Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Likebox and tendentious re-insertion of original research

Unresolved

 – Could an uninvolved admin look through and close this discussion? — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for the length of this post; the incident has been on and off for several years, so a thorough description is necessarily somewhat long. Brief summary: this is essentially a case of "I didn't hear that" regarding WP:OR. Discussion has been attempted several times to no avail, and so I am requesting an uninvolved administrator to review the situation.

User:Likebox (talk · contribs) has, in several incidents since 2007, inserted what he calls "modern proofs" into the articles Halting problem and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. These were removed because they give original interpretations of the material that cannot be sourced to the literature on the subject. Likebox acknowledges that his motivation is that he feels that the literature should have been written in a different way:

• [1] "There is nothing wrong with the proofs, except that they are different than the usual textbook presentations."
• [2]: "I agree that textbooks do not often mention quines in this context, but I feel that this is a pedagogical mistake."
• [3]: "The modern "literature" is textbooks, which are written by a different process than research papers, and are not generally very well written."

These arguments are parallel to the arguments he made in 2007, such as [4] "Wikipedia is a place where certain questions need to be resolved. What constitutes a valid recursion theory proof is one of those questions. ... Textbook proofs are reworked by secondary authors, and they are, as a rule, the worst proofs in the literature."

Numerous attempts have been made to resolve this via discussion. Some of the older discussions are at:

• Talk:Gödel's incompleteness theorems/Archive 3 (November 2007, starting with the section "modern proof")
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Formal statement redux (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#What Is A Rigorous Proof? (November 2007)
• Talk:Halting problem/Archive3#Likebox edits (March 2008).

Likebox acknowledges that, when he inserted this material before, it did not gain consensus [5]. He now says he is making the edits to make a point, to press his case for a proposed guideline [6] .

When Likebox inserted the material again this month, the matter was raised at

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Halting_problem_and_Likebox
• Wikipedia:NORB#Halting_problem_and_Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems

Several editors in these two discussion pointed out that the novel proofs should not be added [7], [8], [9], [10] (not counting those who said this the last time it was added), and consensus is against including the material that Likebox has added. Nevertheless, Likebox reverted his edits again today [11]. Likebox has said he plans to continue doing this [12].

Because the consensus against adding this material that developed both in past discussions and in the more recent discussions has failed to convince Likebox to stop adding this material, I would like to ask some uninvolved administrator to review the situation. Likebox appears to be a productive editor apart from these two pages, so perhaps a topic ban would resolve the continued disruption he brings to those pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

What is exactly the problem with including a novel derivation that is more accessible (apart from it violating the usual wiki rules)? Novel derivations, albeit usually quite simple derivations, are given in many wiki physics and math articles. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC

The issue here is not that Likebox is expanding or rewriting proofs from the literature in his own words. The problem is that Likebox is simply ignoring the literature, and rewriting everything the way he wishes the literature was written, As I said, this has already been discussed at great length, which is why I am bringing this here, since Likebox has apparently ignored numerous explanations of WP:NOR over a period of years. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what Likebox is not doing is modifying the standard proof that is in the article, he is adding a new section for a "modern proof". At least that is what I see here. The way this is written suggests that this actually is the modern proof, while in fact it is Likebox's proof. To me that would be the main problem with the text and not any OR policies (I've violated OR on similar grounds in many articles).

If it were up to me, I could live with a rewritten version of Likebox's text such that it is immediately clear that it is an alternative proof that can only to be found here. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Right: the text suggests it is the modern proof, while it is really simply Likebox's original interpretation of how the theorem "should" be proved. But if this alternative proof can only be found on Wikipedia, then it violates WP:V and WP:NOR. This has been explained to Likebox by numerous people, which is why I opened a thread here. Simply pointing out that the proof is not permitted because of WP policies has not discouraged Likebox from adding it over and over. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, Iblis? That would make it a textbook case of WP:OR. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

CMB, I think Likebox would argue that the whole point of the proof is to make Gödel's theorem verifiable from first principles to interested Wikipedia readers. The proof itself is then not the main subject, it is merely an argument that shows why Gödel's teorem is true. That's also how I have defended including original derivations in other wiki articles. But you can make the proof itself to be the subject of the article that then has to be verifiable itself from citations to the literature.

I agree that a consensus needs to exist among the editors before this can be done. An alternative could be that Likebox creates a Fork of the article. He can then write up his proof there, but then in such a way that it is clear that the article is an accessible self contained proof that is not similar to what can be found in the literature.

JoshuaZ, In practice we do allow original derivations in wikipedia even though, strictly speaking, this violates OR. I raised the problem a few times on the OR talk page and I was always told that I could invoke IAR. The OR policy was not going to change any time soon to legalize what was going on on a small number of pages. Count Iblis (talk) 03:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if we were to allow OR in this case there's nothing resembling either a consensus to do so. Indeed, all the regular math editors who have weighed in don't want this included. As such an individual who has not weighed in let me add that I agree. Indeed his presentation if anything obfuscates what is going on in Godel's theorem. The primary issue that we should be discussing in this thread is what to do with this user not whether the content should be included. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

We could tell Likebox to put his proof for the moment on a subdirectory of his talkpage so that he can work on it to make it acceptable from a purely mathematical perspective (disregarding OR). That would solve the immediate problem. The OR issue can be dealt with later. Count Iblis (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Count Iblis, 1) Wikipedia, including Wikipedia user space, is not a venue for developing original proofs of anything (some synthesis from published proofs is necessarily accepted, but that's not what we're talking about here). If Likebox wants to publish new proofs, that's what journals and textbook publishers are for. 2) As CBM says, Likebox's attempts to insert his own research into those articles has been going on for years, so a compromise involving writing them in userspace doesn't sound likely to hold up. 3) The basic problem with Likebox's "proofs" is that they are bogus (see the RFC response from 2007, particularly Hans Adler's remarks) in terms of both content gaps and presentation.

See also the declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and yourself) just a couple weeks ago [13] where User:OMCV, a knowledgeable chemistry editor, proposed a long term block against Likebox. Likebox is highly intelligent and is fairly small fry compared with Wikipedia's worst problem editors, but he disrupts several specialized areas whose editors really have better things to do than deal with him. Some kind of editing restriction definitely seems to be in order. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The "declined arbitration request involving Likebox (and [OMCV]) just a couple weeks ago [14]" was declined because an amicable resolution was achieved. Likebox's derivations are useful and no different from hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Wikipedia. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Michael, if Likebox and OMCV have worked out their differences, that is great, though I'd be more assured if OMCV said so directly. Likebox's derivations are not the same as "hundreds or thousands of proofs elsewhere in Wikipedia"--can you identify a single other proof in Wikipedia that so radically departs from published proofs of the same fact, in both substance and style, and has been rejected repeatedly by consensus of knowledgeable editors, but has still stayed in WP? It's true that math editors often (sensibly) go along with it when a math article says something that isn't in a textbook, as long as what is said is correct and is generally fits the standard approaches. That doesn't even slightly describe Likebox's "proof", whose basic motivation (that the textbook proofs are no good) is fundamentally wrong, in addition to the proof itself being mathematically wrong, and whose presentation in the article was just plain ugly, and was found by consensus to not be appropriate for the article. The proofs of the incompleteness theorem found in logic textbooks are perfectly good, and they are studied and understood without undue trauma by many thousands of undergraduate math and philosophy students every semester. Their only problem is that Likebox doesn't like them. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

<-- As an involved administrator I wish to make a point. This is not an isolated incident. Likebox has been doing the same type of thing in a totally unrelated article called History wars. Another article where he has expressed a strong opinion on the, and rather than attempt to compromise over the issue and work through the edits he would like to add sentence by sentence, he has resorted to re-adding the text every so often with comments on the talk page such as

• "This means we need to have a big change, and go on from there. I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks. Likebox (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)" (see Talk:History wars/Archive_2#Large Changes/Incremental Changes, Talk:History_wars/Archive 3#Large Changes, Incremental Changes,)
• "Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"[15]
• "Again, there is no point in talking to people like you. You must be put down by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)"

No only has he made these threats but he carries them out by periodically making large changes to the article: e.g., and by insisting that large amounts of material that he has written to the talk page is not archived but each time is copied back to the start of the talk page, [16], he is disrupting the usual development of new conversations on the talk page.

These two disputes on articles about very different subjects are not about content, but are about how Likebox fails to handle consensus building and is disrupting the project. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Rossnixon also behaves in a similar way on the Global Warming page and perhaps also on other wiki pages. But he is not editing there very frequently, so it is not really a problem. No one is arguing that he should be banned. He is not behaving like Scibaby, neither is Likebox. Count Iblis (talk) 14:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Likebox seems to be a very nice guy and generally seems to have very reasonable opinions. (Which doesn't mean that I always agree with him about everything. I don't.) He just seems to be a bit too stubborn when he realises that he is pushing against a consensus. But he is open about this and I haven't seen him use any dirty tricks. Hans Adler 16:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-nagging

Since some people are talking about my edits, let me try to explain. There are three accusations above about my nagging:

1. Godel's incompleteness theorems/Halting problem
2. History Wars
3. Quantum mysticism

3 was resolved by a fork, and everyone seems to be OK with it for now. OMCV has said "I can live with this text" on the forked quantum mind/body problem page. So that's done with. No more nagging.

2 is a big issue. Wikipedia needs to be mindful of racially offensive historiography. On U.S. history pages, this is dealt with reasonably well. On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources. I only do it when they archive the discussion, because the issues are not resolved. The nagging is just to alert any interested editor that if they wish to contest this historiography, they will find at least one supporter.

1 is the main issue, and it has come up before. Why do I keep nagging here? One reason is that I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs. This is the third time I've put it up. The first time, it stayed for months. The second time, it was deleted, but at least people understood it is correct. This time, the issues have been clarified to the point where I know everyone's position.

I don't like this consensus, not because the text I wrote is so great, but because I am pretty sure that if Wikipedia can't give a simple proof of Godel's theorem, it's going to be a problem for other logic articles. There are a ton of proofs in the literature that are more obscure today than they should be, because the language has not been properly modernized. The method of injury/priority is by now over 50 years old, and still is obscure enough that people are discouraged from using it.

The only editor who pretty much fully understands the text and strongly opposes it is CBM. His position is that text on Wikipedia should follow the consensus of textbooks. Needless to say, I think this is an absolutely terrible idea. Other editors have opposed the proof for other understandable reasons.

I do agree that there might be a some issues with the proof as written. The reason I wrote it in exactly this language is mainly because I have been "talking" this proof to people for many years, and it has ossified in my mind, but also so as to prove the Rosser version of the incompleteness theorem easily, which I don't know how to do easily in other ways. As Michael Price has said, the real issue here is that the proofs in the literature are never self-contained. They always refer you to some other theorem, and some other theorem, and this is a disservice to someone who wants to learn the proof quickly.

In these cases, the policy of WP:ESCA suggests that text that only fills in intermediate steps in a proof is OK, so long as the statement of the theorem is OK, the main idea is sourced, and the intermediate steps are verifiable from first principles. This is true of the proofs I am suggesting. I could place them somewhere else, but there is no guarantee that they will stay up. Also, I am hoping that someone who likes the proof can speak up. There used to be supporters in the past, who have drifted away (also opponents).

I believe that this issue will be resolved one day, when a clear proof of the theorem is up. Until then, I nag a little bit, very infrequently, to keep the issue alive.Likebox (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox, your statement "I can't be sure what consensus will be once people understand the proofs" presupposes that people don't understand the proofs now. That is bogus: 1) if your proofs are so hard to understand, what business do you have claiming them to be better than the textbook proofs that people do understand? 2) Your notion that people other than CBM don't understand your proof is wrong. I'm sure Hans Adler understands it. I understood it (the 2007 version, I haven't bothered looking at more recent ones). I'm sure plenty of other editors involved in that article understood it too, and found it unsuitable for the article. If your proof is so great, why don't you send it to (say) American Mathematical Monthly, and if they publish it, Wikipedia can cite it? The issue here is not that you have bestowed on us a new and wonderfully clear proof foolishly rejected by Wikipedia's hidebound bureaucracy clinging to stupid rules. Wikipedia's more active math editors are smarter than hell and they are quite capable of ignoring rules with the best of them, when that's the right thing to do. This is not one of those times. There are other online encyclopedias like SEP, which don't have Wikipedia's policies against original research, because they rely on recognized expert referees to make content judgements similar to how a journal does. I don't think SEP would accept your proof, so I don't think Wikipedia should accept it either. If you submit it there and they accept it, then we can revisit the issue. Otherwise, stop beating the dead horse. 66.127.54.181 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue of "experts" is a red herring. This is mathematics, and it is trivial to check when a proof is correct. Correctness is not the issue anymore, it is originality.

I apologize for interspersing comments: while I agree that most of the mathematically minded editors (including Trovatore and Hans Adler) did understand the proof very quickly (Trovatore noted an error in the original version of the Rosser proof within a few minutes, which I quickly fixed), there were also several very loud voices that did not understand the proof, and the debate with them drowned out any reasonable discussion for a long time. All these people are gone, and the people that remain understand that the proof is accurate.

While the proof is very easy, this is exactly why many non-mathematical people thought it must be wrong. It's too simple to be correct. The reason I started editing the page is when I saw a comment on the talk page from years ago that said "The lay person will never understand Godel's incompleteness theorem". And I thought to myself "Why not?". I expected that a simple proof would make people angry, precisely because it sidesteps a lot of notation and terminology that people who write about the theorem would like to pretend are necessary.

The question of originality is difficult to address. I know that this proof of Godel's theorem by itself is not original. The Rosser proof is borderline for Wikipedia, but it is not original either for a journal. You can go on, however, to prove a few new theorems in the same style, and if enough of these are found, the result might be suitable for a journal.Likebox (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your post above is mostly wrong:

1. Your proof of the incompleteness theorem is in fact not correct, in that CBM explained that it has a large gap.[17] While it doesn't actually prove something that's false, a famous description that comes to mind is that it's not even wrong. That is, your "proof" is not a proof.
2. Checking when a proof is correct is certainly not trivial (as your own inability to do so shows), except possibly for the case when the proof is completely formalized and can be checked by computer. Quite a lot of undergraduate math education (e.g. introductory real analysis) is mostly geared towards teaching how to write and check proofs, and at this point I don't have the impression that you are so hot at it. See Thurston[18] p. 8 for more discussion of the cultural acclimation process necessary to understand what an acceptable unformalized proof is. That acclimation is what Hans Adler was describing in his RFC response, I think, and it does not seem to me that you have absorbed it enough, thus the resistance you get. ( Remember also that Gauss famously gave the first "rigorous" proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra in 1799, only to have a gap discovered in it ~150 years later. Checking proofs is also (part of) why math journals have those referees that you sneer at. A lot of the early development of mathematical logic was precisely an attempt to pin down exactly how to check a proof. Don't trivialize that which is not trivial.)
3. As an aside, formally proving the incompleteness theorem is in fact rather complicated: see [19]. You will see the formalization cited spent considerable effort addressing the issues CBM described and which you simply handwaved.
4. Showing non-OR-ness on the other hand is trivial: just cite a textbook or published article giving a similar proof to yours, and establish notability for it by the usual means. That you haven't given such citations is a strong sign that your proof is OR.
5. Even if your proof was completely fleshed out and checked, the amount of space you want to devote to it in the article is ridiculous. If it were published in a journal, I'd support adding a sentence to the article like "Likebox has given an alternative proof using Turing machines" with a citation, but anything more than that would be undue weight since the proof is so unorthodox. Of course that would change if textbooks and journals started switching to your style of proof in large numbers, but not until then.
6. I am glad that you acknowledge that mathematically-oriented editors other than CBM also understood your "proof". I just looked at the current version of Talk:Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems and not a single one of those editors supported inclusion. Trovatore, Zero Sharp, Arthur Rubin, and Paul August all spoke against inclusion. Hans Adler didn't weigh in, so I assume his view didn't change since last time. While a few editors like Count Iblis liked your proof, none of them as far as I can tell have shown any familiarity with the existing logic literature including the usual published proofs. With no disrespect intended to those editors (we all have our own areas of interest), the notion of deciding what to include in Wikipedia based on such uninformed judgement is squarely in WP:RANDY territory and is precisely what the NOR policy is designed to prevent. We are trying to write an encyclopedia whose contents are acceptable by professional standards, so while I can understand a case for inclusion if someone like CBM thinks it's ok, it's completely different if only some less informed editors (anyone unlikely to be given the responsibility of refereeing such a proof for a journal) think it's ok.
7. Also, your continued harping on the proposed ESCA guideline to shoehorn your bogus OR into Wikipedia is shaping up to be a strong argument against accepting that guideline. If the proposed guideline supports including your OR when informed consensus says it's bogus, the proposed guideline is no good and should be rejected.
8. Finally even if your proof is correct and backed by citations, there is more to the suitability of a given proof than mere correctness. It was a big deal when Erdős and Selberg found arithmetic proofs of the prime number theorem when there was already an existing proof, because the old proof used complex analysis which while correct was considered mathematically unsatisfying. It's of course a subjective matter, but your own proof's excursion into Turing machines for something that can be done directly with arithmetic could be seen as similarly unsatisfying. I am confident that the logicians who wrote the existing textbooks that you don't like, knew perfectly well what Turing machines are and could have written machine-based proofs if they felt like it. They used the approach they did because they found it more tasteful or appropriate. It is not persuasive seeing you attempt to substitute your own judgement for theirs. You are trying to override not only the NOR policy, but the neutrality policy as well, in wanting to present a fringe-ish proof in place of a mainstream one. That, I think, is what CBM is getting at by staying to stay with the consensus of published sources. You cannot be the arbiter of what the best of the available correct presentations is, never mind that you want to use an incorrect one.

You are one of the reasons why I lost interest in editing the incompleteness theorem article a couple years ago. CBM has a fact-based writing style where he rarely expresses personal opinion about anything, and I can't speak for him, but that he finally brought this issue to ANI after all these years makes me theorize that he is quite fed up. So, I continue to support his call for an editing restriction against you. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Hey, Mr. anon. you are totally wrong.

1. CBM's "explanation" is totally unfounded. The gap"he pretends to find is the exact embedding of a computer into arithmetic, meaning, how do you take statements like "R halts" and turn them into statements about integers. This "gap" is not a gap at all, but a painfully obvious statement which is easy to prove. It is precisely because this is much easier to prove than anything about logic that I chose the presentation that I did. CBM is resistant to doing things in any way but the textbook way. That's legitimate. But even he doesn't pretend that there is any inaccuracy in the proof anymore.
2. Perhaps it's not trivial for you, but I don't find it difficult at all, and neither do any of the editors at Godel's theorems. They have checked the proof, and all of them agree that it is correct, with the exception of Arthur Rubin, who might or might not. N.B. Gauss's proof does not have a gap in it. His proof is that the winding number of the map z->z^n + lower order is n at infinity, and winding number is additive under bisection of a region. This proof was correct, and has stayed correct until the present day, ignorant opinions nonewithstanding.
3. Proving Godel's theorem is easy--- provided you do it exactly the way I showed.
4. Blah blah OR blah blah. No proof of Godel could be considered OR today. Period. It's too well understood.
5. The amount of space is just right, since it is a complete, self-contained, easy-to-understand proof of the theorem. That is important on a page called "Godel's incompleteness theorems".
6. Yeah, yeah, but all of them now agree that it is correct. Other editors in the past have criticized it 'because they thought it was incorrect. Many of the editors who like this method are just keeping quiet. With time, consensus will become "include", because that is true. It's just a question of when.
7. Yeah. It's not obvious. ESCA takes a little while to appreciate.
8. Dude, all the current textbooks use Turing machines to prove the incompleteness theorems. You should not edit the page if you don't understand this elementary fact. It is good that you were driven away.

In fact, one of the nice things about rephrasing proofs in different ways is that it lets you see if you really understand the theorem. If you truly understand the proof, then it doesn't matter how you phrase it. In this case, the proof I am giving is just a minor restatement of the usual proof in textbooks, but making it self-contained, and not shying away from using explicit computer programs.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox (re item 2), Stephen Smale, one of the foremost mathematicians of the past century, wrote:

I wish to point out what an immense gap Gauss's proof contained. It is a subtle point even today that a real algebraic plane curve cannot enter a disk without leaving. In fact even though Gauss redid this proof 50 years later, the gap remained. It was not until 1920 that Gauss's proof was completed.

(Citation: Smale 1981 here). Of course the gap is very famous and many others have written about it too, as you are apparently well aware. That you would consider someone like Smale to be "ignorant" and yourself to be a better evaluator of proofs shows the boundlessness of your arrogance and incompetence. As far as I'm concerned, it establishes that you have zero credibility about anything. So I've had enough, and will not bother replying to the rest of your similarly erroneous crap. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Smale is talking about the Jordan curve theorem, which states that a closed continuous curve in the plane has an inside and an outside. This theorem can be proved using the winding number of a continous curve, much as Gauss proved the fundamental theorem of algebra. To say that Gauss did not prove the Jordan curve theorem in his winding number argument is disingenuous. It is applying standards of what 20th century mathematicians find interesting to 19th century work.

In the 20th century, the Jordan curve theorem became a subject of intense study, because it was related to the formal axiomatization of topology. The proof of the Jordan curve theorem for differentiable curves is not difficult, and can be done using mathematics available to Gauss. In fact, this proof is just the winding number of Gauss. A point is on the inside of a differentiable curve if the winding number of the vector from the point to the curve is equal to 1 (or -1). The point is outside if the winding number is 0. The definition of the winding number, the proof that it is additive, and the division lemmas were well within the standard mathematics of Gauss's day.

But the proof of the Jordan curve theorem for continuous curves without assuming differentiability, is more subtle, because continuous curves can be complicated. They can have positive lebesgue measure in the plane for instance. To prove the theorem for continuous curves requires a good axiomatization of topology, which allows the winding number to be made into a homology or a fundamental group. These advances required the late 19th century axiomatization of limits and calculus, which were unavailable to Gauss.

When Smale says that Gauss had a gap in his proof, what he means is that the Jordan curve theorem, and the notion of winding number, were not properly understood in the broadest possible context until the early 20th century. But it is uncharitable at best to call this a gap in Gauss's proof. Gauss was only dealing with the winding number of a highly differentiable object, and he could have defined this winding number by an explicit integral. It is not right, in my opinion, to blame a mathematician for not focusing on the broadest possible statement of a lemma used in his proof, especially since Gauss's proof was a stimulant for the development of topology in general over the next hundred years.Likebox (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Like box you wrote: "On Australian history pages, there are cases where a Eurocentric point of view is presented without counterbalance. This means that I periodically nag the editors on that pages, leaving behind a trail of sources." In this ANI we are discussing a page called "History wars" which is about a debate taking place in Australia. As you threatened you would on the talk page you periodically revert the article content to a version of the text you wrote. Such threats and the actions are considered on Wikipedia to be disruptive, particularly when you have consistently refuse requests to go through you additions sentence and address the issues raised in those discussions. You have been asked on numerous occasions to produce sources eg:

If you have sources that you can cite showing that comparative genocide scholars have been using Tasmania as a defining example of a genocide "ever since" the 1940s, i.e. they were saying it in the 1950s, the 1960s and all the way through to the present day, let's see them. Not just vague phrases like "repeated in several sources" but give us verifiable citations, otherwise, how about you just admit you can't support your preferred wording with appropriate sources and we go on from there. Webley442 (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Listen, those sources don't google, and I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books many times over. This statement is designed to comply with undue weight. I am not adressing my comments to you, because it is not possible to convince people like you of anything, you must be suppressed by force of numbers.Likebox (talk) 14:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

— Talk:History wars/Archive 3#Genocide debate

But instead of doing so you threaten and revet to unsources versions. It seems to me from reading what 66.127.54.181 has written that your behaviour over several unrelated articles is similar. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research, and in doing so after it has been pointed out to you that you must produce sources to back up all your controversial claims precisely (i.e. with no synthesise), you are sill inserting disputed text into articles. -- PBS (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To PBS: You are talking nonsense. It is absolutely true that everywhere outside of Australia, the Black War has been a defining example of genocide all through the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s, the 1980s, the 1990s and today. The source I gave you "The Last of the Tasmanians" should have settled the issue as far as the inaccuracies in Windschuttle. This is just the latest source, in addition to Lemkin's notes, the detailed analysis of Lemkin's notes by another scholar, Rashidi's book, the countless web pages, the academic articles by Madley, the academic articles by Ryan, and the textbook on Genocide by Tatz. All these sources, and on the other side is Windschuttle, and a couple of right-wing Australian revisionists, most of whom don't contest what happened.

I urge anyone here to look over the page, the discussion, and the archived discussion. It is painfully obvious that there is no proper coverage of the majority of sources on the Black War, and there will not be so long as several editors gang up on whoever inserts it.Likebox (talk) 18:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox I note (and I hope others have) that you do not deny that you have repeatedly edited in your large changes to the article history wars after making threats (more than once) on the article's talk page that: "I have made an attempt at a big change. I will do so periodically until it sticks." without any support on the talk page for the edits.

I did not raise the issue of edits to the history wars to open up another forum to discuss the rights or wrongs of the sources. I did it to highlight a pattern in your failure to act within the acceptable methods of consensus building in the Wikipedia project, which appears to span several different subjects and involve several different groups of editors. -- PBS (talk) 11:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. You are (and have been) consistently editing against consensus in a number of articles. As Hans Adler quite generously and correctly points out, you are doing it 'in the light' and not resorting to (for example) sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry to push your agenda. That is, doubtless, to your credit. Nonetheless, you have by your own admission continued to edit against consensus and what's more pledged to continue to do so. Despite how much you would like to portray yourself as the Innocent Victim of the Big Bad Wikiocracy, (and, as an added bonus, portray those people who disagree with you as idiots who Just Don't Understand You. The very arrogance!) you are quite simply being disruptive. Period. Therefore, it's time (long past time) for sanction, an edit restriction, something. You've managed to exhaust even Carl's legendary patience. Enough is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.145.148.154 (talk) 00:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have invited User:OMCV to comment here.[20] 69.228.171.150 (talk) 04:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Its true that I reached text "I could live with" when trying to edit with Likebox but the process took far to long. It was a little more than two months for something that should not have taken more than two days. Honestly I think it was the threat of arbitration that ultimately pushed him into a reasonable frame of mind in line with WP policy. The text we disputed currently exists as a compromise, a compromise which I believe still contains implied OR that Likebox has "owned". Its a compromise because it isn't worth fighting over. I mostly definitely found Likebox's editing style/comments disruptive and exhausting. I made my case against Likebox's activities on quantum mysticism and it was declined in the given context. If anyone wants to review my concerns when exploring or establishing an editing pattern or history they only need to look here. I offer this comment because it was requested and my interaction with Likebox have been discussed in a few places. With that said, I do not wish to participate in the discussion further. I plan to do my best to avoid Likebox now and in the future.--OMCV (talk) 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Editing against consensus" means that I have brought the issue of Godel's theorem up once every year and a half, to see if consensus changed, and made an argument on history wars every time they tucked away the previous talk page discussion into premature archive. That's not particularly inflammatory.

OMCV and I have no more dispute.Likebox (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still editing against consensus if you add it, even once, after it's reverted. Shall we reach an agreement that you are subject ot 1RR every 2 years in regard the material you continue to add against consensus, or as to "testing the consenus". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's editing against past consensus with a goal of changing this consensus in the future. I only persist in doing this when consensus is absolutely ridiculous, and must change if this project is not going to become a joke. I shall not reach any agreement with you on anything.Likebox (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed editing restriction

When I started this thread, I was not aware that there were similar issues on other pages. Now it appears that the same sort of problem has happened on other topics. Given the number of editors who have commented here that Likebox should pursue a different method, perhaps an editing restriction would be enough to resolve this thread. I would suggest the following:

If Likebox adds material to an article that is later removed with a claim that the material is inappropriate, Likebox is prohibited from adding that material again until clear consensus in favor of the material is established on the talk page of the article.

This would still permit Likebox to edit normally and discuss things on talk pages, but it would address the primary difficulty, which is that Likebox continues to insert the same material long after it is clear there is no consensus for it. Moreover, the proposed restriction still allows consensus to change. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a pity. I would be in favour of an article on for instance the computer program approach to Gödel's proof. But sticking in 8k of own's idea of better pedagogy is just not right. One needs to stay reasonably close to what is actually done in published sources. He should go an write wikibooks or wikiversity if he wants to do that. And by the way I believe writing a long spiel obscures the points if any in an argument. Dmcq (talk)

I think this 0RR restriction should be limited to articles on philosophy and to articles on mathematical logic. I don't think it is necessary for articles on ordinary physics topics, like e.g. quantum field theory, special/general relativity etc.. On those type of pages, someone like Likebox repeatedly reverting the page would be ok., because from time to time cranks appear who add (subtle) nonsense and for outsiders it is not clear to see what the consensus really is (the pages are not always frequently edited). I think Likebox' professional working experience lies more in this theoretical physics direction. Perhaps the disputes we've seen with likebox is the typical case of the "arrogant theoretical physicist" trying to lecture philosophers and mathematicians (just joking). Count Iblis (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Likebox's tendentiousness on talk pages is disruptive in its own right and I'd be happy if the restriction included it somehow, but whatever. DMCQ: Wikibooks doesn't want bogus OR either. If Likebox wants to publish his proof, he should write a journal article about it, I'm serious. (I think his present version needs patching up though). Count Iblis: I'm not involved in any physics articles but I see Likebox's antagonism of OMCV as an alarming thing, and the restriction should try to prevent recurrences of that.

Note: it looks like I inadvertently posted to this thread under two different IP addresses (my ISP connection must have reset yesterday without my noticing it), which I hope didn't cause confusion. 66.127.54.181 and this current address are both me. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is this nonsense? There are two pages in question, both of which are shoddy. One page, History Wars presents a racially biased version of Australian history, the other page Godel's incompleteness theorems does not present a proof.

To Dmcq: The 8k discussion is just the latest expansion of a very short text. The short text is found on User:Likebox/Gödel modern proof. If you like it, write a short version. The reason I keep expanding it is because people keep deleting the short versions with silly comments.Likebox (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this proposal does not go far enough. Moreover, it seems to me that it's the kind of behavior we should expect from any editor and as such doesn't really amount to much of a restriction, per se. I'd also like to point out that Likebox's comportment in this very discussion has shown him to be argumentative, abusive ("It's good that you were driven away" [21] -- really?), incivil, and most importantly unrepentant. This as well as his repeated 'pledges' (read: threats) to continue 'nagging' (read: disruptive and tendentious editing) does not bode well for the future. I think we're letting ourselves in for a world of eternal hurt if stronger steps aren't taken to curtail this churlish behavior. But, perhaps that's a discussion for a different venue than ANI (I confess, I don't know what the recourse there is).71.139.6.70 (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the way Likebox discusses the topic. The only thing is that Likebox should perhaps voluntarily stick to 1 RR on pages where he is arguing against more than one or two stablished editors. Things go wrong the moment others stop discussing the topic and start a discussion about the way Likebox is editing. Then Likebox can write something about that too and very soon one of the parties will say something that is perceive to be incivil. If Likebox would voluntarily stick to 1 RR then the others are less likely to be annoyed. The others can then more easily agree to discuss the topic of the article wit Likebox and not Likebox himself. Count Iblis (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Count. Shoehorning unsourced OR based on his belief that he can explain Godel's theorem better than Godel (or than any textbook covering the subject), or his belief that "I'm not about to go do research. But I know the general picture, because I read references to this in popular books" (see long quote higher up) is adequate for shoehorning his POV into history articles, or his general incivility is not "nothing wrong". Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I realize I said I would stay out of this but I understand the exacerbation that 71.139.6.70 is expressing all too well. I felt that way when I was searching for support or arbitration when dealing with Likebox. I also disagree with Count Iblis on a number of issues. Likebox's problem behaviors as an editor require no provocation and make it difficult (perhaps intentionally) to discuss content, if you don't think this is true please review Quantum Mysticism's talk page and my talk page in detail. Based on discussion on this page, my experience, and a number of Likebox's own claims he plays the long game. I think any voluntary reforms will be disregarded once those who would hold him accountable have moved on (as I would like to do now). Considering all of this, I think Carl's suggestion is interesting, in the end we only want Likebox to display the "kind of behavior we should expect from any editor". The suggested restrictions should come with clearly defined and progressive sanctions. With reasonable sanctions that can be feasibly enforced Carl's proposal would be a significant restriction on Likebox's problem behaviors, which is all we really want to target. A clause concerning civility should also be added and I think it would cover the major issues. This would be much better than my original request for a long term block.--OMCV (talk) 15:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) Or perhaps, instead of focusing on the supposed "problem behaviors", you might want to focus on the pages themselves? These "problem behaviors" are caused by persistent attempts to fix problem pages.

For "History Wars", These problems were noted by several people. Unlike the paragraphs quoted out of context above, if you look at the text I proposed for History Wars (preserved on the talk page), I presented material culled from about a dozen new sources that were each removed systematically by PBS and Webley. This coordinated editing has prevented material about the Black War from being presented on Wikipedia, and I urge other editors to go there, read the sources, and check for themselves.

History is different than mathematics. History must stick to sources very closely, and adhere to undue-weight religiously. Mathematics is verifiable from first principles, and can be checked by individuals without external references. This difference is the essential reason for proposing WP:ESCA. Editing on a subject which can be verified from first principles is very different than editing an article on the Punic Wars.

Regarding OMCV, he has bad feelings, because we disagreed on edits he was making. These edits were factually incorrect, were opposed by several editors, and improved as he learned more about the subject. The final text we settled on was written almost entirely by him, after he had gained enough familiarity to write accurately. This process took a long time, but produced a reasonable text.

The job I am doing here by poking at problem pages makes enemies. It is important to challenge stuff in this way, and it is important for Wikipedia editors to avoid intimidating other editors from challenging material.Likebox (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

These comments epitomizes our conflict. The disputed text was blatant OR; I took the time to review the relevant reference to verify that it was OR. After two months the text was reworked to the point that it fairly represented the materiality in the reference (no longer OR). Even if the language in the text is no longer inventive it is still severally out of place so Likebox can argue a thesis that isn't found in any WP:RS. It would be better if the text was just removed and I am not attached to any of the alternatives I offered they can go for all I care.--OMCV (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As it is with the History Wars article. The quote above is not taken out of context it is a discussion about sources to verify the change to the first sentence of the text that Likebox wishes to introduce. Despite repeated requests to provide sources to justify the change, he has not done so, and he ignores the provided reliable sources that disprove his changes to the first sentence, (we have never been able to progress to the second sentence). This seems to me to make the dispute over the "History wars" article to be also OR, specifically WP:SYN, and to date he does not seem to understand that. Instead he thinks he is justified in repeatedly inserting the text into the article and on placing it near the top of the talk page again when the talk page has been archived. I think that he should be restricted from putting the same text or near similar text, into any of the articles under discussion, restricted from block copying text from the archives onto the talk pages, and from initiating discussions on the same subjects. If however another editor, without his solicitation, brings up the subject on the talk page or edits in text to the article with which he agrees (again without solicitation), he should be free to support that editor in the usual Wikipedia consensus editing way.

BTW, it would be no problem for me to stick to 1RR. Perhaps that would satisfy everyone.Likebox (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing on a subject which can be verified from first principles is very different than editing an article on the Punic Wars. No it is not any different. Every blithering crank injecting their pet FLT proof (or these days, P=NP proof, or in your case, incompleteness theorem proof) claims that it is verifiable from first principles and dealing with them is endlessly time consuming, as you are demonstrating. That is why we don't go by verifiability from first principles--we go by verifiability from sources. If you don't like this, the right place to debate it is WT:OR, not in math articles or their talk pages or here. I would not expect a favorable reception there though. If by 1RR you mean one reversion per 24 hours, that's completely useless, since you have been at this for years. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And the fact that you cannot distinguish a crank proof from a correct proof is a sign that perhaps editing technical pages is not the best use of your time. The way to differentiate the two is to look at the proof and see if it is proving what it is saying.

The way to establish OR for proofs is to understand the proof method, and check if the ideas in the proof appear in the literature. The wrong way of doing this is to do it like "Punic Wars", by looking for a direct source for each factual statement. The factual statements generated in the course of a proof follow by logic, and are specific to the context. If you lift them from sources and put them into an article, it is nearly certain that they will become wrong statements in the new context. Only the general path is in the sources. This is what the guideline ESCA is trying to explain.

This is not to say that a bogus proof, or even a novel proof, is OK for Wikipedia. But the incompleteness theorem is 80 years old. The method of proof I was using is over 60 years old. The only innovation was using "print your own code" for "fixed point", and updating the computer from a Turing machine to a modern RAM machine. These are trivial modifications, which are only put in for pedagogical clarity and self-containedness.Likebox (talk) 00:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not a matter of "distinguish[ing] a crank proof from a correct proof" it is a matter of distinguishing between a sourced proof and an unsourced proof and a sourced method and an unsourced method of proving something (see WP:OR and WP:SYN).

It is a pity that with the "History wars" article you are not willing to "looking for a direct source for each factual statement", if you did then you would not try to repeatedly to put text into the article for which you have not provided any direct source despite being repeatedly asked to do so. Legitimate requests that you dismiss with statements like the one I quoted above. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Anon, while you are welcome to participate in the debate on about WP:ESCA on its talk page, you should not vote on the proposed policies based only on the polemics of the debate here. If you take the time to read WP:ESCA, you'll see that it asks editors to be extra careful, not less careful, when editing articles. Constructive criticism is welcome. Count Iblis (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

836-character sig

Resolved

 – MFD closed as delete, user advised not to use signatures over 255 characters as this is considered disruptive and carries with it the risk of being blocked. –xeno^talk 14:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Launchballer (talk · contribs) has a signature which is based on an unsubstituted template. After numerous warnings and threats on his talkpage, from myself and a couple of admins – Rd232 / Stifle – (stretching back well over a month!), he was finally induced to change it. Whereupon it became 836 characters long, taking up 9 lines of my widescreen computer. He also insisted on using the (bright yellow) tag as the subject heading of every thread he started.

I informed him of this on his talkpage, where he responded with: My signature is [...] a measly twelve characters, and Don't tell me a five-line string of characters is nine lines long [...] HOW DARE YOU try to fool me. This message was signed with (you guessed it!) the unsubstituted template.

Given that he has ignored and quibbled with repeated requests to shorten his signature length so that it is fewer than 255 characters, and fits in the box at Special:Preferences as per WP:SIG, and that he has not edited Wikipedia at all (save for arguing about his sig) for over a week, may I request that he is blocked until he explicitly agrees to start obeying our policy? I'll inform him of this thread. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 19:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I used language like "HOW DARE YOU" because I can't believe for one minute your computer is widescreen when it takes up nine lines (Mine's also widescreen, and it takes up five lines) which means either yours is not a very good widescreen or you are lying through your teeth. Also, the reason for the truncation is to prevent too long an end result (which is what I've done). Given that, I'm not sure what I'm here for, especially that I cannot get that any more condensed.--Launchballer 19:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, this is his trick... keeping the template and manually substituting it afterwards. And, for your information, it is taking up nine lines of my 1280x800 screen. If you want a screengrab, I'll take one. I am not "lying through my teeth". Block still requested. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 19:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

They're screendumps, not screengrabs. Here's mine:

File:Signature (Launchballer).jpg

Only 4+ lines

--Launchballer 19:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing five-and-a-half lines of code, and that's at 1650x1050 widescreen - clearly too much. Please reduce your signature to something that fits within the 255-character limit, or else someone may have to do it for you. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, if you can find a way of shortening it WITHOUT touching the implemeted effects or removing the links, I'm happy to change it. But I don't know of any way.--Launchballer 19:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have misunderstood what I've said. The code is far too long and has to be trimmed. You need to create a signature that fits within the limit; that may well involve giving up some of the features and links you've implemented. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm counting 8 on this standard-res monitor. I was pushing four when I started my RFA and was criticized there for sig length. Do yourself a favor and trim down the code. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Click for an enlargement.

(edit conflict) Well, here's my screengrab (don't be so petty about the term, Launchballer, and read this webpage). Count the lines yourself... I took the liberty of numbering them in the diagram to help you. And every other Wikipedia user manages to have their signature at a reasonable length, you are not a special case, you can too. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's seven and a bit here. Launchballer, your signature has too many links. Too many effects. There is no need to "condense" your sig - cut it down, because it's disruptive. A block is coming from someone if you don't respond constructively.  GARDEN  20:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(multiple edit conflicts, not helped by the fact that adding a template and then substituting it afterwards doubles the number of edits you make to a page, which is itself ridiculous). Launchballer, you don't need all of the following (a) a fancy font (b) colours (c) class=explain (d) links to your contribution page (e) links to your email. Simple links to your user and talk page will do to start with; then add anything else you want until you reach 255 characters; then stop. It's simple, really. Otherwise, you will be blocked until you agree so to do. Bencherlite^Talk 20:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC) whose signature is the least fancy of all of those on display...

(stop edit conflicting already!)I have a 1360x768 resolution, and it takes up 7 lines of text for me... that's extremely excessive... I subst my sig, specifically from here, but I actually make an effort to keep it 255 characters or under... Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your current sig is more prominent than the text itself; Wikipedia is primarily about content not contributors, and your apparent ego is interfering in our writing of an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about mine, or Lauchballer's? Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 20:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Was talking about Launchballer's, sorry for unclear antecedent. DMacks (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

There's definitely a consensus here that the signature needs to be shortened; Launchballer, shorten your signature immediately or you will be blocked until it is changed. Thank you. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, I would be the first to admit that my signature is long; I use a substituted template to manage and preview the code, it stands out, and probably takes at least four lines on a standard resolution such as Jeske's. However, my signature is still under 255 characters, nor do I sign with a transcluded template, which is expressly forbidden by the signature guideline. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Yours takes up more like 3 in toto. Mine's 208 characters, and takes up 2½ lines.-Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3)Lauchballer, when you have to call out the end of your sig so others know where to start editing, it's too big. Besides the fact that it's not very useful. I'd make an attempt to contact you on your talk page but it's pretty hit-or-miss to click on your sig to find it. So, not only is it over the char limit, it fails to be a useful addition to the talkpage. Padillah (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And sorry if I've just triple edit conflicted anyone, but I've left a notice on Launchballer's talk page telling him to change his sig or be blocked. With unanimous consent here, it seems there's more than enough support for such a block if he continues to refuse to change his signature. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Block, change the template he's using to standard sig, then protected it until it can be bot-subst'ed. Wikipedia is not designed for WP:PEACOCKs. Physchim62 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's possible he stopped editing; his last edit was over an hour ago. I would hold off on a block until we see him edit without chainging the sig. Other than that, I agree with my esteemed colleagues above - when you need a warning within the sig, it's too much. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Recently I have also had to change my signature, here is some advice. You do not need to declare the same colors four times, only once. Same with bold. Also, use the words red and cyan instead of the hexidecimal codes. See my sig if this confuses you.   Nezzadar ☎   20:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Try something like this:

Launchballer

• Or, even better, something like this: Launchballer (talk). The more outlandish the signature, the less likely it is that people are going to take you seriously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Disagree I know of plenty of admins and trusted users with funky signatures. Atama, Tinuchurian, raeky, Durova, NuclearWarfare, etc. He is entitled to his quirkyness as long as it follows the rules.   Nezzadar ☎   23:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually a few years back with this basic sig the idea was to have something just a little bit different--slightly different shade of blue from the usual signature, different font that still displays well on most browsers. Eye-catching rather than flashy. And fwiw, a bad sig is more worthy of a trout than of a block. Let's get back to work. Durova³³² 02:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've taken this to MfD. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Launchballer, it might be a good idea to get one's name noticed for the quality of one's contributions and insights, rather than the length of one's signature. ;) Durova³³² 02:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've edited the user's signature code page down to 270 characters (the software limit is 255). The appearance is maintained but the mouseover effects, email link, and html comments are gone. I think the MfD can be ended if the user can live with this change, and agrees not to make the code any larger. Perhaps protecting the signature page could enforce that somewhat. Equazcion (talk) 03:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The MfD seems to be heading for an outright delete anyway, which is probably for the best considering that it's crept back up by about 50% since you pared it down. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahh and this is why I keep this page on my watchlist. I love the smell of chaos in the morning. Good luck solving this without a few MfDs, I tried. Equazcion tried. Durova suggested a trout instead of a delete, and... drumroll please... nothing.   Nezzadar ☎   13:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have since taken it down. Not to 255, but please bear in mind how high it was to start off with.--Launchballer 15:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just remember ... it must fit within the box on your My Preferences page. To paraphrase a famous trial: "if the sig don't fit, you must MfD-it" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The sig he signed with above is 247, so it's acceptable (we don't include the timestamp in char limit). –xeno^talk 15:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

TreasuryTag's signature | isn't so short either.

_{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 17:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, you have one of the most distracting signatures I've ever seen, and I would ask that you check the length of my signature (which is varies, but is generally around 172 characters – and always within the limit) before tossing around nasty accusations. And bringing up bad blood in this way isn't very nice either. Thanks in advance. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 07:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

KoshVorlon's signature

Resolved

 – Signature pared down, warning re: disruptive signature use issued. –xeno^talk 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to use complicated markup as long as the final product is under 255 characters. Also, I don't think you're really one who should be talking about distracting sigs! –xeno^talk 18:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Treasury, point is, you have gone after both myself and Lunchballer for having a signature that (in raw code) is 9 lines long, the printed version, or as xeno put it, the final product, is one line, in lunchballer's case, it's all of 10 letters long, mine's addmittedly longer, at 49 characters. Both are under the limit given. The funny thing is, your signature is also (in raw code, 9 lines long). Yet you insist that his sig and mine are wrong, but it's okay for you to have just as long of a signature.

It simply looks wrong, that's all. Regarding AGF, belive me I do, I made no accusation against you, just pointed to your signature and stated a fact. I already know I absolutely need to AGF for a long period of time here before I can ask anyone on the 'pedia to AGF in my case. See you around _{Naluboutes, Naluboutes}Aeria gloris, Aeria gloris 12:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "It simply looks wrong,"? What looks wrong? It's either within the 255-limit or it isn't, and mine is. And I agree with Xeno, I don't know why you've changed your signature so that it obscures surrounding text, but it needs to be reduced again. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 12:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The 255-chars limit includes markup. Xeno's ref to "final product" is the product, in wikicode, produced by ~~~~. TreasureyTag's signature template may be complicated, but once subst'd, is within the limit. Launchballer's original signature is not. Tim Song (talk) 12:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And a signature could still be under 255 characters of wikimarkup yet be distracting. KoshVorlon, you should really retire that garish sig. I notice that it has seemingly grown so that it's obscuring the tails on letters once again. In this ANI thread you agreed to keep the padding at 2px, but you've increased it back to 5px. That is unacceptable. –xeno^talk 12:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adjusting the widths back to the way Xeno put them originally, and incidentally stumbled across this copy of my signature in Kosh's userspace... strange. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 13:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines about including at least part of or at least some some connection one's actual username in a signature? Kosh's sig is both awkwardly long and has nothing to do with the actual username. Tarc (talk) 13:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

So long as there's a hyperlink to the user page I don't see a problem in that specific regard (it's handy for those of use who sign pages using our real names). It would, of course, be nice if people didn't fill their sigs with ASCII junk and bad poetry, but that's an Internet-wide problem really. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"While not an absolute requirement, it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the user name it represents." I must say, I am entirely unimpressed that KoshVorlon chose to go back on the ANI thread. I can only assume he forgot that it was agreed that a 5px padding was disruptive. In any case, I've pared his signature down to meet the length requirements and issued a formal warning as to his signature use. –xeno^talk 13:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:TrueColour

Could somebody please block or firmly admonish this user? For the past several days, he has made hundreds of unilateral page moves without any consensus or discussion and likely against MoS. It's gonna take ages to clean. Several users including myself have already explained to TrueColour why what he did is wrong and needs to be reverted straight away. TrueColour disagrees with the concerns, which is fair enough, but when I start reverting the mess he reverted me back and is now accusing me of unconsensual page moves and edit warring. Could somebody put an end to this? I prefer not to block the user myself as I am Portuguese and his disruption has mainly affected articles on Portuguese municipalities and districts. All such articles, to be precise. A lot to clean. Thanks. Húsönd 19:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is in progress. I've asked TrueColour to stop his moves pending the outcome of the discussion. Can you hold off on moving any back yourself, Husond?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you offering to move hundreds of articles back after the discussion ends, plus redoing the changes made to those articles by other users while the discussion was taking place? It was an undiscussed non-consensual mass move, everybody discussing with this user agrees that it shouldn't have happened. If the user persists, it's disruption. The longer it takes to fix it, the harder the task will be. Húsönd 20:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Moving after edits doesn't remove those edits, so that argument doesn't apply.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately in this case it does. The editor didn't just move the articles, but also edited the first paragraph to have them conform with his moves and the subsequent duplication of the subject. Cleaning will involve moving+reverting. Húsönd 20:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't necessarily need to match the article title, though it's generally desirable. As long as he discusses and doesn't move anything else, I don't see that further action is needed. I've hinted that editing articles to match his desired naming scheme might be a Bad Thing as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not just that, but also insertion of sentences directing to new articles that the user effectively split and which shouldn't exist as separate. Hundreds of them. Again, the longer the changes stay in place, the harder it will be to fix. You can't protect hundreds of articles while a discussion is in place. If you really want to help, check the magnitude of his edits, investigate what he did and what needs to be undone, calculate the work that will take for that, and then maybe you'll realize that leaving everything as it is while a non-discussion takes place (because nobody else agrees with what the user did) is probably not a good idea. Húsönd 21:13, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll be surprised if bots, redirects, and WP:AWB can't clean things up effectively enough. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free to bring them on later. Húsönd 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The user doesn't need to be blocked and I'm not sure what you mean by admonish (sounds like some sort of official warning or reprimand, I'm not aware of anyone on here with that sort of authority short of going to RFAR). The move issue is a name (read "content") dispute. True Color's responses were a bit defensive and difficult but the comments that led to them were a bit bitey. Both sides should back off, cool off, and discuss the naming convention. A third party, maybe Sarek, may be able to help the two sides see each other's points of view as both sides have merit and deserve to be understood before anyone goes further or reverts all. The fixes are relatively simple in the event everything eventually needs to go back the way it was. Recommend close this thread and consider WP:MEDCAB if Sarek can't break the deadlock.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:11, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:MEDCAB? Sorry, fixing this problem is already too much work, I don't think I would need a week of unproductive and insanely boring discussion on top of it. No, let's reach this compromise instead: I will not bother with this "content dispute" anymore, and Wikipedia has just gotten a few hundred disruptive-useless-split articles that damaged the original ones. All happy. Húsönd 21:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I must concur with Husond's opinion (I assume he asked me as somebody who does not cooperate with him, most of the time). This seems a remarkably useless series of splits, which move the articles on the actual towns to such unEnglish forms as Resende Municipality, Portugal, to make some point about there being an administrative division of the same name on a different level. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Doug, you found this to be "bitey"? Really? Maybe if you are going to go to the trouble of commenting here, you could be a little more specific about exactly what you are talking about. --John (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not find that comment bitey. I did find bitey: ignoring that editors are charged to Be Bold, listing a half-dozen or more places that the editor should have gone for consensus, most of which are rarely used for such discussions (I've never heard of posting an idea for a rename at the Village Pump), etc. But most importantly, my point was that ANI is not the place for this discussion. This is not the place to debate whether page moves were necessary and proper, even if they were were against consensus, past practice, etc. This is a WP:Dispute resolution matter and should be closed and taken elsewhere.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 05:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not a dispute resolution. All users are welcome to be bold, but when the boldness is damaging and reported as such, persisting in this boldness counts for no less than plain disruption. Disruption that needs to be halted and fixed, not to be hindered by bureaucracy and complacence. Húsönd 06:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It has been halted, without blocking or admonishment. TrueColour has created Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles)#District names to discuss the subject, but I haven't seen you there yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

a) I got a life outside Wikipedia; b) I'm not joining any discussions unless his mess gets reverted. You can keep hundreds of damaged articles for as long as I care. Húsönd 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And I suggest that next time you look with a bit more attention because I'm actually there - Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Portuguese-related articles)#District names, on the thread right above the one you linked. Two seconds it would take to notice, but I admit that I should know by now that the time conceded by ANI peers is strictly reserved for deliberations. Húsönd 18:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I read that first, and in enough detail to see that you had not yet addressed the issue you're urging that TrueColor be admonished for.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another evidence that you treated this case like a dead raccoon. Next time I won't bother to come here and I'll just get the job done. The WP:MEDCAB part was funny though. Húsönd 18:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:PORTUGAL#To-do_items states be bold. That I was. And I think that the established article style is not the best for future growth. I am now harassed by Pmanderson. It follows a more detailed statement:
• The Portuguese class identifier "distrito" is usually translated as "district". The districts are referred to normally as "distrito de Something" which in English yields either ""district of Something" or "Something District". In enWP the format "Something Classname" is widely used. Apart from usage in article titles that format is mentioned in WP:NCGN#Administrative_subdivisions: "so if one district in a country is moved from X to X District, it is worth discussing whether all districts should be moved.". The existence of that example in WP:NCGN indicates that the use of "Something District" is accepted.
• The reasoning for the article titles of the municipalities of Portugal is similiar: concelho is translated as "municipality", the entities are called "concelho de Something", translating to "Municipality of Something" or "Something Municipality". A recently performed research shows that this format is used for several other sets of municipalities within WP and that this format is the one that is overwhelming used by those sets that use the class identifier in the article title.
• Wikipedia:MOS#Geographical_items states: "Places should generally be referred to consistently using the same name as in the title of their article". "Something District" as article title allows one to write [[Something District]] while "Something (district)" cannot be directly linked. Articles titled that way are instead often referred to as "district of [[Something (district)|Something]]", which in fact is misleading since the link under "Something" goes to "Something (district)".
• When User:Husond wrote on my talk page first time he asked for reversion of "page moves and content removal" insinuating that I removed content while I only split some pages. He further wrote "Your district moves are also against the manual of style, please move back." In his message he wrote " Please put everything back and then improvements can be discussed. I further bring to your attention that titles such as "Braga Municipality" or "Braga District" are against the Manual of Style. The subject type for geographical entries goes in parenthesis - "Braga (municipality)" or "Braga (district)". " When I asked where this is written he didn't bring a link. He also was very pushy to revert the moves, I told him that the districts moves can be reverted without problem at any time. Nevertheless he started reverting the page moves, knowing that "Something (district)" is disputed. This is kind of Wikipedia:Edit_warring#What_edit_warring_is. I told him to this. He also had Pmanderson stating " this might be up your street. Mass moves made by a new user. MoS-related.". Moving the articles of the 18 districts of Portugal are certainly no mass moves. And I think what matters are the actions, not the age of the account. Old and new accounts have all to respect the same rules and shall adhere to MoS.
• In the case here it seems that I knew the MoS better then them.
• Following the invitation by Husond, Pmanderson for the first time in my talk page. I didn't see why s/he came and I thought s/he might be interested in solving the content dispute. But since s/he brought up the notion of silliness and wrote in a very commanding tone I pointed to WP:NPA and deleted the comment. Pmanderson is trying to play a power game, and wrote: " our guidelines are guidance, not rules; they record what is customarily done, and are not intended to be comprehensive "rules" forbidding all silly notions which anybody might come up with until the heat-death of the universe." Followed by "As it happens, we have already considered this question, not at any page of the Manual of Style, but at WP:NCGN, a naming convention. Our first rule, and our last, is call things what reliable sources call them, unless there is some good reason, like disambiguation, to do otherwise.". See again the usage of "we", same way as User:Husond did.
• After Pmanderson invoked the rule of "what reliable sources call them", I asked back what the name in Portuguese is, so that Pmanderson could find out her/himself that the classname is part of the object and translated into English this would lead to "Something Municipality".
• Now after having posted "Our first rule, and our last" Pmanderson in a very patronizing way another rule: "read WP:NCGN and find that, this being the English Wikipedia, what matters to us is what these towns are called in English".
• I asked where I did not use English, is starting to talk about my dialect of English. That the question "Where not?" is not correct English and correcting it. To further state: "Resende Municipality, Portugal is one way to distinguish the municipal government from the old town; but it is not the natural and idiomatic way.". This shows that the topic is missed by Pmanderson, since the articles "Something Municipality" are not about municipal governments but about geographical entities. It further shows lack of knowledge what article titles are for and that for articles on toponyms they are often not "natural and idiomatic": Deposit (village), New York is one example and you find many more at Category:Villages in New York.
• I then [22] how s/he in his/her dialect of English would call the articles. The [23] started with the notion that "First, we don't need two articles (and it's not helpful to have them); we need one article on Resende, Portugal, which distinguishes between the town and the municipality". Which is a shift from her/his only slightly older comment "Probably the best would be to have one article for both, and differentiate."[24]. It more and more seems to me that Pmanderson is only into the dispute for a power game and not much interested in the articles on the geography of Portugal as I am. The reply goes on " If we had to have two [articles], the natural name for both would Resende; since that's ambiguous, the simplest course is not to make something up, or to translate as English does not, but to add a parenthetical disambiguator to the less read one: Resende, Portugal (municipality)". Pmanderson now made up a method of disambiguation I couldn't find anywhere else, violating her/his own statement "the simplest course is not to make something up".
• I think it is harmful to the development of Wikipedia that people like Pmanderson play power games with users and make up rules out of nothing.
• Pmanderson should be de-admined for her/his harassment and her/his power game playing. At 17:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Pmanderson unveils her/his attitude how to solve content disputes. "Speaking of which, this may be the solution for the disruptive True Colour. Let me know if you do - it would probably be unwise to block him yourself, but he should be blocked.]. " This shows that Pmanderson wants a solution /for a user/ and not a solution /of a content dispute/. I strongly recommend that what Pmanderson wants to be performed on others should best be applied to him/herself.
• User:Husond and Pmanderson should learn how to respect MoS better and also to respect WP:OWN, WP:AGF. Only that Husond comes from Portugal does not make him to own the pages related to Portugal.
• Husond writes : "For the past several days, he [TrueColour] has made hundreds of unilateral page moves without any consensus or discussion and likely against MoS. It's gonna take ages to clean." Nice to see the notion of "likely against MoS". Seems Husond is not so convinced anymore that it is against MoS. But then I wonder, why he is so sure that all needs to be reverted. Also interesting that stuff that /one/ user can do in several days will take several users to take ages. It seems Husond is exaggerating to get his agenda through.
• Husond: " TrueColour disagrees with the concerns, which is fair enough, but when I start reverting the mess he reverted me back and is now accusing me of unconsensual page moves and edit warring. Could somebody put an end to this? " - To call the edits of other people a mess is against WP:NPA. And I guess the best way to stop the accusations of "unconsensual page moves and edit warring" is to stop the underlying actions.
• I want to send a big thank you to User:John, User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Doug for their strict but friendly involvement. If anyone of these people is not an admin I recommend to make him/her an admin. Keep up your work! You are, as far as I can see, good examples for how to apply WP:AGF.
• To end my statement with something positive I would like to say that related to articles on the geography of Portugal, I:
  • imported the river list from pt WP, see List of rivers of Portugal.
  • created an overview about the subdivisions of Portugal.
  • turned the lists of municipalities that were split by district into one big sortable list of municipalities of Portugal
  • improved Aveiro District: turning a simple the list of the municipalities into a sortable table, incl population and area data, numbers of parishes, cities and towns for each municipality.
  • for the municipalities in that district I started to import population history from pt:WP
  • disambiguated several false links
  • when I came across badly formated DAB pages I converted them to adhere to MOS:DAB, esp. link targets
• TrueColour (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow! Kudos to Sarek and Doug. Now we have disruption AND unsubstantiated wikilawyering. Good job. Húsönd 06:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• I thank Sarek of Vulcan for his advice, both here and on TrueColour's talk page, that TrueColour hold off on his moves until discussing them and receiving consent; as he said there "let discussion conclude before you move any more. Continuing might be classed as disruptive and blockable."

• TrueColour has not stopped; this is the burden of his complaint. He should read WP:BRD; boldness is fine, until you are reverted - at which point you should stop and discuss. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect usage of {{discussion top}}

I believe a note needs to be made in the edit notice for this page, along with other noticeboards. I just finished cleaning up a mess created by improper use of this template. It is placed below the section title, not above it, as if it is placed above it, then when the archival bot archives the thread above where the template was placed in, it takes the template with it, basically disrupting how the archives for the page look. Because the discussion top template was removed by the bot, we now have several unrelated threads hatted together as if they were related. This cannot be stressed enough.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:16, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Making a note here so that this doesn't get archived. It needs to be addressed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. This has been a rather persistent problem. JPG-GR (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This probably won't help much, but I figure it can't hurt. Is there someway to have the templates be smart about, perhaps, disabling themselves if a pair of primary section headers ("==") fall within their boundaries? user:J aka justen (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600: continued problems

Resolved

 – Sanction enacted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Between 20 March and 21 June, ArbCom took on a case examining the Obama articles in detail, and ended up finding (among other things) that Grundle2600 (talk · contribs)'s edit-warring was problematic, and as a remedy, imposed a revert limitation (1RR) for 6 months on him here. On 25 June, the community were still finding problems with Grundle2600's disruptive conduct, which resulted in the community imposing a 3 month topic ban on him from all articles relating to US politics and politicians (although explicitly allowed to comment on talk pages). [25] Unfortunately, his conduct has continued to be a problem, particularly after the topic ban has expired.

He was making test edits on his talk page to measure to the minute when his topic ban would expire ([26] [27] [28] [29]) which was deeply concerning. The moment it expired, he returned to editing those articles. Since then, he's reignited old battles, and continued to disruptively edit war, making pointy edits along the way too:

• 25 September 2009: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]
• 26 Sept 2009: [35] [36]
• 26 & 27 Sept 2009: [37] [38] [39] [40]
• 5 October 2009: [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]
• 12 October 2009: [46] [47] [48] [49]
• 13 October 2009: [50] [51]
• 19 October 2009 (even after the request for ArbCom amendment/clarification was filed, reinserting contentious material previously removed and discussed): [52]

He has also continued tendentious editing in its other forms, like refusing to get the point. [53] [54] [55] [56]

Clearly, further sanctions beyond 1RR is necessary, and those sanctions would need to be greater than 3 months (somewhere between 6 months and indefinite). ArbCom have suggested that the community use its tools to sort it out. A single uninvolved admin can end this disruption by invoking Obama probation. However, I can also draft something that goes beyond the scope of that probation, if the community needs to impose a broader remedy on him that covers all articles/pages relating to US politics and politicians. Based on the above (and any further evidence that comes to light), any thoughts on which way to go? Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no point putting up with such crap when there are plenty of other good editors actively working on the same subject. Impose a permanent topic ban as broad as you see necessary. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 07:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. If the editor has shown that they cannot work under the restrictions imposed, then it is better that the are not allowed to edit in that area. An indefinite topic ban is in order, unless the editor would prefer to be blocked indefinitely as an alternative. Mjroots (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, the first alternative would be "Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing pages related to US politics and politicians." The second alternative would be the same as what's written here, except it would read as "indefinite topic ban - he is" and would omit the "for a period of three months" part. Can you (and others) explicitly clarify whether you prefer to include or exclude talk pages in the ban? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if I should allow this to be entered here but for the record, here goes... I'd rather lose one capable gung-ho staff (but he is always late) than to lose a bunch of average performing staff (but they take their work seriously and are always on time). It's bad for morale if that one gung-ho staff is allowed to carry on misbehaving and I risked that fact affecting the others due to my oversight or turning of a blind eye to. Having said that, Wikipedia is a community and as such is a collaborative effort by many individuals, its time to stop such nonsense once and for all. Out. --Dave1185 (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban including article and talk pages on all articles reasonably seen as related to current United States politics. John Carter (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite politics topic ban (including article talk pages), if only so we don't see him counting down in a year to see when he can start making problematic edits again. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all US politics topics-related issues as I did previously. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban, ban to extend to talk pages. PhGustaf (talk) 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite ban on politics related articles, and temporary ban from related talk pages.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all politics related articles, and I think including talk pages is a must (the problems—particularly in terms of extreme tendentiousness—continued under the previous three-month topic ban when Grundle2600 was allowed to comment on talk pages). If agreed to this should be implemented as a community imposed topic ban, not something done under the terms of Obama article probation, since the latter does not allow an admin to ban an editor from all political articles, but rather only from those relating to Obama. I have no idea whether Grundle2600 is actively trying to be disruptive at this point or whether he is simply incapable of "getting it" when it comes to the problematic nature of many of his edits, but by now is doesn't really matter since this is a very longstanding pattern which is disruptive either way, and since there have been at least a dozen or so editors who have spent many, many hours trying to work with him and explain the problems with his editing, but to no avail whatsoever. Finally, while at the moment there appears to be a developing consensus for a topic ban, I think this thread needs to stay open for another day or so to allow further comment, and we certainly need to give Grundle2600 a chance to reply here. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• For the love of god, support, and please make sure it is for article talk pages as well. We had to put up with this behavior during the only-banned-from-article-page topic ban, and it wasn't pleasant. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all politics-related articles and their talk pages. The never-ending disruption wasting countless hours of other editors' time must stop once and for all. Newross (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Suppore indefinite topic ban on all politics-related articles and their talk pages. About a year ago, I used to edit some of the articles in question. Don't imagine I ever will again. Failure of the community to deal with this kind of ongoing nonesense was one reason why. He may think the well-meaning naif persona suits him, but no one should be asked to deal with this stuff (of course, people have to here every day). But this is fairly far beyond the pale.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban on all politics-related articles and their talk pages. I checked some of the above diffs which show that Grundle2600 will never voluntarily pass on an opportunity to inject POV into articles and talk pages related to U.S. politics. As an example, see this talk where Abrazame gives several long and interesting explanations why some Grundle2600 edits were not helpful, only to receive a change of subject. Johnuniq (talk) 23:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I had not seen that, but any outsider looking into this situation should read the talk page thread linked to by Johnuniq—it's a textbook example of Grundle's editing pattern. Abrazame slipped too readily into minor incivility, but that editor laid out in exhausting detail the problem with Grundle's proposed changes. And how did Grundle reply? He didn't, he completely ignored Abrazame's lengthy post, and simply wrote "You have not answered my questions" (which Abrazame absolutely had done). I can say from experience that this is a common practice for Grundle, who often blatantly refuses to hear the point being made and will persist in the face of objections or temporarily change the subject and then come back to the original issue at a later time. Collaborative editing with an editor who approaches editing in that way is simply not possible. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• The political articles are a maelstrom that is too easy to get sucked into. The user should "boycott" those articles and focus on something that he would find more satisfying to edit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Repeat problems, repeat warnings, repeat offenses. There's a group of editors involved in these topics that really need to be reined in, and this is definitely one of them. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong support, as noted , and confirmed by the editor's recent WP:POINTy and non-WP:AGF response he posted here. I've tried to help, but the editor isnot listening. At least one other editor has noted he feels that the editor in question has contributed positively to other parts of WP. It is time to end the WP:DIS from this editor - he has amply demonstrated his inability to change. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Exact wording

Since we have a rough consensus here, I'd like to nail down the exact wording for when consensus is clear. Following on NCM's comments above, I propose the following. Please only comment here if you support the community ban and have a problem with the below -- if you oppose the ban, comment in the thread above, please. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to an indefinite community ban from editing articles related to US politics and politicians. He may not participate in discussion on talk pages, unless this sanction is modified later. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks. (See terser version below)

Please change a indefinite community ban to an indefinite community ban. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks.

I made a strikeout above; the struck words don't help clarify anything. PhGustaf (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was meant to be a strong hint that if he can prove on other subjects that he can participate constructively on talk pages, this ban could be modified, rather than being a never-darken-our-door-again thing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Right. But any sanction can be modified later; no need to spell it out. PhGustaf (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Shorter wording:

Grundle2600 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is under an indefinite community ban from editing articles or talk pages related to US politics and politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.

69.228.171.150 (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That's actually incorrect technically, as it's a (community) topic ban, rather than an outright (community) ban; that it went by unnoticed the first time doesn't mean we should repeat the mistake. I prefer the standard wording I proposed earlier, namely:

Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.

Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Grundle2600

1) Most of the people in this discussion who are saying they want be banned are the same people who keep erasing the information that is critical of Obama that I add to articles. I think they just want to censor me from adding information that is critical of Obama to those articles.

2) The reason I made those test edits on my talk page was to make absolutely 100% certain that I did not violate my topic ban. There is no rule against me editing my own talk page. The fact that people want me punished for this says more about them than it does about me.

3) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government.

4) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

5) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

6) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student?

7) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

8) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable?

9) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars?

In every one of these cases, people want me banned so they can stop me from adding information that is critical of Obama to the article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

The less nefarious explanation is not that people are "censoring" you, it's that the content you try to add often does not conform to our policies about NPOV, undue weight, reliable sources, original research, etc, and that your editing really is problematic (hence sanctions from both the community and ArbCom in the past). You have provided no evidence whatsoever that you are being "censored", while there is clear evidence (see some of the diffs above) that at least some of the people reverting you are giving policy-based reasons for doing so. If you assume good faith you'd have to assume they are not out to get you, but rather that they genuinely believe your edits are not appropriate. As you are well aware, there have been numerous times in the past where you proposed some addition and then, upon objection from other editors, even you came to admit that adding the content was a bad idea, so there's a precedent for this "good faith" reading of objections to your edits.

Also while I've had no involvement with your editing since you've returned from your topic ban, I know you are framing some of the issues/questions above in a rather biased manner. Finally, I know part of the problem in the past is that you often simply do not get your facts straight. That is evident again in number 6 above in a rather egregious fashion. The incident in question was not statutory rape since the minor in question was at the age of consent (16 not 15, see this), and furthermore said minor has come forward and said there actually was no sexual contact at all (see again the linked article). So not only are you wrong, you are actually defaming a living person (without naming them explicitly here). Editors who attempt to put in only negative or positive information about a given subject tend to run into those kind of problems. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, when I added that info about the (since likely debunked) statutory rape, it was backed up by reliable sources. When people deleted it, no one mentioned your article as a reason to delete it. I agree that this new information may justify not including the info - now it depends on different reliable sources that contradict each other. Since this is about a living person, it's better to err on the side of caution and not include the info at this point in time. As more info becomes available, it may or may not justify putting the info back into the article. That being said, the info about his past frequent illegal drug use is true - he even admitted to it in his own autobiography. How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use? Grundle2600 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued discussion of ban

• Strong oppose block. Grundle's explanation and the discussion above makes clear that this editor is acting in good faith and seeking to have the encyclopedia abide by the core NPOV policy. Editors should be encouraged to work with him to make sure notable content is included appropriately in the appropriate articles so as to abide by our policies. The content he's discussing is certainly notable, so it's really a question of how and where to include it with the proper wording. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Having your personal history in mind you should (and probably do) know that you're not helping Grundle but again trying to start another drama-thread that is about you and not the editor in question. Could you please restrain yourself from doing so for the good of Grundle? Thanks.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong oppose for the reasons cited by CoM. 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

We sure pay attention to anonymous socks that don't have their own reasoning.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you obviously know so much about me: who's the sockmaster, Clean-keeper? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Blablabla. You're repeating yourself already (and in the wrong place).The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the people who want me blocked or banned have answered my questions, with the above exception regarding one of my two questions in point number 6. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Part of why your editing pattern is problematic is that you have a tendency to start multiple threads (and/or ask 9 questions at once) and then chastize other editors for not responding to you, which often then leads to you making certain article changes simply because no one directly told you "no." I think many editors are sick of interacting with you because you bring up the same issues over and over again and have admitted in the past that you are editing with an agenda (i.e. that you want to add "negative" material), and thus unsurprisingly they don't respond to your every point. I also know that at least some (if not all) of the issues you bring up above (twice!) have been discussed to greater or lesser degrees as you are undoubtedly aware, and thus it's unsurprising that people would be reluctant to revisit them here on ANI in a thread that is not about content but rather about your editing behavior on political articles. I think it's telling that you throw out all these content questions while saying nothing about the fact that you are (again) making ridiculously pointy and disruptive edits, engaging in slow-burning edit wars [57] [58] when you have already been specifically warned against that, and generally treating editing on political articles as though it were a battleground. You have been doing these things for at least six months by my count, and in the process you have wasted an extraordinary amount of other editors' time. Your last community topic ban was basically unanimously imposed, and with one predictable exception that seems to be happening here, which is, again, rather telling. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace - I have responded to your comment about me having an "agenda" in the "updated" section of my comments. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated statement by Grundle2600

This is addressed to everyone who wants me blocked or banned:

1) Most of the people in this discussion who are saying they want me banned are the same people who keep erasing the information that is critical of Obama that I add to articles. I think they just want to censor me from adding information that is critical of Obama to those articles.

2) The reason I made those test edits on my talk page was to make absolutely 100% certain that I did not violate my topic ban. There is no rule against me editing my own talk page. The fact that people want me punished for this says more about them than it does about me.

3) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government.

4) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

5) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

6) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

7) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

8) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable?

9) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars?

In every one of these cases, people want me banned so they can stop me from adding information that is critical of Obama to the article.

Grundle2600 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace - I didn't say that I had an "agenda." What I did say is that all editors are biased. I am biased, and so are the people who remove the info that I add to the articles. I said that I wrote in Ron Paul for President last year, and I asked if there were any editors who removed the info that I added that was critical of Obama, who were not themselves liberals, Democrats, political leftists, supporters of Obama, Hillary Clinton, Ralph Nader, etc., and no one answered. I think that every person who has been erasing the negative info that I add about Obama is on the political left, but none of them are willing to admit it. So yes, I am biased, but so are all editors. The only difference is that I am willing to admit that I am biased, and they are not. Also, wikipedia's official policy actually agrees with me on this. NPOV states, "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view)—what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired." Before I possibly get banned, I think that all editors who support my ban should be required to state which political candidate they most favored in the 2008 U.S. Presidential election. Even editors who live outside the U.S., or who are too young to vote, can still tell us which candidate they most supported, even if they were not actually able to vote in the election. This information about the political views of the editors who want me banned would expose the huge systemic bias that exists at wikipedia. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for bluntness, but it is none of your goddamn business what the political leanings are of any user is here, unless it is something they willingly choose to discuss with you. Pulling a McCarthyish witch hunt on people who hold a different opinion than your own is not a wise direction to take this. And you still have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV. Compare its "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias" with your reach-out-to-Jimbo message of "I know that NPOV requires all points of view to be included in articles." There is a world of difference between "significant" and "all", and your inability/unwillingness to get this is what is leading to this topic ban. You do have an agenda; trying to jam in fringe criticism and minority points of view into political articles. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to your characterization of what you said Grundle, but it makes no difference. Not only have you admitted that you have a bias, you admit that you intend to edit with one, and that the way articles should be built is for everyone to give free reign to their own personal biases (which, you are correct, everyone has). You've previously articulated this point here and here. Many have tried to explain to you that all editors need to edit in as NPOV of a fashion as possible, but you obviously seem to reject that, rather envisioning an article development process whereby editors put in all manner of biased material and somehow we end up with a good article in the end. That approach would be a disaster, and the fact that you still subscribe to that view is central to the entire problem here. Note that this was a point I first made to you five months ago today (see here for the complete thread which makes for instructive reading, including the 15:46, 26 May 2009 comment by Grundle which says among other things "I will never, ever, erase anything if it's well sourced, no matter how unbalanced it may be. I wish that other people here would show the same respect to me"—an attitude still in evidence here). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bigtimepeace, I said what I said, because when I see that something is unbalanced, I fix it by adding another point of view, instead of erasing the info that is already in the article. I wish other editors would do the same. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I wish you could "balance yourself", at least a little bit. That could you keep you (potentially) out of "trouble" in the long run!The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Before you possibly ban me, please answer the following questions

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the forum for that discussion. These point should be, and have been, addressed on the relevant talk pages. Grsz¹¹ 18:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Those questions have never been properly answered on the talk pages. This is the proper forum now, because if people are going to ban me over adding this info to the article, they should at least have the decency to explain why I am being banned for adding this info to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Another update - this one will prove my point

I just added brand new info to Presidency of Barack Obama about how the Justice Department will no longer prosecute people who use medical marijuana in the 13 states where it's legal. This is my #1 favorite campaign promise that Obama made, and I am very happy that he did this. Before I added the info to the article, I did not wait for any consensus, and I did not discuss it on the talk page. I just went ahead and added it to the article. Since this brand new info shows Obama in a positive light, I imagine that there will be no substantial objection to including it in the article, and that there will be consensus to remove it. This proves that you people don't have any problem with my edits when they portray Obama in a positive way, and that your attempt to ban me is just an attempt to prevent me from adding info that shows Obama in a negative way. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Making an edit just to prove your point (and admitting that's what you were doing) was a pretty terrible idea. Also the idea that mentioning the fact that refusing to prosecute folks in states that have medical marijuana laws "portrays Obama in a positive way" is rather subjective. Anyway your point was apparently not proven, since someone came along and reverted you. Maybe they were "making a point" too, but that hardly matters. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I reverted the POINTy edit but left word on the talk page saying that other editors could restore the information if they found it suitable. Note that the info is already present at Medical cannabis#United_States, so it is not new to Wikipedia. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, assuming good faith Grundle is just getting tripped up using words. WP:POINT is about disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point, and WP:POV is about edits that introduce non-neutral points of view, not what the editor was thinking at the time. But I do agree with the broader point that we should be editing in the spirit of improving the article for the reader, and not worry about how this plays into different people's issues. That's a little hard with this proposal and such a long thread here, everyone's edits are under the microscope. As I said on the article talk page the edit wasn't perfect but the subject of the administration's policy on marijuana is arguably worth inclusion. So, carry on... I really hope we can find a way to work together on this, not sit around waiting for Grundle2600 to pass a point of no return regarding consensus for a topic ban. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the surrounding context of this thread, it's about a proposal to ban Grundle2600 from US politics articles completely. That affects how POINT and AGF should be interpreted when evaluating that edit. I don't have an opinion about whether the info improves the article for the reader. If in your judgement it does, then by all means put it in. I'm not willing to make such a presumption myself. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have always added info on legalizing medical marijuana. I added info about Obama making the campaign promise. I added info about the DEA raids still going on after he had been in office for eight months. And now I added the newest info about him stopping the raids. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The long term consensus will be to include the information in the article, because it makes Obama look good. Thus, my point has been proven. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It was one of the few times you've ever added anything that was relevant, sourced, and not in violation of NPOV, undue weight, and others. That it why it stayed, not because you perceive it as "good news". Tarc (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Outside view

I've noticed that the discussion is for a topic ban, not a complete ban. I find it telling that Grundle2600 considers those equivalent. Unless your only goal here is for a single purpose, you should be able to find something to edit in the other, let's say, 2.7 million articles not on US politics. If you cannot, that's your problem in my opinion, not everybody else's. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'm not single purpose. Check out my userpage list of articles that I started, as well as my editing history. I guess my phrasing wasn't entirely accurate, but the people who know me know what I meant. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban enacted

The consensus is clear - the community has imposed a restriction along these lines:

Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. The ban will be enforced by escalating blocks.

If an uninvolved admin can formally notify Grundle2600, this can be wrapped up. Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noting that when I said uninvolved for the purposes of this, it means that the admin did not engage in a direct current conflict with the user receiving sanctions (Grundle2600) on the topic (US politics or politicians). Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Notified. Master of Puppets 08:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just to clarify in case anyone is confused, should Master of Puppet's mentorship offer be accepted by Grundle2600, this topic ban would still remain in force, at least during the beginning phases (if not in other phases also). This will allow the project to function smoothly while Master of Puppets helps develop Grundle2600's understanding to a level that, at least, further sanctions in other areas will not become necessary, and will also allow any unanswered questions to be answered. At a much later time, Master of Puppets may decide to request this sanction to be amended to give Grundle2600 limited (even temporary) access to some portion of the topic he's banned from so as to further enhance Grundle2600's understanding in practice, so that sanctions in the topic may no longer be necessary. Later, if everything works out, there may not be any issues or sanctions - but any relapses would be greeted accordingly. In any case, this is all hypothetical, and depends on how mentorship works out (if accepted). It seems we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. I am making this comment to acknowledge that I have read, and will obey, the topic ban, which includes articles, talk pages, deletion discussions, and all other subpages of articles related to U.S. politics or politicians. Grundle2600 (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For the official record, I would like to point out that even though my topic ban has been enacted, these seven questions that I asked have not been answered:

1) There was talk page consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Why should I be punished for adding that info to the article?

2) Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling.

3) Also please explain why you think citing Obama's actions against offshore drilling, without simultaneously citing his actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

4) How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use?

5) If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent?

6) How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable to the section on Obama's economic policy?

7) How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party, not relevant to the section on those czars?

Grundle2600 (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Various IPs are blanking user talk pages and replaceing them with "YOU ACTUALLY THINK I SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR RETALIATING AGAINST WIKIPEDIA'S LIBEL AND HARASSMENT? YOU TRULY ARE A BRAINWASHED IGNORAMUS.".

• 141.209.57.67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 69.156.98.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 206.116.6.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 198.189.57.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 141.151.201.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.229.2.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Similar vandalism also by 98.168.193.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

One talk page has been semi-protected by another admin, I've asked Fred Bauer if he wishes to have his semi-protected. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I posted the above, further IP vandalism has occurred to DarkFalls talk page. Not sure what is going on, but it seems to fail WP:NPA at the least. Mjroots (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just grawp having his daily fun. Wikipedia:Long term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis —Dark 09:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Jarl tends to target not articles, but users. Just say the three magic words, though, and he'll scram. (You may only need one, but make sure I'm not on the page as well.) -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 09:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged all the IPs as suspected socks. Also semi-protected DarkFalls talk page as I feel that the vandalism is now excessive. Mjroots (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now DarkFalls unprotected the talk page, but it's his decision to do that as "the idiot might decide to vandalize the mainspace instead". He "would prefer to keep the theatrics in one page, and on a page where it does not cause much damage". Quotes from my talk page.  Merlion  444  10:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, how best to deal with this then? An immediate 1 week block for all IPs who perform such vandalism? Mjroots (talk) 10:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Copied from my talk page Mjroots (talk) Commenting here because ANI is protected: you should know that you are apparently dealing with a bunch of 4chan idiots [59], i.e. there is more than one vandal. I don't know what to suggest doing about it other than letting the recent change patrol know what's up, so they can make sure to revert it all. I don't know who "Dark" is. Maybe it's worth finding out, maybe not. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 10:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

69.228, "Dark" is User:Darkfalls. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Channers? Semi all associated articles; don't bother tracing the IPs because they're all one-offs. Wait until they get bored, and then unprot. One thing /b/ is not known for is a long attention span. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Another thing /b/ers are not known for is intelligence. I advocate harsher sanctions, such as directly contacting the IP address owner, and telling them that their client is getting out of hand. /b/ers enjoy vandalism, and won't go away with anything short of being forced to.   Nezzadar ☎   05:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Childish kids with nothing better to do than vandalise. I do believe Grawp is behind all this, but yeah, I couldn't really care less what some kids from 4chan has to say about me. I get my share of death threats, and laugh about them. —Dark 06:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I can, if you want, make a phone call to a friend of mine in the Secret Service and have the IP investigated. The Special Task Force on Computer Crimes takes death threats very seriously, (considering that they are feds, they take everything seriously.) You want?   Nezzadar ☎   17:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please make this stop.

PennySeven (talk · contribs · count) has just has just left this long series of messages on my talk page. They are, in my opinion, personal attacks, eg. 'Have you lost your head or what?', 'Whats wrong with you', 'You deserve to be banned from Wikipedia'. I would like someone to talk to him and ask him to stop.

What started this all was this message that I left on his talk page, where I informed him that I was planning on reverting his changes to Inflation, and why I was going to do so. I left this message as Pennyseven has a history of pushing those exact same edits on the Inflation article, but I had hoped that he had stopped. He transferred my message and his reply to the Inflation talk page and then left a long complaint there about me.

I left this reply on the Inflation talk page, and then removed his recent additions to the Inflation article.

PennySeven then left this series of messages on my talk page. I left him a short reply on my talk page, thanking him for his message.

He then went on the article talk page, and left another long series of complaints, with my name featured prominently in the section headings (against guidelines I believe), accusing me of various wrong doings.

I did not reply to his talk page posts, as I did not want to further provoke him in any way, and hoped that he would stop by himself. But I did leave a Wikiquette alert , asking for someone to please talk to him and ask him to stop putting such posts on the talk page.

Since then, even though I have not replied to him at all, he left again this series and then this series of posts on the talk page of Inflation. This is what the talk page looks like now.

Which brings us to the present series of posts on my talk page. (I may have left out some other posts made by Pennyseven, he's so prolific, I can't be sure.) As far as I can tell, I have not in any way provoked this last few series of posts. I'm not sure if this is just his personality, or if he's losing it, or if this is calculated to scare me away, or calculated to scare anyone from contradicting him in the future – at this point, I don't care. I would just like him to stop.

I hope someone will take appropriate action. Thank you, --LK (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Does seem a bit over the top.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

deleted content discussion pasted from Talk:Inflation

And this has to do with the current discussion how...?Abce2|This isnot a test 16:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word erode to destroy in the article. No-one disagreed. I changed it. PennySeven (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)~

Yes, but this is about your behavoir.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I also added new content to the article. No-one disagreed.

Now, weeks later LK disagree with changing erode to destroy. He told me right from the start that he bans me from changing it. He stated he will take any disagreement from me as edit warring - right from the first disagreement. That will be edit warring - that is what he stated. PennySeven (talk) 16:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of your content disputes with LK, spamming him with dozens of one-line posts on his talk and on the inflation talk page is _not_ acceptable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting my example instead of telling me how to put the link.

Yes this is about behaviour: LK´s behaviour in telling me from the first moment that he will not take any disagreement or discussion from me. He will regard it as edit warring. That is his behaviour. He also threatened me that he will take this to higher authorities if I disagree. Then he deleted all my current contributions - even examples I added to his examples.

Do you agree that I should start this discussion with you stating that if you disagree with me I will regard it as edit warring immediately and take it to higher authorities? Is that what I suppose to do? Follow LK´s example? PennySeven (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fine, that was wrong. I admit. Do you agree that it was wrong for LK to state that I am not allowed to disagree with him? More exactly, do you agree that he can state from the beginning that ANY disagreement, right the first disagreement - one sentence - will be regarded as edit warrring and will lead to further disciplinary actions? One sentence is edit warrring? Are we allowed to tell other editors what LK told me? Do you agree with his opening statement to me?PennySeven (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

PennySeven found LK's message rude. That's understandable. But the spamming of LK's talk page and the Inflation talk page was a completely disproportionate response. Under normal circumstances, of course PennySeven would be able to discuss disagreement on substance on the talk page, but this hasn't been helpful. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, yes, I do agree with his opening statement. His exact words were:

I've just noticed what you have been doing on the Inflation page this last few weeks. I'm here to inform you first, but it's my intention to change back many of the things you have changed. You should know that many of the revisions you've made :

1. Are against consensus. Many editors have reverted similar edits by you before.
2. Violates neutral wording, which is a basic policy for Wikipedia.
3. Is not consistent with proper weight - it overemphasizes issues not mentioned in a standard textbook presentation on inflation.

I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this. The outcome eventually will not be much different, but it will cause much wikidrama if I have to call in the members of Wikiproject Economics to review the article.

So, since you're claiming he said things he didn't actually say, I'm going to have to ask you to stop this discussion right now and focus on content, not editors. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the response was disproportional. I did that in response to the disproportional removal of all my subsequent contributions to the Inflation article after he changed destroy back to erode. His actions in deleting additions that were previously discussed, changed and correcte and then finally added to the article, just because I was that one who added them, was disproportional and had nothing to do with the discussion about erode or destroy.PennySeven (talk) 16:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should re-read what Sarek said.Abce2|This isnot a test 16:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this." So, it is abundantly evident, fact, clear and logical that I was going to edit war with LK? Please explain that deduction to me especially with reference to the fact that I have not changed one of his reverts in the article. PennySeven (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so he must be wrong because he said that. What does this have to do with it? Abce2|This isnot a test 17:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

*reads Special:Contributions/PennySeven* Um, yes, actually, given your past contributions, it wasn't an unreasonable assumption.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

His wanton vandalizing the rest of my contributions to the article which had nothing to do with erode and destroy was the main reason for my disproportional response on his talk page and on the inflation talk page. You all ignore this very important fact. If he had simple changed destroy back to erode I would not have responded as I did. When he deleted an extra example to the item cars to which I added inventory I realized he was not editing in good faith. He removed quotes that were corrected and edited by Arthur Ruben, etc. You ignore that. I responded as I did because he deleted everything I contributed - not just destroy in place of erode.PennySeven (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, re-read what Serak said. Your contributions were not nuetral, against consensus, and others. Abce2|This isnot a test 17:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

...and PennySeven, there is never, ever any valid reason to react the way you did towards any editor whatsoever. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What is not neutral about inventory being the same type of economic item as cars? Who disagrees that inventory is a non-monetary item like a car? Do you disagree that both cars and inventories are non-monetary items?PennySeven (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place to discuss the content itself. Even though you may not agree, please realize that other editors view things differently (see this), and, though it may be admittedly hard to accept their views sometimes, you must respect them all the same. There's no reason to slander LK and call him a vandal, in any case. I'm sure LK doesn't have anything personal against you; you're welcome to take this up with him, but please be sure to maintain a civil manner. Master of Puppets 17:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. So, what do you do when LK not just reverts the word destroy 3 or 4 times back to the word erode, but in the same token deletes other statements agreed by other editors besides me as well as deletes two full paragraphs in the article with about 10 lines of script - especially when he has already taken it for granted that I am going to edit war with him : I'm going to ask that you do not edit war with me on this."?

Beside changing the word destroy back to erode LK at the same time deleted all this:

deleted content pasted from Inflation

"Accountants choose to implement the stable measuring unit assumption during low inflation when they value constant items in fixed nominal monetary units. Accountants´ choice of implementing the stable measuring unit assumption instead of measuring constant items´ real values in units of constant purchasing power results in the real values of these fixed constant real value non-monetary items being destroyed at a rate equal to the rate of inflation when they are never maintained during low inflation because inflation destroys the real value of money which is the monetary measuring unit of account. Constant items are treated like monetary items when their real values are never maintained as a result of the implementation of the stable measuring unit assumption as part of the traditional Historical cost accounting model. “The Measuring Unit principle: The unit of measure in accounting shall be the base money unit of the most relevant currency. This principle also assumes the unit of measure is stable; that is, changes in its general purchasing power are not considered sufficiently important to require adjustments to the basic financial statements.” The extremely rapid destruction of the real value of the monetary unit of account is compensated for during hyperinflation by the rejection of the stable measuring unit assumption in International Accounting Standard IAS 29 Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies. IAS 29, which has to be implemented during hyperinflation, requires all non-monetary items (variable items and constant items) to be measured in units of constant purchasing power."

You say I must just quietly accept that and accept that I cannot disagree with him since it will be called edit warring?PennySeven (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Don´t you think removing all the above is vandalism?PennySeven (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is not the forum to discuss the content being disputed. However, you could have disagreed by discussing it with him. Edit warring is different from discussion. Master of Puppets 17:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)No, we don't. Pasting it here, on the other hand, is disruptive, and since I warned you previously about continuing to disrupt the encyclopedia, you have been blocked. Since your block log shows a previous 2-day block, and immediately afterward, you continued edit warring and accusing editors of off-wiki collaboration, this block is for one week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And PennySeven, would you learn how to use quotation marks? When you wrote above "I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word erode to destroy in the article", I was baffled for a few minutes (how the heck can one "change a word erode"? & what is a "word erode"?) until I realized you meant to write "I proposed on the Inflation talk page to change the word 'erode' to 'destroy' in the article." -- llywrch (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

llywrch, its not really necessary to belittle him on his grammatical skills. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 17:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, it wasn't my intent to belittle anyone; my comments were offered in good faith. I actually suffered a comprehension breakdown when I read that sentence, which could have been avoided with a bit of punctuation. I can't fathom why anyone wouldn't use quotation marks in that context -- especially when their absence makes the writer look like a kook. (Maybe this was another instance where I should not have clicked on the "Save page" button...) -- llywrch (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Llywrch seemed to be belittling PennySeven on the basis of his punctuation skills, not his grammatical skills ... though both could use a bit of work. :-) 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Completely uninvolved observer checking in. Was a block warranted in this case, as it seems to be an editor simply trying to plead his/her case? Perhaps redirecting the discussion was needed, but there did not seem to be anything other than WP:PUSH and a bit of tendentious editing at play. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Several editors, me included, tried to redirect it. Not only did they continue to argue content in a behavior discussion, they posted several paragraphs of removed content here after I had already removed an earlier posting of several paragraphs of content discussion. The combination of missing the point and flooding ANI with irrelevant content was what caused me to do a preventative block, and the history of similar behavior was what determined the length. I'm open to further discussion if you still think there's a problem here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Might be missing something here? the "they", especially? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

That's the singular "they" -- I try not to use "he" unless I'm sure it's correct. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My "take" is that this was a content issue and should probably have been left on the discussion page of the affected article or at most on the associated editors' talk pages. Bringing it here to ANI appeared excessive as the remedies could have been applied at an earlier stage. I know that a tedious, and drawn out defence was involved but was the editor in question skirting into the areas of civility? disruption (of the original article)? vandalism? If these issues were not the deciding factors, then a good dose of "ignore" may have been appropriate, rather than playing "wap a mole". (FWiW, last statement entirely facetious, LOL.) Bzuk (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a content issue, but much of this is about a problem that has arisen with this editor before - a tendency to misinterpret and arguably overreact to comments. Lawrencekhoo wasn't assuming the best of faith, but the two editors have butted heads on that article before, so perhaps this is understandable. However, PennySeven then misinterpreted what was said by Lawrencekhoo, and entered into what was verging on harassment of the other editor. Indeed, I was about to warn PennySeven of the potential for harassment when it was brought here, having noticed similar responses to criticism from other editors. Given that there were constant posts by PennySeven attacking LK for over 24 hours, outside intervention may have been necessary. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good enough, I probably didn't sense the frustrations that were involved as it matured into a full flap. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC).

Reversions at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization)

Resolved

 – I have received the advice requested. Dpmuk (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm posting this here rather than the edit warring noticeboard as it's a wider issue also concerning an RfC. Following this RfC I made this change. As the RfC had been stale for a week I closed it and made the change proposed despite it only being agreed by one other editor as both of us agreed it was a fair representation of the wider consensus (where there had been several comments). User:Francis Schonken has now reverted my edit, originally it would appear because it contradicted Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) despite both being guidelines and neither having primacy. I pointed them at the RfC and they have now said they don't think it's a fair reading of consensus. I both opened and closed the RfC (as no one else was coming along to do so) and so am afraid of a conflict of interest despite closing against my preferred option. Both of us are now close to the three revert rule so would appreciate someone else to take a look at the whole situation. Dpmuk (talk) 17:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please take a look at this - it could really do with an admin looking it over. I'm trying to avoid an edit war here. I sometimes wonder if the only way to get admin attention is to actually do something wrong. Help in trying to avoid problems seems rarely to be forthcoming. This isn't a go at any individual admin as I realise they're all volunteers who have other things to be doing but more a comment that the system seems to be failing in this regard. Dpmuk (talk) 10:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a content dispute; you don't need an administrator action here, you need both parties to back off and outside opinions on what the consensus of the RfC was. WP:30 is well-staffed, so I suggest that a posting there would be a good way forward. See also dispute resolution. Sincerely,  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree it's a "content" dispute what I think is at issue here is the process not the dispute itself - and this is what I'd like some admin comment on. An RfC was held, comments received and a consensus reached. Yes the consensus for the exact wording was small but it was left open for a week without any further comment before the RfC was closed - discussion have to be closed at some point, we can't wait for ever for more comments. At this point, in my opinion, the version with the change agreed at the RfC becomes the 'stable' version. If an editor then disagrees with this new 'stable' version it's perfectly in their right to start another discussion about changing it but the 'stable' version should remain until consensus is reached to change it. As an analogy we don't allow editors to recreate an article deleted at an AfD just because they disagree with the consensus (such article would be G4'ed), we have DRV for discussing the issue. Without respecting previous decisions reached until consensus is reached to change them wikipedia would fall apart. I have no issue with discussing the issue further but I think it's a dangerous precedent to let the version from before the RfC stand just because someone disagrees with how it was closed - what happens if they hadn't come along to a month or a year later? Additionally attempts to find out to have a discussion about why they disagree on what the consensus was have so far not met with success with them just saying they disagree with no reason. Given User:Francis Schonken's irregular editing habits discussion could take some time and until such time as we agree on a way forward what version should remain? This is a clear process issue and not a "content" dispute. I don't want to get blocked for reverting to what I think is the "stable" version so want admin opinion on this issue. I am then quite willing to discuss the issue. Dpmuk (talk) 14:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

And yes I am aware that this probably isn't quite the right forum but there isn't an admin assistance forum. At the moment there is currently no place to ask for an admin opinion so it ended it up here. Yes there's places like WP:EA but, IMO, editors there may not be best placed to answer questions like "would this got me blocked" as they probably don't have experience of blocking. I think there should definitely be a location to raise issues that look like they're heading towards needing admin action (e.g. blocking) before they actually do and this forums obviously mainly needs admin replies as they'd be the ones that actually would use the tools if it reached that stage - this would hopefully avoid the need for some admin actions. Dpmuk (talk) 15:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the page needs to be protected, and perhaps one or more of those involved in the editing dispute ought to be blocked, but I do not think so, and I don't see what other administrator actions are needed at this point. I'm not going to criticise your choice of venue under the circumstances, but one does not need to be an admin to close an RfC, to give good advice or to judge consensus – such a situation would be a deplorable move to a hierarchical system. I think you are more likely to get input from knoweldgeable experienced editors by asking the members of the Manual of Style WikiProject that the battlegrounders who frequent this board. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  15:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I realise that - I closed the RfC having, I thought at the time, gauged consensus correctly (the only other editor who commented agreed with me). My question is that if I revert back to the version agreed upon at RfC, the version I think is the "stable version" and I reported to the edit warring board am I likely to get in trouble for my actions (either by being admonished or blocked) and as such action would be done by an admin it seems reasonable to seek an admin view before it happened. If I am in the wrong and it would be considered edit warring then I'd like to know this so I don't make the change (although as I say if this is the case I have serious concerns about how wikipedia operates - so much so that I'd probably start an RfC on the RfC process).

I also realise that my edits, in particular this one, may not look the best. In hindsight I am possibly shouldn't have made it but the other users reverted my revert so quickly I hadn't even had time to explain my actions on their talk page so I redid it as they obviously couldn't have understood my reasoning. Also with hindsight I should have said in my first edit summary that I was going to leave them a message. Once it became clear that they disagreed with me even after being aware of the RfC I didn't revert again and brought it here to see if it would be considered edit warring if I continued to revert back to what, in my opinion, is the stable version. Dpmuk (talk) 15:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware that admin's aren't superusers and are button pushers, but they have to decide when to push the button and so they seem the most logical people to ask when it comes to finding out exactly when that button will be pressed in cases which aren't clear cut. Dpmuk (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I would not be inclined to block anyone at this point, or to protect the page, as you seem to realise that reverting is not going to move the matter forward. One of the ideas behind WP:3RR is it removes the warriors from the article – one way or another – so that decisions are left to uninvolved editors. To be crystal clear: If you revert back, I think you would be justly blocked; that is my advice as an administrator. I re-iterate, it would be best if you refrained from editing the page and instead find outsiders who know enough and are impartial enough to make the call. A neutrally worded request at WP:VPP/WP:VPR might do the trick. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making that clear. Personally I disagree due the points I raise above and the fact that leaving it as it is, in my opinion, effectively makes the RfC pointless (and by extension, in my opinion, nearly all RfCs) - I can see how others will disagree with that view however. That said I'll have to accept that's how admin's may interpret another revert and will raise this issue at the forum you mentioned. As for the wider point about RfC and indeed all such discussion (for example requested moves) I think we need a wider policy on what people should do if they disagree with a closure, something similar to WP:DRV maybe Wikipedia:Disputed closures and a clear guideline that the closure should stand until the new discussion is finished. However I accept that's a separate issue and will think about raising it separately - possibly as another RfC. Dpmuk (talk) 16:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Mcjakeqcool Third time's a charm

See previous discussions at:

• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:Mcjakeqcool
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#McJakeqcool_-_back_again

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

tl;dr version, he was blocked in July for disruptive editing for ignoring other editors and carrying on with "'his'" project. In september it was the same issue again, but this time he promised that "I am prepared to take both advice and guidance from fellow wikipedians and I will both take notice of & execute directions given to me from fellow wikipedians".

Yet, we now have him fighting tooth and nail to mark every single edit that is not in article space as minor, even with multiple users telling him this is inappropriate. He has notes on his talk page back over 1 year old telling him not to mark non-minor edits as minor.[60] He was reminded again in April [61] and I warned him again most recently because I didn't see the previous 2 warnings on his long talk page.[62] In addition to those 3 warnings, Elen of Roads has stepped in and tried to explain it to him. So in the face of 4 editors telling him not to do that, he has a serious case yet again of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Even after having this explained and linked multiple times, he incorrectly states on my talk page that all edits to talk pages are minor edits [63] which he also states at another talk page [64]. He then claims that "other truly minor edits" means any edit to a talk page [65]. It was then spelled out to him in bold with an arrow by Elen of Roads [66], yet Mcjakeqcool continues to make these edits (you can see his contrib history). I told him to stop editing disruptively or we'd come back here for a third go, and he persisted. He told Trey geek that he wasn't a threat to wikipedia[67] yet refuses to listen to other editors and does whatever he wants. On my talk page he proclaimed: I will take WHAT EVER MEANS POSSIBLE to abolish talk page comments as non-minor edits [68] and then opened this discussion [69] at Help talk:Minor edit. To me this is an extension of his previous behaviour. He will occasionally make compromises but the rest of the time Mcjakeqcool is going to do whatever he wants and disregard the policies, guidelines and community and even expect the community to change those policies and guidelines to fit him. He has created vast amounts of work for other editors with his unwillingness to listen to other editors and follow those policies and guidelines. The user is disruptive, and I'd consider the edits made after the multiple warnings from several users to be a little WP:POINTY, and he doesn't seem to give any indication that he intends to start actually working with the community anytime soon.--Crossmr (talk) 00:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm. After reading the last ANI thread and skimming the first, it seems that this editor is intent on being disruptive. It's one thing to propose policy/norm change, it's another to cram it down our throats for months on end. Past history - and his stated intention - shows another warning has little chance of preventing further disruption. I settled on a one week block; I'm open to arguments against (either longer or shorter, or no block at all). Tan | 39 01:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure a one week block will be effective. Mcjakeqcool was blocked for 31 hours during the first ANI discussion with no change in their actions. The second discussion ended with Mcjakeqcool claiming to be willing to work with other editors and make appropriate contributions to Wikipedia; that has not happened. I'd also like to point out the recent discussion at Talk:PlayStation_3#New_PS3_logo_means_new_PS3_casing where Mcjakeqcool is argumentative on what constitutes WP:OR. At the moment, in my opinion, it appears Mcjakeqcool has no intentions to constructively add to Wikipedia. Based on their history, I have doubts Mcjakeqcool will ever do so. --TreyGeek (talk) 02:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree wtih Trey. It has been one battle after another to get him to even do something that resembles good work, and even then he insists on pushing it on just about every single issue. I didn't see the PS3 discussion before.. that is just further evidence that I don't think a week or even a month would change his behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 02:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Indef-block isn't a permaban, it just means we're tired of dealing with what looks hopeless from our perspective and that the ball is now firmly in bannee's court to make the move towards regaining edit privileges and convince us he deserves it. Bring on da hammer. DMacks (talk) 02:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm frustrated by his cluelessness, to be honest. Let's stick with Tan's one-week block for now. If, after that block, there's no signs of improvement still, then indef may well be warranted. Tim Song (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't here to take part- I was getting that old fashioned thing called "a good night's sleep". I think McJ made a mistake at one point by marking a talk page comment as a minor edit, but finds it impossibly hard to admit mistakes, so he's turned it into a campaign. If you notice, he never actually takes any advice. He uses English in a really idiosyncratic way (eg describing his edits as "a commercial success" and then coming up with a really strange definition of the term User_talk:Mcjakeqcool#Use_of_English) and he often responds to comments in the running commentary at the top of his user page, rather than reply directly. I don't want to speculate on the reason for this, but to me it suggests that our remarks to him may not be being processed in the way we expect. In which case, while the 1 week block is appreciated, it is not likely to make much difference, as he may come up with some explanation for it that is not what we intended. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why does this sound so familiar? Oh yeah. I admit this sounds elitist, but some people just don't have what it takes to productively contribute to Wikipedia. Despite demonstrated good faith & the best of intentions, while their edits technically aren't vandalism, they are nonsensical & require other editors (who could be doing more important things) to spend their limited time dealing with their edits. Either Mcjakeqcool agrees & cooperates with mentoring so he can more effectively edit/contribute to Wikipedia -- or we ban him. -- llywrch (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the former happening. He's already rejected such an offer before he got blocked the first time. MuZemike 23:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring this up on Wikipedia, but I emailed Tan, and Elen is already aware of this, if you google McJakeqcool's name you'll find similar behaviour, language and results all over the internet. This guy's behaviour isn't limited to just wikipedia. As far as I can tell he was banned/got in trouble over at gamespot for awhile for ignoring the rules over there. While it is off-wiki, I'd say his behaviour here is consistent with the behaviour elsewhere which has been going on for a long time. I can't see anything we do changing that at all.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Crossmr, can you email me the material? I'm an Admin too. -- llywrch (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sent.. plus a time stamp so this doesn't get archived if we're still discussing it.--Crossmr (talk) 08:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sockpuppet of Jeff V. Merkey - coi, harassment

Resolved

 – 48 hour block for conduct on an Arbcom page

Current ip

• 166.70.238.46 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Previous accounts

• Jvmphoto (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

See Wikipedia:Administrators_noticeboard/Incidents#Jeff_V._Merkey and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Jvmphoto.

Obvious sockpuppet of these two indefinitely blocked accounts. Harassing others and using Wikipedia as a battleground [70] [71] [72] . Jumping into the article on himself in violation of WP:COI [73]. Since this ip has not been used by anyone else, I see no reason not to block it. --Ronz (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no arbcom ban anymore. BLP allows the subject of a bio to provide input and correct erroneous information. Nor has there been harassment of anyone. A complaint filed at the BLP noticeboard cannot be construed as such or such a venue would not exist. Any "battleground" was created by a variety of single purpose accounts, of which User:Ronz may in fact be one of them given his sudden interest in the subject of this bio for all this person knows. 166.70.238.46 (talk) 03:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You are community-banned for attempting to harass another user in the real world. Community bans have as much force behind them as Arbitration Committee bans, and are equally as enforceable, especially in this instance. To suggest otherwise is laughable. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 06:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked by an Arbcom clerk for misconduct on an Arbcom page. Block was unrelated to this thread. Manning (talk) 04:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Rjanag

I recommend that Rjanag (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) be disciplined for grossly uncivil behavior towards User:Epeefleche. I have no connection to either editor personally, but I simply must protest Rjanag's shocking behavior at the The Shells (folk band) AfD.

By way of orientation, Rjanag initiated the first AfD for The Shells, appealed the keep decision at this DRV and then relisted it 15 days later. This was quick but within his rights; the unacceptable part was his ensuing conduct towards Epeefleche, the article's main defender. Rjanag's words constantly dripped sarcasm [74] [75] as he labeled Epeefleche "Mr. Truth" [76], questioned his adulthood [77] and insulted his intelligence [78] [79]. These attacks occured not on talk pages (though Epeefleeche nobly tried to direct them there to save the AfD drama [80] [81]), but in the middle of AfD debates, and even when Rjanag followed Epeefleche to the talk pages of third parties[82].

Epefleeche pointed out Rjanag's behavior [83] [84] [85] and asked him to refrain multiple times [86] [87] [88] to no avail. I noticed the incivility, as did User:Kiac [89], User:HWV258 [90] User:Tony1 [91] and User:Greg_L on several occasions [92] [93]. When User:HWV258 observed things might have become personal for Rjanag [94][95] [96], Rjanag spit bile his way as well [97] [98].

Doubtless Rjanag has done much good in his prolific career. But this behavior goes beyond a little wikettiquette breach. It is unacceptable in any editor, no less an administrator. Gross incivility like this is poison to the Wikipedia project and demoralizes [99] valuable, content-heavy editors like Epeefleche (edit profile). Rjanag did not abuse his admin powers per se, so I do not believe they should be revoked. But he should be sternly reprimanded at the least, and perhaps blocked for some time to cool his head. - Draeco (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The blocking policy states that cool-down blocks should not be used, as they tend to have the opposite effect. And I would say that Rjanag's behaviour — while definitely not very polite — is nowhere near disruptive enough to justify any sort of block, at least not in my view. I've seen many other editors get away with being far less civil than that. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

After Epeefleche asked Rjanag to stop conduct which he did not want, Rjanag should have respected that request and stayed away from Epeefleche's talk page. If there were issues with Epeefleche's conduct (not saying that there were in this case such as sockpuppetry) there are alternative venues (like this one) to raise them. Mjroots (talk) 07:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Comment amended upon further investigation Mjroots (talk)

Frankly, there are a lot of editors that don't come out of that AfD looking particularly good. However, as Mjroots Master&Expert says, we don't use cooldown blocks - there's nothing that we need to prevent by blocking anyone at the moment. Black Kite 07:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• No admin participating in that AfD exhibited anything approaching Rjanang's misconduct—which went far beyond incivility, as detailed below. As WP:ADMIN states, where as here a dispute reflects seriously on an admin's administrative capacity because of gross and persistent misjudgment or conduct issues, the matter may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Our rules can be interpreted in many ways, however there's no denying that Rjanag's attitude to dealing with other Wikipedians is too one-eyed, abrupt, and condescending. Attitudes such as his will lead to editors giving up in disgust. I've dealt with many editors, and many situations and know that there is no reason for the behaviour (as described above) that I witnessed. It does WP a great disservice to proffer someone with such behavioural issues as an administrator. Looking at the number of articles he's deleted, and the number of users he's blocked reminds me of the old saying: "the only people who should have power, are those that don't want it". The fact that behavioural problems are combined with power is more than doubly worrying in this case.  HWV258  09:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, given your spectacularly unhelpful contributions to both AFDs, I'd suggest that it would be better for someone uninvolved to be pushing that agenda. Black Kite 11:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what his number of blockings or deletions have to do with this case. For example, an admin who is active at WP:AIV may have a massive block count, but that does not mean he's going about the place blocking every newbie he sees. Let's keep the discussion focused on this instead of dragging up other unrelated things shall we? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• IMHO the quality (in Black Kite's view; sharply worded) of the substantive worth of HWV258's AfD contributions is an irrelevant diversion. I would suggest that we, and especially admins, should encourage HWV258 to express himself, rather than suggest that he not contribute to this discussion. And HWV258's comments here as to the role of an admin, and the importance of admin misconduct and its impact on other editors, is very much on-point and is reflected in WP:ADMIN.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• FWIW, Rjanag was properly notified, but doesn't usually come online until another few hours from now. DGG ( talk ) 16:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see an effort to discuss the concerns with Rjanag on his talk page. A collegial note from a third party can go a long way in resolving disputes without the need for public flogging/ humiliation or brute force (admin tool use). :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

His talk page? Multiple editors told Rjanag multiple times at the two AfDs that his behavior in that matter was absolutely abhorrent and amounted to nothing more than a personal vendetta against Epeefleeche so Rjanag could get his “win” in that matter. The message wasn’t going to suddenly sink in because it was conveyed to him on his talk page rather than the AfDs. What was exceedingly clear is that anyone who opposed Rjanag on that matter was the instant recipient of his special style of personal love. He should simply be striped of his admin privileges (yes, it’s a privilege afforded by the community with the consent of the community) and if he wants to be an admin again, he can throw his hat in the ring and look for supporting votes. We all know what the outcome of that would be given this several-week-long display out of the guy. There were plenty of reasonable-minded editors dealing with Rjanag on the AfDs and they all can discern the difference between a fair-minded admin properly carrying out his admin duties in order to make Wikipedia a better product, and that of a rogue admin who has no business in the world having those powers because he inflames things everywhere he goes. Greg L (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We are talking about an incivility issue here, and I don't see any accusation of abusing the admin tools. An admin is "just an editor who has some extra tools" and the same policies and guidelines that apply to every other editor applies to them as well. No special standards are applied to admins whether they do something well or they mess up. Unless we are now regarding admins as some higher level of editors, I see the suggestion to remove Rjanag's admin tools only as a punitive measure (which is not something we do here) that is totally unrelated to this matter. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• As detailed below, this is far more than an incivility issue (though persistent incivility in the face of requests to stop is part of it). As WP:ADMIN indicates, persistent conduct issues may reflect seriously on an admin's administrative capacity, and the matter can lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• I’ve edited at Wikipedia over 3 years, have 22,000 edits, and created 180 pages. I’ve never seen an admin engage in such consistently abhorrent behavior in the face of repeated entreaties to stop. It disgraces the position of admin, and poisons Wikipedia.

As detailed above and below, Rjanag—an admin—has been seriously and repeatedly disrespectful and uncivil, and engaged in persistent misstatements and mischaracterizations (always one-way), edit warring, and wikihounding in an apparent effort to game the system and/or make editing by me and others unpleasant. Despite repeated requests by me and others that he stop. I find this especially troubling, as his statements are presumably given greater weight by many due to his admin status. His pattern of behavior has been disruptive. His close relationship with the closing admin, as detailed below in the section entitled "Highly disconcerting: relationship between Rjanag and closing admin", raises highly disturbing questions. I personally find it demoralizing. I've tried addressing it with him directly many times. To no avail.

WP:ADMIN/Request for Arbitration. As his actions reflect quite poorly on Wikipedia and its admins, I concur that he should be sanctioned or have his access removed. As this reflects seriously on Rjanag's capacity as an admin and may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, a restriction, or a formal warning related to his adminship, I suggest to Draeco that as WP:ADMIN permits this discussion be moved to "A Request for Arbitration".

The applicable portion of WP:ADMIN states:

"Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others.... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators ... should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors...[1][2][3][4] ...Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ...Repeated/consistent poor judgment ...Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring ...) ..."Bad faith" adminship (... gross breach of trust) ...Conduct elsewhere incompatible with adminship.... If the dispute reflects seriously on a user's administrative capacity (... gross or persistent misjudgement or conduct issues), then two other steps are also available: ...A Request for Arbitration if the matter may be serious enough to lead to summary removal, or a restriction or formal warning related to adminship."

Untruths. Rjanag’s comments are replete with untruths. Always one-sided. Such as:

1. “all I see is three sentences in Seventeen”.[100] (emphasis added). False.
2. “I never misrepresented the length of the 17 article”.[101] False. See above.
3. “The "Best Breakout New York Band" thing was not a competition they were involved in”.[102] False.
4. ”the "Best Breakout NYC Artist Award” … was never broadcast on national TV”.[103] False.
5. ”the "Best Breakout NYC Artist Award" … an AfD determined it was not notable”.[104] False. See here and here.
6. ” We're not really "arguing over whether the award is major"; it was already decided at AfD that it wasn't.”[105] False. See above.
7. ” The first AfD for this page was disrupted by repeated ranting”.[106] False—no evidence supports that.
8. ”the last AfD was closed as 'no consensus' (due mainly to the disruption)” .[107] False-–see here and here
9. ” After the last AfD was closed … I waited about a month”.[108] False—Actually, only 15 days.
10. ” The Examiner article you link … says nothing more than "they played at this thing" (and they're in the middle of a long list of other non-notable bands).”[109] False—it says more than that, and there were only 3 other bands. See here and here.
11. With the edit summary “not MTV”—“They were nominated for a little award that is only tangentially connected to MTV”.[110] False. See this and this and related discussion.
12. “Epeefleche's [comment] below) says nothing useful about this article and only focuses on trying to tear down people you consider 'deletionists'.”[111] False.
13. ” "First Place Prize Winner" is just made-up fancy language”.[112] False—it is the official MTV language in MTV's Official Rules Section 14(a).
14. “no one has expressed an [sic] opposition here" to the proposal that the Written Roads album page be merged.[113] False.
15. “MTV rubber-stamped it with their name but was not necessarily very interested in it.”[114] False

Incivility. As to his uncivil speech/personal attacks, the following are ones I found most innappropriate:

1. calling me an “idiot”;
2. saying (in the alternative) that I “lack the faculties” to understand his messages;
3. to me: “Apparently you can't read.”
4. to me: “learn how to read”.
5. to me: “Apparently you may not be great in thinking”
6. edit summary re me: "pathetic"
7. calling an editor’s comments “inane”.
8. writing: “this is … a crappy article”.

As I don’t have access to the deleted articles at this point, I can’t check their edit summaries for further examples.

Wikihounding & Bullying. In wikihounding me, he even followed me to other editors’ talk pages. As in this instance, in which in his edit summary attacking me he wrote “pathetic”. He then sought to chill my effort to reflect notability of the article. That prompted the editor whose talk page he had followed me to (Kiac; who in fact voted for deletion, along with Rjanag) to chastise Rjanag for doing so ("It's a tad sad that you follow someone around an entire website trying to get a single article deleted").

When I posted a question at an RfA, he wikihounded me to the entry and then (with a “wtf” edit summary) sought on my talk page to bully me into not asking questions at the RfA, writing: “Are you going to go disrupting other people's AfDs and making POINTs just because you have a personal bone to pick with me?”[115] And then in another comment accusing me of “disrupting Kww's RfA”.[116]

He even recently butted into comments that Greg L was leaving on my talk page, trying to bully him into not giving me advice: “You have already given Epeefleche inaccurate "advice" before; perhaps you should reconsider continuing.”[117]

By singling me out and joining discussions on pages or topics I edited or debates where I contributed, he disrupted my enjoyment of editing. His following me around was accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, and other disruptive behavior. It was classic wikihounding.

Bad faith & Bullying. An example of Rjanag's bad faith and his bullying is his treatment of the Seventeen article.

1. As mentioned, in the first AfD on Sept. 13 he untruthfully wrote “all I see is three sentences in Seventeen”.[118] (emphasis added).
2. When I reflected the true size and content of the article by quoting it, Rjanag sought to bully me and embarass me, writing (responding to that and the rest of what I wrote): "Way too long." Another editor then intervened and responded to him: "Nonsense. WP:TLDR applies to policy pages and guidelines, not arguments. I, for one, appreciate the thoroughness."[119]
3. On Sept. 29 Rjanag again misrepresented the extent of coverage in the article here.
4. When I corrected him, he chastised me for quoting the article.[120]
5. On Oct. 3 he wikihounded me to another editor's talk page, and tried to bully me into not quoting the Seventeen article in full.[121]
6. Rjanag then avoided preciseness and disparaged its length in the 2nd AfD by calling it "tiny".[122]
7. When I then quoted it at the 2nd AfD, on Oct. 14 Rjanag criticized me vociferously for quoting the entire (tiny) review: “epeefleche, how many times do people have to tell you it's not necessary to copy and paste the entire Seventeen article into this page? Do you not realize how annoying it is?”[123] (NB: He was the only "people" who had done so.)

Edit warring/gaming the system. Rjanag’s tactics were inappropriately disruptive in related articles as well, as he edit warred and gamed the system (deleting sources reflecting notability, then adding unsourced text that would tend to suggest lack of notability on the basis that it comported with "everything I have been told", as detailed here.

This was just a continuation of pattern in which Rjanag previously deleted pertinent sourced material reflecting notability from the very articles he was seeking to delete—for purported lack of notability; see also [124].

Communications with Rjanag re his behavior. I repeatedly sought to discuss Rjanag’s behavior with him. I wrote numerous times in this regard, both on my talk page and in the AfD (as did others, including a non-voting editor):

Contacting Rjanag on talk pages and in AfD re his behavior

“Are you still wikihounding me? Please, I beseech you, stop”[125] “I'll ask you again, as I've asked you before. Please stop wikihounding me. Please stop trying to bully me into not communicating with others in a way that you prefer. Please. It's disruptive. Thanks.”[126] As I pointed out to Rjanag, he wikihounded me “by singling me out and joining discussions on pages or topics I may edit or debates where I contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit my work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to me. You are disrupting my enjoyment of editing. You're following me around has been accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, and other disruptive behavior. Please stop.”[127] “You not only wikihounded me to that discussion, you then once again used a bullying tone and accused me of "disrupting other people's AfDs". I've asked you repeatedly to stop telling untruths. I've asked you repeatedly to stop bullying me. I've asked you repeatedly to stop wikihounding me. You simply don't stop. This is innappropriate and disruptive.”[128] “This is not the first time you've done it—as here, where you were chastised for such behavior. That's classic wikihounding. I've asked you to stop in the past, and you're simply refusing to do so.” “Please stop following me to other discussions and trying to bully me into not asking completely legitimate questions of others. That's bullying, and disruptive.” “And if this isn't the poster child of wikihounding, especially given the circumstances, I don't know what is.” “Your continued incivility is not appreciated.”[129] "Your many innaccurate statements (always one-sided innacuracies, I should point out), bullying of me in an effort to keep readers from reading the truth, mischaracterizations, and wikihounding have been intensely disruptive. They interfere with editors being able to make a determination based on accurate facts and reasoned discussions.[130] "As I had sought to make clear, it is your series of flagrant and one-sided misrepresentations, mischaracterizations, wikihounding, and bullying that I find disruptive. I gather from your response that I'm getting nowhere however in raising it to you." Communication to Rjanag on how his “learn how to read” edit summary is uncivil, and bullying: [131] As to your request that I give an example of your bullying, the discussion surrounding my quote of the ("tiny") Seventeen article is one example. And the wikihounding/bullying at this. "you (Rjanag) are the one who has ... exaggerated/misstated facts numerous times in both this AfD and the prior AfD and in other discussions. Wikihounded me even to the doorstep of other editors' talk pages—one of whom wrote to you there: "It's a tad sad that you follow someone around an entire website trying to get a single article deleted". Mischaracterized the Seventeen article three times—on September 29, and called the Seventeen article "tiny" in this AfD, and incorrectly stated how long it was in the prior AfD—and then amazingly turned around and publicly chastised me writing: "epeefleche, how many times do people have to tell you it's not necessary to copy and paste the entire Seventeen article into this page? Do you not realize how annoying it is?" (if it were tiny, it could not have bothered you, and in fact you were the only one who had objected previously)."[132] "And yes, you did misrepresent in the first AfD on Sept. 13 that "all I see is three sentences in Seventeen". When I then quoted the article, pointing out that you had misrepresented its length, your response (to that and the rest of what I wrote) was, dismissively: "Way too long." Another editor intervened and responded to you: "Nonsense. WP:TLDR applies to policy pages and guidelines, not arguments. I, for one, appreciate the thoroughness."[133] "You then on Sept. 29 again misrepresented the extent of coverage in the article here. When I corrected you, you chastised me for quoting the article.[134] And actually yes, you did in fact misrepresent in the first AfD that "all I see is three sentences in Seventeen". [135] In addition, another editor (who did not vote to keep the article) wrote to Rjanag that he was “disappointed that you're not setting an example—as WP:ADMIN requires of you.... If you're upsetting a lot of other users in the same place, it's time to self-reflect.”[136]

Rjanag reaction to complaints re his behavior. While his misbehavior was pointed out many times by me and others, his response was simply to continue his misbehavior.

And—with total absence of contrition—write:

1. “I'm just amused to see you guys shooting yourselves in the foot by obsessing over these personal battles … You can complain about me all you want; it won't do any good for the closing admin.”;[137]
2. ”As for my "effort to keep readers from reading the truth"...oh goodness, sorry I got in the way of your efforts to spread The Truth to the poor unenlightened masses…. Gosh, I feel so bad.”;[138] and
3. "WQA is thataway”.

--Epeefleche (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Highly disconcerting: close relationship between Rjanag and closing admin. An admin (Backslash Forwardslash) closed the second AfD before the full 7 days had run. Similarly peculiar was the fact that he described a near-even vote as one in which "the delete voters ... had the numerical upper hand". His timing and his read of what the consensus was (both in numbers and in substance) left some editors perplexed. See [139].

When the closing admin was first up for RfA in February this year (he failed), only one voter (of 100) voted for him terming his vote "Very strong support". The one voter? Rjanag.

The number of other RfA candidates other than Backslash Forwardslash whom Rjanag has supported with a vote he identified as "Very strong support"? Zero.

Of further concern are the comments following Rjanag's vote by Ottava Rima: "of course the above user [Rjanag] would see the situation as -working- with someone you don't like. However, having Backslash close a discussion after his friends stated that outside consensus ... would be inappropriate is definitely a strong concern".

Rjanag then also supported Backslash Forwardslash in his second RfA (which he passed), and was one of the exceedingly few editors to challenge an Oppose voter's comments. See [140].

Furthermore, a glance at the communications between the two that appear in the most rudimentary of searches (as here and here; Politzer was Rjanag's former name) reflect a closeness that far exceeds the relationship a closing admin should have with the nom of a heavily disupted AfD that he is closing before the full 7 days have run.

This, taken together with Rjanag's repeated dishonesty in this process as detailed above in his single-minded effort to get his way, while ignoring basic essential wikipedia tenets of civility, honesty, and fairness--militates in favor of Rjanag being stripped of at minimum his rights of adminship. He is clearly not someone who should have those powers, for he brings disgrace to the project and to his title. I again, and more emphatically, suggest that this be moved to Arbitration, where proper treatment of the matter can be handled by those with the power to address such egregious violations by an admin.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have refrained from responding to this thread because I saw no need to escalate an already pointless argument by defending myself against frivolous complaints. But when you accuse another user, Backslash Forwardslash, of cheating when you have absolutely no evidence, you cross a line. Of course Backslash and I have interacted many times before, we both joined Wikipedia at similar times and work in similar areas, and many editors who've been around long enough have many Wiki-friends. That doesn't mean there was ever impropriety. Backslash Forwardslash is an experienced and neutral user who has closed hundreds of AfDs, it's not like he suddenly appeared out of the blue to close this one. And from the time of the beginning of the first AfD to the closing of the second, I had no interactions with him either on or off wiki (other than responding to one user's question on his talkpage while he was offline; other than that, I do not remember talking to him at all). So do not go around accusing other editors, especially ones like Backslash Forwardslash, of misconduct. I am not bothering to respond one-by-one to your other lies and exaggerations because they're petty and anyone can see through them, but this one is just too much. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In response to Master&Expert: I was unaware of the cool-down block rules since I've never proposed any block before, but I think that fact strengthens my case if anything. Let's focus on the spirit of my complaint and not the wording. Secondly, just because you've seen "other editors get away with" worse certainly doesn't make it okay.

To Black Kite: It's true the AfD was ugly, but that doesn't excuse Rjanag, and he was several degrees worse than anyone else. - Draeco (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What I think others are trying to say is that you should pursue our dispute resolution system; perhaps WP:RfC/U. If you find an issue with a deletion for any reason, please take it to deletion review. Beyond that, I don't see anything that can be done here at this time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not protesting the deletion. I'm asking for action, not more comment (I've already cited sufficient editors' comments on his behavior above). This seemed like the right place, but correct me if I'm wrong. - Draeco (talk)

It appeared that Epeefleche was though. As for action, see my last sentence - perhaps after an RfC/U, ongoing issues that remain unaddressed can be actioned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I refrained from commenting here for a while because I figured it would do nothing but escalate the discussions; I saw no real desire for a response from me and I figured this would fizzle out on its own. But given Epeefleche's recent vitriolic messages about Backslash Forwardslash (above), I feel I should make some comments about the more frivolous or misleading of his claims.

First of all, a procedural thing: Epeefleche and Draeco have been quite selective in choosing which editors to notify of this discussion. Other than me, Draeco only sent messages to people who criticized me in the AfD—so it's no surprise that he's now got a thread full of people showing up to criticize me. Epeefleche, likewise...other than his message to Backslash, he has sent messages just to people who he thinks will criticize me more. If anyone asked the opinion of other people who participated in the debate, you would be seeing a much different picture of these editors painted.

As for Epeefleche's specific claims, I see no need to go through them all one by one, as most of them are misstatements or exaggerations whose nature is clear enough. In general, the point to take home is that I am not the "only" person who has taken issue with his behavior in this Shells fiasco, and Epeefleche is not the poor, helpless, victimized editor that people are making him out to be here. In fact, many other editors have had the same issues I had (for example, just taking his TL;DR thing...he makes a big deal over the fact that I linked him to WP:TLDR once, but J Milburn has also done so weeks before, and DGG also explicity advised him to shorten his messages; it's not like I'm the only one. And he makes some noise about how mean I was to call the Seventeen review "short" (or "tiny" or whatever)...well, I'm certainly not the only one to say that, most of the delete voters in the AfD also said specifically that they find the Seventeen thing too short, brief, cursory, trivial (pick whatever word you like). It was a tiny "review", there's nothing wrong with calling it that.

Then there are claims Epeefleche makes, like the one above where he says I "deleted pertinent sourced material" during the first AfD. The diff is broken, but judging by the timestamps the edit he's referring to appears to be this (admin-only link, sorry), where I removed blatant plagiarism that he had inserted. Essentially, what you have here is an editor who, while he appears to make valuable contributions elsewhere, has behaved very poorly with regards to this article, couldn't tell the difference between writing and plagiarism, ran all over Wikipedia to promote this band (see 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, where up until recently he was making a point of only listing an award that his pet band had been nominated for but refrained from listing 7 other equally non-notable awards--and 21 other equally non-notable bands--and then after I listed the rest, he complained at the AfD that I was making the Shells look less notable). Epeefleche has been flying off the handle at critics of this article since well before I was ever involved; see his run-in with J Milburn at NFCR, which happened before I had ever noticed this article (in fact, it's what brought the article to my attention), or look at the history of edit summaries to get an idea of some of the fighting he had with User:Psantora long before I had ever shown up.

I could go on, but I doubt anyone wants to read a novel-length Wikipedia post. The take-home point is, again, Epeefleche is not some unfortunate helpless editor that I chose at random to descend upon and harass. He has caused problems with numerous other editors during discussions surrounding The Shells, and has done many things unbecoming of an editor with three years' experience. He and Draeco have selectively notified only some editors to try and paint a different picture for you. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My thought is that this is too complicated and fact based (I notice that Rjanag won the AfD or the subsequent Drv, not sure which) to be dealt with at this page, I suggest the parties avail themselves of dispute resolution, or consider avenues such as an RfC. I don't think it can be done fairly to everyone here.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Epeefleche et al are welcome to start one, but I don't really intend to participate (beyond the message I left above). From skimming the above, it's clear that the only people who are complaining are the ones from the AfD; none of the ANI people who have commented (Black Kite, Master & Expert, Chamal, CoM) seem to think anything needs to be done. If Epeefleche et al. believe the AfD was broken they are welcome to start a DRV; if all they want is for someone to say "yes, Rjanag is a mean guy" then I'm not really concerned. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:67.160.100.233: Disruptive WP:SPA

Resolved

 – 67.160.100.233 blocked for 1 week for causing disruption and harassing David Shankbone. AdjustShift (talk) 13:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This anonymous editor was previously given a final warning for personal attacks, and seems to have some sort of sole purpose fascination with the David Shankbone article. Along those lines, in what I can only determine is an effort to disrupt the related deletion discussion, he began making sockpuppet allegations this evening at that discussion. He originally raised other sockpuppet allegations at Talk:David Shankbone and was advised that was not the proper forum. Even after being told the same with regard to the deletion discussion, he has continued making the allegations there, without any apparent relevance to the actual discussion. His argument appears to be that wp:spi is too slow. user:J aka justen (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The user in question has been notified. user:J aka justen (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice, but I'm telling the truth. "After some investigation, it's my opinion that User:Huckandraz (contributions,) who created this article,[141] has also edited under (at least) the following usernames:

User:Babyrockcontributions

User:Lyltrycontributions

User:Profgregorycontributions

User:Vanguard121contributions

See also User:Easyreeder(contributions) on Wikinews.

This biography of Shankbone is straightforwardly a quid pro quo for Shankbone's help in promoting John Reed (novelist)(history) across en.wp. Reed ("Lyltry"): "Shankbone is a gawd").[142]67.160.100.233 (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Owch! Is that a reference to n:John Reed on Orwell, God, self-destruction and the future of writing that David Shankbone penned? - Alison ^❤ 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that way. Allegations of sockpuppetry do not belong in AfDs. They contribute nothing to the debate. Tim Song (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please present your case at SPI, and not anywhere else, and make sure it includes more than just "it's obvious"... some specific diffs showing a pattern of similar behaviour and interests for starters. Most of those IDs are old enough that CU won't tell you anything. For the record I checked anyway and I'm not seeing any connection between Huckandraz and Babyrock (the only two checkable ones). I invite review by other CUs of course, as I may have erred or misinterpreted the data. ++Lar: t/c 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• After analyzing the edits of 67.160.100.233, all I see is disruption, disruption, and disruption. This sort of edits are unacceptable, IMO. The IP not only accused David Shankbone of "sockpuppetry", but also accused Benjiboi of trying to "cover up" sockpuppetry. The IP is being disruptive, and harassing David Shankbone. I will block the IP for 1 week. AdjustShift (talk) 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• After my block, this was the response of the IP. AdjustShift (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios by User:Aziz090‎

Resolved

 – Blocked by Fisher Queen

Aziz090‎ (talk · contribs) seems destined to only add copyvio material to Wikipedia (usually in the course of creating articles on Malaysian films). A quick glance of his talk page should suffice, but the contribution list speaks for itself. It's usually copies from other sites regarding the movie's plot and reviews, as well as uploading non-free images related to the movie. He has been warned repeatedly, and eventually blocked for 24 hours. Upon his block expiring, he just continued introducing the same content. I'm afraid this is an editor who just doesn't get it (as is clear from his earlier unsuccessful unblock request). I think at some point we have to say enough is enough, and move to an indef block. Also, earlier some editors spent some time going through his contributions to get rid of the copyright violations, but since he's been at it again, I could use some help going through his more recent contributions. Singularity42 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Though situations in which they blank a page they recently created should be construed as them saying 'Okay, I quit' and marking the page with db-g7 instead of giving them a vandalism warning. HalfShadow (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. When we have very questionable new articles, and the author blanks, we should generally consider a G7 speedy delete (although in rare cases the new article might have enough redeemable qualities that it could be turned into something that could be kept in Wikipedia, and the blanking should be undone to some extent). It looks like this happened a few times wtih Aziz090 (and has happened sometimes with other new editors), but ultimately it doesn't excuse the constant copyvios (despite repeated warnings and being blocked for such behaviour). Anyway, not much more to be said or done while he's on his new block. We'll just need to monitor the situation when the block expires. Singularity42 (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

IP address trolling FEMA articles

An IP address in the range of 203.171.192.0/20 (203.171.199.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 203.171.196.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 203.171.199.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) keeps skipping his block to push the infamous FEMA death panels birth certificate controlled demolition magic bullet hollywood backlot killed and raped a girl in 1990 camp theories. I've taken the liberty of reverting of any of his contributions about it as the application of the block implies they are unwanted, but there is still the problem of IP hopping. The IP range is a mobile network, so the collateral will be low; it's generally inadvisable to edit from mobile or using a mobile connection. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I first noticed editors from this range making strange posts at Talk:Federal Emergency Management Agency but they have clearly progressed. Here they blow away ANI while making a legal threat in the edit summary. After looking at IP contributions from this range to check for collateral I've issued a rangeblock of 203.171.192.0/20, anon-only, for two weeks. Other admins may modify this as they think best. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Persistant POV pushing and vandalism by user:Slick112

Slick112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is a SPA has been persistently engaged in vandalism, and pushing POV edits in the Raj Rajaratnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page[143], [144], [145], and the Insider trading [146][147] [148]pages.

Warnings for him to desist [149], [150], [151], [152] have all had no effect. He has also engaged in vandalism of my talk page too [153]. Therefore please consider blocking this disruptive SPA account. Kerr avon (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't this have been taken to WP:AIV? Or has this been resolved already, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, I misread it. Well, I'd say give him a firm last warning for edit warring, then block if he violates again, Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 18:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

He still is persisting in edit warring and pov pushing [154], [155] despite several warnings to stop [156] [157]. Please consider banning this SPA and disruptive editor. Thanks.Kerr avon (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Violation of 1RR - request for Block

Resolved

 – No action currently needed.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

user hxseek reverted article, on a 1RR restricted article: Kosovo

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kosovo&action=history

(cur) (prev) 20:24, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,508 bytes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 13:39, 21 October 2009 Dbachmann (talk | contribs) (105,200 bytes) (restoring stable lead paragraph. do not expand this. go to history of Kosovo to discuss details.) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 11:27, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,508 bytes) (after Roman times, Dardania ceased to be an distinct regional entity) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 10:10, 21 October 2009 Hajenso (talk | contribs) (105,494 bytes) (edit refs from "Kosova" to "Kosovo" when referring to the present state) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 07:18, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,493 bytes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 07:08, 21 October 2009 Hxseek (talk | contribs) (105,576 bytes) (Undid revision 321148871 by Lontech (talk)) (undo)

He was warned a couple of times. thanks-- LONTECH  Talk  16:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure that I should have, but I reverted his edit when I saw this. If enough editors are pushing one specific paragraph, he shouldn't do this.   Nezzadar ☎   16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

...And Athenean reverted your revert, calling your revert "POV-pushing". -- Atama頭 19:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins do you SEE THE TIME OF REVERTS HERE OR NOT and THE 1RR restricted article-- LONTECH  Talk  20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Lontech, Hxseek is currently blocked. If you call for a block one more time before he edits again, I will consider that disruptive editing and block you accordingly. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review of User:Interpride

• Interpride (talk · contribs) was blocked with a massive template explaining they were blocked, apparently, for making promotional edits ... and maybe their

username. If they had made their edits under another username I don't think we would have few issues with edits and certainly wouldn't have blocked. Could someone have a look and see if we can't be a little more welcoming here? -- Banjeboi 16:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith bad block. I can't see that they were even warned. If they had been contacted with a request to consider WP:COI and they continued to edit in this manner, that would be grounds for a block. But this? No. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 17:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. We need to assume good faith more often here. And by that, I mean assume good faith of the blocking administrator. JBsupreme (talk) 17:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Single purpose/promotional account. That's clearly obvious from the editing pattern. They were slowly turning the article in question into a promo. HalfShadow (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked the blocking admin for explanation but have not seen a response yet, I have also notified them of this thread. Being outside the situation could you point out which of their edit was actually blockable, or even disputed? They seemed to be adding extra details that are unneeded but that in and of itself shows a lack of experience on Wikipedia - not an effort to cause harm. -- Banjeboi 17:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

When you start adding 'sunshine and puppies' edits like this, you're no longer being encyclopedial, you're being promotional. HalfShadow (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This block appears entirely appropriate. Aside from the generally promotional editing, the user was also adding copyvio text, with an often heavily promotional tone, cut and pasted from the organization's own website. Note that this edit [158] corresponds to this link [159] and this edit [160] corresponds to this link [161] and this edit [162] corresponds to this link [163]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're not going to persuade many people that this type of account should not be blocked. It's a problem when people's first edits are about the organisation where they work (rather than blatant spamming, these are COI edits) and they get blocked, sometimes hardblocked. But blatant advertising will always be blocked very quickly and you're unlikely to change people's minds about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a reasonable block - organization name + promo edits normally translates to a hard block, and there's at least one edit that reads somewhat promotional. Nonetheless, it would be optimal if the user was contacted beforehand, since this is not blatant spamming. Tim Song (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That's my point I guess. Instead of telling this user their name needed to change and their editing smacked of promotionalism we blocked them with no dialog whatsoever. That seems counter-intuitive to dealing with newbies and actually a bit hostile even if intended to curb promotional-like editing. Where's the civility? Where's the effort to explain why the edits were flawed before the indefinite block? -- Banjeboi 18:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a good block. One should be expected to only go so far with regards to not biting newcomers. I highly doubt that this person (assuming this is not a role account, which is likely the case anyways) was interested in anything else except staking ownership to the page and turn the page into a mirror of its website, which is not what we're here for.

With that said, I haven't looked at all the contribs to check for copyvios or blatant spamming, but a softblock was warranted at the very least. MuZemike 18:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block. This is exactly what I would have posted to WP:UAA. Sorry Benjiboi, I understand why you'd be unhappy about this kind of block but a username that indicates representation/affiliation with the article subject, combined with edits like "Members of our organization are dedicated volunteers who organize and work to put on Pride events all over the world" justify the block and are in total compliance with our policies and guidelines. -- Atama頭 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this was a good block - but someone (Benjiboi?) could engage with them in more detail to explain why what they were doing was not appropriate on Wikipedia, and help mentor them through engaging more productively with a new account as an individual person not trying to act as an official organizational PR person. This seems the classical "didn't know better" rather than "malign intent", and those people can often simply be educated. Benjiboi, you up for that? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This was a good block indeed. I think this thread can be closed now. Keep up the good work, blocking admin. JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh. I find this to be a case of using username blocks like a roll of duct tape -- that is, a low-quality solution to a variety of problems it wasn't originally designed to solve. It's a topic of ongoing debate on WT:U whether it's appropriate to instantly username block someone just because their username points out their COI. This was a pretty typical example of such a block, so the block is defensible, but I'm hardly going to applaud the blocking admin for their blunt solution either.

Talking to the user about COI and asking them to change their name would have accomplished the same result, with just a tiny bit more effort, and without making Wikipedia look as belligerent toward outsiders as it usually does. rspεεr (talk) 09:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Noleander

A thread regarding User:Noleander has only just been archived. However, new evidence has now emerged that should be brought to this board.

Earlier this month, Noleander created an article in this form [164] which contains material under the heading Michael Medved that is plagiarised from the Neo-Nazi Stormfront site [165]. Noleander claims here and here that he didn't know the material originated with Stormfront and says he plagiarised it from an equally anti-Semitic article at Radio Islam [166]. He still claims that the material was not a copyvio [here] despite the fact that not only were the same quotes used as in the articles at Stormfront and Radio Islam but also the same linking phrase "Medved continued" etc. also are used.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I wrote that article, and yes, I cut-and-pasted some text from the RadioIslam web site. I was trying to get some quotes from Michael Medved from a magazine article he wrote. As I put the text into the article Jews and Hollywood, I failed to proof-read, and failed to remove text that was between the Medved quotes. That was a mistake, and I profusely apologize. I have no idea who originally assembled Medved's quotes in that manner: RadioIslam? Stormfront? There is probably no way of ever knowing. In any case, it is appropriate to include a few quotes from Medved's article ... that is not a copyright violation. As for using RadioIslam as a place to find material? Yes, it is a rabid site, but it does contain material that is often not found elsewhere. I did make a mistake, and I apologize. However, I must point out that I believe this ANI (and the other ANI accusing me of antisemitism) is misguided. They are attempts to ensure that certain material is not included in this encyclopedia (particulary the Jews and Hollywood article). Accusations of minor CopyViolations and Antisemitism are distractions intended, I believe, to distract from the real issue at hand. My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship. Looking at the history of some articles, there appears to be a concerted effort to ensure that some notable material never appears in this encyclopedia. ANIs like this one are one tactic (and it works rather well, I must say :-) Im willing to engage in a discussion on whether that article belongs in this encyclopedia. In fact, I have been positively (and cheefully :-) engaged in that discussion in the AfD for that article. That is where the focus needs to stay. --Noleander (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:DUCK Anti-Semitism is never a good idea, and these 2 articles REEK of it...Modernist (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• They are both up at AfD, let your conscience do the talking. -- Avi (talk) 17:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Avi, actually I voted delete in both instances. Anti-Semitism with a pretty new name is still nauseating...Modernist (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Disclosure: I'm involved in that I voted to keep the relevant article at AfD. I don't necessarily think this ANI report was made in bad faith as Noleander does, but I understand his reaction, as this is the latest in a barrage of accusations, and the consensus has been that most that occurred prior to this were unfounded. He's only human. Overall I've actually been struck by Noleander's exceptional level-headededness in the face of rabid bad-faith assumptions (of the type that can be seen above). He's in fact been much more level-headed than I've been throughout this ordeal. One need only read through the AfD to see that (if one has the patience; it's pretty long). Since the copyvios have been corrected, Noleander has apologized, and the article is at AfD, I think the matter is settled for now as far as ANI goes. Equazcion (talk) 18:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• At this point, I agree we should not be discussing User:Noleander. However, we should exercise our options as participants in this project to accept or reject the article, completely independent of the original author, who may have had the best interests of all at heart. This is a referendum on the article, its content, its structure, its focus, and how it represents the project as a whole. My own opinions can be seen on the AfD page, as can those of many others, on both sides, which is why I suggest we all let our conscience do our talking. -- Avi (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I really must disagree with Avi in this situation. I think this thread should specifically focus on User:Noleander. I won't deny that his comments betray an educated and articulate human being. However, these same comments show someone who is incredibly anti-Jewish. I don't think this is assuming bad faith in the least. Would anyone stand for a similar article that was solely created to angrily decry the involvement of Muslims in organized crime in India? Or the petty crime committed by aboriginals in Australia? No, it would be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Noleander has explicitly stated that his objective here is to provide negative information about Jews in order to counteract Jewish bias on Wikipedia. To that end he has largely provided copyrighted information from Stormfront and radio Islam.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Im not anti-jewish, or anti-palestinian, or anti-this, or anti-that. I simply view WP as a very valuable asset for people around the world. I also think it has several "blind spots" where it is missing important material, due to political correctness. I first noticed this in regards to the articles on the Mormon church: there was no mention of they way blacks were treated by that church from 1850 to 1970. I decided to jump in and try to add some material there, and after two years of back-and-forth with some very tenacious editors, I think those articles are now balanced. It stikes me that the topic Jews and Hollywood is under-represented in this encyclopedia. So I jumped in, wrote an article, and put it in the Antisemitism category: not trying to hide anything. The canard "Jews Control Hollywood" is notable, but is missing from this encyclopedia. The issue, again, is not an editor, or the editor's motivation: it is absence of notable information in this encyclopedia. Every minute we spend talking about editors motivation, is a minute we are not improving the articles. Hmmmmmm ... or is that the goal of these ANIs? --Noleander (talk) 22:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that actually is the point of ANI. Article content is generally discussed in other places. To Moshe, I'd ask him to please provide diffs for the accusations he's made about Noleander's spoken intentions. Equazcion (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I cant speak for Avi, but he may be refering to my post above, where I said "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." --Noleander (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Scroll up a bit and also look at many of his comments here- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misuse of antisemitic accusations and here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"I simply view WP as a very valuable asset for people around the world." Do you really think this helps us move towards a resolutuion? Is there any reason why an anti-Semite or a racist or homophobe or sexist would not believe this? "I..." (this is me speaking, I just figured I do the Sandra Bernhardt routine first) "...I come here only because of my love for humanity." The problem is that in a few days you put up at least two articles that cut and pasted material directly from a neo-Nazi website and from an anti-Semitic Islamic (no, the two are by no means identical!) radio website, to create articles that - without any kind of scholarly analysis of framing, strung together anti-Semitic canards. If you care so much about Wikipedia, why didn't you create an article on gays controlling Broadway? Or on Jews controlling Wall Street? Or on the way that accusing someone of being a homophobe is a way of silencing them? Or how accusing someone of being a racist is a way of silincing them? You see, it is the highly selecteive nature of your choices that raises concerned. You view WP as an asset for people around the world? Well, okay, then why don't you work on an article on embryology? Or on urban renewal projects? Or dadaism? I mean, there are so many articles you could work on if you are motivated just by your passion for helping people, right? Why these? Now here is something strange - a number of times I called attention to the need fo ranalysis and framing, how historians and sociologists for example analyze anti-Semitic canards to reveal something about anti-Semites or about that period in time. You wrote back something like you are not an expert in sociology or history. Well, then, here is another question: why write articles on topics in which you have no expertise? I mean, we all agree Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, right? But shouldn't we edit articles on topics we know something about? Why do you specifically pic topics on which you are ignorant and then use Wikipedia to spread um, well, your "knowledge" about these topics? Why?

In fact, here you are lying about your motives. On the AfD pages you have stated that your concern is that accusations of anti-Semitism are a form of censorship and your motive is to publicize this. Well, dude, that is a violation of WP:SOAP and you already admitted to it. And of course, only an anti-Semite complains that accusations of anti-Semitism are meant to censor. Look at it this way: if someone accused of anti-Semitism is an anti-Semite, surely you would agree that there is nothing wrong with accusing them of anti-Semitism, right? And if someone is not an anti-Semite, well, all they have to do is say so right? If someone is not an anti-Semite, it is always very easy for that person (or countless others) to say "No, I am not anti semitic" and to go on talking. I know of no case in which anyone ever accused of anti-Semitism was somehow prevented from speaking. Of course, if many people are convinced that someone is an anti-Semite, they are under no obligation to listen, are they? Well, Noleander, do you thinkg that people's hands should be cufed and their ers fordibly turned to the loud-speakers so that they have no choice but to listen? You also brought up "self-hating Jews" and provided two examples. I know people who will not go to hear Noam Chomsky speak. But I have neve heard him complain that he was somehow "silenced." Can you clarif your agenda, I mean, besides wanting to sprinkle the world with sugar and make everyone happy? I mean, something specific and to the point?

If your problem is that some topics are "censored" at Wikipedia, creating articles to soapbox is not the solution. Do you think that every AfD is an attempt to censor? Do you think Wikipedia should allow anti-Semitic articles? I am sure you have a lot more to say in response but I'd appreciate yes/no answers to at least these two questions. Then I would really like you to address two points: (1) concrete examples to illustrate this: "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship" and (2) how, precisely, do these two articles reverse that censorship? Slrubenstein | Talk 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstien, what constitutes an anti-semitic article? We have an article on anti-semitism. I don't see how you can say with such conviction that this particular article is any more "anti-semitic" than that. Is it the title? What is it, specifically? I'm asking this question in anticipation of a discussion that somehow does not belong at the AfD, but if your issues are content-related, this discussion probably belongs there. Equazcion (talk) 23:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

From my limited experience with Peter Cohen, I don't believe the accusation can be made that he started this discussion in an effort to get to the article by targeting the author; if I'm not mistaken he had already been defending the author against charges of this kind, and is on record as being highly sensitive to this issue. My feelings as to the rest of this are mixed. Noleander apologizes for where he got the material, as I think is appropriate. Besides that, I would really recommend to avoid this analogizing from contentious article topic to editors, which I think could hardly be a worse instinct in our attempts to have neutral policy-based discussions. Noleander's comments in general suggest to me someone who admittedly is not especially familiar with these topics. In my view that is relevant, along with his apparent lack of familiarity with various aspects of Wikipedia. If an editor pushes through these topics over years and shows an inability to edit appropriately, then the editor should face sanctions. If an editor comes in and makes some initial mistakes, then I don't believe that this can be the initial response. It isn't that you know whether one will turn into the other; it's that you can't know on so little information. In all I think this is a legitimate point to have raised, but otherwise I agree in full with Avi on the general way forward. Mackan79 (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, I answer your questions in the paragraphs above. If Noleander simply admitted that the article he created were ill-planned and poorly-executed, and perhaps ill-conceived, I would have let the matter rest. I and many other editors have suggested a variety of encyclopedic ways that most if not all of the themes raised in the articles could be beter handled with different research and in other existing articles - so this is not a matter of censorship. But rather than accept the constructive criticisms offered, Noleander just dug in her heels, repeating that articles critical of Jews get censored at Wikipedia, which makes two serious errors: first, it misrepresents the lack of tolerance for anti-Semetic articles with a rejection of articles on topics critical of Jews, and second, she is blind to the number of articles here that include criticisms of Israeli persecution of Arabs or occupation of the West Bank. Read Jean-Paul Sartre's Anti-Semite, Jew, as he pointed out, it is the anti-Semite who has the persecution complex. Many editors have suggested othe ways Noleander's concerns could be handled at Wikipedia, as opposed to these two very offensive articles. Noleander, rather than accomplishing her ends without offending, prefers to demand that the offensive articles stay in, flip-flopping on her motives as necessary. I think that speaks volumes. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me make a proposition: This encyclopedia already contains many articles on canards like Kosher Tax, Well poisoning, The Franklin Prophecy, etc. Oddly, the encyclopedia does not contain any mention of the "Jews Control Hollywood" canard ... not even one sentence in Antisemitic canards. That is an omission in this encyclopedia. My proposition is: let's work together to add that material, either in a dedicated article, or as a section in Antisemitic canards. I'll be happy to cooperate with you on that task. What do you say? --Noleander (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Others have already proposed that the Hollywood Canard be discussed in the Antisemitic Canards article - if you are now agreeable I can't fault you for that! I do wonder why you did not do this, originally. It sounds reasonable to me. However, I have no expertise on this and only make contributions when I have expertise or have done the research. If you have time to read the books and articles on the topic, you'd certainly be helping the project, maybe there are others you can enlist. Also, at 23:05, 22 October 2009 I asked a series of specific questions I would still appreciate your answering, to help clarify things. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That was easy. So the problem was that he created separate articles? I'm very confused, but also relieved. Equazcion (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Mackan79 is correct that up to the point that User:Hipocrite unearthed the word-for-word quotation of material from anti-Semitic hate sites, I had been defending Noleander from editors who were making what seemed to me to be baseless attacks on him implying that he is anti-Semitic. I do believe that accusations of anti-Semitism are often made for ulterior, opften Zionist, motives and as a result of acting on this oopinon I have ended up on the Jewish Internet Defense Force's list of Wikipedians they dislike. Indeed, the last time I was mentioned on this page was by a JIDF activist complaining about me.

However, now that I know that Noleander was quoting material verbatim from a blatantly anti-Semitic article - the Radio Islam article is no less bigoted than the Stormfront one - my stance has changed. I have brought this to this page because I think Wikipedians need to ask themselves whether an editor who plagiarises material from hate sites is someone we want anywhere near a serious encyclopedia that has a key policy advocating a neutral point of view based on the contents of high quality mainstream publications.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're making it sound like plagiarizing material from hate sites has been a long-term practice for Noleander. He made a mistake and apologized already. You've made mistakes before, right? Why not wait and see if this actually proves to be a pattern, before assuming that it will? Equazcion (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• S1Rubenstein: Yes, someone in the AfD did propose a section in the Antisemitic canard. I immediatly concurred that that was an acceptable way to go (I would find the diffs, but I dont have 30 minutes to hunt thru the AfD :-). Not only did I agree to a section (in lieu of a full article), but when a different proposal was made to broaden the article to "Jews and Hollywood" I agreed that such a change was fine. I'll tell you what: If you will create a "Canard: Jews Control Hollywood" section in Antisemitic canard now (I mean in the next day or two, when you have time) I will then help edit that section in a neutral and cooperative manner. --Noleander (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break

Noleander, I'm very glad that you've agreed to merge parts of the Jews and Hollywood article with the article about Antisemitic canards. On that note, I disagree that Wikipedia is overly censorious of antisemitism. Legitimate criticisms of specific people or organizations do belong in Wikipedia and are placed there. However, not all criticisms are legitimate, and Wikipedia is not a place to spread false accusations or weasel worded criticisms. Criticisms that are not based on facts from a reputable source, such as comments about Jews from RadioIslam, should not be presented as facts in Wikipedia. Do you understand my point? --AFriedman (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I don't understand your point. Unless you're actually saying Wikipedia shouldn't say that radioislam said certain things. Or Wikipedia shouldn't say that certain people accused certain other people of things. I rather think those do belong here. The fact is, these accusations were made. The accusations themselves being ridiculous doesn't change that. Equazcion (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It all depends on whether or not those things being said are notable, and said by reliable sources, doesn't it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. What sources of questionable reputability say can be in the articles about those sources, with information about why their reputability is questionable. What RadioIslam says about Jews (and why, and what is wrong with it) can be in the article about RadioIslam, but not presented as a fact in an article about Jews. --AFriedman (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander, I'm curious about the sources you've been using. I've looked at the original article, and even the current one, and it appears that you are citing many different sources. You've already stated that you got the Medved quote from the antisemitic website Radio Islam. Given that that was the source, and not Moment, and in light of WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT and WP:RS, can you explain why you have attributed the quotation to Moment, and how you know the quote is accurate? Also, in that vein, I note your original version of the article, for example, also cited Vogue when quoting Dolly Parton and Victor Marchetti's defunct newsletter "New American View" when quoting Victor Marchetti. Did you actually read those sources? Or is it possible that you actually read the material on, say, a Holocaust denial site like the Institute for Historical Review, which you also cited in your article? Say, on this page: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v17/v17n5p14_Marchetti.html? Also, you've quoted J.J. Goldberg's Jewish Power: inside the American Jewish Establishment fairly liberally. Do you actually own the book? Have you read it? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break 2

Equazcion, you've been quite stalwart in your defense of Noleander, insisting that he has, at worst, made a few minor and innocent mistakes, and that those who have raised concerns are subjecting him to "rabid bad-faith assumptions". But is that really an accurate assessment of the concerns raised? As is clear, Noleander has created articles using quite obviously antisemitic sources, such as Radio Islam and the Institute for Historical Review. He has claimed that he was, for example, with the "Jews and Hollywood" article, merely attempting to describe an antisemitic canard. Yet, rather then an exposé, those assessing the article found it to be a one-sided original-research/coatrack essay attempting to support the canard. Noleander has stated quite plainly that "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship." He himself believes that there is a conspiracy to suppress/censor negative information about Jews; exactly the thesis of many of the (often antisemitic) sources used in the articles he created. And he's certainly been as good as his word; contributions he makes to articles relating to Jews appear to be almost uniformly negative. So, what are we all to make of this behavior? Should we, as you seem to propose, view it as essentially neutral, normal Wikipedia editing, with a minor mistake or two? Or can we at least state that it is "anti-Semitic in effect if not in intent"? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander was describing a de-facto censorship, rather than a premeditated one. Some of his latest statements might be interpreted as otherwise, but I feel that's more a product of his frustration than anything else, and this frustration is being felt on both side -- evident from certain lengthy comments by certain individuals who are quite visibly emotional regarding this topic. He used anti-semitic sources because that's what the article was about: a collection of instances of anti-semetism. You generally find such instances at anti-semitic sources. I do believe the copyvio incidents were isolated, and see no reason to believe otherwise. Describing anti-semetism, and pointing it out, and even seeking them out in an attempt to fill a perceived void in Wikipedia's content, are not in themselves anti-semitic acts. "those assessing the article" are a rather large group of people, and their assessments fall on both sides on the debate. Equazcion (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "Noleander was describing a de-facto censorship"; what "de facto censorship"? Also, why on earth would you use and rely on unreliable antisemitic sources to describe antisemitism? It's not as if there aren't hundreds of scholarly books and thousands of scholarly articles on the topic! In addition, he doesn't apper to have been "describing anti-semetism" at all; rather, as the comments at the AfD point out, he was, at best, regurgitating it, and at worst, promoting it. And finally, regarding "those assessing the article", aside from a couple of stalwart defenders like you, who appear to have completely ignored/denigrated the valid concerns raised, the assessments are strongly to the side of "POV OR coatrack essay". Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Noleander perceives a void in Wikpedia's content. He called it censorship, because he saw it as confined to a certain type of information. In that sense it would be de-facto, in that it wasn't intended necessarily, but is nevertheless the perceived effect. I'm not sure how many scholarly works there are on Jewish leadership in Hollywood; I hope there are hundreds as you say, for the sake of the article. Nevertheless, the lack of scholarly works present, and the use of sub-par sources, could be attributed — and normally would in the majority of other situation — as lack of experience with Wikipedia's sourcing standards. The "comments at AfD", again, are not proof of anything, as there are comments on both sides of the debate. I admit there are a majority of delete votes currently, but not necessarily with the rationale you describe, and a majority doesn't necessarily mean a correct conclusion. I've often stood in the minority opinion and have no qualms about it. You dismiss those who disagree with you as having completely ignored valid reasoning, but they of course feel the same of you, so saying such things gets us nowhere. Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of works on antisemitism, which is what you are claiming Noleander was attempting to highlight (rather than promote). As for an alleged "lack of experience with Wikipedia's sourcing standards", Noleander has been editing since February 2006; "newbie" excuses won't wash. And I state that you appear to have completely ignored/denigrated the valid concerns raised, because that it what you have quite obviously done, in your own words, when you dismissed the concerns of others as "rabid bad-faith assumptions". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There were some rather rabid bad-faith assumptions, but I suspect we're referring to different comments entirely. There were also some quite valid concerns raised, and I respect them. I'm not saying Noleander is a newbie, but his experience with article creation or sourcing could be lacking. I'm assuming that's the reason, because I'm supposed to, until a longer-term pattern reveals itself. Equazcion (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, with regard to this: "He himself believes that there is a conspiracy to suppress/censor negative information about Jews" -- He's not posting negative information about Jews. He's posting instances where notable figures have said or written negative things about Jews. There's a huge difference. Equazcion (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How so? If one edits Wikipedia solely for the purpose of highlighting or promoting negative commentary about an identifiable group that has been subject to serious discrimination, is that not, in effect, the same thing? If one were, for example, to edit Wikipedia for the stated purpose of highlighting negative comments made by notable figures about African-Americans, and just happened to use a lot of racist sites as sources, would we all be saying "innocent mistake, no harm, no foul"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is that very perception of "promotion" that I debate. I don't see any promotion here. The language used was matter-of-fact, reporting incidents without judging them to be positive, or negative, for that matter. I don't see any "highlighting", either, although we may have different definitions of that word. If one were to edit Wikipedia for the stated purpose of correcting an imbalance in Wikipedia by adding negative comments made by notable figures about African-Americans, I would not object to that or feel particularly offended. If he happened to use a lot of racist sites as sources for said endeavor, I would let him know about Wikipedia's sourcing standards. If he apologized for using said sources, I would say "Thank you for understanding", and then I would cease speaking; and wait and see if it happened again. Equazcion (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The language used was matter of fact? Not according to large majority of those who !voted at the AfDs, and found them to be inherently POV essays that drew conclusions. Your view of this matter is decidedly at odds with that of most other people who have looked at the articles. Moreover, your view of Noleander's actions contradicts his own stated intent. You're entitled to that view, but I can't see why anyone else would take it at all seriously. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, I'm in the minority opinion, and fully accept that. Equazcion (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't looked through all of Noleander's edits, but the extent I did look through does not suggest a focus on anti-Jewish editing; if anything it suggests to me a focus on criticism of "organized religion" in general. That's a topic I'm familiar with, and what I see in his edits suggests a fairly broad-based approach. I regret saying this, because I don't feel that I'm in a position to judge Noleander's interests, and I doubt that this is the most productive way to evaluate editing. Mackan79 (talk) 02:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

He has two main foci; his primary one is adding critical material about the Mormon church, and his secondary one is adding critical material about Jews. That is trivially obvious when one looks at his contributions. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:20, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I see his fourth most edited article is Criticism of Religion. Here is a section on the talk page of Religion I just skimmed through. I would say this supports my assessment. Mackan79 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's his fourth most edited article. His first, second, fifth, sixth, ninth, twelfth, thirteenth and fifteenth most edited articles are criticisms of Mormons. In fact, his top two articles (criticizing Mormonism) comprise over 40% of his mainspace edits. In addition, his eight, tenth, eleventh, and fourteenth most edited articles are about Jews. As for his fourth most edited article, Criticism of Religion, the criticisms are sometimes quite specific.[167][168] I would say, and rather more convincingly, that this supports my assessment. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mackan seems to be attempting to dismiss Noleander's actions as representing an anti-religious bias rather than any anti-Jewish bias. As an atheist I would not care in the least if that were the case. However the facts do not support this view. If anything his actions have more in common with the attacks on secular Jews by William A. Donohue than anything anyone has written about the religious aspect of Judaism.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been enjoying this debate, but in a practical sense, analyzing Noleander's past edits in an attempt to judge his character or future actions seems to cross the line into completely pointless. Is there an accusation of policy violation somewhere in this? Is there any reason not to let this go, and see what Noleander actually does in the future? Equazcion (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

For some slightly ORish thoughts here, I consider this to be pretty difficult ground for the modern religious critic, as distinguished from so many here who are steeped in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I can cite someone like Richard Dawkins, probably the most prominent critic of this type, who is discussed in Wikipedia's article, Jewish lobby, for being accused of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories in saying that atheists try to create such a lobby of their own. I would guess I am not alone in thinking, Dawkins, stick to what you know! I doubt many people really think he's antisemitic. But there are many like him, who share his familiarities and lack of familiarities. On Wikipedia, while I certainly appreciate an editor like Slrubenstein editing only in the areas of his expertise, the fact is that others of us edit to push the bounds of our knowledge, and sometimes avoid editing in areas of professional involvement. I should say that I certainly do not mean to defend the copying of something from a clearly antisemitic website; if a professional writer did this, it would be a problem. I am saying that if a college student does this it is something different. We let college students edit here, people who didn't go to college, I think we have administrators who are something like 12 years old. It doesn't mean we should lower standards, least of all regarding the creation of bigoted content, but we should recognize that the content is usually the standard, except where statements of a discriminatory agenda are quite clear. Sharply negative speculation about individual editors, even where there's thought to be some reason for it, is problematic. I do also agree with Equazcion's comment just above. Mackan79 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I want to make an important and i think relevant qualification. While I seldom stray from my areas of expertise, I will for the same reason many and I think Mackan does: in the process i learn more. But this only works when I work on new articles after having done serious research - to work on the Jesus article I read four books used in college courses. If we are to be as good an encyclopedia as we wish, we should expect the same from other editors. I'd say this is especially the case with controversial situations like anti-Semitism. Be that as it may, Noleander is clearly soapboxing, he has said he thinks that articles criticle of Jews get surpressed at Wikipedia, so he wants to wrkte articles criticle of Jews to challenge such supression. This is just a terrible thing to do and I find Equazcion's doffed support of Noleander - she has supported Noleander in every way, never questioning anything - mind-boggling. If I have misunderstood Noleander i apologize but i have requested clartification many times and have not been given it. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break 3

Let me submit that there is a series of appropriate questions. The first question is whether an editor is adhering to policy. The second question, if not, is whether the behavior is correctable. The third question is what should be done. Here, it is fairly clear that there are policy violations regardless of where the material was taken, in that overly large sections were copied from unreliable sources without appropriate attribution. The major question seems to be the second: do the editor's actions show that they are correctable? My view is that this is the question to be resolved, and that currently it can't be resolved, primarily because this appears to be the first time these issues have been raised with this editor.

I might add that I wish this could all be resolved by interviewing the editor, yet I question whether intense group scrutiny is likely to achieve the desired result. One thing to keep in mind is that a Wikipedia editor is not necessarily a public figure, we don't ask to know who they are, and accordingly while we take the encyclopedia seriously we recognize (largely with WP:AGF) that editors may be of any age, background, level of education, expertise, or so on. It seems to me that this is an easily forgotten but significant point. Mackan79 (talk) 02:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're saying we should wait and see how this editor acts in the future, and I think that's the appropriate course of action. However, the editor has already stated a certain intent, and we may be able to assume he follows it. If some people here seem to think that intent would itself be a policy violation, what do we do then? Equazcion (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Intent is not a violation; action is. However, it is reasonable to allow stated intent to explain actions. At this point, if Noleander adheres to wiki policy and guideline in the future, it matters not if s/he is a Judeophile or Antisemite. However, if Noleander's future actions indicate a continued reliance on inappropriate sources and article creations, the stated intent would take on a greater role in the understanding of his or her actions, at least in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 03:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement, then, at least on where to go from here. I believe this incident has been resolved. Equazcion (talk) 03:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

We're not in agreement, and I don't believe it's resolved. Please don't close discussions in which you're involved again. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Big, huge oops on my part. I mistook Avi's comment for one by you, Jayjg, and therefore thought the closing would be uncontroversial. I sincerely apologize. Equazcion (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said on my Talk: page, please keep in mind that there were many others who raised concerns regarding Noleander, and they all need more than an hour to evaluate and respond as well. Many of them will be off-Wikipedia right now, for various reasons. Indeed, Noelander himself has not had a chance to reply. In light of the various claims of "censorship" flying, including in the very articles that Noleander created, hasty closing of this discussion would seem, at best, ironic. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I shouldn't have been so quick to close just because I thought you and I were in agreement. However, on that point, regarding where to go from here, are we in agreement? I promise I won't close the thread again if you say yes :) Equazcion (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break 4

This feels like the spanish inquistion :-) Seriously, I'll repeat what I've already said several times: I feel that WP is too "politically correct" in some areas. For some odd reason, I feel like I can help improve the encyclopedia in those areas. If you look at my edit history, you'll see that most (80%?) of my edits are adding/tweaking text that is critical of formal religions (Mormonism, Catholicism, Islam, Judaism, Scientology). I'm an equal opportunity skeptic :-) When I started working on Mormonism articles, there was some tension, but as the months went by, I began to respect the apologetic editors ("apologetic" meaning "defender of religion") and - I hope - they somewhat respected me. After a year or so, I was actually adding in lots of positive info about Mormonism, and improving the formatting of the articles.

Regarding this ANI: I have no particular axe to grind: just trying to fill in some perceived voids. I'm the first to admit I am a lousy writer, and am very ignorant of many WP policies (including how to properly cite sources). On the other hand, I am also the editor that added the following topics into articles An Empire Of Their Own:

• Jewish actors were forced to change their names
• Jewish producers, far from putting out J. propaganda, actually refrained from depicting J. themes in movies
• Jewish Hollywood figures were unfairly targetted by McCarthyism.

Some of the above has since been removed by other editors, but I was - to my knowledge - the first to add this material into WP.

And lets not forget my favorite story in WP:

In this chapter, Gabler also gives examples of anti-Semitism endured by the Hollywood Jews. Gaber quotes Milton Sperling telling a story about Joseph Schenck: "Schenck walked into a bank .. and the banker said to [the man with Shenck] 'What are you doing with a kike?'. Years later, Schenk went back to this banker and said 'This kike wants to borrow $100 milllion'... The banker said 'I'll be very happy to do business with you' and [Schenk] said 'Fuck you'." -ref - Quoted in Gabler, p. 132

Do you know who added that? I did. (It has since been removed by another editor).

So, sure 80% of my edits focus on negative aspects of religion. You know what? My two favorite books are God is not great and The God Delusion. Heck, I was the editor that added the horrible crime by Islam when it destroyed the Buddhas of Bamyan into the article Criticism of Religion (and no Islamic-apologetic editors threw an ANI fit about that). Is there some rule that contributions by a given editor must be 50% positive and 50% negative? I repeat, these ANIs are very obvious attempts to intimidate editors that would add (valid, notable) negative material about religions. --Noleander (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am appalled and astonished by the above. Admissions of being a lousy writer, a lousy editor, condescending comments about Mormanism, Judaism and other peoples religious beliefs and a smug assurance that your views matter? Are you kidding? What an incredible, incredible egotistic waste of time, - you think Wikipedia is too politically correct - so you figure a few Anti-Semitic articles will help things out, I thought I've seen everything, till now...Modernist (talk) 05:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

noleander break 5

(outdent) I am not one to encourage or particularly tolerate antisemitic activity on Wikipedia - but the point that overvigilant antisemitism can interfere with reasonable scholarly discussions and documentation of antisemitism is a valid one. Antisemitism is an important topic to bring out into the light and have encyclopedia articles on, because it's a fairly significant societal phenomenon, no matter how offensive or wrong we may feel it is.

I don't on quick review see clear evidence in Noleander's conduct that he's problematically antisemitic or editing grossly inappropriately, or trying to promote antisemitism as opposed to document it. There has been much sound and fury above about apparent or alleged bias with few diffs.

I think that it would be entirely appropriate to ask that those who believe there's a problem provide us with some specific diffs to show either point incidents or a wider pattern, and lacking those to close it with a "Just so we're all clear, there's going to be heightened scrutiny going forwards, but no action taken at this time" closing message.

I'll leave it open for now to offer the opportunity for someone(s) to offer diffs if they have them, but I would close (and recommend others to) if in a few hours diffs aren't forthcoming. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Eh, stuff imported from Stormfront, POVish articles about Jews all covered up with the canard of "WP is too politically correct". You're (Noleander) an anti-semitic POV pusher. A clever one, to be sure, but a POV pusher all the same. Crafty (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

When I am researching appropriate topics, I find that Stormfront, Covert Action Quarterly, Soldier of Fortune, the Chinese Communist Party, and Internet Trolls are all reliable sources. Usually on their own statements and positions; often on related topics.

That I grossly disagree with nearly all of what nearly all of those groups believe in doesn't mean that they are uniformly useless information sources.

Again - I am not ruling out someone finding diffs which are more specific. But I went and looked, and I didn't see any fire under the smoke here. I am perfectly happy to wield the banhammer on deserving antisemitic types who try and advocate on Wikipedia and push POV - I have a number of times before and undoubtedly will again. But I don't see that here.

I know plenty of educated intellectuals who study controversial topics who get caught up in backlashes. So the basic issue is familiar to me.

If I am misreading it - if there's actual evidence he's a problem - someone can surface some diffs and convince me. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But absence of evidence is reason to not overreact or react prematurely. If you really think he's a problem - do your homework and find some diffs. If you or anyone does so and my initial assessment turns out to be wrong then I'll not object to admin enforcement action, and I'll take it myself if it seems appropriate. But I'm not convinced yet, and the way to convince me is diffs, not rhetoric.

SO - again - diffs, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• A few thoughts and ideas:
  • Let's stop making ad hominem attacks on Noleander based on a mostly responsible overall record (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Etiquette ("forgive and forget") etc.) Some of the most valuable edits are made when people have a vested interest in improving the information about a particular subject, often with a particular viewpoint in mind. Regardless of Noleander's stated or unstated intent, most of Noleander's contributions which were critical of Judaism and other religions seem to have remained within the scope of reasonable editing. The edits cited by Slrubenstein as evidence of Noleander's previous record of anti-Jewish editing, for example, were valuable and creative contributions to articles. The article Jews and Hollywood, in my opinion, was a conspicuous exception. Here, I think the inclusion of quotes from antisemitic sources led to lines being crossed in core areas such as Wikipedia:Verifiability (since the sources were not reputable), Wikipedia:Coatrack (since the core information should have been the individual people and their contributions, not the antisemitic accusations), and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ("Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"). IMO it should have been clearer to Noleander, at an earlier stage, which lines he crossed and when, and so I am offering some suggestions.
  • For a course of action, one possibility is to give Noleander a Level 2 warning on his Talk page for some of these violations (a Level 2 warning does not include threats or assumptions of bad faith, and also does not include a welcome since Noleander is not a new user). This type of warning is found in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. As I said, we should also try and make sure we and Noleander understand exactly where he crossed the line so he can think about how to prevent it from happening again.
  • I also feel that possible antisemitism is particularly troublesome even by the standards of bigotry, since the Holocaust occurred less than 70 years ago and antisemitism is still widespread. Antisemitism is a special (I am not saying unique) case because of its potential to lead to violence. --AFriedman (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Was with you up until the end; I don't think antisemetism is particularly troublesome, any more than any other possible bias. Objectivity is paramount over any sort of activism, at least when running an encyclopedia. Could you provide something specific, like a diff or quote from the article history, in which Noleander violated your NPOV snippet of "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves"? Equazcion (talk) 06:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Equazcion, I think we agree on the big picture, i.e. the first 2 paragraphs that suggest some violations and propose a course of action. Do others agree that Noleander violated NPOV, Coatrack and Verifiability and warrants a Level 2 warning, as well as a note or suggestion that he avoid violating these policies in the future? Regarding the NPOV concerns, I was rethinking that a bit and let me explain: the article originally focused overwhelmingly on accusations of disproportionate Jewish influence, much of which came from fringe and unreliable sources. Viewpoints that were sympathetic to Jews, such as the ADL, were mentioned more briefly and were less thoroughly explained. To me, this seems to violate NPOV. As for antisemitism being particularly troublesome, I am not saying it belongs in a special category relative to anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, anti-Armenian or anti-African bigotry, for example. All these have the potential to cause actual harm to people. However, we probably don't need to be as careful about other types of bias. An outright attack on another group, such as students of Cornell University, may equally violate Wikipedia policy. However, it is less likely to incite people to hatred and therefore less concerning. Offline, it is acceptable to sing anti-Cornell songs at football games that one could never sing about Jews or Muslims :) --AFriedman (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
        • I disagree. It's not our job to run the encyclopedia in such a way as to prevent violence. If it were, there are many articles I can think of that wouldn't exist on Wikipedia. The antisemitism issue we're dealing with in this incident is an emotional one. Let's not kid ourselves with righteousness. As far as NPOV, I didn't see there being enough material from the ADL to balance the volume of content needed to describe the antisemitic incidents, and adding more would've seemed forced. That kind of balance isn't what NPOV is about anyway. NPOV refers to a reporting style and language, not balancing content volume on two sides of an issue. If you had a diff regarding "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves", that would've been something, as it seems central to many of the arguments presented against Noleander: People are saying he asserted the opinions themselves, or "promoted" them (essentially the same thing), rather than merely stating facts about opinions. If there's actual evidence of that, I'm willing to re-examine my position. So far, no one's presented anything, and until that happens, I don't see any need to discuss any course of action other than accepting Noleander's apology and seeing what he does in the future. Equazcion (talk) 07:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
          • For those who want to discuss what our role is on Wikipedia, above and beyond the question of Noleander--I still disagree with Equazcion's assessment of how severely we should sanction antisemitism and racism relative to other types of bias, and why--I've responded to the more general issue on Equazcion's talk page. Good night. --AFriedman (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Eh, I don't think the two assessments are so far apart. The articles had serious problems, starting with the titles; without repeated instances following feedback that isn't something we generally punish people for, but I think it can be recognized. For one thing, to start an article on controversies with Jews and Hollywood with the allegations about the film industry's negative portrayals of African Americans, and then suggesting that otherwise this history isn't covered on Wikipedia... well, I think a mainstream way to deal with that issue would not be to cover it as a controversy of Jews and Hollywood. My personal suggestion to Noleander would also be, really, please stop saying that people are complaining out of ulterior motives; this is speculative, it's an assumption of bad faith, and it does no good at all. Similarly (and because I assume it is done for the same reason) I think it's bad form to delete people's talk page messages without comment. On the other hand, I think Afriedman is clearly right that the personal attacks here have gone much too far all around. I can't support an additional formal warning without assuming bad faith (which I don't), but otherwise I think AFriedman's comments are well made. Mackan79 (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• I support the view of AFriedman. Noleander is hereby warned about plagiarism, and copyvio (See top of this thread), and directed to be much more careful about neutral point of view, not writing coatrack type articles, and verifiability. I'm still willing to assume good faith. However, if there is any more copying of Stormfront content into Wikipedia, I'll be quick to change my mind and reach for the block button. Wikipedia is not a soapbox and that's policy. Jehochman ^Talk 09:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Mackan and others here are trying to focus on behavior rather than intent. I agree this is a constructive approach, and refreshing - I acknowledge the limits of my original approach which was to raise questions about intent. But this is a problem with collective attacks (like homophobia, racism, sexism etc) - one can always say one was being ironic or providing an example and not intending to do harm. This is especially an issue here where at least one of the articles in question has been revised during the AfD procedure (not in and of itself a bad thing, but it makes it hard to kep a consistent AfD discussion going). I know some editors did not like the way I originally forwarded the problem, and I will confess now to one big doubt I have: I am concerned i may be misunderstanding Noleander. That is why I raised a few questions of my own the other day ... but they were not answered.

I would still appreciate it if Noleander would answer these questions: Do you think that every AfD is an attempt to censor? Do you think Wikipedia should allow anti-Semitic articles? I am sure you have a lot more to say in response but I'd appreciate yes/no answers to at least these two questions,at least as a start. Then I would really like you to address two points: (1) concrete examples to illustrate this: "My perception is that Wikipedia is censored in regards to some topics that reflect negatively on Jews, and I'm attempting to reverse that censorship" - perhaps this can be interprested different ways so I would like no room for misunderstanding - and (2) how, precisely, do these two articles you started reverse (as you claimed they would) that censorship? Again, as concrete and specific as posible to leave no rrom for misundanding. I am acknowledging I may have misunderstood you in the past. I ask these questions in good faith to clear up misunderstandings. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Macgyver-bd 896 again

Prior discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive569#Disruptive_editing_by_User:Macgyver-bd_896

Following up, User:Macgyver-bd 896 has been editing to add unsourced material to firearms articles. A few users found it disruptive but in my view, since nobody is putting a source out there (and I'm not going to be able to say if it's totally ridiculous as they claim), it's bad but I wasn't going to do much beyond this particularly harsh warning for his edit removing a source. Well, I feel like User:Koalorka has been harassing him on his talk page (with reinserting stuff on his talk page, reinserting a typo and removing a source). I told Koalorka it's his talk page but if someone else can reduce the drama, I'd appreciate it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What?! Why am I the focus of an ANI again!?! This is absolutely frivolous. I made exactly ONE interaction with Macgyver. This is harassment. Koalorka (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What was the logic of your edits at Uzi? He added a source. You removed it without explanation and starting warring at his talk page a few days later. Same thing at Luger P08 pistol. Seems like you're following him around for some reason. You've been blocked for personal attacks and harassment before and you don't seem to have improved. I've ignored your comments[169][170] but I will not allow you to continue attacking others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

With regards to the Uzi, I was in the process of mass-reverting a bunch of vandalism on several other pages. I didn't even realize it was him at the time. This "warring" that you describe was simply re-tagging the user as a disruptive editor after eyeballing DanMP5's talk page. Please avoid using inflammatory wording such as "warring" when in fact I only made ONE SINGLE edit to his page without knowledge of the previous revert on the Uzi page. My past history has NOTHING to do with this manufactured drama. You can't hold me hostage to my block history. Another threat based on my block history and I will consider filing an AN/I on the grounds of prejudice. "Attacking others"? Again, sensationalist drama. This is the internet. Take a deep breath and consider the insignificance of this all for a moment. Better? Welcome back to reality. Now, let me resume my work, and you can continue doing whatever it is that you do here. Have a nice day. Koalorka (talk) 02:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You edit history is clear. You reverted on his talk page and then went to Luger P08 pistol and went through 5 separate undids of his edits, including his errors.[171][172][173][174][175]. That is not "reverting vandalism", since it looks like you were going by the editor, not the content. Reverting vandalism tends to imply you were looking at the end result of the page, not just going diffs by diffs (unless you're going to argue that editor is only vandalizing). Look, I'll drop it, since it really seems nobody else has any problems here. I'll just note that your block history is there and yes, people will look at that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the edit history is entirely coincidental. Like I said, I had no systemic approach to this user and wasn't aware of him until you popped out with your bogus claim. This is a non-issue. If you wish to harass me, there are much more tenable reasons for you to do so, my perceived incivility for instance. This is not one of them. I think we're done here. Koalorka (talk) 13:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(noted on ANI and on Koalorka's talk page)

Koalorka - Numerous people have warned you before, and blocked you before, for poking back too hard at editors who are disruptive or who come into conflict with you.

I agree that this is a relatively minor case and not worthy of any official sanction at this time.

But Ricky was not hallucinating. You keep pushing this button. Please consider this topic a poorly fuzed land mine. If you keep banging on the button on top, eventually it explodes, and then you are very very sorry.

Stop banging on the button. Learn to edit in a manner which does not abuse those around you. Even if they are behaving badly.

You have been baited in the past and subjected to harrassment campaigns. Those are not entitlements for you to push back. Despite you being one of the more productive military topic and firearms editors - and someone who appreciates your content efforts in depth - eventually you will exceed everyone's tolerance. Eventually you will exceed my tolerance.

Wikipedia does not have space in its community for people who continually abuse those around them. You have gotten better on this point. But you are not doing well enough yet that you're out of danger of indefinite blocking based on ongoing behavior. Take the hint, please. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I echo that - more drastic improvement is needed to avoid being banned in the near future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Chuthya and the David Shankbone article

Continuing on the earlier thread regarding User:67.160.100.233, it appears as though the widespread predictions at the deletion discussion that the article for David Shankbone would become a harassment coatrack were prescient. User:Chuthya has taken up the ball now, adding a (since removed, and it must be said: non-notable) photograph of a goat urinating to the article. He has stated his intention to attempt to add non-notable male anatomy photographs to the article, as well. Other of his edits pick up a common harassment tactic used against User:David Shankbone, while yet another appears to be highly questionable. I've attempted to explain to him why several of his recent edits are problematic, and not all of his edits have been prima facie harassment (but still appear to fail wp:rs and wp:blp, and apparently open the door to his other goals). However subtle, these edits and his apparent motive appear highly problematic, especially for a wp:blp. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Chuthya of this discussion. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I explained on my talk page, all of my contributions to that article involve inclusion of CC licensed images that were contributed by the subject. These images were voluntarily uploaded to Commons by the subject. If the subject feels that these images are embarassing, he certainly has the right to request their deletion as their author. I hardly see how editing an article to include contributions by its subject could be construed as harassment. As I also stated, the subjects numerous contributions of free photographs of male anatomy could be included in the article, but undoubtably shouldn't without discussion first. Lastly, I initiated a discussion in talk regarding inclusion in the article the subject's contributions in the area of gay pornography. The article is arguably non-neutral with regard to coverage of the subject's intrests and contributions in this area. But rather than boldly including this in the article, I initiated discussion in talk. User:J's characterations of my edits, and presumption of what my "goals" are, are a woeful example of not assuming good faith. Chuthya (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned to you earlier, adding a non-notable photograph of a urinating goat to the biography of a living person regardless of your explanation, stretches any possible assumption of good faith past its breaking point. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not you feel the image is notable, it is an example representative of his work and contributions to the project. It would be prefectly legitimate to include any of his contributions in the article, though arguably some would be more controversial than others. Images from Commons don't need sourcing because they're automatically sourced on the description page. That's the purpose of Commons. If you question the attributability of Commons, then you question the project's ability to comply with GFDL and Creative Commons licenses. Chuthya (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between attribution and actual reliable sourcing. Given the variety and significant quantity of his work, decisions made by you or me to include certains pieces of his work give rise to the potential for a sort of editorial original research potentially lacking in neutrality, as was the case with one of the images you intended to insert and the other images you indicated you would like to insert. This is highly problematic, especially for a wp:blp, and especially given the amplitude of not reliable contributions that could be pulled from here and Commons. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What dialect of bafflegab is that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a unique dialect utilized primarily when trying to craft a response to a wp:ididnthearthat question. It boils down to: Special:Contributions is not a reliable source. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I should have recognized bullshit when I heard it! So, if a normally reliable source, say Scientific American, uses one of David's images from the Commons and says "Photo of Colbert by David Shankbone via Wikimedia Commons", that means it magically becomes, to use your word, "reliable" even though they took that information from the Commons as supplied by David. Is that your argument? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The distinction being that Wikimedia Commons, which is to say you or me, are not a reliable source for editorial decisions, while Scientific American is by our standards. You can call it "bullshit," but it's the only way I see for keeping exactly what happened here today from continuing to occur. Selecting photographs for a biography of a living person that are anything other than a headshot can be a highly editorialized process, and as was displayed here, it can be an easy way for someone with a point to make to make that point much better than they could have with "a thousand words." I don't know of any other wp:blp with these sorts of issues, because I don't think any other notable living person has hundreds or thousands of images from which any given editor lacking in neutrality could pick from to make their point. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit it gets off the hook for choosing which of the many great images of David's to use, but it's not much better than choosing randomly or asking David for his favourites. You keep coming back to this very idiosyncratic idea that reliable sources are needed to prove that David took the image in question. If that were the case, shouldn't we be looking for images that have been written about rather than just re-used, sometimes without credit? Don't you think choosing appropriate images for any artist requires some level of discretion? I'm not suggesting that we insert the goat into David Shankbone, but can we try to treat this BLP like we treat other BLPs? There seems to be some ideas that this article is special, when we really ought to be going out of our way to show that it is not, and to see if there are shortcomings with how we handle BLPs. Please don't bother to reply. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's idiosyncratic. Again, I don't know of any other wp:blp where this particular issue has ever been an issue, so "treating it like other" biographies, for me, is falling back to relying on pictorial editorial decisions made by secondary, reliable sources, rather than by us. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I should know better than to wade into this, but your repeated use of the phrase "non-notable photograph" makes me wonder if you think it means something. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. If it were a notable photograph that he had taken, which had been printed in or covered by reliable sources, perhaps its inclusion would be reasonable. As a non-notable photograph, the only motivation for its editorial selection would be on the part of User:Chuthya... I'm sure there are a lot of reasons for why somebody would think a urinating goat would be appropriate to include in a biography of a living person. I just can't think of any. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

J, someone seems to have reformatted several comments here, so I'm not sure if you were replying to me, but you seem to be saying that only images printed in or covered by RS can be included in David Shankbone? Is that really what you are suggesting, or did I misunderstand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Photographs of the subject are one thing. Photographs taken by the subject are another thing altogether, and, just to start with, there needs to be relevance to the subject greater than him simply having taken the photograph. I personally interpret wp:rs and wp:blp as being problematic in the instance of this biography: User:Chuthya wanted to discuss User:David Shankbone's Wikipedia contributions in the article. I think that's where secondary, reliable coverage becomes important... Along those lines, I'm not yet convinced using a different standard for photographs contributed to Wikimedia, as opposed to text contributed to Wikipedia, is going to work for this biography, given the actions undertaken by User:Chuthya and likely to be undertaken by others. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that David took the image of a goat or of Whoopie Goldberg(or any of the literally thousands of images he has contributed). I don't understand why you would think RS is relevant here. Is this something to do with the mysterious "non-notable photograph" you alluded to earlier? DO you think a third-party needs to affirm that David took the photograghs? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

See my response to User:Achromatic below, which also covers the questions you raised. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(to Chuthya, to avoid confusion) Oh for christ's sake who do you think you're kidding? AGF is not a shield for the patently obvious tactic here of picking the most famously controversial/salacious images from his commons collection and jamming them into the article to make a point. This has nothing to do with sourcing or attribution, so drop that false argument, please. On another note, this is another reason why marginal BLPs shouldn't be created. Tarc (talk) 19:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless the photos are relevant to the article content as sourced to reliable independent coverage, it's not clear why they would warrant inclusion. As far as examples of the subjects work, why not use ones that relevant to the content? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for WP:POINT and WP:BLP violations. Cirt (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned about this block. Looking at the article I see there is an entire gallery section of "example" photographs. Who gets to decide which ones should be included? If the subject of that BLP has contributed photographs on a range of subjects, shouldn't that be reflected? Otherwise I would think the gallery is itself improper (as may be the case).

I think continued discussion would have been preferable to a block. As long as that editor was willing to work through dispute resolution and abide by consensus, blocking someone whose position is controversial seems problematic to me. It very well may be the case that they are trying to make a point, but we are expected to assume good faith. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, I don't see how one can assume good faith when an editor is attempting to add a photograph of the rear end of a goat to the biography of a living person. Assuming good faith is one thing; ignoring the obvious point (at best) is another. That being said, I'm not convinced, as you highlight, that the gallery can survive wp:rs and therefore wp:blp, and this may be a heretofore undiscussed issue that needs to be addressed (as I mention above in reply to User:Delicious carbuncle). user:J aka justen (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting - it seems to be your point that the WP page of an artist should only contain art/photography OF the artist, not BY the artist. One wonders why you are not at Rene Magritte, removing the imagery of "The Treachery Of Images" and "The Human Condition", after all, they apparently hold no relevance to the article. Or perhaps Andres Serrano, where no image of the artist appears, but only "Madonna and Child II", an image which shows these religious figures floating in human urine, after all, surely it is stretching past the boundary of good faith to assume that image is there for any purpose other than to discredit the artist. Or perhaps you'd care to explain to people why some artist's page should have their work exhibited, but that you are fighting tooth and nail for another artist's page NOT to have their work exhibited? Achromatic (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my position: Andres Serrano has a vast body of work with individually notable pieces which have themselves received significant reliable secondary coverage. If I may, Urinating Goat is no Piss Christ, and the image could not have been selected because of its notability within the "portfolio" of David Shankbone. Rather, it appears to have been selected editorially to make a point, as User:Cirt and others have noted above. Likewise, his intention to include photographs of male anatomy appears geared to include otherwise tangential salacious content in a biography of a living person (as User:Tarc noted above), even though said photographs are representative of a very small portion of what User:David Shankbone has uploaded. All of this to say that I don't believe I've created a double standard: if any of User:David Shankbone's images, individually, receive reliable secondary coverage, they should be included in his article. If not, any given editor selecting which to include here can become a significant editorial neutrality issue, as was proven here, and I think that's why we should look closely to wp:rs and wp:blp to figure out how to deal with this sort of situation. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that the subject of the BLP has added numerous photos related to gay and sexual subjects. If that part of their work is notable and has been covered in reliable independent media it should be represented (along with other subjects they have worked on). But again, I think the key is that a reasonable discussion based on policies and focused on article content would be the best way to proceed, rather than assuming the worst and blocking someone who includes content that is controversial. If the blocked editor had insisted on continuing to add that material without participating in discussion towards resolving the dispute, that would be a different issue. But I don't see a sign of that. Instead I see anyone who comments anonymously on the talk page regarding the photos that are and aren't being included bein attacked. It's not clear why a goat's ass is helpful to include, so maybe I'm being naive, but if isn't a significant photograph why is it on Wikipedia to begin with? I'm not an expert on David's career or his photographic work, or the media coverage of it, if there is any, so I'm open to discussion on how it should be represented. This Wikinews story notes that censorship and pornography issues have arisen in the past [176]. Were they covered in reliable independent media? Right now the article is full of shots with celebrities and a bunch of shots he's taken of celebrities. That doesn't seem terribly encyclopedic or representative of his body of work. Does that mean it needs more genitalia? Maybe. Maybe not. Let's discuss what's appropriate. Blacketeers article was deleted as soon as there was a controversy about him. If we're going to have these articles on BLPs we need to be transparent, neutral and accurate. If not then just delete the thing and be done with it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why this is controversial. If I thought someone was a goat's arse and put an image of a goat's arse on their article (even if they took the photo) I would fully expect to be blocked for it. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For whatever reason, User:David Shankbone is a very widely "followed" editor on here and in the peanut gallery, and has more than a few (unfavourable) "followers" who apparently would like to use his newly minted wp:blp as a new conduit to make what they believe to be unflattering points about him. As to why preventing this is controversial, I can't speculate. user:J aka justen (talk) 23:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Look guys, if Shankbone uploads a photo to Wikipedia or Commons with his name on it, and does not choose to "opt out" of his BLP, then any of his photos can be placed in the article as representative of his work. If he was willing to put his name on a photo of the rear end of a goat, then I don't see why he would object to it being placed in his article as representative of his work. It is not a BLP violation as long as it contains no infammatory or insulting verbiage in the image caption. Do not block people for linking to his images in his article. If Shankbone doesn't like it, he can ask for his bio to be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think wp:blp is clear that using images "out of context," such as was the case here, is unacceptable. Where did you come up with the interpretation that wp:blp only applies to image captions? user:J aka justen (talk) 01:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not out of context to display any of the images that this guy took. If he's willing to take such a picture and upload it to Commons with his name on it, then he is adding it to his collection of work for which he is known for. Who are we to judge which images (apart from featured images) have more value or are more representative than any other? History is history, art is art. We present the content, within our policies, and let the readers decide for themselves if it has merit or not. Again, if this guy doesn't want to be associated with those photos anymore within Wikipedia, then it behooves him to ask that his BLP be deleted. Otherwise, I guess he'll just have to accept the consequences for the decisions that he makes or has made. A good lesson for us all. Cla68 (talk) 04:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

"Who are we to judge which images (apart from featured images) have more value or are more representative than any other?" Precisely. Which is why we should only highlight images that reliable sources have printed, used, or otherwise commented on. "Otherwise, I guess he'll just have to accept the consequences for the decisions that he makes or has made." Seriously? Beyond that, I think your viewpoint is entirely out of touch with wp:blp. "Anything you contribute to this project can and will be used against you in your biography" is not in line with the spirit of Wikipedia or Wikimedia, and makes a laughingstock of our policy on the biographies of living people. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what the issue is. Here's a stab at it. It's one thing to decorate your user pages with any and all photos you can find in commons. Far as I know, that's totally acceptable. But when photos are used in an article, even when they're free, they need to be "notable" in some way. Presumably the subject is notable, so obviously photos of himself would therefore be notable. Maybe photos of himself with celebrities would be notable. But photos he's taken from behind the camera are presumably only notable to the article if someone else says they are, i.e. if they were cited by an external, reliable source. I think that's what the argument is. Maybe someone can tell me if I've got it right or not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the gist of it, I do believe. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well let's get to the crux of this then - from the criteria people have outlined, this photo is fine for the article? It contains the notable individual, it contains other notable individuals we have articles on. Otherwise by the arguments outlined here, we have to remove all of the pictures on the Shankbone article because they are not used in any reliable sources I can find, simply on his blog and uploaded on the commons. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Bullying, personal opinion influencing editing of page

I would appreciate a review of the discussion page, Transformers reference, of the F-15 Eagle page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:F-15_Eagle). One or two users are engaging in insulting and bullying behavior by blocking legitimate, valid, and relevant information from being added to this page. They are applying some kind of standard that does not apply to similar or identical information that exists for other aircraft of similar type (F-14 and F-22, for example). Then, they are threatening me with blocking.

As an example of the attitude of one of the "editors" in question, I point to his own page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dave1185), where he says those who have the audacity to use this as a means to have an issue addressed are, in his opinion, "real jerks." Quite a display of childish behavior. Well, I'm not going to back down from this bullying from a bully without a leg to stand on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.78.69.200 (talk) 18:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Dave has some very deep personal problems. I would recommend that someone look into this grave offense. Koalorka (talk) 04:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

 – Backlog cleared. NW (Talk) 19:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You know the drill. Help is appreciated :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

...and as quick as that, the backlog is gone. A question for the admins, could there be a bot that alerts the AN or ANI boards when there is a backlog, kinda like DYK does? It would allow the bot to put these edits here and not a user and clear out backlogs ALOT faster. Just an idea. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 19:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe there is an ongoing discussion on this at one of the pumps. –xeno^talk 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is such a bot on IRC, in the #wikipedia-en-alerts channel. IIRC, it reports several backlogs including CSD, Unblocks, UAA, AIV, and a few others. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It reports AIV, UAA, Unblock request, edit protected request, and csd levels. (I run it and have been running it for several years now) if any more need added let me know. β^_command 23:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Or people could watchlist AIV. Problem solved! Master of Puppets 04:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

RfPP Backlog

In the spirit of reporting backlogs here, could someone check out the backlog at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What, if anything, should be done?

I received this message from an editor on Spanish Wikipedia:

Hello.

In Spain there has been a scandal about a wiki with content pro-Nazi.

The user is responsible called "Auslli" which seems, is the same as here called Auslli.

My English is not very good. I leave what I have written to an administrator (PeterSymonds).

It's a shame that people like that are asministradores a wiki (however small like "Llionpedia").

Links:

• [177]
• [178]
• Sockpuppet investigations/Auslli/Archive

Saludos.--FCPB (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Should any action be taken in response to this message? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that as per WP:AGF action should only be taken if there are specific documented cases of nazi POV by that user here on en-Wiki. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

An IP who I believe is the Spanish editor above posted this in the Auslli sock investigation archive by mistake, so I'm reposting it here. The last couple of sentences indicate something possibly worth checking out, given that Auslli was found to be operating a sockfarm on Leon articles in that investigation, and only escaped an indef block because of his apparent 'useful contributions' Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry to be late... but I think it must considering again to block the account to user "Auslli". His spanish account in es.wikipedia was unmasked and blocked--->
• The comments made by this user in spanish llionpedia are being investigated by Spanish Prosecutorshttp://www.diariodeleon.es/noticias/noticia.asp?pkid=482489 and http://www.la-cronica.net/2009/10/12/leon/holocausto-de-genocidio-a-solo-unos-pocos-miles-de-muertos-53109.htm for comments pro-nazis. Nowadays, the City Hall is investigating if "Auslli" and "Abel Pardo" are the same person (In the picture of the news, you can see Abel Pardo". Abel Pardo is a council member of a political nationalist organisation, and the responsible of LLionpedia.) Maybe "Auslli" and "Abel Pardo" are not the same person. (I don't know, i'm not a police man and it's no my problem) But it seems very probably that "Auslli" in Llionpedia, and "Auslli" in Spanish Wiki, and "Auslli" in Englis Wiki are the same user. The 3 users, contributing in same articles (Leonese Language, Kingdom of León, PuntuLLI, Salzburg, Berchtesgaden. As Karkeixa said, this "user" monopolizes and hinders all coments against the Leonese separatist ideology, in en.wiki and es.wiki. Articles like Leonese language, are full of arguments with bad intentions. In Llionpedia, it seems that this user made contributions favorable to the Holocaust (user "Auslli" is the first registered member in Llionpedia, and administrator. He registered on Llionpedia even before the announcement launch). In Asturian Wikipedia, the article "Abel Pardo" was blocked by majority vote. They had problems with several leonese articles, made by users that have intentional purposes. I think you must reconsidering the problem with this user. No change can be made in english wikipedia about Leonese, without his supervision. Regards. As you can see, this issue is important --85.49.64.200 (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:UAA backlog

Resolved

 – Minutes after posting this, it got cleared out. -- Atama頭 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I might as well pile on here, WP:UAA looks to be backlogged, with quite a few reports waiting for resolution. -- Atama頭 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible reincarnation of banned user

The account Bobaboba2009 (talk · contribs) appeared today on my talk page claiming "I'm back". The account has been blocked, but before 24 hours are up and the IP autoblock is removed, a checkuser needs to be performed and the underlying IP blocked for a year for belonging to a banned user. The last known IP address of this banned user was 72.177.68.38 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). If it is similar, then it is a positive match.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Eco-Friendly Dentistry and claims of copyright

On the article Dentistry and the environment, the user Oradental (talk · contribs) has been adding promotional text [179], [180]. Today, the user confirmed a COI on his talk page [181]; but also claimed to be representing the copyright holder of the term "Eco-friendly dentistry" in the United States.

I've reverted the user's edits as they are promotional concerning the claim to copyright by ORA Dental Studio. My reasoning is partly related to the promotional claim - but also because the use cited in the article pre-dates the copyright claim. The uspto.gov shows a filing date of the term on February 9, 2009; while the existing cite in the article references this canadian publication from 2007.

However, I would appreciate having others review this article and the added content. I was considering using an RfC, but decided to move it here due to the potential copyright concerns. If I should use a different venue, please advise, and I'll move this immediately. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the contributor for the username/promotional combination. ORA Dental is a company name, and the contributor is using the account to promote the company. That said, it isn't a question of the term "Eco-friendly dentistry" being copyrighted, but trademarked, which is a different matter. I don't actually know if the US and Canada have any international agreements to honor trademarks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right ... the trademark was what I found on the uspto website. I just used the term copyright because there was also an issue with the user posting copyrighted text involving that trademark (copied from their own website), and should have corrected my terminology - sorry about any confusion that may have caused. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It didn't cause confusion for long. :) But I thought to point it out for others viewing this listing. I've clarified the text a bit to identify the source of the term, and I've left them instructions for contacting our legal department if they feel this represents trademark infringement. I don't know of a clear policy on this one. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to 'trademark' two common words in such a way that it is illegal for anyone other than the trademark holder to write them in sequence? If it is, I'd like to trademark the phrase 'blocked vandal.' You all have my permission to use the term, as long as you deposit ten US cents in my PayPal account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

LOL! :D Honestly, I don't see how it could be trademark infringement myself, since there doesn't seem to be any likelihood for confusion, but I've had very little involvement with trademark matters. I know if they're going to try to protect the trademark, they're likely to have their work cut out for them! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Annoying new vandalism

Twice in a row, a user on SingNet (dynamic IP assignment; IP ranges I have found belong to the ISP are 116.14.0.0/15, 121.6.0.0/15, 220.255.0.0/16, 219.74.0.0 - 219.75.127.255, 119.74.0.0/16; and there are probably mroe) has added a string of text essentially attacking me onto Kamen Rider Ryuki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ([182] and [183]). I cannot tell who this person is. All I know is that it's showing up in Google (I've put in a request to remove the text). I don't know which would be a more useful (in the long run) method of preventing this vandalism from continuing. Whether to disallow the text from being added via an abuse filter or to semiprotect the page. The subject of the article (a Japanese television show), has been off the air for seven years. However, if the text is going to be the same each time, then the string of text can be blocked via the edit filter if the vandalism moves onto other pages (that I don't have watchlisted). I can't predict the actions, but I'd rather be safe and block the text rather than access to the articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Also it might be helpful to selectively delete the two diffs that I have pointed out so the text is not available to non-admin users and thereby disallow an undo of my latest revert.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please review my block

Please see my notice. If the community decides, any admin may change my action without further discussion with me. - Altenmann >t 20:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, certainly the editor has been warned frequently, and doesn't seem to have modified his behavior, but going straight to an indef block is too harsh in my book. The editor had a clean block log prior to this, so it isn't clear to me that there was any imminent disruption. I'll look a bit more and see if my opinion changes. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I'm even seeing the frequent warnings - user isn't in the habit of blanking his userpage, and all I'm seeing is a dialogue about some of his edits that looks like a continuation of a debate on an article talkpage. I'm also not sure (because there are no template warnings) where the bad edits are taking place. Is there a site of current disruption? Failing something dramatic elsewhere, I would have thought a stern warning from an unconnected admin would have been a preferable first step. But do point out what I've missed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing much input here. I am prepared to reduce this block to time served. If anyone wishes to weigh in to the contrary, please do soon. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

69.121.221.174

I brought up a sockpuppetry investigation against 69.121.221.174 because that user was engaging in behavior that I thought to be reminiscent of the previous Spotfixer sockpuppet TruthIIPower. Later developments in that investigation showed that Spotfixer had indeed edited with that IP. Therefore, that IP was blocked.

After an extremely angry email to me and some gradually calming-down discourse at User talk:69.121.221.174, I believe that the IP should actually be unblocked. From what the IP tells me, it seems that

• The IP belongs to a university residence
• A journalism class at the university brings up the use of "mother" vs. "pregnant woman" on Wikipedia every year, hence the periodic debate over that issue (new classes of journalism students taking that class) which led to my suspicions of sockpuppetry
• Other students at that residence were editing articles on cooking right before the block, and would like to be able to continue to contribute.

and I find this reasonably well substantiated by the user contributions.

I'm afraid that I made a mess of things by actually finding a situation in which similar behavior + same IP ≠ sockpuppet. I now find myself reasonably convinced that they are not a sockpuppet and should be unblocked. Awickert (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I would agree with you that it is probably reasonable to unblock, but not that you made a mess of things. One of the advantages of creating an account is not being immediately associated with everyone else that ever was at that address. It was a risk that didn't pay off. That doesn't mean it was a bad risk, just that it didn't pay off.- Sinneed 21:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If the IP is used by a banned user then a block is entirely appropriate. Anyone who shares that IP who is not the banned user can create an account elsewhere (like the uni library) and then edit without further restriction. Thatcher 21:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If a journalism class has a yearly debate of "mother vs pregnant woman", why don't they just create a WP account for that purpose? A vandalising IP shouldn't be unblocked just because other people at that location don't vandalize. Heck, where I edit from is usually blocked, don't affect me any. Not sure I agree with a university class using Wiki as a debate project, but that's a different subject. IMHO, you were in the right with the block. Tainted Conformity (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

They couldn't just create an account - a wikipedia account can only be used by one person. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

True enough, I guess. Personally think an exception could be made in that type of case though, considering that they're not on the site to improve it as much as use it for class. As long as they had their class's contact info (name of the university & class) on the userpage, I personally wouldn't see the problem. Tainted Conformity ^Chat 01:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: this isn't the IP of a journalism class, it's the IP of a residence where people from the journalism class have lived. Hence the two cooking-related edits right before the block. Also, I think it has been people inspired by the class, but acting on their own initiative, who have editied Wiki. Awickert (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing talkpage comments

What am I supposed to do with this guy? I propose a move on Talk:Tomislav II of Croatia, 4th Duke of Aosta [184], User:Imbris disagrees. Naturally his next step is to try and sabotage the whole thing by altering the move proposal [185]. imho this last deliberate and malicious disruption should certainly be taken with the context of User:Imbris' past behavior in mind. Especially the fact that he has decided to vandalize other people's posts while on probation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all there is no probation, even if I am currently under 1RR. I did not revert. The request that Mr. DIREKTOR made is significantly different from his 2008 attempt. The introduction and the closing argument are off-topic, written to slant the evidences and in full disregard toward WP:NPOV. Direktor turned the discussion on my person, and not on the evidence, accusing me of ultra-nationalism and other POV. Placing those tags were the only way to gain Mr. DIREKTORs attention to his not neutral reques, both in the introduction of the request and in the "conclusions" made by Mr. DIREKTOR. -- Imbris (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, can you point to the vandalising posts incident please. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC) Scrub that, I can't see for looking. Imbris, that is just childish - and yes it does count as refactoring another user's talk page comments, which is out of bounds. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert Mr. DIREKTORs deletion of those tags. The request for move provocked me, but I have addressed the matter at the right place. I sincerely appologize if I did not follow the rules. I did not know that it counts as refactoring, on several occassions on Talk:Gulf_of_Piran#No my talk page contributions were marked by those tags, and I did not know it is not allowed. Is there any chances for this to be a first-aid and not CPR. -- Imbris (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for not edit-warring against me writing my own post. Heh, he most certainly knows full well that what he's doing is against Wiki policy - he's no newbie. User:Imbris has been reported maybe a dozen times - he knows how to "work the system". The move was simply getting "too many" Support votes so he did his best to alter the text of the move rationale. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not know that in such cases when the requestor of the move in his "rationale" writes NPOV, that you cannot mark that sentence with the tag. I know that now. This should not warrant a block. I hope :) I did not say that I am a newbie, but tryed to appologize to the community for the mishap.

Anyone can see that your rationale is completely against policy and guidelines of the RM.

Imbris (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I support (yet another) block of Imbris. He simply is not taking the hint. Maybe a months-long block this time? Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is simply sad, to see. Crotchety Old Man WP:STALKed me. He had never before edited on Tomislav II of Croatia nor monarchism for that matter. Crotchety Old Man insisted I should appologize to him and GoodDay because of refactoring, which I complied. Even if GoodDay went ahed with the discussion (a sign of support) and even if GoodDay expanded the discussion in a completely different direction. Strange to see that Crotchety Old Man had not warned Notpietru when he changed the title of a section for several times. -- Imbris (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Crotchety Old Man did not WP:STALK Imbris. He was involved at the talkpage in question and noticed User:Imbris' edit first. Anyway, lets not squabble over irrelevant nonsense. The link is here, what else is there to talk about. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety Old Man did WP:STALK, the editor in question had not ever previously edited on the Tomislav II of Croatia, nor any other monarch for that matter, and now we see his edit and a support vote in the biased rationale move request by Mr. DIREKTOR. -- Imbris (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A page movement discussion is in progress. Why is it being treated like a terrible event? Why I am being requested to stay away from an editor's talkpage? A lot of un-necessary dramatics IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of peace, I have requested that GoodDay do not contact me ever, on any and all matters. He and Mr. DIREKTOR discussed like GoodDay supports the Tomislav II of Croatia title, while it is evident from the talk page of that article that GoodDay never supported such title (never before), to miracleously turn his position. -- Imbris (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Due to Peter II's reign, I support changing the article title to the Duke's real name. Again, why am I being 'barred' from your userpage? GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Well, this report is going nowhere fast... why is it that once there is any arguing on a report, it too often gets ignored? The original cause of the report still stands. Don't mind all the clutter. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of you go to the topic below please. Some minnows are waiting.   Nezzadar ☎   23:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR

How can the following accusations of Mr. DIREKTOR be characterized?

• [186] has this accusation: "The statement Imbris makes is the worst kind of Ustaše ultranationalist propaganda"

This is not just contrary to WP:AGF but is plain defamation and harrasment.

Constitution of Croatia article clearly indicate that it is common knowledge and not some ultra-nationalist propaganda. DIREKTOR should read the paragraph "the fact that the Croatian Parliament had never sanctioned the decision of the National Council of the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs to unite with Serbia and Montenegro in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (1 December 1918), subsequently (3 October 1929) proclaimed the Kingdom of Yugoslavia;".

DIREKTOR feels that every person claiming what is written above is a ultra-nationalist Ustaše supporter and revisionist.

Please make him stop the crusade against fellow users, who did their best not to interffer with the articles of Mr. DIREKTOR's choice.

Imbris (talk) 22:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in seeing anybody blocked over this topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

More of the same dramatics from you. You must be Wikipedia's foremost martyr. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I have idle standed the harrasment by Mr. DIREKTOR and this is the first time I have reported him. -- Imbris (talk) 22:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It can be characterized as "commenting on content, not the contributor". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No it cannot be characterized like that. -- Imbris (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to intervine with the following piece of logic. Direktor, your comment was out of line. Please don't assume that a person is pushing a specific agenda. Imbris, your soapboxing is out of line. I don't see a pattern of abuse, just one comment. Obviously this is a touchy subject, but still. As punishment, I smack both of you with wet fish. Now go be productive.   Nezzadar ☎   23:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Plip!

Plip!

I was not referring to him, I honestly don't think I was out of line. The "statement" I'm referring to in that (obviously out-of-context) quote is a claim first voiced by the Croatian fascist/ultranationalist separatists (the Ustaše) in the 1930s. Therefore I said "The statement Imbris makes is the worst kind of Ustaše ultranationalist propaganda". Other users have previously noted User:Imbris' English is less than perfect.

Imbris, if you somehow drew from that that I am (in your words) "accusing" you of being an Ustaše supporter, you are obviously mistaken in your interpretation. (Either that, or you're trying to take that statement out of context so it looks like I'm talking about you :). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Nezzadar, while I sympathise to an extent, can we get back to the original complaint. DIREKTOR put up a proposal for a page move. People started commenting on whether they supported it. Imbris then vandalised the proposal. Given that Imbris is on probation with a IRR, this was pure gaming the system. Simples (where's that meerkat when you need him) Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

actually DIREKTOR seems to be a regular guest on this board complaining against other editors. i'm sure most of the time he's right however it seems that his self-righteous tone brings the worst out of other editors. also his attempt above to trivialise his ugly accusation, instead of an apology, is a bit unpleasant. perhaps he too needs a little slap on the wrist to calm down a little bit. Loosmark (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Loosmark: I would certainly apologize, as I often do when I believe I am at fault. However I do not think so this time. Here's the slightly wider context so that people can see the whole thing:

The statement Imbris makes, while also irrelevant to this whole issue, is the worst kind of Ustaše ultranationalist propaganda - "a non-existent assembly did not confirm the union of a non-existent entity into Yugoslavia"? That's the exact excuse the Ustaše used.

Is this a violation of WP:NPA? If so, I shall apologize. I personally believe that it is obvious I was referring to the idea or "theory" that Imbris presented ("a non-existent assembly did not confirm the union of a non-existent entity into Yugoslavia") - not to Imbris himself. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Not true, Mr. DIREKTOR list is wrong. For the entire history of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, all the major political parties, like the Peasent party quoted the same quotation as the current Constitution of Croatia. It is common knowledge and his insinuation of Ustaše is particularly gruesom because he links that ultra-nationalist and fascist movement with me for quoting the Constitution of Croatia. Croatian parliament existed in 1918 and did not confirm creating of Yugoslavia. -- Imbris (talk) 23:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: Not true the statement is common knowledge to every 9-grader. DIREKTOR was definitely out of line and this is his method of making offences and defamation until the other editor cannot stand it any more and reciprocate. I will not follow that pattern.

DIREKTOR is accusing every law-abiding citizen of Croatia and the World, who respect each and every constitution of each and every country, Croatian included, that has something with supporting the POV that Mr. DIREKTOR trows constantly at each and every user who disagree with him.

Imbris (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

@Nezzadar: There is a pattern, and en.Wiki is full of victims to Mr. DIREKTORs temper. In the second paragraph of his edit Mr. DIREKTOR said: "If I brought you a dead Serbian zomby with no ears saying "the Ustaše cut-off my ears", you'd say he's lying and that I can't include it in the article." (direct quote, the sentence is not touched).

The previous is also a: harassment, and made me sick, to be forced to listen his expressive and gruesome attack. -- Imbris (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not revert nobody. I have explained everything, appologized twice, and in turn have been subjected to the worst kind of slandering which affect the request for the move. -- Imbris (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the merge of these two topics. -- Imbris (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey folks, atleast we all agree that the current article title is 'confusing'. GoodDay (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright. I got involved to defuse a stupid argument. As a response to that DIREKTOR apologized and Imbris attacked DIREKTOR. Now lets see here. What does this say about the argument. Imbris, I strongly advise you to cool off. If I were an admin I would probably be considering a block on you right now for attacking a person that has shown interest in reconciliation. Stop. Now. Before an admin stops you for you.   Nezzadar ☎   00:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Seconding the above - Imbris: Stop. Don't comment on DIREKTOR again in this thread until you can do so within the policy stated by WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Further abusive behavior will lead to your being blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat by ANI vandal

This vandal edit [187] by user:174.1.10.116 which Alansohn has just reverted, features a distinct legal threat. Anyone up for blocking ? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Block if ya want, but the legal threat is irreleveant. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I know it's irrelevant. Blocking is probably also irrelevant (unless someone knows who the hell Krimpet is, and why Wikipedia should be sued this time). But I did think I'd mention it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The IPs have been blocked, phew. GoodDay (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think "Krimpet" might be User:Fran Rogers who has a redirect from User:Krimpet; some discussion on User talk:Fran Rogers in the past few days seems like it might be related. Something involving legal threats / violent threats / threats of harrassment or something. -- Why Not A Duck 04:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just User:JarlaxleArtemis, AKA Grawp, having his daily grudge against an administrator. Revert, block, ignore. Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 12:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock of User:John254

Resolved

 – Blizzocked. MuZemike 00:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

みのもんたホイホイ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Compare with Erik9bot (talk · contribs), Erik9 (talk · contribs), John254 (talk · contribs), etc. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

FunnyDuckIsFunny

FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) did this and this and his userpage is full of negativity despite under 50 edits to his credit. Suggest a block (even though he supported my AfD.) --Elvey (talk) 00:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Obvious Troll is Obvious--SKATER ^Speak. 01:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

And is also blocked. TNXMan 01:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Troll is Blocked.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The user is question wasn't exactly being super helpful, but most of his edits were plausibly in good faith. The AfD in question was probably supposed to be a joke. Considering the article was identity fraud, he was using "identity fraud" to !vote. That said he does show a familiarity with Wikipedia unlike a 50 edit user so is most likely a recreation of a blocked user. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has requested an unblock. If anyone would like to review it, I have no problem with a block reduction/lifting if it's deemed appropriate. TNXMan 01:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe WP:SPI?--SKATER ^Speak. 01:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You'd have to have some idea of who they are a recreation of - CheckUser isn't for fishing. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm kinda blown away people didn't block him earlier. AGF==/== a license to ignore clue. Protonk (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Threat to President in Wiki Edit

I did the revision deletion, it is still available to all administrators, nothing was oversighted. Deletion logs are public and available upon request and/or database dumps. Lotta smoke, no fire as far as accountability goes. Keegan (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Kablamo boom

Not sure how to properly bring this up, but at least half of the above user's few edits have been vandalism, some fixing errors he created. As the user seems to be just trying to drive his post count up, should someone nip this in the bud? -Tainted Conformity ^Chat 02:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It's just low-level idiot-vandalism, I have given a "serious warning", nothing more is required right now. Looie496 (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that I and Looie496 had the same idea, and just barely avoided an edit conflict (and did edit conflict here). Assuming that he actually listens, I'll try to keep an eye on him, and give him a push in the right direction if needed. Sodam Yat (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Threat of violence?

I just reverted this edit. The edit's a bit incoherent, seems like it might be a threat of violence or suicide. Hard to say. Should someone follow this up? -- Why Not A Duck 03:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Drsimonwood

Drsimonwood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (possibly the same as 209.139.218.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) keeps filling Polyglycoplex with ® symbols, removing the advert tag and all the wikilinks, and breaking all the references (diff). Seems straightforward enough, but the user also keeps changing the claimed inventor of Polyglycoplex from one "Dr. Vladimir Vuksanto" to "InovoBiologic®", which this article claims has a financial relashionship with a Simon Wood. I would warn the user again with Template:uw-mos3, but I don't want to get sucked into someone else's apparent priority dispute - I just want to make the article readable! Maybe someone here knows better how to handle this. Thanks. --Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a uw-mos4 and explained why the symbol is not to be added. Hopefully this will be an end to the matter. Mjroots (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Ref desk user seeking justice of some kind

Resolved

 – Edits oversighted and user indefblocked (any admin may unblock if user promises not to repeat that). Wknight94 ^talk 04:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a little out of the ordinary, and I wonder what the correct response should be: [188] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone else deleted it, so perhaps it's moot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Dschinghis Khan

On a somewhat lighter note, an editor has taken it upon himself to rename anything connected with that German disco-era singing group to Genghis Khan (pop group), on the grounds that that would be their name in English. He did this with no apparent discussion, and he ignored me when I asked why. And of course instead of a standalone name, it now has a disambiguation. So was this a proper rename under normal guidelines, or is he just being a busybody? And if it's the latter, I would like someone to move it back, since that would require an admin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical point: the article actually could be moved back per WP:MOR. But triggering a move war would of course be bad. Wknight94 ^talk 04:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know that. But I wouldn't do it anyway unless there was consensus or if it was a mistake of some kind, which in this case it's neither. I noticed the guy of this notice. I just wondered whether we're supposed to translate a pop group's name into "true" English or if he just made up that rule. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia is not for a translation you just made up, the title should not be translated. There are many thousands of articles about non-English subjects which have non-English titles. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The exception presumably would be if the group was actually known in the USA as "Genghis Khan". As far as I know, they were really only known in Europe at the time, and the internet has given the group higher visibility, albeit nearly 30 years later. In short, unless the editor can find evidence that the group was widely known in the English-speaking world as "Genghis Khan", then it needs to keep its original spelling. Have I got that right? And if so, what's the proper course of action? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As evidenced in the editor's contrib's [189] he also changed the name of their song "Moskau" to the Anglicized spelling "Moscow", despite the fact the song was sung in German (as was their original song, "Dschinghis Khan"; they were a group that named themselves for their first song.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that both titles should be returned to their original locations and the article move-protected (sysop only). Mjroots (talk) 07:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not need to be move protected. Prodego ^talk 11:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Malia Obama

Moved from AN:

RepublicanJacobite just blanked out the Malia Obama page. That person's personal page cannot have comments added (locked up?) so that person can't be warned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This is laughable. I restored a legitimate redirect. I also pointed out my reasoning on the article talk page, and provided a link to a relevant discussion on this editor's talk page. My edits were hardly vandalism. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Keeps on vandalizing by user Republican —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion page has a yellow box with instructions for those who want delete to "Please review the prior discussion if you are considering re-nomination" So they should do that rather than vandalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by October 22 2009 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Above discussion moved from AN. Tim Song (talk) 04:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't edit the page without first discussing here, October. Thank you, Master of Puppets 04:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The yellow box on the Malia discussion page is very clear. It says that those who don't want the article should follow the page for re-deletion. It did not say that recreation required going through special hoops. Basically, the decision for delete was well over a year ago when President Obama was "2nd place candidate Barack with the Funny Name". Now Malia is First Daughter with quite a few articles exclusively about her, not her father. Many others who are truly obscure have a Wikipedia article so we have waited a lot longer. Malia should not be punished with a different standard than other people are at Wikipedia. Thank you. The solution may be to recreate and someone ask for deletion and that debate form created.October 22 2009 (talk) 04:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded on this on October's talk page.

October (thanks for signing your posts, by the way), an easy way to support that claim would be to go on Google News and search for articles specifically on Malia. That would help establish her individual notability. Master of Puppets 05:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A reminder: this is covered under the Obama article probation. The redirect to the Family of Barack Obama article has been discussed before and consensus has been to leave the redirect in place. Notability is not inherited, and independent notability for Malia and Sasha Obama has not been established - they are amply covered in the Family article. I agree with Republican Jacobite's revert - no arguments have been raised here, and the comments made regarding "punishing" Malia by not having a separate article are familiar, raising the question of whether this is actually a new editor who brought an action to AN on his/her 7th edit. Tvoz/talk 07:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Pre-Paid Legal Services

Could we get some eyes on this? There seem to be two camps waging a slow war here. On one side, there are the promoters of the company itself, with various accounts, some of which are already tagged as abusive multiple accounts. I've already blocked some of these. But I actually paid some attention to the history of the article (rather than just winnowing out the obvious socks), and noticed a lot of edits, not lasting very long, making strong accusations that the company is a pyramid scheme. Anyway, wtf? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems to be a pyramid scheme. Unfortunately, none of the sources which say that are reliable. We can't even say that the material they send to prospective "members" contradicts the 10-K form filed with the SEC, as no BLP-certified reliable source has commented on that. (And it is a BLP problem, because the logical inference is that the then-president of the company was lying.)

Perhaps the article should just be deleted… — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

In today's world, there is a pyramid scheme run by a major company and the starving Pirhana among the press haven't burst into a feeding frenzy?- Sinneed 05:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Amway. Mary Kay.

Although we do have some statements about noted accusations of being a pyramid scheme, for each. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

There are detailed state laws with harsh penalties that require attorneys to segregate and not spend funds advanced for legal services. If they apply to this firm, which is likely, then I don't see how it could possibly be a pyramid scheme. Perhaps the firm angers JDs by having a deflationary effect on legal fees.--Elvey (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

block request

Resolved

Can somebody please block Satbir Singh (talk · contribs)? He has created a bunch of POV, synthesized rambling messes relating to the Kambojas, and is slow revert-warring on his own in an attempt to impede the consensual cleanup operation. I left a final warning on his talk page yesterday but he hasn't replied and did a couple more reverts this morning. Anything between a couple days off to a week would be much appreciated. Moreschi (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, FPAS...Moreschi (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I've gone for just a brief 24hrs "warning" block for a start; this can be escalated if disruption continues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyvios by User:Taopman

Many articles created by User:Taopman are copyright violations of promotional content. Furthermore, the user has uploaded images claimed to be his own and another editor has complained that it is in fact his photo. This user has an extensive history of ignoring the rules set out in Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Given the complaint by user:Derangotaco on Taopman's user page, I have reason to believe that many of Taopman's uploaded files probably do not belong to him. I recommend that the files be removed if suspicious. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 10:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat; also SPA and COI

Republic of Ireland postal addresses has, for some time now, had problems with an SPA editor, User:Garydubh, inserting COI material about a GPS/GIS system that his company, GPS Ireland Consultants Ltd, is marketing. This system isn't official and has nothing to do with the official post code system being introduced. On 20th October, a new editor, User:Secretary-whbtc, reintroduced the material about the "independent postcode". I removed it again. After I re-removed it a second time and posted to the talk page, I received this legal threat both on the article talk page and on my own talk page. The disputed material was also subeseqently reintroduced by another SPA, User:Ww2censorbastun (User:Garydubh has also been in dispute with User:Ww2censor in the past, who also tried to keep the COI material off the page). Can an admin take a look at this, please? Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Garydubh for making a legal threat. For the other accounts, I would suggest filing a report at WP:SPI. TNXMan 11:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Guitarherochristopher Yet again.

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

Further to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive570#Guitarherochristopher and various warnings we still, IMO, have a major issue with this editor. Leaving alone the various misuse of WP:NFCC as previously warned [190] [191] and the endless WP:NOT#MYSPACE issues - again as warned [192] [193] and [194] (typical example) It finaly looked like he was "getting it" by adding content [195]. Alas Not.'. With a combination of MYSPACE attitude and misuse of NFC now being added to direct copyright violation I'm now of the opinion that we need to move this editor, sadly, away from the project. Input please. Pedro :  Chat  12:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Looking on the bright side, he's adding content to articles. Copyright warning issued. Mjroots (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, now I look at it this is not the first time we've had copy-vio problems - User:Guitarherochristopher/Coldplay Releases New Album In 2009 and User:Guitarherochristopher/Genesis Band Member Gets Sacked Out Of The Drums and User:Guitarherochristopher/What Happened To Micheal Jackson?. See here Pedro :  Chat  13:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been issued literally dozens of warnings for various things. I've had this guy on my watchlist for some time. Support whatever action you see fit, Pedro. Tan | 39 13:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)