Conduct contrary to this warning will be regarded as disruptive.
• DanaUllman is strongly advised to communicate in a direct, frank, and clear fashion. This requires avoiding vague references, misrepresenting the statements of others, misleading other editors regarding the nature of a discussion, selective omissions, and other actions that clearly cause misperceptions or obfuscate aspects of the discussion. Failure to communicate clearly and honestly will be treated as disruptive conduct.
• All editors in this topic area are explicitly warned against soapboxing and treating the area as a battleground.
• Editors in this topic area are strongly encouraged to utilize avenues of soliciting community feedback when there is an intractable disagreement or other impasse in discussion. This includes, but is not limited to, requests for comment and various content noticboards (such as for NPOV, reliable sourcing, original research, and fringe theories). All such requests should neutrally report the disagreement and solicit feedback.
  • Failure to seek out such community feedback or other forms of dispute resolution while persisting in edit warring and/or talk page arguments will be handled as disruptive conduct. Rejection of community feedback will be treated as disruptive behavior. Extremely biased or advocacy style requests on those noticeboards will also be treated as disruptive behavior.

This specifically addresses DanaUllman's conduct, while also addressing disruptive behavior by other editors. This should not be the basis for further (or practically endless) second chances. It should be regarded as a "final warning" and provides a clear basis for admins to act decisively. Thoughts? Comments? --Vassyana (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this do something that the arbitration case didn't already do? Any reasonable editor would have taken a year-long ban as a hint that a change in behavior is needed, right? Friday (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I still don't see how Dana Ullman has done anything wrong to deserve any warnings, let alone a final warning. He is not editing the article (And therefore is not engaging in vandalous advocacy), and the only "disruptions" are editors spazzing out at his comments on the talk page. All his comments are dedicated to improving the articles, none of them have to be carried out, or even taken into consideration if there is a general disagreement. Long arguments and discussion needn't be construed as a disruption, but rather as a means to some new resolution. My suggestions:

• Fully protect the article (Including from any admins involved with the article) so that only a neutral party can make the final edits to it. This way, nobody can accuse another of taking ownership of the article.
• Split the talk page into one dealing with style and one dealing with content. The content talk page should be labeled as a place where passions roar, and that comments should not be taken or delivered personally and should stick to improving the topic at hand.

The second is a bit unreasonable, but here is the alternative: Banning anyone that stands behind their opinions from editing Homeopathy or its talk page and related subjects. This isn't tribal warfare, I know we can be more democratic about this instead of being socialists crushing the rebellion. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

What he does wrong: He's wasting the time of editors on the talk page. He misrepresents sources, and has a severe tendency toward "I didn't heard that". I believe he's proven himself unable to be a useful contributor here. You want us to change our standard operating procedure to accommodate one guy? I believe there is a simpler, more common solution, already suggested above. Friday (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

1) Editors waste their own breath (... or strain their finger muscles) responding if they are unswayable in the first place.

2) He hasn't edited the article, so he hasn't misrepresented anything nor contributed to it. Its a talk page, and anything on a talk page is merely a suggestion or comment which is put forth to review by others.

3) I don't want to change operating procedures, but I don't want a communist wikipedia where editors go cry foul whenever somebody disagrees with them and the perpetrator gets a midnight visit from which they don't return. If he is misrepresenting sources, you say "You're misrepresenting sources there", and ignore it. You are suggesting we silence the only professional involved with the subject on wikipedia because you want things to just be silent and left alone, as is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, misrepresenting sources should be an only warning the first time and a permanent disinvitation from editing the second time. It goes against the heart of WP:V to misrepresent a source. The fact that he is a professional here is rather the crux of the problem: he is promoting an inherently fringe view of a pseudoscience, something with no actual science (beyond the established efficacy of the placebo effect) to back it up. → ROUX ₪ 15:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is evidence of misrepresenting sources, perhaps he has selectively represented one side of the issue which offends other editors who selectively represent the other. In any case, I don't think that Floydian's split-talk proposal has much to recommend it, and the alternative is worse. We shouldn't be banning people based on POV. As far as fully protecting the article, since Dana has not edited the article recently and it is his conduct that is the issue here, there is no reason to consider that. I think that Dana is trying to help improve our coverage of homeopathy but lacks an appreciation of Wikipedia's wider community. I don't believe he has done anything to justify a ban, at this time, but a warning or friendly advice may be appropriate that Wikipedia depends on respect for the community and a difficult SPA runs the risk of exceeding the community's patience. —Whig (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I repied below in the evidence of misrepresenting sources. Dana has already had lots of warnings and advice, he had a mentorship by LaraLove, and he got banned for 1 year, and he still doing the same behaviour. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)But can one assume he is intentionally misrepresenting them and not simply misinterpreting them? The human mind is bound to create logical fallacies in order to satisfy the pattern it seeks. That is, someone looking through a study for something to back up homeopathy is very likely to only catch the parts that do just that (And miss the counterpoints made), but it doesn't mean they are intentionally fabricating their own results. I know my suggestions are extreme, but there should be a place for these discussions on wikipedia as they incite change as opposed to stagnation. Rules need to be lay down, not punishments - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your point that one may misinterpret and not intentionally misrepresent sources is well taken. I don't believe there is evidence of bad faith on Dana's part. Nonetheless, I don't think rule changes are needed here. —Whig (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

See my comment and Brunton's comment. Dana was caught red-handed misquoting a comment to misrepresent it, the probation incidents page is packed full with complains and analysis of the misrepresentations, and the evidence page of the case is also full of that, Dana then got banned for 1 year for advocacy, and now he's back to misrepresenting again. We can't read his mind to know if he is doing it in good faith or not, but don't say that he didn't made misrepresentations because he has made a lot. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is constructive to relitigate old battles from more than a year ago, and the evidence page you point to has been blanked, so there is nothing to look at or discuss. If you have a case to present to the ArbCom then as you know the article is under their supervision and you can bring violations to their attention. Here we are discussing recent conduct and I do not see evidence that intentional misrepresentation occurred. —Whig (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not an old battle when Dana has been banned for 1 year and has restarted the same behaviour as soon as he was able to return. Just the continuation of the same problem after 1 year of forced pause. For the evidence page, you can simply click in history just like the blanking template says, but I'll give some links [8][9] and all of Scientizzle's evidence[10] (and Baegis' and PhilKnight's, and Shoemaker's might be too long to read but it has lots of diffs in painful detail). (and the stuff in the accident probation page was enough by its own to justify an arb case, mind you....) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It is widely known that User:Enric Naval has a strong POV that is antagonistic to homeopathy, that he uses various wiki-lawyering strategies to keep potentially positive information about homeopathy out of the article, and has a tendency to take things out of context. He asserts that I have “misrepresented” sources, and he gives this as “evidence” [[11]], and he has the audacity to reference User:Brunton who is another of editor with a strong POV and who makes similarly unfounded assertions. They seem to think that if they and other editors with their similar POV gang-up and repeat the same accusations that others will think that they are real. Because many editors with a strong POV against homeopathy know that I provide references to high-impact journals that are widely recognized as RS, they seem to see me as a threat to their POV, even though I am simply trying to make the article more accurate and NPOV. Several editors have asserted that I have not done anything wrong and that I provide a real contribution to wikipedia.

Brunton and Enric assume that the issue of “replication of studies” is not important to this article, even though our article at present has a 1995 (!) reference to the lack of replication of studies that confirm efficacy of homeopathy in the treatment of specific diseases and even though I have provide RS evidence from the Cochrane Report that verifies that there has been replication of studies by independent sources. Further, I provided a reference to the Lancet showed that the result of one of these studies was clinically relevant. Brunton asserts that only I am interested in this subject of replicability, and yet, his own link shows that this is a highly debated subject with people voicing pros and cons [[12]].

My point here is that Enric and Brunton and select others make unfounded assertions primarily because I have a different POV than they do. The bottomline is that my new involvement on the homeopathy Talk pages is relatively short, and a non-involved admin can easily evaluate my contributions, see the many RS references, see my civilized efforts, see the many attacks (even personal attacks given by the NAME of a sub-heading [[13]], and see the persistent stonewalling of information that a group of editors with a strong POV against homeopathy.

It seems clear that the editors who want me muted should be more carefully evaluated for their actions.

I also want to address User:Vassyana: I am an “advocate” for accuracy. If THAT is a problem, please let me know. Please clarify what I have done wrong since my return to wikipedia. It seems that your recommendations are good recommendations for ALL wiki editors, not just me. Because you have chosen to address them only to me, I would benefit from knowing on what you are basing your recommendations only to me? DanaUllman^Talk 20:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)19:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not asserted that only you are interested in the issue of replicability of results: what I was trying to point out was that your statement that "The wiki community thought that it was important to bring up the issue of replicability in this article, and I have simply provided references to RS and high-impact meta-analyses on the homeopathic treatment of specific ailments" implied that the matter was raised by "the wiki community" and you just provided supporting info, and this isn't borne out by the evidence which shows that you brought it up yourself. If you had phrased it the other way round, stating that you had brought up the matter and provided references, and the community had considered it an important matter to discuss, that would have been fair enough, and would have reflected what had actually happened; but that isn't quite what you wrote. I provided diffs in the comment that Enric referenced so that others could judge the evidence and decide for themselves whether or not I'm mistaken here. For the record, I don't assume that the issue of replication of studies is not important, and I don't think I have posted anything that could be interpreted as meaning that - I was even one of the participants in the discussion that you cite as evidence that it is a highly debated subject. Brunton (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Dana, I don't want to answer for Vassyana, but the standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I'm sure you know that, but I just wanted to make it explicit. —Whig (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Whig...of course...and THAT is why I have a history of providing reliable sources to verify what is NPOV information, usually in high impact journals, and sometimes with secondary reliable sources that have reported on them...and THAT is why I seem to be so threatening to some editors here. I cannot help but find a bit of irony that some editors assert that I am "wasting editors time" by providing this information, and they seek to mute me (this is why I feel that admins should be investigating those editors here who have are pointing fingers at me). DanaUllman^Talk 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no such thing as NPOV information, Dana. I really think you lack sufficient perspective on Wikipedia's policies and practices. I don't want you banned, I don't want you restricted from participation in Talk page discussions on the topic of Homeopathy, but I doubt you are going to get why you confuse people if you limit yourself to one article without broader involvement in the encyclopedia project. —Whig (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Choices

Vassyana's suggestion

• Support Vassyana's proposal. There is far too much soapboxing on that talkpage. DU is certainly an instigator, but by no means the only one to wander off WP:TPG. As I believe I argued last year, knowingly and flagrantly misrepresenting a source should be grounds for immediate block. As a side note to the strong encouragement to seek input from the wider community, I would like to urge that such discussions when (not if) they occur not be overrun by the usual suspects. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  Third choice, as somewhat stronger measures seem required to end this disruption. The non Dana Ullman advice remains excellent, though. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support, with the understanding that disruption of a talk page is still disruption. Suggest adding article probation if these problems continue. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  Second choice KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Ullman returned after a year, and immediately, the talk page goes from civil to an all-out war. He's not a good influence, he has shown nowhere in this entire discussion any desire to change, and he has continued the problematic behaviour. It's far too little for a very obviously single-purpose account who caused months of disruption in the past, and who promises further months of disruption in future. Ullman hypes minor studies that support his view to the skies, ignores anything he doesn't want to hear - look at the incident that started this, where he participated in a discussion about a study being withdrawn, then went straight back to asking whether there was any evidence it was withdrawn - and is talking about exactly the same points as before the one year ban. Does allowing him to continue editing alternative-medicine-related articles serve any constructive purpose, or is it just another example of the holder of the minority view must always be given endless second chances? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 11:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Shoemaker, this in no way address the problem. This isn't a sanction prohibiting Dana's problem behaviour, instead it sanctions Dana to continue these actions; the very same actions for which he was banned for a year. Dana has shown an unwillingness or an inability to change his editing regarding alt med, so should be topic banned from alt med. I support the non Dana specific parts, but that doesn't address the problem that is Dana.Verbal chat 12:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, clearly ignored the other POV's in this debate and made a hasty suggestion that really doesn't do anything to solve or address the problem. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - better than nothing, but would prefer a site ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support but the same advice for all editors .--JeanandJane (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I have considered it, but given Dana's past history it's obvious that he is not going to hear this advice. A 1 year ban made no change in his behaviour. We'll be back to the same situation in a short time. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support but provided it applies to all editors equally. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. If Dana's behaviour gets worse, he can be topic banned without such a final warning. If it stays essentially the same (I am afraid it's probably not going to improve), this may get him banned for the doing what his opponents do, but being on the wrong side. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Article ban

• Support. This keeps DU from editing Homeopathy (Which is already the case), but allows his participation in the talk page. This entire debate is being run by the individuals with a strong anti-homeopathic POV, and the other POV's n the matter are completely being ignored over this group that has simply banded together to take out their key opposition. This "war" is just as much their fault as DanUllman's, and this incident board post is a fucking joke. Every participant should be given the same punishment as DanaUllman. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • On what grounds? Can you provide evidence of misrepresenting of soures? Of being a single-purpose account? Of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? Of any good reason for a ban that would apply to the other editors? Provide diffs. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 18:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
    • On the grounds that the debate here is identical do the debate at homeopathy. It's essentially the same editors taking the same opposing viewpoints. There is very little to no input on this from neutral parties, and the decisions are clearly based on an effort to silence Dana. Why is a site ban necessary when a topic ban accomplishes the same thing? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Talk pages are where Ullman causes the most disruption and problems. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 18:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. An article ban would accomplish absolutely nothing, since Dana has not been recently editing the article and has expressed no intention of doing so. —Whig (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unless talk pages, and all pages related to Dana's published work are included. That's why I support the two options below rather than this. Verbal chat 18:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose it misses the point of where the disruption actually happens. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose since he has made no edits and does not intend to do so. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Fourth choice. This would recognize that the community finds Dana Ullman's participation problematic, but would not do much to further the restoration of productive editing. A ban solely from the article will almost certainly serve only to shunt the issue to specific remedies &c. As well, any measures should in this case include talkpages, as disruption confined to talkpages is still disruption. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support as a purely symbolic action since Dana is careful not to edit the article, anyway. And per Floydian's rationale, which is correct. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - does not address the problem. → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban (All Homeopathy-related articles and talk pages)

• Support, third choice KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, as a second choice, as the harshest punishment possible. Includes all the homeopathy-related articles, as well as all the remedy articles. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, if talk-pages included. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, if this is imposed in such a manner as to encourage Dana's wider participation with unrelated articles/topics, it may help him to gain a greater appreciation of Wikipedia and the community. I do not know that it is necessary or appropriate to force him to do so, but if the topic ban may be lifted more quickly upon some demonstration that this account is no longer single purpose, then perhaps it may do some good. —Whig (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - if talk pages are included, but prefer outright ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support Second choice, but only if article talk pages are expressly included. And any off-site canvassing should lead to an immediate site ban. If similar behaviour manifests in other topics it should be a short step to a site ban. Verbal chat 18:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• oppose --JeanandJane (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose as per COI and previous editing of other pages related to homeopathy. Needs to include talk pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose since he is an expert in the field and can provide valuable discussion and alternative perspective on the talk page. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Lets just for the sake of things assume that this option includes both the articles as well as the talk pages of all articles directly related to homeopathy. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 03:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Second choice. This editor disrupted the encyclopedia, was banned for it, and returned with precisely the same behaviour (and even discussion points!). Enough already, let us get back to creating a free NPOV encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• The wording here has obviously caused some confusion - see alternatives below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I didn't follow the Arbcom case at the time because it was confusing as hell and was about articles where I had not been active. But it looked as if there was essentially a lynch mob going after Dana because he had the wrong opinion and fought for it tirelessly and ineffectively. Now he is back, still having the wrong opinion and again fighting for it tirelessly and ineffectively. If that's indeed why he was banned by Arbcom, then it seems quite extraordinary to me (not because it doesn't make sense in the interest of the encyclopedia, but because we generally don't do that), and "returned with precisely the same behaviour" is not a convincing argument to repeat Arbcom's mistake. — By the way, if I were dictator of this place, I would topic-ban Dana along with a few other people who are active around homeopathy. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - this is the same as the topicban below, why is this a separate section? → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban (DanaUllman is prohibited from editing any page relating to Homeopathy, broadly construed. This is a strict topic ban that includes talk pages.)

• Not voting at this time; merely clarifying the wording to avoid future wikilawyering. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Might help. He hasn't shown any indication of wantin to edit outside this field, however. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 06:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes. If this restriction was imposed, it ultimately forces him to contribute to another area to understand en-wiki and improve his conduct to a level where continued sanctions are not necessary. If he refuses to work anywhere else, and insists on working in a similar manner which led to his site-ban in the ArbCom case, then there is no cause for ever lifting this restriction, which effectively makes this a community ban. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, I'm not sure that I understand how this option is different from the topic ban proposed above, since the above option also includes homeopathy-related talk pages. —Whig (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - second choice. Siteban is best, given that the ArbCom ban provided no behaviour modification. But this would be an acceptable second choice, as long as talkpages are included. → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Probation (DanaUllman is subject to an editing restriction (probation). Should DanaUllman make any edits which are judged by an impartial and uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, or should DanaUllman continue to engage in advocacy, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or other similar recurring issues that were specified at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy, he may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once it has been logged at User:DanaUllman/Community_sanction and the imposing administrator has posted a notice to the user's talk page. If he is also banned from using affected talk pages, this must be specified in the notice and log.)

• Again, not voting at this time; merely clarifying another wording for a proposal to avoid future wikilawyering. This avoids letting problems spill elsewhere. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Errr, all homeopathy articles are already under probation since around February 2008. About that Dana had already been indef-blocked once, and unblocked only under mentorship. Then, during the probation, he was fully topic banned by the community, then indef-blocked for not respecting the ban, and then unblocked again with a promise to respect the ban. And then he was fully banned for 1 year by Arbcom. And now he is still with the same behaviour. Honestly, Dana already spent all his second chances. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I can see what you are saying, but this probation is not on Homeopathy - it's exclusively on DanaUllman. Any edit he makes, be it in Homeopathy or in another subject area (if it comes to that), will be scrutinised in the same way. This is more of an IF the site ban does not get community consensus, or terms that will already be in force IF the site ban is later lifted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would support this only if qualified with "impartial and uninvolved administrator"—and adequate measures were taken to genuinely insure the adjudicating admin was truly impartial and uninvolved. Otherwise, it is conceivable that happy trigger-finger admins who may be sympathetic to anti-homeopathy views, may be a little quick on the draw. Dbrisinda (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree.Truly impartial.That's a challenge. --JeanandJane (talk) 06:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Impartial and uninvolved; though it was implied anyway. However, enforcing the sanction does not make an administrator involved or partial; so it ultimately comes down to whether DanaUllman will engage in appropriate conduct, or not. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Weak oppose I don't see this working out in practice. Any administrator trying to enforce it is going to get attacked by Ullman's supporters (also, why did so many new editors show up at the exact same time he did?) Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 189 FCs served} 06:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Unnecessary, unpractical, would be abused. And no real cause, anyway. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no claim that Dana has engaged in bad behavior outside of his participation on the topic of homeopathy, which is already under probation, and there is no cause to put Dana under individual probation without even a claim of broader misconduct. —Whig (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - per Whig, and per my support of the site ban. → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Site ban

• Support, first choice KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 15:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, there is no grounds in this and it is completely unneccessary to ever ban Dana from anything but his conflicts of interest. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - continuing the same behaviour upon return from a site-ban is generally met with return to a site ban. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 188 FCs served} 17:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But that is to assume that the last ban was completely justified as well. Perhaps it should have been a topic ban. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose, there is no basis for this. —Whig (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose, there is no basis for this. No censorship (in Wikipedia I mean) .--JeanandJane (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  All due respect, but this has nothing to do with censorship. We're not the government, and DU is free to say whatever he wants elsewhere, regardless of what decision is reached here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: a.Almost all the editors who want Ullman out have edited the article and they have or had participated in the content dispute in Homeopathy. b. Can whatever decision override Arbitration's committee decision for 1 year ban only ? (rhetorical question) --JeanandJane (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support - user was given a 1 year ban, and the user's comments above indicate the same problems remain. PhilKnight (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support as PK says, a 1 year ban and he immediately behaves in exactly the same way and denies the problems that lead to the ban. First choice. Verbal chat 18:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support, although the topic ban (including talk pages!) could be enough. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose as per others' statements above, there is no basis for this. Dbrisinda (talk) 00:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• First choice. I see no compelling reason to expect that Dana Ullman's editing in areas unrelated to homeopathy (broadly construed) would maintain high encyclopedic standards. It might be best practice to start with the topic ban as the softer option, but issues of sourcing are universal and not confined to the COI area. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Please note I've added 2 more choices above this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Totally ridiculous. So far I can't even see cause for a topic ban. Dana editing the article about his home town or his favourite musician would be a step to the solution, not a problem. The problem is that he doesn't want to do that. Hans Adler 08:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• Support - first choice. DanaUllman was banned by ArbCom for the exact same behaviour he is now engaging in. Clearly the sanction did not cause any behavioural change, and as such it is time to say goodbye, permanently. → ROUX ₪ 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Results

This discussion has been going on since 19:28, 2 August 2009. It is currently 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC). I have a number of points; if you object to any of them please refer to the number and do not interlace your comments with my numbered points, thank you.

1. I am a reasonably uninvolved admin, as I have made four edits to the article[14] none of them significant. - indeed, one was removing apparent vandalism, and one was removing a misused tag, one was repairing a reference. The last was an edit in 2007 wehre I attempted to enact talk page consensus - I presume something somewhere drew my attention to some issues there - and I made it clear in my edit summary I was so doing and stated "feel free to revert" making it clear I had no stick in that particular fire.
2. I have placed my views in the sections above, as an uninvolved admin, after carefully examining the evidence and posts offered. I also formatted the Choices of remedies which is now in place, for better ability to determine strength of views.
3. There are strong objections to all remedies suggested.
4. If we count the supports only, both Site ban and Topic ban are tied.
5. If opposes are given weight, the section with the most support overall is Topic ban.
6. I therefore move for an immediate topic ban for editor DanaUllman, on the subject of Homeopathy, broadly construed, talk pages included. I suggest that if this is not obtainable, then it is very likely the only recourse may be a site ban, in order to prevent the kind of disruption this editor seems to carry with him.
7. I am aware other editors are seen as sources of concern by some who have posted here. I strongly suggest you not confuse this issue with those issues; if after the DanaUllman situation is resolved you perceive issues with other editors handle that then, do not add them onto this.

-- KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, obviously, pe my comments above. However, it'll be met with great opposition and we'll just be back here doing the same thing soon enough. At which point there will again be no consensus, and in a year or two this will finally make it to ArbCom. → ROUX ₪ 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Too many choices! It's difficult enough to gain consensus when only one course of action is proposed. Offering half a dozen or so alternatives practically guarantees that there will be no clear consensus. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I have seen that done on purpose before in Wikipedia discussions as a deliberate attempt to hamstring any possible constructive outcome. I highly doubt that's what has happened here, but it's an interesting parallel nevertheless. → ROUX ₪ 16:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hence my boiling it down to the two most supported, and making it clear if we cannot agree upon the one, I may have to enact the other, to protect Wikipedia from further disruption. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I admire your willingness to stick your face in a blender. → ROUX ₪ 16:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I object only on the basis that you have published your opinion of homeopathy:

Sorry, you're simply wrong. Its not a "fledgling science" and if you were knowledgable about it you would not consider calling it that. Its water, plain water, with "magic" properties. We're being beyond neutral and even placating the fringe water-worshipers who think there is some special ability of water to become something else if you shake it enough. We should be harsher, not kinder, if we were to achieve true NPOV. Its too much a battle though, due to POV warriors, so we keep it "close enough". There is no dispute - there are those who really don't understand either NPOV, or homeopathy, or (most likely) both. Puppy has spoken. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 8:38 am, 9 August 2009, last Sunday (4 days ago) (UTC−4)"

Which would not make you a neutral admin (Though a perfectly eligible juror). You are also basing your decision purely on the number of votes, which only indicates how many editors have voted. We need an admin who doesn't know what homeopathy is so that they have no opinion on it. Knowledge of the subject itself isn't really necessary in the matter at hand, but opinion certainly is.

My suggestion is that DU be given an indefinite topic ban on homeopathy and its directly related articles (Water memory, remedies, things that are unique to it), and that the ban be lifted only when he shows initiative to break his SPA into an active contributor to Wikipedia as a whole. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, wrong. That's pure policy wonkery. Knowing what homeopathy is, and having an opinion based in reality, is no hindrance to taking administrative action here. It's like saying that an admin who comprehends global warming cannot enact sanctions against someone who denies that it exists. You would probably say that, of course, and you would be equally wrong. Facts != involvement. → ROUX ₪ 16:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that Floydian's point is correct, KillerChihuahua is not a neutral admin, even to the extent he may be relatively uninvolved in editing the article. It would be better if some other admin without express hostility to homeopathy would take whatever action is deemed necessary. —Whig (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Expressing hostility to homeopathy is akin to expressing hostility towards the Four humours. There are these things called 'facts' and 'reality', you see. → ROUX ₪ 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to have an argument about the subject matter. —Whig (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Here is Floydian's proposal, which I think deserves to be emphasized and voted on. My suggestion is that DU be given an indefinite topic ban on homeopathy and its directly related articles (Water memory, remedies, things that are unique to it), and that the ban be lifted only when he shows initiative to break his SPA into an active contributor to Wikipedia as a whole.

• Submitted for consideration. —Whig (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point of this section, which is to have fewer options muddying the water. Not more. → ROUX ₪ 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua. Your participation in the debate had a highly combative character; besides that you reverted the tag, your wording - had battleground character: you gave no additional reasons ,no reliable sources and you said We're being beyond neutral and even placating the fringe water-worshipers who think there is some special ability of water to become something else if you shake it enough. ( Your edit ignored major reliable sources which speaks of controversy on Homeopathy ) Since your point of view is so strong against homeopathy I don't see how you can be neutral .--JeanandJane (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There are no reliable scientific studies which show any efficacy for homeopathy apart from the well-documented nature of the placebo effect. Again: factually-based opinions are a good thing. We should not be providing equal weight to things that are simply not supported by reality; please see WP:FRINGE for more enlightenment. → ROUX ₪ 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientists from some mainstream reliable sources say different things for instance "Given these limitations, Shang and colleagues' conclusion that their findings “provide support to the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects” is a significant overstatement."--JeanandJane (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is totally not the place to have this discussion. —Whig (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You made KC's opinion of homeopathy part of the discussion, not me. I am merely pointing out that knowing that unicorns don't exist is no impediment to an admin enacting a sanction against someone who repeatedly claims that they do, and (knowingly or not) misrepresents sources to support said claims. → ROUX ₪ 17:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to advocate banning all pro-homeopathy editors. That is unfortunate and contrary to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. I will not argue the topic with you here. I did not make KC's opinion part of the discussion, I concurred with another editor that he is not a neutral admin. —Whig (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Rather than make everyone sit through another discussion about whether or not the KC can close this one, can I help out here? I am not just reasonably, but completely uninvolved in any homeopathy-related topics. I agree with the Puppy - there is clear support for doing something to limit DanaUllman's disruption and of the possibilities (looking at the section above and earlier discussion) a permanent topic ban seems to be the solution that most can live with. Shell ^babelfish 17:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes please. → ROUX ₪ 17:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Appreciate your help, Shell. Can you rephrase "permanent" to "indefinite" and give Dana a chance to have the topic ban removed in the future if he demonstrates good behavior editing other articles unrelated to homeopathy? —Whig (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Please don't. That is trivially gamed and we will be right back where we started. → ROUX ₪ 17:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  Our objective should not be to ban constructive editors. The question is whether Dana will be a constructive editor. Whether or not his future behavior leads us back here again is not something we can assume now. If he cannot behave on other articles then I think a site ban would shortly be forthcoming, and in order for an indefinite topic ban to be lifted, some admin would have to agree he had demonstrated understanding of Wikipedia's policies and community. —Whig (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

  We're not banning a constructive editor. And you seem to have forgotten that DanaUllman was banned for a year by ArbCom for certain behaviour. The ban is over, and he is now engaging in the exact same behaviour. So yes, we can very easily assume that his future behaviour will lead us right back here, as a year-long ban did not change a single thing about his behaviour. AGF is not a suicide pact, and Dana has exhausted his reserves of same. → ROUX ₪ 17:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, so formally, this would be:

Pursant to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary_sanctions and as a result of this community discussion, DanaUllman is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page relating to Homeopathy, broadly construed. This restriction applies to both articles and talk pages.

Are there any concerns with this wording?

As for future removal, I would be happy to review the ban later if DanaUllman has shown an ability and interest in editing productively in other topic areas. Also, ArbCom is still a standard option for reviewing such sanctions.Shell ^babelfish 17:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You may want to explicitly say talk pages are included in this language. But as it is, I think it is pretty clear to everyone what is meant so perhaps it doesn't matter. I just don't want there to be any confusion. —Whig (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Whig regarding specifically including talk pages, and thanks much for helping out here, Shell. I agree you are a better choice than I; at the time I believe I was the best (least involved) choice volunteering (well ok, only one) but there can be no objection or concern to your carrying this out. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

RetlawSnellac, Neftchi (formerly Baku87) and copyright issues

Locus of dispute, or action in dispute

User:RetlawSnellac

Involved parties and confirmation they have been notified of the discussion

• User:Neftchi
• User:RetlawSnellac

Description of the dispute and the main evidence

I don't contribute often on English Wikipedia, being mainly active in Armenian WP. While browsing through Commons categories I came across photos of new user RetlawSnellac who registered here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/RetlawSnellac and on commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:RetlawSnellac

He uploaded 4 pictures to commons claiming to be the author [15]. It caught my attention, because Retlaw Snellac is one of my Flickr contacts, and I do follow his photo stream [16]. Retlaw Snellac is the acronym of his true name, Walter Callens, spelled in reverse. Browsing his folder on Azerbaijan, I checked, and found that all 4 pictures were in fact taken by Retlaw Snellac I know from Flickr. I became curious, because I remember Walter publishes his photos on Flickr under standard, "strict" copyright, as once I checked his Flickr page, to see if I can import some of his photos to Commons. The other obvious reason was, that from lot of nice photos from different countries, only those 4, and only from Azerbaijan were uploaded. Even more, he suddenly shows special interest in discussions related to Azerbaijan.

I wrote him on Flickr, to see if it was really him to upload his photos to Commons and participate in some discussions/voting. His reply was:

Hello,

Thanks for the information.

Retlaw Snellac from Wikimedia is NOT me.

Kind regards,

Walter

The problem here is that the RetlawSnellac on Wikipedia claimed to be the real Walter Callens, uploading his own works, using the date of the real Walters visit to Azerbaijan from flickr to come up with this story, he even explicitly claims to be the real Retlaw, see here.

Upon the incident I contacted another member who too contacted him. I was advised to prepare something about this and report it here, as upon checking this user contribution there seem to be one obvious correlation between this suspicious account and user:Neftchi (formerly Baku87).

Here is the evidence I gathered so far:

Since June 26th, Neftchi edited daily, until July 3rd. Retlaw registered on the 4th and edited until the 7th, Baku87 never edited during that time period. He returned on the 11th and soon request a name change from Baku87 to Neftchi. [17]

• Ratlaw Snellac addeed this map, which has the same borders as this map uploaded by Neftchi. This was probably done to support the revert war on the ADR article initiated by Neftchi when he adding the map on Jan 2009 [18].

• Here he announces having uploaded new picture of petroglyphs of Qobustan. Note that the original uploader of those petroglyphs was Netchi(formerly Baku87)[19]. Neftchi then shows an interest in pictures, by switching the pictures[20].

• On Church of Kish, Retlaw reverts to Neftchi version. The article history indicates that there was an edit warring in process, this user, who registered one day ago, apparently knew the edit war was going on and reverted to Neftchi version.

• "All by sudden" continues the discussion started by Baku [21], [22], [23], [24], [25] (adds a website owned by a well-known Adil Baguirov)

• The article Azerbaijani Special Forces was created on June 18 by Neftchi, Fedayee requested a source for an element, which was provided by Retlaw here. Check the article history and see that in fact this user who only registered on July 4, only showed interest in Neftchi contributions.

• He edits the Azerbaijani Armed Forces article, in which Neftchi is the most active editor.

• On Nagorno-Karabakh War, Neftchi added an unreliable source [26] which was reverted twice. Retlaw re-added that source.

• Baku87 started a thread in August 2008 [27]. Almost a year later RatlawSnellac backs him up [28], [29].

• Retlaw voted for an AfD here in which Baku87 had already voted.

• Retlaw created this article which was copied from here, Ministry of Culture and Tourism of Azerbaijan.

• Both users show interest in documenting Chinese alleged crimes during the Urumqi riots. Neftchi provides a source in its talkpage. [30] [31] So did RetlawSnellac. [32]

• RetlawSnellac goes on to add dozens of individuals in the List of Azeris. [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38]. Neftchi was by far the most active contributor to that list for the last couple of months. [39]

• Neftchi adds a picture of a carpet manufacturing in Ganja and here RetlawSnellac adds one on the Carpet Museum.

• Here RetlawSnellac even leaves a message on the Neftchi talkpage inviting him to use his pictures. This leaves Neftchi to do what he wants with those pictures without having the trouble of using two accounts. Note that the real RetlawSnellac denied having anything to do with this account.

• Funny here, the fake RetlawSnellac even goes to attempt to have the picture of the so much loved by Neftchi petroglyphs of Qobustan to FA statues.

• Also see here, most of the edits in the last few months were done by Neftchi. And here, where he supports Neftchi out of nowhere to add the POV tag.

• Note also that Retlaw claims to be from Belgium/Netherlands. [40], prior to Neftchi name change, this was Baku87's personal page on Wikipedia, which read: Deze gebruiker spreekt Nederlands als moedertaal.

The pattern between both users, as if he switched from one account to the other, and while one user was contributing the other never was.

I do not know Neftchi and never interacted with him, so nothing personal, but impersonation, and compromising whole project by thief of IP and abuse of freedom and trust, is something that in my opinion, can not and should not be tolerated. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged one of his images at commons (File:Carpet Museum in Baku.jpg) with {{subst:npd}}, since I have found it on the flickr website. I'm out of time, I'm afraid, to contribute more now, but these are serious allegations which do need careful investigation. If he is truly who he says he is, he should be able to verify permission at the flickr site or through e-mail. If it should prove that this individual is deliberately misrepresenting himself to commit intentional copyright fraud, then I think it would be appropriate to immediately indefinitely block any and all accounts that may be involved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I just received a message in my talk about alleged sockpuppetry, impersonation and IP thief suspicion related to me and RetlawSnellac. I certainly hope this has got nothing to do with me being ethnic Azerbaijani and Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen being Armenian as we both work on articles with in which we have strong opposing perspectives. I noticed that the only users who have ever accused me in Wikipedia were ethnic Armenian. For example I was accused of having a sockpuppet account called Baki66 thats why I changed my name from Baku87 to Neftchi to prevent confusion. I want to make it clear that I dont know who RetlawSnellac is and its certainly not me, he posted a message in my talk see here and I never replied back to it. I have not talked or had any contact with that user I do have encountered him several times in wikipedia in articles in which I was active, I think he is just checking out my contributions list and works from there. Also notice how all his edits are done after me. This kind of approach is often done by anon-users. So just going through my huge contributions-list and finding any connections with RetlawSnellac is easy work but in no way is that evidence or proof. With this kind of approach I could probably link you to sockpuppetry aswell. I have been a member in wikipedia for a long time and I have never engaged in this kind of forgery so under what motive and reason would I suddenly start now. RetlawSnellac said in my talk page that I was welcome to upload any photo of his Photoalbum in Flickr and gave me this link and also note that the username in Flickr matches the one in wikipedia (that is retlaw snellac), why not approach him instead of me and ask him to verify his identity on both Flickr aswell as in Wikipedia. Neftchi (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

He has been approached in addition to you as both of you have been mentioned in this thread. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. First of all, the main "hero" here, is owner of fake account RetlawSnellac, who did several serious violations and for whom I can not think of any excuse, for that. About you, no believe me you being azeri and me being armenian doesn't really mean anything for me. I had lot of contacts, and worked/lived together with azeris and turks. I'm soo far from being nationalistic or xenophobic in any other way. Also I'm in WP, since late 2006, but in en:wp 99% of my contribs are interwikis to hy:wp. So "we both work on articles with in which we have strong opposing perspectives" isn't correct, we really haven't meet, neither we worked on same articles. I'm not much into history or politics, and I do avoid Armenian-Azerbaijan related topics, as I find edit wars, one of the biggest and stupidest problems of wikis in general. I'm much into photography and I'm much for Free Software and Free Content, because I do really respect IP rights. Add because I've been following authors works for some period, I felt myself much more obliged, to report this. So If I noticed similar incident done by Armenian, my reaction would be the same. I'm probably most copyright-paranoid in hy:wp. I Hope my motivation is pretty clear now, and no one goes to look for ethnic problems here, and we can come back to incidents. Let me sum it up again, I'm sure RetlawSnellac on wikimedia, is impersonator and thief, as I got reply from author, I'm almost sure RetlawSnellac here is puppet (my expereince of moderating several forums tells me so), what comes to you, you're account has most correlations with RetlawSnellac's contirbs. But I don't think I have any moral right to accuse you in anything, until check is done, by admins. And if it proves you have nothing to do with all this, I'll ask your pardon, for my suspicion. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm back. I've also located several others and tagged them for verification of permission. If there were a contact address for the flickr account owner, I would happily contact him through OTRS so that we could quickly resolve this. If you are in communication with him, can you perchance ask him to get in touch with info-en-c@wikimedia.org, explaining that there is an individual on Commons impersonating him and uploading his images without permission? If his e-mail address can be clearly connected to the point of publication, this could resolve matters very quickly, at least as far as the copyright problems are concerned. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:39, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because this alleged imposter (RetlawSnellac) is going through my contributions list should not make me a suspect of sockpuppetry, impersonation and IP thief suspicion, these are serious accusations. Just think about it, what motive would I have for all this? I upload my own photos, edits my own articles and I have been doing this succesfully for several years now. Perhaps I am a bit overreacting, Im just taken by surprise by all of this. I would like to see RetlawSnellac's explanation to all of this aswell. Neftchi (talk) 17:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm.... fascinating. And well researched and presented evidence, Xelgen. At the very least, RetlawSnellac seems to have been engaging in activities that not only break Wikipedia rules but which are quite clearly illegal. He has been pretending to be someone he isn't (Walter Callens), has been claiming that he owns the copyright of images which he does not own, has been uploading some of those images to Wikipedia, and has been inviting Neftchi to upload even more of those images to Wikipedia, thus breaking copyright laws. Whether RetlawSnellac and Neftchi are one and the same might be provable using CU evidence - but if they are the same person, the evidence suggesting he has been carefully avoiding being online using two accounts at the same time-period means that he has probably also been using two completely different ISPs. Similarity in editing styles, the identical use of particular words or phrases, might be another way of proving they are the same person (or proving that they are not). Meowy 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

There's smth wrong with my ISP, as it's second day I can't access Flickr. So using proxy, I've got to real RetlawSnellac profile on flickr. There is an email address, at the bottom of the page. Guess you can try it, to contact him. And I've just wrote a FlickrMail to him, leaving link to this report, and your instructions to info-en-c@wikimedia.org and describe the situation. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

After reading Neftchi’s reply, I feel it is important to clarify few things.

• Neftchi told, that RetlawSnellac was editing only after him, as do some annonims do. But there are cases, when Neftchi showed interest in some articles only after Retlaw contributed in them. One example is Neftchi's renewed interest in the petroglyphs like here and this clearly after RetlawSnellac. Also, if we dig a bit deeper into RetlawSnellac's contributions, we see controversial edits in articles which Neftchi did not edit (which seems to apparently discredit his claim of a plot against Neftchi). A few more examples: [41], [42], he also created Shirvan Domes. Also check his edits on Saingilo – the disputed region between Azerbaijan and Georgia, this image is in commons too.

• On the diagram we see how Neftchi takes a break twice, both for about exactly a week. RetlawSnellac posts right after him at both times, and most importantly, only at times. Such "perfect timing" makes plot against Neftchi quite unlikely (untill someone knew he will be on brake).

I'd like to mention, that some of the pictures uploaded by Neftchi, rise some questions to me, as well.

• Compare this with this.

• Uploaded to skyscrapercity.com on June 30, 2008 - Source Flickr vs. Uploaded to wikipedia by Baku87 October 25, 2008

Note that Neftchi again claims to be the author.

I have more in mind, but I'd like to re-check them tomorrow with fresher mind, cause after few hours spent digging contrib. history, I'm afraid to become a suspicious paranoic. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's some pretty hefty evidence of copyright infringement, unless Neftchi is a woman named Erica who lives in Maine. Both of those images clearly predate our usage here. I'll see if I can get an admin who works more routinely with sock puppetry to weigh in on the sock question. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Have you noticed its summer? Thats why I was on a break, what else could I be doing during this time. If I was changing accounts then wouldnt my IP remain the same? So check for IP between mine and that of RetlawSnellac's. Unless you have that it means nothing. And what do those photos have to do with this case, that has got to do with copyright and my previous website - euro-caspian.com (which is offline now). The fact that your out of topic makes it seem more like a crusade against me. Also note how fellow Armenian Wikipedian collague Meowy suddenly enters the talks, this at least raises the bar of suspicion of your accusations against me. Especcially taking into account Meowy's offensive language against Azerbaijanis, such as in this example, in which I qoute:

We also have to consider the plight of the population of Azerbaijan. They have a medical condition that's rather like a severe nut allergy. At the sight of a map showing the borders of Nagorno Karabakh their necks start to swell up, then they begin to involuntarily jump up and down as if possessed, arms swinging about wildly. If the situation is not quickly relieved by removing the map, their heads will quite literally explode! Many medical papers have been written about this unfortunate condition, but a yet no definitive cure has been found. The ingestion of a very large dose of democracy is known to alleviate the symptoms, but this is something the afflicted are reluctant to undergo because of cultural reasons.

So I would like to know whether this is a anti-Azerbaijani case due to my opposing perspectives regarding both our countries and politics. It could also very well be that you are RetlawSnellac and whilest I was on a break you made edits based on my contributions list and collected so-called-evidence for a case against me; considering you know my history of contributions very well. Anyway as I said before, I could probably find connections with you and some other user aswell and accuse you of socketpuppetry, because this is what kinda evidence you present. What you want you will find.Neftchi (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for inserting some off-topic humour into the thread - and, unlike your uploading of images, at least you are acknowledging the real creator of that satiric piece! However, I think you should be responding to the issues and the questions about your uploading of images that appear to be the work of others. Meowy 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I think what Neftchi is trying to say in his "and what do those photos have to do with this case, that has got to do with copyright and my previous website - euro-caspian.com" comment is that the photo on the blog by a woman named Erica has actualy been stolen by Erica rather than the other way around. That seems possible. Looking at all the photos in her album there is no evidence she has actually been to Azerbaijan, and the photos show dancers in many locations around the world. So, unless she is extremely well-travelled, it would be common-sense to assume that almost all of the photos in that album have been taken from other sources. Meowy 17:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with you that Erica is unlikely to be the photographer of a lot of those images and may not be this one. I'm not entirely sure if Neftchi is either, though. I have confirmed that File:Kara Karayev.jpg was hosted, for instance, on the now defunct website, but I can't confirm that it was hosted there prior to its uploading here by another contributor, and copyright seems questionable, given that the photograph must be, what, 30 or 40 years old? Also, is he the copyright owner of the schoolbook from which this was scanned? Questions like this are worth some clarification. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I had hosted a website called euro-caspian.com funded by Heydar Aliyev Foundation, but the website was not required anymore and thus I closed it down, its offline now. The photos of Gara Garayev for example is from the database of the Heydar Aliyev Foundation. If your interested in learning more about the Heydar Aliyev Foundation I suggest you visit their official website here. The schoolbook picture is a scan of a schoolbook in Azerbaijan for 4th grade about Azerbaijani history. I wasnt aware that it was not allowed to scan book covers and upload them, I thought since the picture depicted Babek a heroic figure in both Iranian aswell as Azerbaijani cultures it would contribute to the related articles. I would also like to note that we stay on subject as I cannot represent myself while being confronted on several different subjects. I suggest we deal with the current case that is regarding the socketpuppetry and then later move on to copyrights regarding me, otherwise it would simply be unfair for me to represent myself. Neftchi (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No, you cannot claim copyright to a picture you scan from a schoolbook and license it under GFDL and CC-BY-SA. I see that you've used fair use rationales before; unless you can verify that this picture is public domain, you can only use it if it meets the non-free content criteria and you provide a proper fair use rationale. With respect to the others, I see that you were advised in 2006, here, to obtain a letter from Heydar Aliyev Foundation to verify your authorization to release their materials. Did you ever obtain this? I don't see a copy of a letter from them in the OTRS system related to this (though there is one letter from them on an unrelated matter, which agents can see at Ticket:2008101710030661). You should add your comments to the PUF listing, which is linked at your talk page, as that listing will run its course within two weeks' time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:53, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I can imagine, one doesn't understand the IP right laws, standards and the different licenses and cases. But I think every child understands, that writing "This work was done entirely by me", under work created by another person, is something "bad" and "wrong". I still, do assume good faith: for example - I can imagine being lazy, to properly provide all the necessary license/rights information. But it's not acceptable, in many ways. Project could be simply sued by real authors - seriously harming project, communities, and idea of Free Content in general. So can you please, look through all your uploads, mark for clean up all the images, you didn't have rights to upload, and provide info on images you really created by yourself, or had rights to upload. So this question never rises again in the future, and doesn't rise mistrust? --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Neftchi, it's second time you try to present this as personal and/or ethnic-biased. First time I ignored that, taking in account we had no contact before, and that you might be surprised by this situation. After all my explanation, and time I've spent trying to be as correct and accurate in facts/evidence rising suspicion to you, I find it quite insulting. If I by any chance would have any personal/national problems with you, I would contact you directly. I do understand, that this is not pleasant for you. Neither it's pleasant/interesting/fun for me. Noitce, that I didn't even put any of your words under doubt, without providing verifiable facts. You already did it several times. And constantly looking for ethnic background, you try to accuse me in nationalism. So I demand for mutual respect and civility.

About Meowy, as I can see you recently had a clash on her talkpage, I think it's natural she was quite interested in your edits at ANI.

I hope we'll finish with personalizing now, and deal with incident and actions, not persons.

Have, you really checked evidences? At both times RetlawSnellac posted really early the days you started to take brakes, check it, that person knew then you would be on vacation if not you. Please let's stick to what is presented, and solve this out fast. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

 Inconclusive based solely on technical evidence, it can not be ruled out nor proven solely on technical evidence.  Likely based on behavior and edit patterns that they are the same. I'd support indef blocks of the socks and a short block of the master. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Update; still unresolved, more feedback requested

I have listed several images by Neftchi at WP:PUF for clarification of their copyright status. The listing is here. Meanwhile, I have spoken to several admins who work sock puppetry or checkuser, and based on behavioral evidence and regional base of both registered accounts, the concerns are plausible. (see here and here. I have sought feedback from another CU as per suggestion, but would more than welcome other admin opinion here. :) Sock puppetry is not my neighborhood. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

After looking this over once again, I have issued RetlawSnellac (talk · contribs) an indefinite block, and Neftchi (talk · contribs) a one week block (bearing in mind that the image issue is still, as far as I know, unresolved). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly same case, in the past

I'm not sure if related, but while I was checking Neftchi contribs, I found another case, which looks quite similar, to this one. VanWeesp registered on Jan 10 and loaded related pictures on commons, with questionable rights. The only info I find on VanWeesp on google is hotel in Netherlands not a real person.

• See here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/VanWeesp. Questionable pictures, on google picture search results for example , here I find on September 13, 2008 a version of this here loaded on Jan 10, 2009.

• Here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Azerbaijan_Navy.jpg Was uploaded on Jan 10, 2009, while http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showpost.php?p=3679927&postcount=134 Was uploaded on November 08 2008.

• Take a look at this photo. Now look at a LiveJournal of Ukranian pilot who visited Azerbaijan, for training Azeri pilots, and obviously made that photos during flights. It's written in the mentioned LJ post, anyone speaking Russian can confirm this. Now notice how photo uploaded to commons, was cropped out, to hide the watermarks of real author, and presented as "work done entirely by myself". A style we already know. Guess no need, to talk about dates, here.

• Same here - a cropped version of Photo at Military today. I'm not sure if last one is the author, but it could be taken from that website, and cropped out for the very same reason.

• On English wikipedia he also created an account and added those photos, see here. Not all photo's incorporated in articles by him, the rest were added by Neftchi, examples: [43], [44], [45].

• Neftchi was off wiki from January 8 to January 18 (VanWeesp only edited on Jan 10) and when Neftchi returns, first thing he do is put VanWeesp’s picture here. Note the only contributions by VanWeesp is on articles relating to the Azerbaijani military, articles which Neftchi is the most active contributor of.

• And majority of photos come from military parade of 2008, Neftchi too added pictures from same parade. See description here for example. This photo again was often seen by me on different forums, with photos weapons (like here), and again uploaded few months before, then they were uploaded here.

Add to this, that photos have small and different dimensions. And the reason is, that photos were taken from web, and then cropped out, to hide the watermarks, as it was with done with Fighter/MRLS photo. After few days I spent checking I'm almost sure all the photos of Neftchi and his puppets were stolen. A person who does create artworks/photos would be much more respectful to photos of others. And to me, Neftchi crossed the line, after which you can hope that at least 10% of images he uploaded, were created by him/or he really had rights to upload them. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 00:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This example you have found (original:[46], on Wikipedia:[47]) is a blatant case of a deliberate breach of copyright. VanWeesp, as you said, has simply cropped out the copyright-owner's original copyright information. All of this case is revealing just how much Wikipedia Commons is being used as a way of "laundering" stolen images. The methodology seems to be first upload them to Commons, then insert them into Wikipedia, using their established "Commons" status to avoid any inconvenient copyright questions being asked here. I know from experience that copyright issues on Wikipedia Commons are far more "relaxed" than on Wikipedia itself, and some of its uploaders are allowed to literally get away with theft. However, it isn't proven that Neftchi was aware of the true copyright status of these images - he may have just been searching Wikipedia Commons for suitable images to add into articles here. The connection you have discovered between this thread on militaryphotos.net [48] and this image uploaded by Neftchi [49] (the same photo is on post 27 of the thread) might just mean that "Zakali" is Neftchi - and if Neftchi is the actual photographer then there is nothing wrong. But is that credible? For example there are photos in that thread depicting similar stages of the same parade which have been taken from opposite sides of the same streets. This suggests two or more photographers at work - propably a lot more than two. Also, the subject matter, plus the closeness to the subject, suggests the involvement of official photographers (i.e. photographers working for the state or the armed forces, which would mean the photographers will not own the copyright of their photos). Meowy 16:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

For reasons I did not find explained, Zakali is labelled a "Banned user" on militaryphotos.net. Many of the photos contributed by Zakali in the thread on militaryphotos.net are watermarked "APA", which stands for Azerbaijan Press Agency, and were apparently copied from their site: see here, here and here. In either case, whether Neftchi is Zakali or not, something is rotten here.  --Lambiam 20:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should think if Neftchi and Zakali are same persons. There are lots of such forums on the internet, and lot of general forums, have threads with similiar photos of weaponry from all over the world. And there are millions of people from all over the world who kind of fetishy weapon. While I was searching, I've seen at least 20 similar threads. So I propose to leave this aside now. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 18:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Update: I have opened a deletion debate on VanWeesp's images at Commons, since these images must be handled there. It can be found at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Azerbaijan Navy.jpg. User:Rlevse tells me that VanWeesp's contributions on En Wikipedia are too old for check user, so there may be no means of determining if he is anyone's sock. I'm speaking to several admins on Commons about the best handling of the VanWeesp and RetlawSnellac accounts. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It's pity though we can not technically determine if Neftchi and VanWeesp are really same persons. So we have edit patterns/interests/and fact that only Neftchi was adding to articles photos uploaded by VanWeesp. --Aleksey Chalabyan a.k.a. Xelgen (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Catterick

I have just put an indefinite block on this account on the ground that he is um 'really eccentric'. He has been here for years but has used sockpuppets to avoid banning (IMO). My reasoning for the indefinite is that I'm not sure how long the block should be but my thinking at the moment is that he is incompetent at actual editing (evidence in a minute) and that he is disruptive on talk pages so is very much a net negative to the project. However, as I said, I have only looked at his recent edits. perhaps he has been helpful at some time in the past? If not then I think we should go for community ban. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence for disruption: See my talk page

Evidence for incompetence here Note that I am not saying that we should ban him because he can't edit articles, but that when coupled with constantly stirring up trouble for the sake of it means that we can cut him no slack. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There was previous discussion of his actions here - and (unverified but checkable) evidence of sockpuppetry here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Having just come across this person on the Richmondshire article and trying to work with them to get the information they supplied sourced so that it could be verified. I find that they appear more interested in long discussions on the talk page (which was moved to talk:Richmondshire from my talk page by the user), to attacking other users and complaining at my request for in-line citations. If an indefinite ban is not maintained then there needs to be some form of mentoring and guidance for the editor to enable them to work collaboratively with others. Keith D (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

With the best will in the world, I don't think mentoring would work - I've just discovered this and this, going back to 2003. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO Catterick is quite knowledgeable on British history and his opposition to the manipulation of various Wikipedia articles by myth making disinformation campaigns, carried out by various regionalist, separatist and post-Troskyite interest groups is a welcome addition. However he must approach this in a far more cool headed manner and also when writing articles, learn how to use references like in the Richmondshire article above. I've only become aware of the user in the last couple of days, but if he managed to calm it down a lot (and I do mean a lot) his contribution could be a positive one to the project. Perhaps the mentoring thing which Keith suggested is worth giving ago? As a last chance saloon sort of thing. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I promised him that if he wanted to comment here I'd copy it over. However he has had a lot to say so it would be best if interested parties went to his talk page. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that is workable. I just had a look at his Talk page & he has made quite a hash of it, cut-n-pasting the same few paragraph over & over to it until it weighs in at 2 million kbytes. I'd blank & protect his talk page, except that the last few times I pressed my Admin button no one was happy with the result. -- llywrch (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the need to blank the talk page unless it gets bigger substantially. But I'm also not seeing strong evidence that he should ever be unblocked. Protonk (talk) 19:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well it needs doing but as the one who put an indefinite block on an established user's account I think it should be another admin rather than me. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Ghmyrtle's evidence above this is a long term abusive editor who has been here since 2003 and had been banned by the AC in 2004 for 1 year. He is pretty fond of using socks and we should probably try to identify as many as possible and block them all. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sock-chasing is not my strong point but I agree. I can see very little evidence that he is anything other than a disruptive troll and an open-ended block seems over-due to me. Ben MacDui 07:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I suspect he's probably capable of interesting original research. But that's of no value on this site, especially when coupled with his inability to present his conclusions in a way which is comprehensible to readers; or to take account of other people's different conclusions and recognise the difference between fringe theories and consensus; or to engage in a civil manner with other editors and avoid becoming fixated on perceived slights; or to restrain himself from abuse and threats. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, Lord Loxley/Catterick seeks 'drama'. Will he change his Wiki ways? or will he accuse others of ganging up on him. 'Tis up to him to decide his Wiki-fate. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If hes used socks before, won't he just do that again to get around the block? Perhaps it would be better if he was in the community but had somebody to watch over and guide how to correctly and coherently write articles, with refs and everything. - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, he will try again, and editors need to be vigilant - it's pretty much obvious from the articles he works on, and how he contributes (mostly incomprehensible, sometimes offensive, rants about obscure aspects of Yorkshire and related history, punctuated by abuse of other editors). I think, if you go thr ough the archives of his past interactions with other editors, it's fairly obvious that the "mentoring" approach would not work. He's been around a long time and believes he is right, and I don't believe he will change. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That was pretty much my conclusion. Mentoring works in some cases. But I can't see it working here. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Outing by BullRangifer

Resolved

 – No outing has occurred due to the fact the information was voluntarily provided by the complainant, which is an exclusion under the outing policy. Sarah 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In a recent sockpuppet investigation, BullRangifer posted what he believes to be the city in which I live in an effort to link me to an IP address block which had been edit warring. Before he made his post, I made this post where I stated "if the investigating admin ... would like any information about my actual location or permanent IP address, please feel free to contact me via email." I think it is quite evident from my post that I didn't want my location discussed and/or revealed publicly in this forum.

Further, BullRangifer made his own post at the SPI where he warned editors against posting his actual location on Wikipedia because of "serious security issues". Unfortunately, BullRangifer didn't extend me the same courtesy.

In BullRangifer's defense, he claims that my location was well-known already by those at Wikipedia because of the one time two years ago that I accidentally edited while logged out. I don't think this is a valid excuse because while that one edit did reveal my location at the time I made that one particular edit, no one made a big deal about it and to the best of my knowledge no one on Wikipedia has ever discussed my location based on that edit. This presumed location of mine was not well-known until BullRangifer posted it on SPI.

By stating the location which he presumes I live, BullRangifer has violated WP:OUTING. I ask for the proper reprocussions and for my privacy to be reinstated by Oversight. Thank you. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 02:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The WP:Requests for oversight policy contains instructions for requesting oversight, to wit: E-mail the mailing list for such requests, oversight-l at lists.wikimedia.org. Posting private information, or potentially private information, to a widely trafficked public noticeboard is not necessarily a recipe for keeping that information under wraps. Nathan ^T 02:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I already sent an email to the mailing list and effectively was told that the cat is out of the bag now, so what do you want us to do about it? Remove the entire SPI case?

If it is generally known by the other participants in this dispute that you live in LA, Oversight can not put that cat back in its bag.

I was baffled by this response. And it was not generally presumed by anyone that I live in L.A. before BullRangifer made this post. So here I am. The cat is out of the bag indeed (whether or not it is the correct cat) and WP:OUTING makes it pretty clear what is in order now in terms of reprocussions. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 03:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be a dick, but you have probably made this location and its possible attachment to you much more prominent by posting on this page. email oversight if you want the diffs removed. Protonk (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

In future if there's something you want oversighted, you're much better off handling it privately rather than posting about here on ANI which really defeats the purpose and just brings more attention to the incident. I understand you requested oversight but you really should have continued to discuss with the oversighters privately or even contacted an admin and asked them to do a selective deletion rather than coming here. Now that you've voluntarily reposted the location here yourself, I don't think there's any point in pursuing this further. Sarah 04:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been emailing oversight and just emailed them again at Protonk's behest. They didn't respond to my previous request. What am I supposed to do? -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 04:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's courtesy blanked for now. Whenever oversight responds I'll figure out if I want to delete the revisions the old fashioned way. Protonk (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a start. Thanks, Protonk. I want to make it clear that this violation of WP:OUTING wasn't accidental or non-malicious. BullRangifer is an editor with a long-standing grudge against me who was falsely accusing me of sockpuppeteering. He clearly knew it was wrong yet went ahead and "outed" me anyhow by revealing what he believes to be my location. He even went so far as asking another editor who contributed to the SPI to change his "inaccurate" location information so that the archives will contain the information about my location which BullRangifer assumes to be correct. That editor heeded BullRangifer's assumption about my location and changed his post in a further violation of WP:OUTING. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 07:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I understood from your previous comment that Oversight had responded but didn't agree oversight was warranted, which (of course) is very different to not responding at all. If they told you they didn't think it was warranted and you disagreed and still felt it was warranted under policy, you should have continued discussing it with them and even asked another oversighter to give a second opinion if you felt strongly about it. In future, if you email the oversight mailing list and don't get a response or don't get a favourable response, you could email someone with oversight directly or you could email an admin you trust and ask them to at least do a selective deletion and, if necessary, block the user. If you don't know any admins personally that you could ask, you could look through the admin list. I haven't looked extensively at this and don't know much about the background, but I must admit that I'm not overly convinced by that evidence. The user seems to have identified an instance where you resigned an IP comment with your account and then done an IP lookup (which is something we facilitate by providing various links to whois, geolocate and traceroute services on each IP talk page). SPI walks a very fine line, trying to balance the project's interests with individual's personal interests, and it would often be much better if we could somehow present that kind of information in a way that can't be read by Joe Blow passing by, but when investigating suspected disruptive editing, we can't just ignore evidence where someone has mistakenly edited while logged out and then come along and resigned their comments. Admis can do selective deletions. A long time ago I did a selective deletion for a then non-admin (who is now an arbitrator) who was mistakenly logged out when posting a comment obviously from him and I'm sure if you asked nicely and it was possible (some page histories are just too messy) someone would have helped you and then you could have redone your post logged in, but you really need to do that straight away and without drawing public attention to it, otherwise it defeats the purpose. Also note that WP:OUTING doesn't apply if you voluntarily provide the information yourself. Note that I've just deleted the past history of your userpage because it contained a set of five links to what I can only assume is your real world identity, your real world website and real world work. Based on what I've seen at those links, I would concur with the oversighter who advised you that it was too late to put the cat back in the bag. From what you've been saying above about privacy and outing etc, I'm assuming you'd like those revisions deleted for personal reasons and am deleting before posting this here because no doubt once I post this people will try to look, but it needs to be noted that you appear to have provided considerable real world identifying information about yourself voluntarily and have made no effort to have it removed from this website, so I honestly don't think you have been WP:OUTed by the SPI. I have restored the last version of your userpage. If you didn't really want the history deleted and would like me to restore the whole thing or would like other versions restored, please email me and I will do so for you. Sarah 09:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Really, I don't see how posting an educated guess at someone's city of residence violates WP:OUTING. It's a stretch to consider "LA" to be contact information for you. If I take a stab and say someone is from the United Kingdom, is that a violation of WP:OUTING? The policy states that posting personal information is prohibited. I'm not convinced that your living in LA is "personal information". Wikipedia policy does not - and can not - guarantee complete anonymity. This policy - which is part of WP:HA - protects you against harassment, not against people taking a guess at what city you live in based on IP addresses. Tan | 39 15:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that does it! By filing this absurd thread, Levine2112 forces me to file a full SPI against him. I have refrained from doing so for several years, and he should have known I could have done it and was being merciful, but this is too much. Why "absurd thread"? Because geolocation is an essential part of an SPI, and it's absurd for the one suspected of abusive socking to be allowed to have the evidence disturbed or deleted. Please stop all oversighting now before more evidence is disturbed. There is nothing urgent about this, nor is his security threatened. Los Angeles is a huge area! His userpage history contains evidence of gross deceptiveness and it is needed. I am traveling now and won't be able to file the SPI report for possibly a week, but it's coming and will show instances of socking, votestacking, etc.. Levine2112's silence during the current SPI has been telling, and it would have been wise for him to continue to lay low, but he made the mistake of pressing my hand, and even more of the cat will be out of the bag. This is an editor who has great potential, but who has abused the system, and the time has come for documenting his deceptiveness. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've all been grateful for your "mercy" of late, but I'm sure I speak for all of us when I say we can't wait for your tell-all SPI report. I'm sure Levine will regret "pressing your hand". Tan | 39 15:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just two quick comments: 1) I had no idea where Levine is editing from; I don't think this was general knowledge. If it was, then I think I have quite a few things to say about BullRangifer that are also general knowledge. 2) I am not getting the impression that Levine is particularly serious about keeping the information private. Hans Adler 15:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer, like Tan I too look forward to your report. I am worried not because I am or was ever guilty of sockpuppeting or meatpuppeting, but because of the way that you twist information into the "truth" which you want to disseminate to the masses. I am worried because this is what you do both on and off Wiki and have been pretty effective at selling your version of the Truth^TM to the masses. You provide selective information and conjecture to create misinformation and then pass if off as the truth. This is exactly what you did in this SPI with the information which clearly violated WP:OUTING. And though the report proved to be inconclusive, somehow your "evidence" was enough for an involved admin to mete out a six month topic ban. This is what I worry about. You are very convincing even when the evidence is not on your side.

Tan, BullRangifer was not providing a "educated guess". Educated guesses would be fine provided that it is clear that they are guesses. Rather, BullRangifer made a declarative statement about my location (Levine lives here).

It is ridiculous to blame me for publicizing the cat which BullRangifer had let out of the bag so I'll go now and leave you with this. Check my block log. I was once blocked for outing BullRangifer by provided an external link which contained one piece of personal information about BullRangifer. This personal information was something which BullRangifer had already shared with Wikipedia on his user page through the various external links he provided to his personal blog, web rings and chat boards. Yet, I still got blocked for violating OUTING. Now here we are, BullRangifer declares one piece of my personal information and his defense is that this information is already well-known. Is it wrong for me to expect the same punishment for him?

My question to BullRangifer is this: How do you know my location is well-known when no one on Wikipedia has ever discussed it aside from you? Are you discussing my location with editors off of Wikipedia? I know that over the years you have actively recruited editors to Wikipedia from other sources to come take up arms against me and "my kind", but are you now telling us that you keep in touch with these editors off Wikipedia and discuss my personal information? I don't want to sound too much like Abd (for fear that BullRangifer will now accuse me of being his sockpuppet), but there certainly does seem to be an cabal! :-)

BullRangifer's edit history shows that he came to Wikipedia with an agenda to disseminate mis-information. However, when his POV pushing efforts were repeatedly thwarted by yours truly, he marked me as a target who needs to be eliminated. Are these sockpuppet accusations just his latest attempt to extract this thorn in his side? I wonder. BullRangifer, have a safe journey and I look forward to your return when you can continue your now four-year mission to rid Wikipedia of me (simply because I don't let you push your POV). -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 17:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Without responding to all that, two notes: I take no responsibility, nor accept any precedent from, any administrator who blocked you earlier. Secondly, expecting "punishment" is moot; blocks are not punitive. Using this as a tit-for-tat is simply using up Wikipedia resources and admin time without reason. Tan | 39 17:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

If you think I am asking for tit-for-tat, then I guess I am not being clear. I am thoroughly appreciative that you resist speculating or accepting responsibility for other admins and don't accept their actions as precedent. However, I don't think that the "blocks are not punitive" logic is fairly applied across Wikipedia. WP:OUTING even asserts that intentional and malicious violations of this policy are grounds for an immediate block. If not punitive, what other function would such a block serve? Okay, that's probably a bit off-topic here and I don't want to waste anymore of Wikipedia's resources, but that's one that makes me scratch my head. -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 19:12, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that you have to take it in context of my initial statements here in this thread - that I don't think this is an "outing". Naming someone's city of residence is far from personal information, in my opinion. That said, in order to block, I have to have something I am preventing - and I don't see any evidence that he was breaking policy in the first place, let alone threatening to do it again. Tan | 39 20:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tan's comments that this does not appear to be outing and that it's difficult to see any justification for blocking and I don't think a block would be sustainable due to the fact that Levine provided the information himself which is an exemption under the outing policy. Sarah 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that there's been any outing due to the extensive amount of personal information Levine has voluntarily provided about himself and in nearly four years has never made any effort to have removed. The Outing policy talks about someone's home or workplace address but it doesn't say that general information or that the city an IP resolves to, when this information is obtained from an IP which the user has self-identified as their own, amounts to outing under the policy. And if it is "outing" ANI, SPI, COIN, etc would fall apart as we deal with this sort of information every day. The outing policy says: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not) is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted one's own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia oneself." Like Tan I'm not at all convinced that naming a city which is one of the largest cities in the world constitutes "personal information" but it seems to me that even if we say a city name qualifies as "personal information", because Levine voluntarily posted (and left there for nearly four years) links to real world identifying webpages and identified his own IPs, I think there has been no outing. That Levine has continued posting the information he objects to here on ANI, even after being advised to pursue private resolution because posting about it here will only draw further attention to the information he claims to want kept private, just reinforces my belief there has been no outing and makes it hard to take his claim that he's looking to mitigate an outing seriously but rather, in combination with his comments above about blocking, appears to simply be an attempt to exact revenge and manipulate an admin into blocking a long standing opponent. I think it's about time to call this complaint resolved. Sarah 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Levine said: "It is ridiculous to blame me for publicizing the cat which BullRangifer had let out of the bag". No. BullRangifer didn't let the cat out of the bag. You let the cat out of the bag by posting links to extensive self-identifying information and self-identifying your own IP address. BullRangifer has simply collated the information you voluntarily provided yourself. The difference between what you describe you were blocked for and what happened here is that in this case you voluntarily posted the information yourself. Sarah 02:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, can you please email me and tell me about the self-identifying website you describe here. I am unaware of it. Thanks! -- ǝʌlǝʍʇ ǝuo-ʎʇuǝʍʇ ^ssnɔsıp 05:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I explained above. You had five website links in your userpage history which is why I deleted it. As far as I can see you've outed yourself by providing those websites links, using this account name and resigning logged out comments with your account. I'm trying to AGF but I'm having a hard time believing you're genuinely distressed by what happened rather than merely seeing it as an opportunity to pursue "punishment" (as you say) for a long-time editorial opponent. Sarah 07:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)'

I am another editor that didn't know where Levine2112 was located until BullRangifer outted him. I am also the other editor accused by BullRangifer in this SPI of having "shadow/alter-ego" IPs working for me on an article where I have a grand total of 3 edits back in April.

I asked Shell specifically about what BullRangifer said when I asked him about outting Levine2112 [50] - Shell said [51], "The way I understand things, any information of a private nature should be emailed to the checkusers rather than posted on wiki. I don't believe this is quite the same thing as outing (linking a pseudonym to a real name) but its the same principle. A slip up with a login is likely considered private where someone publicly declaring where they live or work probably wouldn't be." In other words, BullRangifer should have emailed the checkuser with the information of the login slip information, not posted it publicly and announced this was where Levine2112 lived.

As for the links to websites on Levine's user page history.. I never saw them. BullRangifer never mentioned any websites - and I bet he would have used them if he had known about them. --stmrlbs|talk 09:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So I guess the outcome of this is that this was not outing, and a fortiori it is also not outing to say which country BullRangifer (formerly Fyslee) is from and what his website is. Is that correct? While on the other hand, it is not OK to mention BullRangifer's or ScienceApologist's real names, even though they have in the past been open about this. In fact, the ANI discussion that led to Levine's past block (as well as things I vaguely remember around ScienceApologist) suggests that it is also not OK to link to an external site or relatively obscure WP page which exposes a real name, not even when this is done for only tangentially related reasons such as exposing a COI. Is this correct?

The obvious context of this thread is the complementary/alternative medicine (what BullRangifer likes to call "SCAM") wars. Occasionally this war gets quite dirty, with parties on either side trying to score points on technicalities. Some people on one side of this war regularly assume that in spite of their sometimes extreme positions on relatively established practices such as acupuncture or chiropractic, which they can only back by referencing zealots such as Barrett, they represent the "mainstream" and therefore enjoy special protection against incivility, outing, or just being bothered by continued disagreement, while their opponents' interests deserve less protection than those of an average editor. In this context it seems important to make it clear that there is no such double standard, and that there is in fact a qualitative difference between what Levine did and what BullRangifer did, which explains the different outcomes. Hans Adler 08:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Irrito

• Irrito (talk · contribs)
• 68.126.61.224 (talk · contribs)
• 67.94.16.18 (talk · contribs)

Hi. The above user (also working through IPs) has been edit warring on the Steorn article, refusing to enter into sensible discussions, hassling other editors and making bad faith accusations of CoI. I am requesting a permanent block of the account and a temporary one of the IPs.

Potted history:

• [52] First of several edits suggesting that "Ian MacDonald", one of a jury of scientists chosen by Steorn, was a family doctor. Quickly reverted by User:McGeddon as OR and reverted again by User:Ianmacm as personal commentary.
• [53] posted on McGeddon's talk page saying that "their research" had revealed important facts. McGeddon gave a clear reply and had what I think is a patient discussion.
• [54] Starting to try to get Ian MacDonald to out himself. Reverted as vandalism by User:ZooFari — GDallimore , — (continues after insertion below.)

I asked him if he was Ian McDonald associated with UofA an if so please provide a link to verify. He said I was mistaken as he was another Ian McDonald. How this reached vandalism is beyond me.Irrito (talk)

• [55] Found someone called Ian MacDonald on the Internet who was a dentist and suggested on the article that this was the same Ian MacDonald as mentioned in a news article. Reverted as OR by McGeddon and further explained on user's talk page,
• Opened the Irrito account and first two edits were hassling Ianmacm demanding that they confirm that they are "Ian MacDonald" and insulting — GDallimore , — (continues after insertion below.)

This is a telling edit comments by McGeddon becuase he edits something out of the article he has no information countering the fact nor does he have any fact supporting his position that McDonald is a dentist and a scientist.Irrito (talk)

McGeddon. Later accused McGeddon of a CoI, and of being mad and illogical when McGeddon was continuing his attempts to explain.

• Irrito then made a series of unconstructive edits which I reverted, and was re-reverted with the accusation that I was attempting to mislead and had an interest in Steorn. — GDallimore , — (continues after insertion below.)

This claims lacks any specific allegations: McGeddon is attempting to play fast and loose with his charges.Irrito (talk)

• At this point, I posted a strongly worded warning to Irrito (perhaps too strong) along with a full explanation of my reverts. Irrito has not responded but has continued edit warring and hassling.
• Latest reversion at 10.27 this morning led me to come here with a block request.

Thanks for listening. GDallimore (Talk) 10:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Just dropped by and saw this, I've protected the article for a week, maybe someone else can look at the editor, I don't think I have time right now. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Please could you undo that as it's not at all the result that I think will help. This is not a content dispute. At least four editors other than me have been reverting this one disruptive editor and protecting it to prevent anyone from improving the article is just further disruption. My call for him to be blocked is not for the edit-warring but for the personal attacks, insults and hassling that have gone with it when people have tried to explain why his edits are not appropriate. GDallimore (Talk) 14:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

One final thing I've just noticed: User:Irrito broke 3RR, although one of the edits was by IP. [56] [57] [58] and [59] between 15.47 on the 10th and 10.27 on the 11th. A block should be enforced just for that, irrespective of the rest of this user's behaviour. GDallimore (Talk) 16:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocking is preventative, not punitive. As the article is protected at the moment, there's nothing to protect (unless he goes elsewhere) and no reason to block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

But that's wrong. The protection of the article prevents legit editors from contributing to the article, while the person who's disrupting goes blithely on his way. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The {{editprotected}} template is a wonderful thing. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. The only editor edit-warring is Irrito, with multiple people reverting him and one editor going so far as to call his contributions a "junk edit". Protection of the article is the least constructive resolution. Blocking one user would remove the only disruptive element, preventing all disruption. GDallimore (Talk) 08:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

exactly. Unprotect and block the single disruptive editor. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is unclear to me how much editing you need to do this article. What is that you need to edit in this article that is so important.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

• ←Just a note to say the editor in question has sought input from other people. He chose the wrong venue (DRV, of all places), but the thought patterns there seem absolutely correct to me.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

He sought input ONLY after being warned that this discussion was taking place here, and his way of seeking input was to accuse McGeddon of sockpuppeting, with me as the sockpuppet, an accusation repeated below. I am not after a punitive block. This is an SPA who has been warned multiple times not to make personal attacks and to assume good faith yet demonstrably refuses to do so. Block this guy to prevent this further unacceptable behaviour and let constructive editors get on with editing. GDallimore (Talk) 08:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

In the past three weeks I've advised Irrito four separate times to discuss his concerns with other editors at Talk:Steorn. A talk page section was created about the edits in question on the 27th, and Irrito was told about it and invited to contribute, but he has apparently chosen to ignore it in favour of making repeated reverts and increasingly incoherent personal attacks. --McGeddon (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

here is what is interesting about your advice to talk:Steron you continue to dominate the Stoern page while all criticism about you goes on the back pages, which most visitors never see.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

The fact that I did seek help after the complaint was made on this page does not dimishish S Marshall's analysis. The fact that you attack me as oppose to my claim demonstrate part of the reason I have a problem with your and your friends upkeep of the Stoern page.Irrito (talk)

Counter claim

• GDallimore (talk · contribs)

It appears from the comments made about me, Mr. McGeddon failed to mention that he has done his utmost to down play the pit falls of Stoern. He does this by playing up Stoern claims, without criticism in the first party of the article. In doing so, he placed subject matter in places it does not belong--such as the jury of scientists Stoern hired in the first and third section, but does not mention, until the Jury section, that in fact Stoern's claims of scientific legitimacy was not supported by the Jury. Moreover, the McGeddon appears to be very selective in his editing, e.g., he will allow Stoern's unsupported claim (Steorn disputed the jury's findings[6] and said that, due to difficulties in implementing the technology, the jury had only been provided with test data on magnetic effects for study.) to exist while claiming that a search on the University of Alberta's (U of A)website that returns no results as to Mr. McDonald's association is not supported by a 3rd source. I accept McGeddon's edits if it is applied equally to all contributors.

Furthermore, I doubt the legitimacy of McGeddon as a person without an interest in Stoern. Reviewing his editing over the YEARS of Stoern, he has made changes at all times, shortly after others have made editing changes. This appears to be a company hire to protect the editing of the Stoern Wikipedia page or Stoern itself then an altruistic in Wikipedia.

(p)Evidence of Year of Editing and editing within shortly after other's editing

(cur) (prev) 11:15, 6 July 2007 GDallimore (talk | contribs) (33,405 bytes) (not in source.) (cur) (prev) 11:11, 6 July 2007 Boldra (talk | contribs) (33,418 bytes) (→Demonstration (July 2007)) (cur) (prev) 10:07, 6 July 2007 GDallimore (talk | contribs) (33,405 bytes) (→Arguments against: use better source)

Moreover, I had a secondary source which I cited that Ivan McDonald is a family doctor associated with U of A, which MCGeddon and his sockpuppet quickly edited out--even though it met the requirement of a secondary source AND McGeddon had no source to dispute this fact. Irrito (talk)

You seem to be mixing up a number of different people

• Ivan McDonald is a family doctor associated with U of A - maybe but who cares and what's it to do with the article?
• Dr. Ian McDonald is the Chair, Department of Ophthalmology at the UA
• Prof. R Ian MacDonald who is involved in the Steorn stuff can be found here and his profile fits what Steorn claims - if needed, I'm sure I could dig up some papers that provide conclusive proof of the university affliction. — Cameron Scott , — (continues after insertion below.)

See, you fall into the trap. You could but you did not. Moreover, we are not discussing whether you could or you could not. The issue is whether my posting with a independent secondary source should have been deleted. If so, then, using the same rule, shouldn't Stoern's claim that the jury did not have the right data,which is not supported by any proof, be allowed to stay in the article. I guess this boils down to is this a fact article or a new arcticle.Irrito (talk)

Lets be clear about what the problem actually is - you are making very serious charges of misrepresentation against BLPs figures on what appears to be your misunderstanding of sources and your mixing up of two different people. You should stop unless you are provide reliable third party sources that make this link. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, you have not cleared up anything but have raised more questions. Please state each and every fact that you have to make the claims that my secondary source is not reliable as to Mr. McDonald. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 14:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, why do you address only one of my edits disputes and apply them to all. For example, my point was that he does his best to hide the bad information at the bottom of the article, you made no remark. My point is that he has protected the page at all times of the day, you made no remark.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 14:39, 12 August 2009

I've only addressed the only point because I don't care about your other issues, only that your claims that an living figure has misrepresented his expertise is a violation of our BLP policies. I don't plan to get in a long debate with you as it's clearly you are already wasting enough people's time. This is how this works - if you can find a reliable third party source that says that Prof. McDonald has misrepresented his expertise, you need to present it. If you cannot present it, you need to stop making the claim or you should be blocked immediately as a clear and present danger to our policies at WP:BLP. That's the start and end of my discussion with you. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Cameron, are you representing that you are a member of Wikipedia: "OUR BLP policy"?~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irrito (talk • contribs) 15:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All good faith editors can consider themselves members of the project. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it that you came to the understanding that Cameron is a good faith editor. Was it his statement: I don't care ... You are wasting people's time. Irrito (talk)

Cameron, is your contention that if I demonstrate with verifiable 3rd party evidence a fact concerning Stoern's jury that it cannot not go into the article. However, the fact that you are claiming is on a site that appears to have less credibility that U of A's website.

Is it also your contention that a valid argument that I have isn't worth your time?

Why do you what to narrow my concerns down to one issue and claim you don't have the time for others?

If you are going to get into an argument you should consider the amount of time it will take. I have spent more time doing this, but I am willing to consider other's arguments.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Lastly, Cameron, you miss the point. The point is there are no facts about the jury with the exception of Ian McDonald. I searched, as you did, facts concerning this expert at U of A. You seem to make a claim that we know his expertise, but Stoern has not provided any information that I am aware of any other juror other than the name and position of Ian McDonald.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC).

Random break

Promised myself I'd step back from this, but it's becoming too much of a mess. Apologies that this page has become a venue for arguments about Irrito's dispute over the content of the article, which was never my intention. That part of the dispute had nothing to do with my original complaint here which is rather a request for a block due to Irrito's behaviour in calling McGeddon "mad", hassling Ianmacm on his talk page and accusing people of having conflicts of interest without cause or reason. Despite multiple warnings to assume good faith and to avoid personal attacks, he shows no remorse for his actions and he in fact escalated them here into accusations of sock-puppeting. I think Irrito's contributions above should be enough to hang him even if the insults and attacks previously were not. Can a passing admin please bring this to a close. If nobody is going to effect a block, please just say so and close this discussion before it gets any more messy. Everyone can then wait out the week that Steorn is protected and put this in the past. Thank you. GDallimore (Talk) 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the Ianmacm confusion was an innocent enough mistake, and it doesn't seem that hassling. Irrito just seems to be having trouble understanding basic Wikipedia policy in terms of why we can't say "this doctor with the same name and university is definitely the same guy", and why we can say "Steorn disputed the jury's findings" (both of which I've tried to explain on his talk pages). Rather than talk this through as suggested, he's turning to revert wars and dismissing other editors as Steorn employees and, now, sockpuppets of each other. A short block seems more appropriate than fully protecting the article. --McGeddon (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Both Mcgeddon and GDallimore fail to address the essence of their editing mistakes. They cannot over come the fact that I provided a creditable unrelated reliable source. I can say this several times but it doesn't make it any more true.

However, this is one of several issues I have with them/it (assuming they are Stoern a company Stoern hired)--do they/it concede that their/its editing provided unjustied creditibility to Stoern by stating supporting facts in sections that are clearly belong in other section and not stating damaging facts to balance their supporting. Are they also admitting that they placed close attention to the Stoern article making and changes to content they don't like with a short time--sometime within minutes. (This is the most telling fact: why would a non-interest third party/ies pay so much attention to a small company in Ireland wikipedia's page.) My interest are to have a balance view which means from the start to the bottom of the article.Irrito (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC).

What "credible unrelated reliable source" - all you have produced appears to be the product of your own obsession with Stoern. Look at the full editing history of all the editors you are abusing. Is it really remotely likely that they are all associated with Stoern. Are you now going to say that myself and Cameron Scott are? Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Road you don't think University of Alberta website is crediable, because I cited the site and it was deleted by the people you call good faith editors.Irrito (talk)

(assuming they are Stoern a company Stoern hired)- How long is this guy going to be allowed to attack good faith long-term editors in this way? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cameron, I ask you nicely to go away as you will only consider your argument and lack objectivity.please see your above statement and your lack of responses to questions concerning your statements.Irrito (talk)

• Probably as long as it takes someone to work up the courage to sift through the...'interesting'...exchanges and links above. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:76.177.224.98, 76.177.225.49

I seem to have a problem as does User:Ohnoitsjamie. This user was originally blocked a few days ago as a possible "Willy on Wheels" vandal, but he insists the name "Willyonwheels1969" is legit; he claims his name is William, was born in 1969 and his nickname as a child was "Willy on Wheels." I'm now getting messages on my talk page from Road Runner Cable IPs in Georgetown, Kentucky with this user demanding apologies, threatening "action," etc. I have tried to reason with this individual to no avail. He wants to edit with this username or variation thereof and both I and Jamie have basically (and politely) told him sorry, ain't happening and here's why. If he's legit, I regret his less than friendly reception. However, one of his first edits was to Jimbo's talk page; he's familiar with this system, claiming he'd mostly edited anonymously before establishing an account. To his credit, he hasn't done any WoW vandalism. No page moves, nothing. Otherwise, I'd dismiss him as just another Willy wannabe. I can't get through to the guy as to the myriad reasons he can't edit under that username. He seems more interested in the username than anything else. Any suggestions? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we as a community can state what is and what is not a disruptive username, and that naming yourself after a particular vandal is disruptive no matter if you have good faith intentions. If the user really really realllllllly wants to contribute to the encyclopedia, they're welcome to change their username. If the user is a WoW clone, they'd continue in the manner that they appear to be pursuing. In other words, demands and threats will justify blocks of the ip. Syrthiss (talk) 14:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree with Syrthiss. — Satori Son 20:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Works for me; that's the conclusion I drew, but I wanted to weigh in here. I'll let you all know what he says in response to my last message. If he insists on going down this particular route, I'll request a rangeblock. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I've also had a request from this editor, and agree with the above comments. We can't always have the username we would like to have, and that's a fact of life here, whether it is disruptive on the face of it, or by association- which latter case is what we have here. I wanted different usernames, but they were already taken. It didn't bother me, and, er, I didn't shout about it. Rodhullandemu 23:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

but did anyone block you for using the name of a real life famous (albeit dead) person? (and their glove puppet?) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Syrthiss and Rodhullandemu. We're here to write an encyclopedia with minimal distracting WP:DRAMA and WP:POINT. User has made it clear he's only here for drama and point, and his stated intent to keep creating new accounts is blockable in its own right for the same reasons. DMacks (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, all. The last thing I would want to do is bite a newbie and I tried to reason with him based on his original claim, thinking that would be the end of it. When the hits just kept on coming, I knew this would be trouble. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

But newbies can be really tasty :-P No bites, just nibbles. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Trolls of Anti-Americanism

Trying to edit this article is like walking down an alley in Bogota at 2 AM....Talk:Anti-Americanism

Cast of Characters

Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here)

• Stalking

• Follows me to Islamaphobia, sole action is to revert me (same reversion as Munci). [60] Obviously trying to draw me into an edit war.
• Follows me elsewhere to snipe and pester, e.g., [61], [62] (there is more).

• Trolling. His only edit to the article is to revert me [63]. Abce2's interaction with me is based entirely on personal remarks. Most of his comments on the Talk page of Anti-Americanism are scolding. He made a marginally polite offer of "peace" [64]. All his comments on the related ANI's are sniping and pestering directed at me. He seems to have no actual interest in the topic, having never discussed any aspect of it.

User talk:Munci

• Stalking. Follows me to Anti-Americanism from Islamophobia, sole action is to revert me (same reversion as Abce2). The text being restored was added without discussion or consensus by an erased account. Obviously trying to draw me into an edit war.
• Trolling. His edit comments distort his edit. Part of the issue is a near-spam of multiple warning templates, which nobody has explained in Talk. They want to plaster the article with templates, without specifying what needs to be improved.

User talk:Gasta220 The text Munci and Abce2 are reverting to was added by this anonymous, hit&run account that doesn't even have a Talk page. (How do you delete your own Talk page? I tried and couldn't.)

WebHamster

• Warring, incivility. I won't beat the dead horse here. Blocked twice for warring on Anti-Americanism, and numerous personal attacks.
• Stalking.

• Followed me to First Amendment to the United States Constitution, sole edit was to revert me [65]
• Single-purppose IP reverted my edit to Tehran. [66] The IP geolocates to Manchester England. WebHamster's User page states he is from Manchester, England.

• Trolling. Just tells everybody to "fuck off" like it was his daily multivitamin.

User talk:Blippy

• A Third Opinion who doesn't stay neutral. Doesn't withdraw after reason for request no longer applies. I solicited a 3rd Opinion to help in my dispute with Webhamster, since it is specifically for disputes between two editors. Blippy ignored everything I said, proposed edits no different from WebHamster's, reverted one of my edits, inserted edits I opposed and generally acted like WebHamster's lawyer. After the dispute with WebHamster was resolved, Blippy continues to propose content changes that ignored everything I said. He is inserting changes he knows I oppose [67]. What kind of Third Opinion is this?
• Similar pattern on Roald Dahl, where he showed up as an uniinvovled editor in an RFC. The similarity extends to supporting IP/Pantherskin's edits in the same way as on Anti-Americanism.
• Recent accusation of socking involving IP/Pantherskin on Roald Dahl and Anti-Americanism, and two sockpuppet investigations in the last two months.

Pantherskin

• Constant distortion of everything that is said; constant framing of every dispute as personal attack. Targets contentious issues, articles for deletion. Starts friviolous ANI's [68]
• 3RR violation on an AfD, deleting my comment that he might be a sock [69], [70], [71], [72]. 3RR violation on Talk:Anti-Americanism: [73], [74], [75], [76]. These are discussions where he is removing my comments.
• Stalking. Followed me from Anti-Americanism to Animal liberation movement, sole activity was to revert me. [77] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 19:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Slatersteven (talk

• Trolling. His Talk page is a littany of warnings about disruptive edits, answered with wide-eyed innocence, such as one which "caused a mass deletion of active threads that took a couple of admins, Haemo and Slp1, some fussing to fix" [78]. There are several dialogs of this sort, in which SlaterSteven basically says "Ooops." In Anti-Americanism, the feigned incomprehension takes the form of using Google search hits as sources. Repeatedly on the Talk page, he proposes text using a Google page of search hits as sources, I say "that's not a valid source", and he adds more pages of Google search hits as sources. He's been editing over two years, hard to believe he really thinks Google page of search results is a valid source. His other MO is to make barely readable comments because of a childlike use of spelling, punctuation, etc.

• Stalking: SlaterSteven has followed me to more articles than anyone else. He doesn't generally revert my edits, just buzzes about and often opposes. There are a million mild examples, but he has really followed me to about 5 different articles in the last month. A few examples: [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]. There are more. None of these is indivudally problematic, but the overall effect of being followed everywhere is like dealing that a bug that just won't go away.

And what about User:Noloop?

• Stalking. I've followed once. After the sock case, I looked at Pantherskin's contribs and clicked on a deletion discussion [84] page, because it interested me. I attempted to clean up the article and make constructive observations about the case, e.g. [85], and [86]. I mentioned Pantherskin's sock case because socking matters when there's a vote. There are also two suspicious accounts on the deletion discussion, Kingcredibility as single-puprose new account, and an anon. IP.
• Trolling. I don't think so, but others have said so. This article has produced so much abuse and general irritation that I've lost my cool a few times. I don't believe any look at my behavior that considers what I've been putting up with will result in a conclusion of trolling, but I can't deny being curt more than once.

Other than WebHamster, all these editors are new to the article. They weren't there before my dispute with WebHamster. They've done little but snipe about behavior, and propose changes they know I oppose. They've followed me to (literally) a dozen other articles, where they either revert me or throw peanuts. There are no other active editors. There can't be. The article is uneditable. No newbie in his right mind would stay.

Are they all socks and trolls? Does the article just bring out the worst in well-meaning people? Am I paranoid delusional? I don't know, but the article is uneditable. Personally, I'd like to see a massive "relational" IP-lookup for everyone involved. The article needs the mother of all flea bombs. Noloop (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, all so many people wrong, but yet again you appear to be the only one in the right. Perhaps you should bimble over to WP:SPI and start making a nuisance of yourself over there too. Given your propensity for accusing people of being trolls and sockpuppets I'm surprised you aren't a regular fixture there. --WebHamster 17:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No I have not used google search hits a sources, I would susgest you provide the link in question. I would also susgest that you refrain from commenting on users literacy.

*Stalking: SlaterSteven has followed me to more articles than anyone else. He doesn't generally revert my edits, just buzzes about and often opposes. There are a million mild examples, but he has really followed me to about 5 different articles in the last month. A few examples: [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]. There are more. None of these is indivudally problematic, but the overall effect of being followed everywhere is like dealing that a bug that just won't go away.

A million, I suspect you exagerate, but in at leat one case [92] there is correlation between what you awere asking and our discusion on anti-american. [93] involved Blippy, who I was in some debate with over anti-american, so I saw the report on his talk page. As to Books on Arthur, does it look like I did not know my subject, odd then I included a book not on the page, as well as mentioning a few more (I am still wating on comments about that). Moreover I have not visited bitch , Islamaphobia, prostitutuion in fact you have editied far more pages then I have visited. As to the user talk page, that is not stalking I informed you of an ani against you, sorry if that offended you, I shall not repeat the offence. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, response to Noloop's original post) You know, when six people say your edits are wrong, there's a good chance you may be in the wrong! An edit like this to Islamophobia should be reverted, as it cosists of nothing but adding various tenses of "alleged" before various references to Islamophobia, until the whole thing reads like a Monty Python sketch (or should that be, "an alleged Monty Python sketch"?). The Anti-Americanism edits which seem to have triggered this kerfluffle involve Noloop deleting reliably-sourced content regarding anti-Americanism in Turkey and Pakistan. Noloop is told to get consensus on the talk page before tinkering with consensus-established content. Noloop, as many do at this point, flips out, demanding that people jump through bureaucratic Talk Page hoops to use Foreign Policy In Focus as a source. There's probably more to it, but I think that's the gist. You're not walking down the streets of Bogota minding your own business - you're walking through the streets of Singapore spitting your gum on the ground and doodling Kilroy on a wall or two, then wondering why everyone's glaring at you. Badger Drink (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Or even walking down his previously mentioned alley in Bogata shouting "I'm an American and everybody likes me and you shouldn't grow drugs". --WebHamster 18:25, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop does seem to deem anything he does not agree with as an opinion.Slatersteven (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

He now appears to be canvasing support from users who have been involved with the accused [[94]] & [[95]].Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems that Noloop is right and everybody else is in the wrong. Even in his notification he couldnt refrain from personal attacks, [96]. See also [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive556#Harassment], including the subsection on Noloop for some of Noloops other attacks. Pantherskin (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop, I am getting sick of this. I am not trolling, stalking, or any other crud you've thrown at me or others. I'm on my last nerve. I am getting close to submiting an RFC for you. Not many people have gotten on my last nerve.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I would also like an inivloved admin to come and see this. Noloop, I've been here for, oh, 7 or 8 months. I have more experiance than you. You accusations are a joke.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 19:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Calling Google search results reliable sources:

SlaterSteven proposed search results as reliable sources many times, as he knows. Here he proposed text to add that uses results from the books.google search for "the anti american phrase death to america": [97] I object, he proposes it again, [98]. I object again, and he adds three more [99]. I object again, and he adds another ref that is a Google search results page. [100] In between, he makes comments like "A list of google search hits is not there." [101]. Finally, Blippy, the allegedly neutral Third Opinion, adds the whole thing to the article. [102]. So, when SlaterS. says "No I have not used google search hits a sources, I would susgest you provide the link in question." he is (to be uncivil but accurate) lying.

• SlaterSteven's disruption under guise of innocence: [103], [104], [105], [106], [107]
• Regarding disagreement generally: the problem isn't disagreement. The problem is when I am followed around to a half dozen articles solely for the purpose of undoing my edits, and a another half dozen articles solely for the purpose of throwing peanuts. If I can't convince anyone of that with reason, maybe I will try convincing them of it by following them around to articles and undoing their edits. Noloop (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

They are links to pages In Google books, which if you had botherd to read them you would have realised. In fact they are links to specific pages that contain the information they support.

As to my feigned innocence, example one was created only a couple of months after I joined, and it was only the second page I edited (and the first I created). The second example was due to an editing error on my part (I think). The third is not me feigning innocence, it is some one informing me how to read Harvard citation templates, I did not even respond. Fourth example was again a mistake; I had two examples of the page open and saved the wrong one. Fifth example I do not feign ignorance, But I was in the wrong. I take it if I go back over your history I will find you have never made mistakes?

Do not make threats to be disruptive e if you cannot win please. It is not constructive. Most of the ‘following’ has been linked in some way to either disputes you are having or other users not you, at least on my part. In only two cases you have raised is this not the case. Less then 1/3 of the pages you have edits in the last 24 hours, and this is over the course a month or more.Slatersteven (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have started a RFC for Noloop.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Slater, thanks for explaining your rationale regarding the Google searches. The problem is that I had to start an AN/I to get that out of you. I don't agree that they support the text, that they are reliable, that you addressed the problem with due weight, neutral POV, systemic bias, or anything other objection I raised on the Talk page. However, those are content disputes. The problem is the complete disregard for these objections in the first place (until now). As for only following me to 1/3 of the articles I edited, instead of all of them, gee thanks. Noloop (talk) 01:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see SlaterSteven is edging toward edit-warring on Criticism of Human Rights Watch, an article he followed me to. That means everybody but Blippy has now followed me to an unrelated article and reverted or warred. Is that the non-troll way of editing, or the troll way? Meanwhile, they are starting to war again on Anti-Americanism. I'm not asking for blocks here. I'm asking for some kind of supervision, and something more conclusive than this Sherlock Holmes-like approach to "investigating" socks. Just do a bleeping IP-lookup, folks. Any admin must be able to do it. Noloop (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be living proof of the adage "give them enough rope..." Noloop. This is no way to collaborate or gain consensus for your views, but it's a great way to further alienate the people you should be trying to work with. I suspect you are suffering from the misapprehension that WP has some sort of authority structure that will ultimately vindicate your perspective. In answer to your question "Am I paranoid delusional?" - a little. This project moves forward through working together, not railing against everyone who disagrees with you. And it is purely human nature - something you have succumbed to yourself - to keep an eye on the actions of people who defame, belittle, and generally alienate people. That might explain why you feel stalked. The only reason I haven't bothered to do this myself is because I think you'll learn soon enough without any more of my (obviously unwelcome) input - such as I attempted on your talk page - and that once you attract the ire of enough editors you might start to wake up to your unproductive ways. I'm tipping we're just about there. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you are not asking for blocks then what are you asking for? You are asking (it woould seem) for Admins to do some digging for you to try and find evidacne of sockpupptery becasue you belive i9t but those Wiki rules just don't back you up?Slatersteven (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

What is interesting here is that it is Noloop who follows editors to unrelated articles and starts reverting and attacking other editors. Given that this is not the first time Noloops disruptive editing behavior has to be discussed here on ANI I propose a topic ban or 1RR restriction on this account. For this to work an admin should also make sure that all of Noloops sockpuppet accounts will be blocked. Pantherskin (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop, you've managed to piss off alot of people, inculding myself. Why do you keep persisting even when it's you verus about 7? Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The simple answer is: I do what I think is right, not what I think is popular. Effectively, you are proposing I stop editing any article, since you are claiming everyone has the right to follow me to any article and revert me. Noloop (talk) 15:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, what you think is right. And then you accuse anyone who says otherwise of trolling. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 15:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire you do what you know is right regardless of the evidence to the contrary, regardless of how many people who tell you that you are wrong. Your knowledge of everything is no doubt omniscient and highly admirable, the problem is that your interpretation of things you have little understanding of are skewed by your belief of your own perfection and inability to be wrong. The above complaint is certainly proof of that. Yes, you are definitely the sort of editor that WP cries out for. Can I recommend that you apply for your first RFA as soon as is practicable? --WebHamster 16:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Pantherskin is deleting my comments (documentation of his stalking) from this board: [108].
• I've now been followed to an article and reverted a 7th time, by Abce2. If this isn't stalking and harassment, then what the Hell is? Is it OK if I do it? Blippy is right about one thing: I have no clue what admins do or what this board is for or how behavior standards are enforced on behalf of any minority view. All of this is editors following me to an article they hadn't previously edited, with the sole purpose of making edits they know I opppose and reverting me.
• Abce2: [109], [110]
• Munci (stalked from Islamophobia): [111]
• WebHamster: [112], [113] (probably)
• Pantherskin (as IP): [114]
• SlaterSteven: [115]

We can add that Pantherskin has deleted my Talk comments 9 times: 4 from the AfD, 4 from Talk:Anti-Americanism, and once from here (that I've noticed). If admins think this is a waste of time, it would be nice of them to say so, so I can stop wasting my time here also. Noloop (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

you don't mention that the 4 reverts made by PS were your unfounded accusations that he was a sockpuppet. That you insisted on posting these accusations in spite of the fact that the Checkuser request hadn't gone through yet and he was ultimately found to be innocent of the accusation. Shoot first and ask questions after eh? --WebHamster 16:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Still, you have never admitted to be wrong. Not once. You must be sooo perfect.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it was an observation that he'd been accused of it, in a discussion that involved voting by single-purpose accounts. Noloop (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It was still unnessecary to put it their, and was disruptive.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow...how did it turn into this? I thought we'd just continue with the discussion. I shall address Noloop's concerns.

• "Stalking. Follows me to Anti-Americanism from Islamophobia, sole action is to revert me." Both of the articles are linked to from the "Specific Forms" section of Template:Discrimination. Anyone who goes on one article has a fairly quick link to the other.

• "The text being restored was added without discussion or consensus by an erased account."

Noone needs discussion or consensus to add well-cited information.

• "Obviously trying to draw me into an edit war." I do not want to start any edit war. I hoped that my edit summary [116] was enough to show you that the reason for deleting the information was unfounded.

• "Trolling. His edit comments distort his edit." I thought at the time I wrote the edit summary [117] that what I said in it would not be misinterpreted. I since apologised in the talk page [118] and tried to explain how I thought my edit summary would not have been misinterpreted. Munci (talk) 17:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jesus. Abce2 just followed me to a GAN-review I did, to complain I wasn't responding to his comments on my Talk page. [119]. I am starting to fear for the safety of my family. Noloop (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

If you treat your family the same way you treat editors here, I fear for them too. --WebHamster 22:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I have stayed out of this, but WebHamster, the above was completely inappropriate. Do not bring editors' families into this discussion in any way, shape or form. Completely, utterly, mind-bogglingly wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't bring them into it, Noloop himself opened the door to that one. --WebHamster 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

He sure as hell didn't open his family up for that. If he seriously thinks he's being "followed" then he expressed an actual concern. If he was being facetious, that still did not give you the right to make commentary about any of his off-Wiki actions. It was plain wrong. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I again ask is this going to be anything other then a very nasty slkging match in which a few users spits on the floor and say "see that, thats your swiminig pool". I mo0ve this sillyness if closed.Slatersteven (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I vote close too. (If this is a vote, if not I must look stupid.)Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 14:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Noloop, I had that page watchlisted for weeks, hoping to get some work done on it, but never got the time. I was happy when it got a reviewer, but then it was you, and that was kind of awkward.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this actualy going anywhere? I propose this is shelved.Slatersteven (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Noloops just going to keep posting "evidence" of our trolling. Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

They should rename this site psychostalkers-meetup.com. Noloop (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How does that help this at all?Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

At least it was a semi-honest opinion. Unlike your last edit comment on Anti-Americanism: "You don't need a consensus for edits." Somebody forgot to change the official policy. Noloop (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You need a consensus for some edits, but not most. And your in no position to be accusing me.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at your contribs. 90% of your last 100 edits are reverting me on articles you followed me to, or commenting on the cascading issues. You're like a puppy who won't pee anywhere but on my leg. Noloop (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll be on Noloop's side here. He's just misunderstanding the definition of trolling, but I don't see anything he's doing that has purposeful disruption.

Strange IP, I never said Noloop was purposly doing something, I was saying that he/she needs to learn to work with others and stuff like that. And I'm sick of being call a troll.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm trough with this harrasment. I hope you have fun with me out of the picture.Abce2|Aww nuts!Wribbit!(Sign here) 16:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he should see WP:TROLL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.200.55 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

So now WebHamster has followed me to my GA-review to make non-trolling comments like "[Noloop] choose to pop his cherry and fail his first article on an article that had minimal other comments, he doesn't have the experience to be the only reviewer and spectacularly misunderstands even basic tenets of WP let alone complicated scientific articles. Noloops should never have failed this article, he barely understands the GAC procedure as it is." [120]. No trolling or stalking here, oh no. Again, there is one thing upon which we all agree: I don't understand the definitions of trolling and stalking, and the reason this thread hasn't been archived are unclear. If the admins think I'm wrong that I'm being harassed, why don't say something clarifying? If they think it is harassment, why don't they do something? If they think this thread is an irrelevant spat between children, why don't they archive it? If they think it is relevant, why don't they do something? Noloop (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Sbakuria(talk) and Alexander Mashkevitch

Involved Parties -

User:Sbakuria(talk), User:Bricklayer (talk), User:PhilKnight(talk) and myself.

Issue: User repeatedly reverts to a version of the article which does not meet with consensus. Has ignored warnings and several requests for discussion of the article. Version consistently switched to by Sbakuria has issues with format, neutrality and a possible copyright violation. I can't think of what else can be done, doubt user will ever discuss the article and attempt to reach consensus.

Article's discussion page: Talk:Alexander Mashkevitch.

Requests made on user's talk page [[121]].

Difference after repeated requests for user to halt behaviour:[[122]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtdixon86 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested action: A block or a ban for Sbakuria —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtdixon86 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Firefox crashed before I could complete edit, sorry.Rtdixon86 (talk) 21:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Although adoption or editing restrictions could be conidered, I'd support a site ban. PhilKnight (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I also support a site ban in this case. Bricklayer (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Long term vandal's IP needs longer block

• 64.228.128.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

From this user's handful of edits it was clear to me that this IP was a reincarnation of the vandal who slanders Haim Saban and vandalizes various pages relating to Power Rangers and its sister series (more information here). I had listed it on WP:AIV and it was blocked by Killiondude, however I feel that the IP should be blocked for a longer period of time as a previous short term block on another IP address that this vandal has used resulted in the vandal returning on the same IP to edit (I cannot find this IP address right now, but it is probably the one listed on my sandbox in diffs).

I am requesting that this block be extended and talk page editing disabled, due to the fact that he will inevitably fill the talk page with his usual screed, unless that has been blocked entirely by the edit filter that King of Hearts put in place per my requests.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Page semi'ed for duration of block. I think the extension request would be best directed at the blocking admin. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked and he refused.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

A longer block would be very good before the current one expires and the user returns and vandalizes with the IP again, as he had done in the past.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Jay Jennings

Resolved

 – All seems to be sorted. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The following user talk page here has created duplicate pages found here, and removed AfD notifications from the article as seen here. I would put a speedy deletion template on the second page and return the original AfD disclaimer on the first page, but I think the user would just remove them anyways. Thoughts?keystoneridin! (talk) 23:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have restored the AfD notification to the article page; I see he had already been warned about this. Not sure what you mean by he has created duplicate pages, I don't see any. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Somehow the pages were corrected before you came along. Thanks for your help anyways.keystoneridin! (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack by LTSally

Unresolved

 – User warned, but overall please use dispute resolution, or if you seek community comments take to WP:WQA. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Among other things, User:LTSally, wrote these things in my talk page:

Part of my role here as part of the Wikipedia community is to moderate the influence of people such as yourself who search no further than your own religion's publications to determine the truth; people who think that dumping a dozen long extracts from the WT CD-ROM on a talk page adds value to a discussion. I don't care whether you have read Penton's book, or Rogerson's, or Holden's, or Wills', or Franz's, or Gruss's, or Stroup's. They are all diligently researched and provide an external, though not always favorable, view of your religion. You research, and parrot, only one source, because your religion tells you it is the only reliable, truthful source. That's your business, but don't lecture me on bias.

This is a direct personal attack, incited by religious prejudice, and I find it disgraceful.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 14:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Whilst what amounts to an attack varies per person, I do not believe this is an issue that needs handled here. You should discuss the comment with the user, but if you're seeking comments by others then consider taking this to WP:WQA. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Though I have warned the user about our policy on civility. Nja²⁴⁷ 14:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to thank you for your help. I hope that in future things will become better.--Scientia est opulentia (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Persistent and socking spammer

Resolved

Brandbihari (talk · contribs) was indef. blocked as an SPA using the account to add links to his website www.brandbihar.com at Kama Sutra and other pages. Since then he has created obvious sock accounts

• Brandbihari2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),
• Sweetriverfish‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log),

and used various IPs including

• 59.94.41.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 59.94.40.61 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 59.94.38.51 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 59.94.42.34 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 59.94.41.96 (talk · contribs · WHOIS),
• 59.94.38.31 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 59.94.43.172 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 59.94.47.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 59.94.41.113 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 59.94.43.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 59.94.40.43 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 59.94.45.71 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 59.94.42.179 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

to add the link to Kama Sutra, Ananga Ranga and Missionary position more than 30 times over the last 3 months. The page has been semi-protected a few times, but the spammer just returns once the protection ends. Can someone indef. the two sock accounts and semi-protect the page fort a few weeks ? Also can the website www.brandbihar.com be added to a spam black list ? Abecedare (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Might want to take this to WP:SPI. Cheers, I'^mperator 17:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I considered thet, but the socking is too blatant to require any deep investigation or checkuser. I filed the request here since it concerns socking, spamming, semi-protection and/or address blacklisting and I am hopeful that a single admin can address all these aspects, without the need for multiple board posts. Btw, User:Tanthalas39 blocked one of the sock accounts for spamming just as I filed this report. Abecedare (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am in the midst of packing for a trip, but I agree with Abecedare - and recommend an admin protect relevant pages and block the socks. No need for an SPI. Tan | 39 17:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Accounts indeffed. Three most prominent articles semied for a few weeks. 59.94.32.0/20 range blocked for 2 weeks because I'm sure there are more than three articles he can spam if we protect the three most prominent ones. Protonk (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Protonk. Abecedare (talk) 18:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Spanish flu

Hi, this may not be the correct place for this, but the Main Page talk page says to bring vandalism problems here, so it seemed like a good idea. The article Spanish flu and possibly others is marred by a giant image of a penis and I can't work out how to remove it. Can anyone help?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. It was vandalism on {{Influenza}}, which has since been removed. If you still see it you can try purging the page. When you see this stuff in the future, click "Related changes" on the left sidebar and look for template edits like this one. Since the edit used the "includeonly" tag, the picture will show up only on pages where the template is transcluded, not on the template itself, so check the page history for the template. For example, Special:RecentChangesLinked/1918_flu_pandemic shows the Influenza template edits quite clearly. Again, thanks for the help and I'm sorry we didn't catch it sooner. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Serial Venezuelan Katy Perry vandal

We have an ongoing problem with an editor on the Katy Perry articles that has been going on for nearly a year. These accounts are all obviously the same editor:

• 201.209.250.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.209.234.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.209.234.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.209.230.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.209.230.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.209.228.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.209.224.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.209.224.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The logs and talk pages tell the tale: 201.209.224.208, 201.209.224.71, and 201.209.224.208 have all been blocked for inappropriate edits to Katy Perry articles. User talk:201.209.250.7, User talk:201.209.234.93, and User talk:201.209.230.203 are all covered with warnings for an editor steadily approaching a block, and then changing IP addresses shortly before the block actually arrives.

All of these addresses fall in the range 201.209.224.0/19. Scanning contributions for collateral damage, I find none. I manually stepped through every 24 in that range searching for anonymous contributions, and I can find no other contributions from 2009: all are from 2008 and before. I think it's quite safe to place a softblock on this range for say, 1 month, to see if we can get this problem to go away.—Kww(talk) 19:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Done. Protonk (talk) 19:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sleeper alert: DFKNGG took up the moment the soft-block went in effect.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Done. Boy, good thing you aren't an admin. Your raging deletionism would have surely gotten in the way of pursuing this particular thankless task. *sigh* Protonk (talk) 19:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

swastika barnstars?

AN/I is not a general forum. Admins on the english wikipedia have no inherent authority over any other project. Even if we made an authoritative judgment here about the suitability of Swastikas on barnstars, it would not apply to any other wiki (And even if we wanted to make such a judgment, AN/I would not be the place to do so. Try the Village Pump. Protonk (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Greetings all, Im an admin on the Persian wikipedia. I need your input on this matter, if you would. Ive found no guidance on Meta on this particular matter: There's a user awarding Swastika Barnstars to other users[123]. I cant judge his intention for doing this. But he claims it is in good faith. (He does however, in my judgement, have a record of siding with antisemitic arguments on various articles.) I'm inclined to ask him to withdraw or change the image, which can easily be offending to many other of our users. I have already received complaints. But he refuses to remove it, and claims that "the swastika was a symbol of Iranian (Aryan) heritage in Asian cultures long before Nazis came along". How do I (would you) deal with this user(s)? Am I correct to enforce a ban on his usage of swastika barnstars? Am I correct to force him to change/withdraw the barnstar? If so, on what grounds? He also claims that the fact that Swastika barnstars are not allowed on other wikis has no bearing or jurisdiction on Persian wikipedia. Is that a legit response? Other admins have so far failed to respond one way or the other. (they are all busy elsewhere. There's only 7 of us for +100k users). btw, this has happened before by other users. But each time the excuses keep getting more sophisticated. I will read your responses. Thanks.--Zereshk (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC) hmm interesting question. Its true that the swastika does have pre-nazi religous usage. What kind of context are the barnstars being given in, and to whom? However regardless of its history its obviously now associated with something much worse, which he clearly knows. If he has been told to stop though, especially if other people have found it insulting and complained i'd be inclined to block--Jac16888Talk 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Further to Jac16888, I would suggest that this is something you need to discuss with other Persian admins and editors. Find a consensus, and act according to it. As regards the pre Nazi history of the swastika, it should be noted that is was usually configured differently (the "feet" pointed in the other direction). You may wish to discover whether the one used in the barnstar is the classical or nazi related version. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC) If it helps, we (the English Wikipedia) do have a barnstar that displays a swastika (Template:Jainism Award). You'll notice, however, that it's rotated 45 degrees from the Nazi version so all lines are vertical or horizontal. Whenever I've seen a religious (non-Nazi) swastika, it's always been in that position. Do note that I'm far from an expert on the subject, though, and you should talk with others on your project regardless. :-) Hersfold non-admin(t/a/c) 20:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The context seems to be of good intention. However my feeling is that the dual usage of the symbol is being exploited here. IOW, IMO, he could have picked another "Aryan" symbol. Furthermore, he does have a record of saying things (e.g. once on some talk page he mentioned "if Jews are hated so much nowadays, it's obviously because of their own doing".) I dont know how to respond to such veiled statements. Polite and friendly and well intentioned on the outside, malicious and deliberate on the inside.--Zereshk (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC) LessHeard, So if antisemitism statements are deemed OK by admin consensus, then it is allowed? I thought some rules (like NPOV) have jurisdiction on all wiki projects.--Zereshk (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Um, no. The point I thought was being made was that an editor who created the barnstar said it was an Aryan symbol and not to do with the Nazi's; therefore there might be a discussion on whether it is accepted as an Aryan symbol (being of Aryan heritage does not mean one is antisemitic) or whether it is too closely associated with Nazism and more recent fascist/antisemitic connotations and should therefore be disallowed. I suppose that if there was a consensus that it was understood to be a Nazi symbol, yet should remain then there might be a problem - like being permitted to remain hosted on Wikia servers (Bless the US of A, they still don't like the Nazi's). That was not the issue being presented here, as I saw it, however. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Google came up with something like "Pas effort to introduce you to the Aryan culture and civilization is Svastyka offer. - sicaspi 21 July 2009, time 08:43 (" and the swastika is rotated 45 degrees. –xenotalk 20:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict 2x) Yes. Manji is the Japanese symbol for Buddhism, which coincidentally is in the shape of a swastika. This was even used as the design for the 3rd dungeon in the NES game The Legend of Zelda (see [124]); the developers named the level "Manji". MuZemike 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Regarding using it as a barnstar, I think it would be in particular bad taste to do so and might foster a hostile environment for others; see the swastika painted in front of Rep. David Scott's (D-GA) office yesterday (who also happens to be black - a black Democratic Nazi?) MuZemike 20:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC) No. Check out the ignoring of the guidelines on the use of "terrorist" on the 9/11 article on En:Wiki. If the majority of Persian editors agreed that Hitler was a good guy, and most Persian language MSM supports that it becomes contra - WP:NPOV to say otherwise. Sarah777 (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC) At one time, no doubt Hitler was a well regarded family name. However, it's come to have a very dark meaning and it isn't that anymore (I think I read that a very few of his relatives kept the name). Same goes for swastika. Whatever meaning it may have had once is not terribly relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Wehwalt, I'm trying to point out the only modern "meaning" of relevance to Persian Wiki is whatever the consensus on Persian Wiki and Persian language MSM references say. What we think in America/The West is irrelevant. Sarah777 (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC) If you think that his applies globally, then you obviously haven't watched many Bollywood movies. AFAIK it's still a standard religious symbol in Hinduism and Buddhism representing luck, in both orientations. Hans Adler 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The swastika in the barnstar points the opposite way to the Nazi one, and has much thinner 'arms'. Interestingly, swastika has a nice picture of a Persian necklace from around 1,000 years ago that looks very like the barnstar, and the article seems to indicate that the stigma/offence caused by the symbol is very much a Western thing. Finally, I cannot imagine an Iranian using a European political party's symbol as a means of causing offence - it's just not their style (which is also probably why you never see a swastika or similar at any Mid-East street demonstration). Little grape (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Have you considered it's because they read right-to-left? Have you looked at the (poor, but telling) Google translation I posted above? –xenotalk 20:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Ah - good point - if there's linkage between the word 'Aryan' and the use of a swastika then I'd be inclined to stop assuming any good faith! Little grape (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) (deindent) Well in Europe swastikas are still used in Latvia and have been part of Latvian culture for centuries. Tourists are often fazed by the fact that one popular club, Kabata, uses one which is very close to the Nazi one see here But regardless of the local usage, it's generally thought to be best not to use them outside the country due to the negative connotations. Persian wiki should follow the same principles. Valenciano (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I would agree with a few of the above: the symbol itself was highjacked by die Fuhrer. By itself, it has a positive meaning. When mixed with Nazi phrases, it's offensive, IMHO. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Wiki-history note: In 2007 there was an extended debate about various Hinduism-related templates displaying the swastika symbol, including the template Hinduism wikiproject used to welcome new contributors. There was no question that swastika was and is a sacred symbol in Hinduism (as also in Jainism), and that it was used in good faith, but several Jewish (and other) editors objected that its use was insensitive considering the twentienth century association with Nazis. You can read all sides the debate in the archives (>500KB of discussion: 1, 2 and 3) including the rotated-vs-non-rotated, clockwise-vs-counterclockwise, historical-vs-modern-use etc. IIRC the conclusion of the debate was that it is legitimate to use the symbol in article-space (such as in {{Hinduism}}) where the intended symbolism is clear from context, but to avoid it in user-space where the context is (or can be) unclear. I think that may be an appropriate compromise for Farsi wikipedia too. The revision history of {{Hindu Links}} circa January 2007 shows several other attempts to reach a solution, including adding explanatory notes. Abecedare (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC) That seems like an excellent idea, in mainspace its usage can be explained whereas in userspace it can be easily misconstrued. Zereshk, what do you think to this?--Jac16888Talk 21:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) As far as I can tell, the example discussed above has nothing to do with Hinduism , Jainism etc. It advertises the swastika as an "Aryan" symbol. The only such associations I know of are Nazism and crypto-Nazism, and the "explanation" for using it, if it was rendered correctly, smacks of crypto-Nazism. This is highly problematic to say the least. Dahn (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The Swastika is a Aryan symbol; both concepts were adopted by the Nazis in the 1930s and hence their use without appropriate context is troublesome since then. The use in Indian religions (Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism) do have the same Indo-Iranian origins. Abecedare (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The swastika was a symbol spread throughout the world, and I don't see how it could be argued that it had special significance to Indo-Europeans or even Indo-Iranians. It does have special significance to the Indian religions, but that does not fall within the scope of what we're discussing here. In this case, the swastika was directly justified as an "Aryan" symbol - linking the problematic word "Aryan" to that notion is especially contrived, and sounds to me like a poor attempt to make something look innocent when it is not. The only matter of some empirical substance here is that it is a religious symbol for some creeds in Southern Asia, but I cannot for the love of me comprehend how that would become an identification mark for good-faith non-Hindu/Jain users. One can safely say that, nowadays, the only secular symbolism the swastika has is racist. Dahn (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC) On Persian Wiki they can say Hitler was a saint if that is the majority pov. As for the Latvians, they may well regard him as such given their dislike of Russia. Sarah777 (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I don't see how either the Persian or Latvian wikipedias can operate outside of WP:NOT (and WP:FRINGE etc., etc.). In fact, I once participated in such debates on Romanian wikipedia, which was a prime target for far right groups to spread propaganda (and still has such problems to this day). Dahn (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The point I'm trying to make (without being branded a Nazi apologist) is that if the majority view on Persian (I haven't a clue what it is) is that Hitler is a saint then the view that he is a bad guy is WP:NOT , WP:FRINGE and so forth. Sarah777 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Absolutely not. The rules don't refer to what a majority of users think, they refer to proper sourcing and the opinion as transparent from qualified sources (and good luck finding qualified sources on Hitler's holiness). Not abiding by that principle is a matter of serious concern, and hijacks this entire project. Dahn (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) In Persian Wiki the qualified sources must be (as on En:Wiki) the MSM in that language. If the Iranian media decided Hitler was a saint - he becomes one. And on Persian Wiki to suggest otherwise would be counter to WP:NPOV. Sarah777 (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC) a. I'm not sure that's what's happening in Iran (on anywhere else, for that matter). b. "Persian wiki" does not mean "a wiki reduced to Persian sources". c. the entire point you're making is hypothetical and not really related to the issue at hand. d. there comes a time when relativism becomes scary. Dahn (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Reality is relative. If it scares you that, really, is your problem. Western "reality" is pretty scary in some parts of the Middle East. Absolutism is totally incompatible with WP:NPOV. There isn't one "correct" pov. Unless you are a religious fundamentalist. The issue at hand is the point. Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Trying not to read into your message the insult that it probably is (i. e., that I don't have a grip on reality), I'll rephrase my post, to which you were replying: it is not the possibility of contrasting realities in the world that scares me, it is relativism from the part of people who equivocate. It is not the world being relative, it is people who use the world being relative as an excuse to claim that anything goes. And, again, this is not about moral philosophy, PC ethics or the predominance of some POV among users - you may still be positing inrelation to that, but you're missing the point. The point it is about the core principles of wikipedia, about following scholarly opinion, and about producing quality content. Theoretical debates I'm not interested in, and sorry if I gave you the impression that I was. You people can carry on with pretending that there is a "legitimate" use for the swastika as an "Aryan" symbol, and even that there are several scientific truths on who is a "saint" and who isn't. I've had my say, I'll leave you to your speculations. Dahn (talk) 22:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC) "You people"! Who people? People who are rational? Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Reality is relative Actually, that's your opinion. Cultural context is relative, but morality itself is much less relative than many assume. I disagree with you and agree with Confucius (from yesterday's newspaper "Cryptoquote" puzzle): Wisdom, compassion and courage are the three universally recognized moral qualities of men. And then there's the almost-universal Golden Rule, in various versions. But we're digressing. -- Noroton (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Self evidently incorrect. Wisdom manifestly varies between individuals in terms of political POV never mind between cultures. This is demonstrable, not my opinion. Just 'cos the chap who said it is dead a long time doesn't mean it makes any sense. Take Hitler for example! Sarah777 (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Sarah, I simply won't respond to personal attacks. You want to misconstrue what I write? Go head, there's really nothing I can do about that. I will not demean myself by continuing a conversation with someone who allows herself to mudsling on this level. I trust people with more responsibility and maturity have understood what I had to say on this subject, and your opinion really doesn't interest me that much. Best, Dahn (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC) FFS. What personal attacks? Sarah777 (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) (On a side issue issue, WP:NOT is so riddled with contradictions that a six-year-old would be reprimanded for producing such intellectual garbage). Sarah777 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) As challenging as that train of thought seems, let's not get sidetracked. Dahn (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) (od) Dear Sarah777, Latvians despised both Stalin and Hitler. The swastika (ugunskrusts) is perhaps the oldest and most ornately embellished of symbols particularly in Latvian weaving. Your uninformed speculations about Latvians, Hitler, and Russia are, well,... let's just leave it as uninformed. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  23:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I admit my ignorance of matters Latvian is willful. Sarah777 (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC) The Jainism Award This English Wikipedia Barnstar is clearly not Nazi-propaganda (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Yes, but that is also: a) clearly associated with Jainism; b) not referencing "the Aryans" (the very word is, outside a Vedic context, almost always a racist shibboleth. Dahn (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Obviously not considered a Nazi symbol in the West in 1910, when this postcard was sent. We need to know the cultural context before condeming anything. See Western use of the Swastika in the early 20th century. -- Noroton (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Lol! But it looks like a tasteless Christmas decoration! Sarah777 (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Haha, that was my exact thought on seeing it. I might make a "Jainist decoration" this Christmas and protest innocence... ~ mazca talk 21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Sarah, I'm sure you are aware of the old Swastika Laundry in Dublin? Famous in it's day. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Indeed, they had the black on white Nazi version painted on the chimney in Ballsbridge and had red vans going around with the symbol - and nobody even commented 'cos it pre-dated the Nazis. Sarah777 (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Minor factual correction Sarah. I have a receipt from that company dating from the mid fifties. The company had been operating for many years before and after the war. People in Dublin were used to it and apparently didn't seem to think the Nazis should be considered as having a monopoly on its use. I've often wondered to what extent wartime censorship influenced that disconnect. Certainly I never heard of any controversy that its use by the company implied some covert support for authoritarianism or mass murder. (In case its crossed anyone's mind, I don't have a collection of memorabilia with that particular symbol). RashersTierney (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC) We don't know enough to know what swastikas mean in Iranian culture. Persian wiki admins are best able to figure that out. According to Meta, even civility is a policy that's up to individual projects (emphasis added): there are three core principles that are almost universally applied [125] I sure hope admins on that wiki have a civility policy, judge whether this violates it, and act accordingly, as only they can, and that's as it should be. I think the best thing we can say here is that the swastika makes us feel uncomfortable and, if it turns out that it is a Nazi reference, it wouldn't do the Persian wikipedia's reputation any good if it remains. Beyond that, it's not our call. Best wishes to them. -- Noroton (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC) If a fella wants to hand out 'Swazika barnstars'? so be it. The problem would be 'if' the receiver rejects (and deletes) the barnstar & the presenter 'adds' (re-presents) it back. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC) That's a whole different tin of peas. I know where I'd stick a Nazi barnstar.... Sarah777 (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC) On a Nazi barn? --WebHamster 22:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Okay, all facts about this symbol's history aside, when people see it they think only one thing. This is unfortunate but regardless the symbol is divisive. Chillum 23:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC) How do you know what Iranians think when they see the symbol (which is connected to their history)? What do Hindu and Bhuddist Indians think? Should they be telling us what to think about various cultural symbols? -- Noroton (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Maybe a clue or two about "what Iranians think when they see the symbol" should come from these facts: a. most Iranians are neither Hindu nor Jain nor Buddhist; b. the justification for using the swastika was neither religious nor spiritual, it was racial, and apparently used a racial term; c. the racial interpretation of the swastika is one and only; and, finally and most importantly, d. this here thread was started by an admin on Persian wikipedia. Now, if you ladies and gentlemen are done discussing how you feel about swastikas being used "in other cultures", "in 1910", "on some other planet", may we start talking to the point? Dahn (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Maybe a clue about "what Iranians think when they see the symbol" would come from the Swastika article, origins section: The symbol has an ancient history, appearing on artifacts from Indo-European cultures such as the Indo-Aryans, Persians, Hittites, Slavs, Celts and Greeks, among others. Just what the symbol would mean in modern-day Iran, given that it's been associated both with ancient Persian culture and with the idea of Aryan people since the 19th century, is not for me to say or you to say because we're both ignorant about that, only I admit my ignorance. We do know that it's possible that a cultural connection may exist completely independent of the Nazis. Although it's also possible that it means just about the same thing to Iranians that it does to us. I brought up Jainism, Hinduism and Bhuddism, as well as pre-Nazi Western use because the symbol is also used by people with those cultural connections, totally independently of Nazism. Ya know, there's a place for appeals to universal moral principles and a place to pull down phony multicultural bullshit, and I'm all for that at the appropriate time. But this ain't it. You don't condemn when you don't know what you're talking about, and we don't. -- Noroton (talk) 00:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Absolutely none of En:Wiki's business. We are culturally incapable of making judgments on the issue. It is also totally against the tenants of WP:NPOV Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Article space an userspace are two different things. NPOV is about article space. When deciding if something is disruptive or not we certainly can use our own opinions. Chillum 23:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC) I would like anyone to note that, per the above and previous replies, Sarah777 is making the point that, even if it is used as a Nazi symbol there and just that, it's none of wikipedia's business. Furthermore, she tells us that the contrary would be a violation of NPOV (which part of NPOV, I would be very interested to know). She also claims that "We are culturally incapable of making judgments on [the] issue" - which would imply not only that views of Nazism differ according to culture (which is just plain ridiculous), but also that en:wiki wpuld be incapable of ever hosting an article on Iran (because only Iranians "understand" their culture) and vice versa. It also ignores the simple fact that this thread was started by an Iranian, who has told us that it is a problem in "that culture" as well. While Sarah's post at least carries the benefit of moving this discussion beyond faulty comparisons, it obviously does not stand to logical scrutiny. Now, I could agree that, in general and for administrative reasons, goings-on on the Iranian wiki or other wikis can't be regulated from over here (even though there are precedents for that too). But to abandon all integrity and structure by stating that another wikipedia should be a different reality, one which does away with core policies (reliable sources, NPOV, etc. - all of which are not relative) is, admittedly, an extremist and untenable position. In other words: it's perhaps acceptable that something wrong (wrong per the policies, not per morals) still happens even though it shouldn't; it's unacceptable and highly detrimental to imply that another wikipedia abides by a different code, in which black is white. Dahn (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC) I strongly suspect that a barnstar of the sort shown would not be long tolerated on this project, and any editor intent on pushing it would be blocked. That said, English Wikipedia practice varies greatly from that of other projects; some are far more tolerant, some far less. The opinions of editors on the English Wikipedia have no direct consequences for folks editing any other Wikimedia project, including the Persian Wikipedia. It's for the Persian Wikipedia to decide what such a barnstar means in context, and whether that meaning is acceptable for community interaction on the Persian Wikipedia. Core and Wikimedia-wide policies like NPOV apply to content, not talkpages and barnstars, and folks with no presence at or understanding of the Persian project simply can't be competent to make decisions governing community interaction there. An exception would be if there were no active local administrators, in which case a steward could be contacted in extreme circumstances. There is a steward from Iran, Mardetanha. Nathan T 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC) Inasmuch as a barnstar is a gift: one does not give a gift because one likes it, but because the recipient likes it. Anarchangel (talk) 04:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Editor claiming I am committing a crime

Resolved

 – Comment struck. No need to feed the drama llama over this one. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

At this diff, a self-proclaimed lawyer (see first line of User:Dirtlawyer1) is making a claim that I am breaking the law. Specifically, "Frankly, sir,...you are probably engaged in the unlicensed practice of law". He goes on further to state "you are dangerously close to engaging in the unlicensed practice of law" [126]. I am specifically requesting this user be blocked for violating Wikipedia:No legal threats. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

That is in no way the only way to read that comment. A nice message to the editor would have been the preferred step to take here. I have left them a message asking them to avoid ambiguous comments of such nature in the future. Regards SoWhy 21:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Right. A lawyer says I'm breaking the law, but that's not a legal threat. <cough> He's attempting to intimidate me off of the thread by dropping this accusation at me. He did this not once, but twice. Not to worry, it's not a legal threat you say. Ok, fine. Out goes WP:NLT along with our empty civility policy. Sigh. You do realize this editor is accusing not just me, but EVERYONE who comments on this project on the legal status of images as being engaged in an illegal activity unless they are a lawyer (such as he)? So, we're all supposed to shut up and let him decide the fate of every image? I can't believe this. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

He has been warned by 2 of us, and recommended to retract. He did not threaten you with anything - he did not say you are breaking the law, anymore than some of our templates warn that you might be breaking things like 3RR. He was, however, using his supposed position as a lawyer to suppress your input and action. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As Bwilkins says, claiming you might break the law is not a legal threat. He did not threaten to report you, to sue you or anything. He was probably just trying to use his status to win an argument (see WP:NPLT). As such, you should have told this user (who has never been told so, at least on his talk page) about WP:NPLT and that he should stop using such language instead of coming here directly. As I wrote above, the comment can be well understood differently (WP:AGF!) and as such, you should have not assumed a policy violation first but a simple error of words chosen. After all, if he continues to use such language after being informed he can still be dealt with accordingly. Regards SoWhy 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if you're making edits that you consider to be valid and within the wikipedia guidelines, feel free to ignore anything that looks like a legal threat. Legal threats are intended to intimidate. Do not be intimidated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I have no intention of working further on anything he touches. I do not need to be accused of breaking laws and be told that when I complain about it, I am "squeeling" and "bullying". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since I seem to be doing a bang up job of misinterpreting today, read his response and decide for yourself whether he continues to claim I am giving out bad legal advice. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is not "resolved." If you disagree, I hereby request arbitration. I have written nothing for which I need to apologize. No threat, legal or otherwise, was ever made. Please re-read Hammersoft's comments; I am not the one engaged in WikiBullying in this matter. This escalation is evidence of that. Please do not presume that I am in the wrong merely because the other guy squealed first. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the original issue of the image itself, the proper avenue would probably be to remove the speedy deletion tag - esp. since Dirtlawyer1 has provided a lot of new information to review - and bring it to WP:FFD where a more thorough discussion could take place. Regarding the issue of the legal threat - hmmm - how about this: Dirtlawyer1, try to ease up on the language a tad since most of us are volunteers and not lawyers, and Hammersoft, if you're going to work in the rough world of image deletion, you'll definitely need a thick skin. K? Wknight94 ^talk 22:24, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've been working in this area for quite a while now. My skin is plenty thick enough. If you doubt it, just look at my userpage. Regardless, I fail to see how I'm supposed to put up with being accused of committing a crime, told I'm "squeeling" and "bullying" when I complain about it, and then apparently shrug my shoulders and say "That's ok, I have a thick skin". What Dirtlawyer1 did was unconscionable. He is still unrepentant, and still believes he acted properly. "I do not believe that I have engaged in any 'behavior' which contravenes policy or good manners" [127]. Honestly? I find it humorous, from a number of vantage points. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused - the image that was tagged that started all of this seems to just be tagged with the "needs a rationale" tag, not a "this isn't/can't be fair use" tag.

Why all the fighting? That's just a "fill out the paperwork" issue... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• So am I. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hammersoft says he has been intimidated by Dirtlawyer's legalistic comments. That is sufficient proof that it's a legal threat. Dirtlawyer must withdraw it or be blocked. There is no middle ground on this. If Dirtlawyer has issues with material that may conflict with wikipedia policies, that's another matter. But legal threats, or anything that resemble legal threats, must not be tolerated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While I suppose it's possible to divine a legal threat from Dirtlawyer1's comments, I don't think it's of the sort that was ever intended to be covered under WP:NLT. "Hey, Wikipedia users should be careful about this, you guys need help from real lawyers" is very distinct from "Stop that or I'll sue you!!!!!!11" -- which of the two do you think policy intends to prevent? Concerns expressed in good faith probably shouldn't be met with block threats. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The rule is intended to prevent intimidation, and unless Hammersoft is lying to us, he's feeling intimated to the point where he's afraid to edit there. To me, that qualifies, and the dirtlawyer guy should withdraw it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My problem is that he didn't really threaten any sort of action (unless we're talking about different edits). How can you retract a threat to do an action when there was no action verb in the sentence. "...you are probably engaged in the unlicensed practice of law by presuming to represent Wikimedia in these matters" --- would a retraction be, "you are probably not engaged in the unlicensed practice of law by presuming to represent Wikimedia in these matters"? It's an opinion with no real threat to take actual action. Now if he followed that with "...and I will be serving you with court papers" (or whatever it is lawyers do), then that would be a threatened action. That's my 2 cents. It just doesn't seem quite as vicious as it's being made to sound, but maybe I'm jaded from spending part of the day listening to stuff like this gem. Wknight94 ^talk 01:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oy. Well, that kinda puts it in perspective. If I'm hearing the other voices right, Hammersoft is being intimated over something that he need have no fear of. As you well know, if some character here threatened me legally, I wouldn't be intimidated at all; I'd tell him to talk to my lawyers. Or just tell him to go to the taxidoimist and get stuffed. A threat of a block, though... that's intimidating. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually this whole thing is quite hilarious. Someone comes here in good faith, provides some interesting background related to a divisive issue with a view towards resolving a potential problem (as opposed to looking for a fight) and ends up getting berated by rule banger with a series of self-important and obstructive rsponses who then decides to turn the whole thing into an unnecessary and overblown drama. Accused of a crime - oh my! But then that's the H-man's style. There's no threat there - I'd be frustrated too being subject H's inexpert drivel. And here all this time I thought the saying was it was the law that was an ass (thank you, Charles Dickens for Oliver Twist). The Hammer needs to chill some and be more respectful of what other editors views and what they can bring to the project. Wiggy! (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, for what it's worth, some states (AZ) don't have real UPL statutes, so the first few diffs are not even an accusation of a crime. However, WP:NLT is unclear whether it's "No Legal Threats" or "No statements which could be reasonably construed as Legal Threats" (which, I'm afraid, User:Dirtlawyer1 has done). Perhaps User:Dirtlawyer1 should make it clear that he has no intention of reporting H (other than possibly to WikiMedia's lawyers) or suggesting that others do so. If that were done, it would be clear that there's no LT, and perhaps we can go on to right of panorama questions.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1 made a comment which Hammersoft perceived as a legal threat. Hammersoft brought the issue here for clarification or further action, as s/he is perfectly entitled to do. Dirtlawyer1 has since clarified that "no threat, legal or otherwise, was ever made."[128] That surely resolves the legal threat issue, though the underlying image dispute remains. Euryalus (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I guess I'm the odd man out here. Though I agree with Euryalus that no issue remains aside from the underlying dispute, that diff presented above is what I feel NLT was meant to prevent. Remember, a legal threat doesn't require malice. In this case it was a statement where the implication is sufficient to constitute the threat--Hammersoft shouldn't be editing things related to derivative images because his misrepresentation of the legal issue at stake would constitute a crime. That's a perfect example of a legal threat. User:Dirtlawyer1's statement that no threat was ever conveyed isn't strictly accurate. Either way normal dispute resolution can continue now, i guess. Protonk (talk) 06:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there is no consensus to block dirtlawyer, here's my advice:

To Hammersoft: Ignore dirtlawyer's threats and edit as you please, within wikipedia guidelines of course.

To Dirtlawyer: Rubbish. You have no legal power here. Begone, before someone drops a house on you.

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't go anywhere near that far, bugs. My view is that discussion about what is and isn't a derivative work under US law is both necessary and healthy here. Insofar as dirtlawyer is promoting that, good. What isn't healthy is the use of legal credentials to push around other contributors, whether intended or unintended. Dirt, I'm sure that you are a lawyer, but you aren't my lawyer and you aren't the foundation's lawyer. No one, except mike godwin, speaks for the foundation in legal terms on wikipedia. No one should be tossing around statements that imply that hammersoft could, through the normal editing process, be engaging in unlicensed legal practicing. More importantly, no one should be using their claimed expertise outside of wikipedia as a matter of authority in discussion. If you want to offer your off-wiki experience as knowledge/wisdom, great. But please try and make an effort to avoid appearing as though you are using your status as a lawyer to influence discussions on wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
  • "That far" what? You mean dropping a house? I never said that I nor anyone else would drop a house. I merely described what theoretically might happen. If you disagree, I hereby request arbitrariness. I have written nothing for which I need to appy-polly-loggy-gize. No threat, house-al or otherwise, was ever made. I am not the one engaged in WitchOfTheNorthBullying in this matter. This Otis escalator is evidently of that. Please do not pre-zoom that I am in the wrong merely because the Wicked Witch of the East croaked first. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Are we broadly agreed that Dirtlawyer1 having made clear he did not intend a legal threat, this issue can be marked resolved? Euryalus (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not he meant it as a legal threat, he meant it to have the same chilling effect on the discussion - and was apparently successful at it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My point exactly, and he has not backed down from it, last I knew. I suggest that if he won't remove those comments, we should do it ourselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To me, this is enough to qualify as backing down - at least from anything that might be considered chilling or threatening. Wknight94 ^talk 14:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's the paragraph I was lampooning above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth; Bwilkins is correct. I refuse to work with User:Dirtlawyer1 because he remains adamant that he acted appropriately in accusing me of committing a crime. I will, to my knowledge, never again work on anything he touches because of his apparent belief that his behavior is appropriate. He has been successful in intimidating me away from things he works on. I don't expect any particular action now to be done with respect to him. He will not retract his comments, and nobody can force him to do so. If similar stunts are pulled in the future, I'm at least somewhat confident he will be blocked for it. So, since he's been successful at protecting his sub dominion on Wikipedia and forcing me off of it, since he will not retract his comments, and since this reference point exists for future controversies when he pulls similar stunts, I consider the matter closed. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No, don't back down. Dirtlawyer1 is a newbie trying to throw his weight around. Treat him like any other newbie that's full of himself. He has no legal authority here, and is in no position to do you any harm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I am not interested in contesting with a lawyer throwing his weight around over some entries on Wikipedia. I'll avoid anything having to do with University of Florida, the school he attended. If I trip across him in any other area of Wikipedia, I'll avoid him there too. It is a pain, but it is easier that dealing with accusations of me breaking the law. He's not going to retract his comments and he's not going to be blocked for it. So, there's nothing to be done at this point. But, this reference point exists when he tries similar stunts on people in the future. That's enough for me. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Who ordered the drama llama? I'm sorry, I do think you are being a bit excessive. He's said his piece. What's he going to do about it? Report some anonymous Wikipedian that he can't even be sure is on the same continent as he is to his legal body? And what are they going to do? Report it to Wikipedia? And what is Wikipedia's lawyer going to do (when he stops laughing that is). I don't think anybody yet has ever successfully brought a barrack room lawyer to book for practising without a license. I think you're safe here, I really do. Which is not to say that Dirtlawyer ought not to moderate his tone (which tone is coming off distinctly snotty, and not an asset to the project),. But he can't actually do anything worse to you that...you know...type mean words at you. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3) Dirtlawyer was asked to strikeout the offensive comments, and even advised how to do it. Until he does, he has not backed down. If we have to do it, then someone will also have to give him a short rest for disruption. If he does it himself, I would be happy to merely monitor future interactions and consider this situation closed. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I;m sorry. I don't like to disagree with you. But this [129] makes it perfectly clear that no legal threat is made or intended. I don't know what else you want him to say, as he's not going to apologise, and blocking him because he won't apologise is not an acceptable tactic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not there is concensus here to block the guy - Hammersoft, you need to understand that that self-proclaimed lawyer has no more legal authority over anyone here than does my pet goldfish. Ignore him. And if he persists in hassling you, tell him to stick it where the moon don't shine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well put me in the Refuses-to-block-based-on-current-data column. If Hammersoft finds Dirtlawyer too unpalatable to work with, that's fine. I have my own list of such users, and I simply avoid them. "More-trouble-than-it's-worth" is what I call that list. I'm sure I'm on other people's "More-than-trouble-than-it's-worth" lists too. Everyone probably has such a list and everyone is probably on someone else's list too. Does that make everyone blockable? Wknight94 ^talk 15:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Block 'em all! Block 'em all! The long and the short and the tall! Or, in lieu of that, either confront them or ignore them. I still think it looks like a legal threat, but opinion seems to be divided, and as I said, Hammersoft has nothing to fear from that character. Many editors come here making legal threats, and most of them eventually get indef'd. If he continues to wave his law degree in people's faces, he won't be around long. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you there - well the last part about toning it down anyway (and I did say that above), but not the Block 'em all part (although some days, I may agree with you on that too). Wknight94 ^talk 15:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That's more of a metaphor, and is also a parody of a World War II song. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ok ... then I will simply remind him about both toning it down, and on how to retract the statements in the spirit of collegial editing (remember, I'm not a fan of blocking unless required). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Ladies & gentlemen, I previously requested that BWilkins explain on my Talk page how a reasonable person could interpret my comments as "legal threats." That request was apparently overlooked. I will restate the request of both of you. From my perspective, there seems to be a bias to provide the other gentlemen some measure of moral support and satisfaction, even in the absence of any actual threat. Quite frankly, the overwrought header on this thread and the immediate request to have me blocked are far better examples of intimidation tactics.

In my professional world, I am used to dealing with an objective standard (i.e., how would a reasonable person of average intelligence perceive the situation, and act or react) not a subjective standard (i.e., what one individual may actually believe). In this particular dust-up, the other gentleman's stated reaction is subjective----he writes that he believed he was being threatened or intimidated. By way of illustration, I can honestly and in good faith believe that the moon is made of green cheese, but my subjective belief does not make it so.

Demanding that I apologize for something that I did not write, and something I did not intend, is Orwellian. There is no hidden message. Threatening to delete purportedly threatening language, without explaining how any reasonable person could interpret it as such, is an attempt to chill the debate (and apparently at putting the perceived "newbie" in his place).

No threat was actually made, that has been clarified by me twice before, and acknowledged by several administrators in this thread. If the other gentleman does not like the rough-and-tumble of actually being told that he is wrong, then perhaps he should adopt a more cooperative and less rigid sense of his self-appointed role as a Wiki copyright enforcer. From my reading of his User and Talk pages, he has a history of bullying less-experienced editors who are unable to defend a posted image for which a perfectly valid "free use" or "public domain" rationale may exist if only someone would listen to them and help them.

Is is it not in Wikipedia's interest to preserve all relevant images when there is a valid exception or rationale for doing so? Would it not be better to adopt a mentor-oriented approach in these copyright matters, rather than leaving inexperienced editors to fume in frustration? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheese and Rice, just as we're about to mark it resolved, the wikilawyering begins anew ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That....didn't help. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

However, if we can all agree that no-one is actually threatening to drag the Hammer off to the cells, perhaps in another venue (in a galaxy far, far away) there could be a discussion about the idea of supporting editors trying to upload images vs the experience that Dirtlawyer plainly feels he had. I know that one can get very blase (I used to work collecting the General Rate many years ago. You quickly become immune to pleading when you find that you have heard every excuse under the sun at least three times) but there may be something worth examining here. I also note with concern that among the very early advice given to Dirtlawyer was to by preference load the image into Commons, as one got better advice from them. That is something that maybe ought to be addressed y/n? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Given his lengthy essay, full of words and music and signifying nothing, I am now convinced that Dirt is an actual attorney. And I see that he repeated his claim that "no reasonable person" would see his comments as a legal threat. So in addition to making legal threats, he is now making personal attacks, calling a number of us "unreasonable". Instead of blustering at length here or anywhere else, he needs to go back to that image he's so concerned about and make sure that the licensing fits within wikipedia's rules about images. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• We have reasonable proof from User:LtPowers now that the image in question is in fact in the public domain (but not because of Dirtlawyer1's interpretation). See the thread where this is discussed. As to the continued insistence by Dirtlawyer1 that he did nothing wrong, meh. See my 14:46, 13 August 2009 comment in this thread. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I'm new here, but I catch on fast. Rule Number One: First, assume "good faith." Please see the Wikipedia article regarding the Reasonable person standard in the practice of law. It may go a long way to helping you understand my statement above.

Ladies & gentlemen, pursuant to the last comment and suggestion from BWilkins on my Talk page, I will strike the references to the unlicensed practice of law. I do this in the suggested spirit of "collegiality," not because I believe that I have engaged in "legal threats," and certainly not because I have accused anyone of "committing a crime." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Dirtlawyer. Collegiality is A Good Thing, especially since you maintain no threat was intended in the first place. I think that resolves everything? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

D'accord. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

He needs to follow his own rules. Calling those who disagree with him "unreasonable" hardly constitutes an assumption of good faith on his part. However, I commend him for retracting the comments that triggered this section. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to consider that "reasonable person would believe" is a term of art in his field that has slightly different resonance for him than us. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Keepscases

Resolved

 – Let's wrap this up before it spins out of control. It's a common phrase here and is intended to be shocking. Wknight94 ^talk 21:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that I cannot possibly claim neutrality in this case, but do others find this wholly unwarranted? —Animum (talk) 21:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly hope not; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Have_you_stopped_beating_your_wife Keepscases (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Have you stopped beating your wife? is a common way of saying "I cannot answer the question because the way you've phrased it makes incorrect assumptions". While I'm not sure I agree with Keepscases that it was a good example of one of those questions, I don't see what the problem is with this particular message that warrants immediate admin attention. ~ mazca ^talk 21:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The question I was responding to was an unfair one, in that it seeks to reduce a nuanced issue into a yes-or-no response, and is a loaded question based on the word "incapable". I am not "incapable" of playing quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys, that doesn't mean I have any business doing so. Keepscases (talk) 21:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh! I wasn't aware that it was an idiom, so I thought that you meant it literally. I'm quite sorry. —Animum (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I object to Keepcases claim that he's capable of playing quarterback for the Cowboys. Admittedly, they haven't made it past the first round of the playoffs (when they've gotten as far as the playoffs) in a few years, but they're not that bad. Now the Lions or Bengals, that would be a different story. That might be an improvement at the quarterback position from what I've seen. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we can all forgive Animum for his idiotic idiomatic ignorance. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I beat my wife up every morning. I get up at 6 and she gets up at 7.

I'll get back to you when I can think of one even older than that one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:49, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, someone wrap this up in a nice blue box for archiving before someone perpetrates more wordplay. Please. Now that Animum knows there was no animus involved -- Doh! even I can't help it. Please, stop us before we pun again. -- Noroton (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why beat one's wife when her mother moves far slower which helps with maintaining accuracy. I wonder if anyone asked that question of OJ? Huh? Well he doesn't strike me as the most imaginative guy in the world. --WebHamster 22:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

...Way to keep the conversation nice and light-hearted. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, if I ever start baselessly accusing Wikipedians I've never met of spousal abuse, I'll wholeheartedly support my own permanent ban. Keepscases (talk) 03:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Possible abuse of Wikipedia authority

During the course of an edit war on the “Robert Lanza” page a Wiki editor “Sinneed” got involved. His involvement seems to have become personal. Here is just one of many examples of his possible abuse of Wiki authority. On August 11, a contributor gave what seemed an honest assessment of how to help. He/she suggested that “it may be time to step back and use some common sense.” A Wiki administrator (Tantalas39) responded, saying he thought the contributor’s message was “most helpful.”

Sinneed responded by saying: "Well, I guess I don't have any [common sense], as you see the world. I fear I am not as intelligent as Tantalas39, and I have no idea what you are saying…. “No need to explain for me, I am just not bright enough to see through, I guess.”

This is just one example of Sinneed’s seemingly emotional involvement in this case. Shortly after this response, Sinneed took (what seemed like) retaliatory action. Rather than trying to de-escalate the situation, Sinneed posted a message in response to one of the warring parties (the one posting negative material), asking them to “rework” another separate Wiki page about Robert Lanza’s theory “Biocentrism.’ This Wiki page previously had not been under dispute, nor involved in an edit war or any other discussion whatsoever. Sinneed wrote to the warring party “Please help. I expect to argue strongly that more bulk for Biocentrism belongs in the article, ugly or not.”

It’s unclear why Sinneed suddenly dragged the “Biocentrism” page into this edit war. No one took Sinneed’s bait to spread the war to a second Wiki page. But his questionable actions didn’t stop. Sinneed then copied -- verbatim-- the entire disputed edit war section (that had been place under administrative protection on the "Robert Lanza" page) over to the "Biocentrism" page. This material (mostly negative) is now officially on two Wiki sites. This kind of behavior doesn't seem objective from the outside. It seems counter-productive and only serves to escalate the edit war to a second Wiki page.

I request Sinneed be removed as editor overseeing the “Robert Lanza” (and now “Biocentrism”) pages, and that the Biocentrism page be restored to its original content. Regener (talk) 22:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Sinneed is not in charge of overseeing Robert Lanza, Biocentrism, or indeed any article. Wikipedia articles are not overseen by any particular editor, but rather by anyone who wants to edit them. Prodego ^talk 22:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not formal or something. If you want the article to be different, your best bet is to edit it collaboratively, and use dispute resolution strategies to deal with conflicts. It's much better to work it out via the community than to come to the Admins' board seeking authority. We're just a bunch of editors with more buttons, and we're not at all guaranteed to be better at resolving conflict than you are.

My recommendation is to expand the scope of the discussion to include more people. The best way to do this is to go to relevant WikiProjects and ask the regulars for input. They'll understand the context much better than an uninvolved admin who might just shoot from the hip. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you disagree with him moving all that stuff (and it sounds like he had no consensus to do so), just move it back (or delete it out of the move to article), and start a discussion about what material belongs in which article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Single-payer

Resolved

 – No admin action required. TNXMan 14:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Please start discussing the changes you are making to Single-payer health care on the article talk page. You are drastically rewriting things without any discussion, even after you have been reverted by others. And please read this policy. Your contention in this edit summary that "concensus never defines wikipedia" is categorically incorrect. Consensus-based editing is at the heart of the project, and since at least one editor has disagreed with your changes, you need to start discussing them before editing further. Thanks. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

consensus-building, yes, but not consensus defining. plus, i explained my edits, while the reversions were *not* explained, and consensus is no excuse for irrelevancy. on this basis, i feel harassed, unduly chastised, and my time and efforts disrespected. just because the admin (as proudly self-identified) bigtimepeace has no basis for their reversion, it doesn't mean that i should be required to do extra legwork, or be threatened with sanction. i suggest that the person taking the action reverting, deleting or creating paragraphs should be able to back it up with at minimum a short and relevant explanation. wikipedia is supposed to be about the written word! relevancy changes with time, and consensus cannot be a catch-all for deletions of significant parts of politically charged current topics.

24.2.247.208 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

i guess the question of abuse also relates to how irrelevant the article was. there were at least three major problem with the leading section on single-payer. the first: there was no identification of the notable controversies in the early paragraphs. the second: the whole thing had been skewed and repeatedly destructively edited to eliminate and/or obscure references to single-payer as a legislative proposal for government-based universal health insurance. the third: the language in general, as is often the case, was unclear, the cumulative effect of *people not taking their time on their writing*. 24.2.247.208 (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Why is this at the administrators' noticeboard? Looks like a conversation between two users, which in turn seems to suggest it should be located at one or both of their respective user talk pages. (On a side note, administrators are generally expected to say so on their userpages; it's not an ego thing, it's so you know who you're talking to.) – Luna Santin (talk) 23:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Worth noting that Bigtimepeace hasn't edited this section - his comment above was posted by the IP. The admin category is on his page, too - were you referring to him, or someone else? Nathan ^T 03:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This makes a little more sense if you look at the original post [130] which was to WP/AN, and then the IP moved the bulk of it to WP/ANI. This appears to be a content dispute in which the IP wants to be a consensus of 1. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, yes, I did not post anything in this section (my original comment was on the IPs talk page), and I only happened to see this thread just now as I was not informed of it. I think this can be marked resolved, as there is not much cause for admin action here in my view. The IP editor has been making significant (and sometimes problematic) changes to an article without discussion and in the face of objection, hence my note on their talk page (which was followed by, instead of a reply, the opening of a thread on AN and then on ANI). Quick version: this is a content issue and thus has no place here on this board, unless anyone feels my initial post on the IP editor's talk page was somehow abusive. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I did notice you hadn't edited here, but didn't think to mention it; in retrospect, it would have been smart of me to say so. Either way, I agree that this doesn't seem to be a problem as I read it. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Leonardo Ciampa articles

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa

Some more eyeballs are kindly requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leonardo Ciampa, a situation brought to my attention at the village pump. After the subject of the article posted about the AfD on his blog, the AfD has been clogged with SPAs trying to have the article kept. This has escalated into harassment, attempts to reveal personal information about a user, and what appears to be an entirely frivolous SPI request against two of the editors arguing for the deletion of the article. I have already taken the, admittedly unusual, step of semiprotecting the AfD to stop some of the nastiness, and I'd like to ask that others keep an eye on the page. Many thanks. Cool3 (talk) 05:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:THD3 is saying that Mr. Ciampa is attempting to contact him in real life. I can't say whether or not this constitutes real-life harrassment, but it isn't healthy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool3 has mischaracterized the events. See below. RoverRexSpot (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for blocking of User:Grover cleveland

 Note: See also this WQA. Nja²⁴⁷ 07:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

 Note: See also this blocked user's talkpage, which may or may not be relevant. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am writing to report vandalism on the part of User:Grover cleveland.

The following diffs show that he vandalized the Leonardo Ciampa article with an overabundance of "fact" tags, citing statements that were utterly uncontroversial:

[131] [132] [133]

With each of these "fact" tags, the information was very easily obtainable, had Mr. Cleveland wished to obtain it. (To give one example: rather than check Amazon.com to see if Mr. Ciampa indeed had CDs there, he threw on a "fact" tag.)

Mr. Cleveland then recommended the Leonardo Ciampa article for deletion. However, the sheer volume of his commentary at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leonardo_Ciampa, and its malice, is disturbing and very not in keeping with Wiki policy.

The claims of "online and offline harassment" seem to be towards Mr. Ciampa himself. That gets into the realm of libel. See [134].

In short, User:Grover cleveland has acted atrociously; someone with thousands of edits under his belt should know better. I respectfully but strongly suggest at least a temporary block of User:Grover cleveland RoverRexSpot (talk) 06:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

RoverRexSpot has been warned about the no legal threats policy. "Gets into the realm of libel" is generally understood to be a legal threat here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This request is as frivolous as the sockpuppet investigation noted above was, and is nothing more than a continuing campaign of harrassment against a couple of users who had the audacity to launch an AfD against a non- or barely notable musician who's taking things personally. This request is petty and vindictive, and certainly not in line with the blocking policy. Resolute 14:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Time out

Please stop making threats and wild accusations against each other. Wikipedia:Assume good faith is one of our policies - it's mandatory, not optional. As is Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

IP editors and those newly arrived - please do not insult people when you leave comments. Anyone's input into the article and process is welcome, but abusive behavior is not.

The key issue here seems to resolve around notability and reasonableness of challenges to it. That type of issue requires polite and collaborative and constructive discussion on the article talk page or AFD entry. Please talk to each other. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record, WP:AGF is a "behavioral guideline", not a policy. It is strongly recommended but certainly not mandatory -- as far as I know, nobody has ever been blocked solely for failing to AGF. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Right to vanish of User:Tennis expert

Resolved

 – Was already done. Have a lovely day. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 07:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Tennis expert is clearly lurking and has not "vanished", therefore, I would ask that all his deleted talk pages per the WP:RTV request be restored. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You have already brought this up. I ask that you cease forumshopping. Inferno, Lord of Penguins 07:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages were already restored, per the thread you initiated. You can find the pages here. Tennis expert (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:68.189.253.206

User continuing to make unsourced content changes event after final warning.

IP editor is mainly reordering MMA bouts so that they appear out of chronological order. Repeated warnings with the editor offering no reply for actions.

Warnings here: [135] [136] [137] [138]

Edits after final warning here: [139] [140] [141] [142] [143]

--Drr-darkomen (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Note: Edited to make proper diffs --Drr-darkomen (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another edit post final warning: [144] [145] [146] --Drr-darkomen (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My first thought was WP:ANI, however, the recent edits seem to be more a content dispute rather than vandalism. I've protected the page for a period of 3 days, and left a note on the talk page. Please note: editors violating WP:3RR are subject to being blocked, I'd rather not have to take that step. Please use the discussion page to resolve this matter. Also note, that where sources are available, that material is preferable to un-sourced claims. — Ched :  ?  08:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

My edits/reverts were in line with the source here: [147] and the IP editor in question has yet to respond to me on the issue. I have added input at the talk page as well. Thank you. --Drr-darkomen (talk) 08:28, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Spammer?

Special:Contributions/G4050. All contributions seem to be adding links to the same site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.82.42 (talk) 07:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I rolled back some edits and left a message on his page. Maybe they will stop with no bad blood. If they don't, post here again and someone will indef the account and add the website to our blacklist. Protonk (talk) 08:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Tracking information:

• kunstpedia.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.kunstpedia.com

MER-C 09:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Berlin Wall missing on "On this day" (main page)

On 13 August 1961, construction of the Berlin Wall started. This should definetely qualify for OTD, but only admins can edit/add it. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirming links eg here (German) and here (English). Skäpperöd (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you're looking for Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

False image copyright claims

I recently came across some images uploaded by Princeofdark07 (talk · contribs) that not only were copyright infringements, but also had blatantly false claims such as,

• "an image of dr devi prasad shetty shot by me during a ceremony at the bunt sangha meeting in Bangalore"
• "this is an image taken from a mobile phone camera by me near his home at bangalore.this image is completely owned by me and is free to use"

Both these images were copied from online websites ([148] and [149]).
All his uploads that I spot-checked seemed to have similar problems. I have nominated these and 4-5 other images for speedy deletion, but I wonder if all this user uploads should be speedied, since his claims of taking the photographs or owning the copyright seem to be untrustworthy, i.e., this is the case of deliberate misrepresentation and not simply misunderstanding of copyright issues.. Note that the user has been previously warned and even blocked for similar copyright infringement. See this version of his user talk page for previous warnings and notices. Abecedare (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a serial copyright violator. feydey (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Given past history and evidence of willful misrepresentation, I have indefinitely blocked. This, of course, is not the same as infinite block. I'm inclined to think that he should not be unblocked without some very good reason to believe that he will follow copyright policy henceforth...or perhaps a ban on uploading images. I would support a close review of his existing images given his history. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No EXIF, and all the files are of inconsistent dimension... delete them all. MER-C 13:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have gone through the list of his uploads and tagged 5-6 more copyvios since my above post. That said, I believe that most of the remaining images uploaded by the user may be genuine, based on the videos he has on his youtube channel. So we can perhaps mark this thread as resolved till the user requests unblock or further issues are found. Abecedare (talk) 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

this image is not genuine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tigliari.PNG , it is a photoshopped image of a copyrighted work http://www.vishwatulusammelana.com/tulufonts.html . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.138.52 (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right IP! I have nominated it, and its common's duplicate, for speedy deletion. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Found another instance of photoshopping: this image was cropped and contrast enhanced into File:Adishakti.jpg. Abecedare (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That flickr link 404s. Protonk (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Chetniks

Hi all, could someone please help out at the Chetniks article...? There's another newb nationalist guy (judging by the HUGE Serbian insignia on his userpage) removing images he doesn't like, deleting sources, and tagging the article with "this section does not cite any references or sources" (the article has quite a lot of sources). He's reverting any removal of the wrong templates, and is pushing his nonsense edits with constant and immediate edit-warring. Apparently I'm "delusional", and I'm infringing his "right to make the article fair" by removing the "vial filth" from Wikipedia. Last time I tried to handle a situation like this I got blocked for edit-warring, could someone lend a hand? He's basically ignoring everything I write on the talkpage and just repeating his opinions... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a directly related Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Chetniks. Perhaps that's the best forum to pursue this discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, perhaps not? What's to discuss about reverting the addition of incorrect templates and content blanking? The User's edits are poorly concealed POV-pushing. I don't think this "qualifies" as a proper dispute. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

McGeddon (talk)

McGeddon (talk · contribs)

McGeddon is not objective in his deletions. I would like to report McGeddon as it concerns Stoern Discussion web page. There is a section that has my long in Irrito at the Stoern Discussion webpage. There were comments about my actions. I in return presented my case yesterday by cutting my response from the dispute about me on this page and pasting it into that the Irrito section of the Stoern discussion page. Moreover, there was an objective 3rd persons view of my edits which was not helpful to McGeddon and his people. Thereafter, he deleted the section claiming I only cut and pasted my response from this page, as reason for deletions. It is unfair that accusation can be made about be on two different pages and when I defend myself McGeddon deletes an informative discussion. Lastly, because the 3rd person in parts agreed with me or didn’t agree with McGeddon’s edits of my work further supports my argument that McGeddon is not even handed in his editing.Irrito (talk)

Have you sought out any dispute resolution regarding this? I'm unclear on what administrative action you're looking for here. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello. This is the edit in question. Irrito cut-and-pasted the entire contents of the ANI section against him into Talk:Steorn, and I cut it down to a single explanatory link back to ANI, for clarity's sake. I realise now that I accidentally took out some of the earlier content that was in the section, when I did this. I'll restore that now.

If Irrito wants readers of Talk:Steorn to read a particular "objective, 3rd persons view" of his edits, he'd do better to just quote that and explain the relevance, rather than to paste a duplicate of the entire ANI thread. Edit: Reviewing the history, Irrito is possibly referring to one of the comments I accidentally deleted ("Maybe you could nurture him instead of threatening to have him blocked."), which has now been restored. --McGeddon (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. Irrito, does this help explain things to you, or do you still have concerns? Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 16:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive placement of db-move tag by 81.110.104.91

Per the diff, 81.110.104.91 (talk · contribs) has continued a pattern of unilateral disruption of the talk page at Willis Tower (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I do not have the ability to keep up with this user, who previously acted to disrupt archiving of a recent Requested Move discussion. Please see the talk page history for the request to automatically archive I made, with edit summaries and details, vs. the unilateral unexplained or discussed actions of this user. Sswonk (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I consider User:Sswonk's recent conduct on that page, and this report, to be an unjustified personal attack. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion continues at the talk page in question. I am not convinced this was worth bringing to AN/I at this point, as neither party seems to have done anything awfully wrong - but some outside views would be welcome at Talk:Willis Tower - thanks. ~ mazca ^talk 17:46, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh no. Tell me you two aren't fighting over the name of a talk archive page! Proceed directly to WP:LAME, do not pass Go... Wknight94 ^talk 18:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This has to do with a few Luddites who want wikipedia to keep calling the Willis Tower by its old name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, but if I have to fully protect and move-protect talk archive pages, then everyone is getting a trout slap for sure. Wknight94 ^talk 19:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:FalunGongDisciple

Could we have some eyeballs on Special:Contributions/FalunGongDisciple please? The entries look to me like trolling/harassment by a new account. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• I would let things settle over a few days. The first 'attack' seems more hyperbolic than anything else. Protonk (talk) 19:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd cautiously agree. I haven't seen many users that started out on such a footing develop into regular editing, though. In general, when you immediately assume other editors are a conspiracy against you you're already on the event horizon of being blocked. Syrthiss (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User:99.225.160.205

Has engaged in a tendentious revert war with all comers for the last week, will not listen to reason, insists University Canada West are crooks or worse and will not accept any version of the article that says otherwise. Ingoman (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

User has already been warned for 3RR. If the user steps over the 3RR line, then block away. MuZemike 18:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

IP editor User: 82.136.102.104 : Possibly JA/G or wannabe

The editor has so far edited only ClueBot's sandbox, but the content is JA/G-related and so perhaps cause for concern. --Rrburke^(talk) 19:19, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Username woes

^{Moved back from UAA--Jac16888Talk 20:30, 13 August 2009 (UTC)}

Yonideworst (talk · contribs · deleted · filter log · SUL · Google) • (block · soft · promo · cause · bot · hard · spam · vandal). Please rename, block and delete his pages. The account is barely active and was cleary created to offend and provoke me. Yonidebest Ω Talk‏ 19:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

user has existed for two years now and in that time doesn't seem to have ever interacted with you or edited the same pages, they don't seem to have been making bad edits either. I really don't think a block is justified here--Jac16888^Talk 19:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I might prefer to take this one back to AN/I; in many circumstances this might well be a simple case, but this particular account has been editing since 2007. There might be something else going on. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Pages on the english wikipedia where both accounts have edited (the tool can't detect deleted revisions or pages), 0. Intersections on the Hebrew wikipedia, 0. If the intent of the account was to provoke and offend, they clearly aren't trying very hard. Protonk (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)