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

Shopping for an appropriate forum

Hey, the shopping season has officially started, right? I'm looking for the right forum in which to discuss my concerns about a particular editor. There are several issues that touch upon many categories, while not fitting neatly into any single category. Do I shotgun my concerns to the various distinct but applicable noticeboards, or is there an industrious admin with significant free time reading this who can formulate a comprehensive, single course of action? Here's the background information followed by my specific concerns:

On November 6, User:96.231.137.242 added a paragraph to the Bill Maher BLP article. I removed it because it violated several WP:BLP policy stipulations including sourcing, verifiability and inaccurate contentious material. This was my first interaction with this editor. He repeatedly reinserted the content, so I warned him against edit warring and BLP violations. He was blocked for 31 hours for 3RR and edit warring. Immediately following the block of IP96.xxx, User:DyadTriad appears and continues arguing for the inclusion of that same paragraph, eventually re-adding it. Shortly after that, User:Valerius Tygart picks up the same argument, and starts re-adding the same content. I heard ducks quacking, so I initiated a Sockpuppet Investigation here. Checkuser confirmed 96.231.137.242 = DyadTriad = Valerius Tygart, among others. The editor admits using the many registered and unregistered accounts, but denies using them abusively - contrary to the findings of the SPI case page and the checkuser results. Several of his sock accounts were blocked, and the case archived. Since then, Valerius Tygart has resumed re-inserting the contentious paragraph into the Maher article once per day, each day, for over two weeks now — despite objections from editors on the talk page. In addition, this editor has been attempting to modify his archived Sockpuppet Investigation case page, to the point of getting himself blocked yet again for disruptive editing. Despite (and during) this block, as I type this, he is still maintaining his slow-burn edit war on the Maher article with his Tygart account.

As for forums, I could post on the WP:BLPN so that other editors can tell Tygart what he already knows: he's trying to insert poorly sourced content into a BLP that intentionally misrepresents the subject's views, against policy. But that doesn't stop the repeated reverts. I could post at the 3RR/Edit Warring noticeboard, but the once-per-day revert war doesn't technically violate 3RR, does it? Perhaps I should go to WP:RFPP and request page protection until the BLP violations are resolved? I could go to the SPI noticeboard and say, "Hey - this confirmed puppeteer is editing with some of his accounts while his other accounts are blocked for disruptive editing - what gives?", but the case is already closed. Any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here would appear to be the best place. Did the SPI conclude that Valerius Tygart was the sockmaster? If so, a longer block would seem appropriate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then this reeks of gaming. I would suggest a longer than usual ban just to beat it into people's heads that no, we aren't idiots, and we can see what you're trying to do. Things like a once per day edit to avoid 1/3rr is clearly an attempt to skirt the rules. Give them a long ban, and keep them on a short leash when they get back. If they can't play nice, then indef-block. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that User:Valerius Tygart be indef-blocked for disruptive editing. Using an IP to tamper with his own sockpuppet report takes the cake. (If you're trying to convince people that you're an incorrigible sockpuppeteer, that's a good way to do it). He should be told that the block could be lifted if he would agree to edit with only a single account, and refrain from editing the Bill Maher article. He could still participate on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the admin who blocked IP 96.231.137.242 for edit-warring at Bill Maher, recommended the filing of the SPI, and then blocked the confirmed sock accounts after confirming that they were being used abusively. At that stage I blocked the sockmaster Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs) only for 31 hours in order not to be punitive, and assuming that the socking and disruption would stop. Given that the sockpuppetry has been goind on for over two years and has continued even after the SPI confirmation, I support EdJohnston's suggestion above. Additionally, the Bill Maher article can be semi-protected, if needed to prevent such disruption. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That puts the icing on the SPI cake! Have you blocked the IP already? - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 12:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart has used at least these 2 IPs since the closure of his SPI case: User:96.231.137.242 and User:140.139.35.250. They appear to be static, not dynamic IPs. Tygart claims to use multiple accounts "legitimately", but I stopped assuming good faith after checkuser J.delanoy confirmed Tygart = 140.139.35.250 = Dogwood123, but Tygart denies ever being deceptive or saying, I am not "Dogwood123". Either Tygart or J.delanoy is lying, and I know where I'd put my money. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone is playing possum. Still unsure of an appropriate forum. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart apparently doesn't wish to comment in this matter — it has been a few days. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm just back at my desk after a few days & catching up on this.... I have already addressed the "sockpuppetry" allegations in the "Comments by accused parties" at the SP Investigation site (archived) & on my user talk page. I won't repeat that here, except to say again that I have never intentionally committed "sockpuppetry" (& I think intentional deception is part of the definition, right?) Also, I have never been abusive or disruptive on Wikipedia in any way (which is not to say I have never had heated discussions...) It is true that I am often lazy & do not bother to log on (even a couple of times since the SP investigation), but never with intent to be disruptive or deceptive. As to agreeing to edit only as Valerius Tygart, I certainly intend to do that ... and will strive to remember to not edit (accidentally) as an anon... It is a bad habit on my part to neglect to log on...

As for the supposedly "disruptive" edit I have been inserting into the Bill Maher article: it is a direct quote from Maher's show of 4 March 2005. I can find nothing in Wiki-policy that precludes it. It is authentic, well-sourced, relevant, non-libellous & constructively improves the article. Its source is the broadcast show itself & a periodical quoting & commenting on the remarks by Maher. Additionally, I am now adding a third source: an article from the 19 Sept 2008 Wall Street Journal also quoting the remarks. About three weeks ago I asked for a general discussion about all this on the Bill Maher discussion page. Unfortunately, only the editor who has had me blocked twice now (Xenophrenic) & initiated the (to me) spurious "sockpupperty" investigation has cast a vote on this issue. The stalemate between the two of us was the reason I asked for discussion in the first place and it is too bad that 99% of the discussion there is between he & I. He has reverted me repeatedly & I wonder why I am the one who is said to be "warring" & "reverting" & not he.... Thanks & waiting for additional feedback. Valerius Tygart (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that I've taken a second look with checkuser at J.delanoy's request, and the results are very clear that this is  Confirmed sockpuppetry. You were editing from the same computer with User:Valerius Tygart, User:DyadTriad, and User:Dogwood123, alternating between accounts each day for a bit. This appears very deliberate. I haven't looked at behavioral evidence, though, so I can't speak as to the disruptive bit. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart doesn't deny using many IPs and registered accounts. He does deny using them abusively, while checkuser evidence clearly contradicts Tygart and indicates abuse. I noted 4 specific examples of sock abuse on the SPI case page, before I stopped looking. As noted above, just one of those examples: checkuser says Dogwood123 = 140.139.35.250 -- yet here 140.139.35.250 says "I am not Dogwood123", when questioned by someone suspecting puppetry during a consensus discussion. Deception is the fundamental form of abuse of alternate accounts. Deliberate abuse.

@Tygart: I cannot "have you blocked"; I can only point out your behavior and have others review it. I pointed out your edit warring, and someone else blocked you. I pointed out your use of multiple accounts, and someone else sanctioned you. Now you have continued with disruptive editing behavior, so I am once again bringing attention to it so that others may review it and hopefully provide a constructive solution. I cautioned you that I would be raising your conduct here for review, and your response was, "A threat. Do your worst." Xenophrenic (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This Wikistalk report might be of interest. However, I'm currently leaning against a block and towards a firm warning to stop edit warring (for both parties). I'll watchlist Bill Maher and will block if I see contested content being added/deleted without consensus. Uninvolved editors: Does that seem appropriate? NW (Talk) 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(UPDATE) I'm copying Tygart's comment from his talk page to here, as I feel it is relevant to this discussion:

EdJohnston, I agree that, since I have stated my case clearly, there is not much point in repeating myself & we should move on. I have no problem in pledging to edit under Valerius Tygart only (... mind you, the User:140.139.35.250 account, which I have been accused of abusing, has a large number of users on it. Please don't blame me for everything that is done from that address!!) I don't, however, think it is reasonable for you to tell me to stop editing Bill Maher for now. No offense, but I just don't accept one editor with one opinion having that sort of authority.... Happy editing! Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I interpret Tygart's response to mean he stands by his denial of ever abusing socks (and now maybe it is "a large number of" other users at fault). It also appears he rejects the proposal to refrain from edit warring, positioning me as an adversary instead of a collaborating editor. I am not the only editor to object to his contentious edits. As I type this, I see he has again re-inserted the problematic content against the objections of multiple editors, accompanied by a lengthy talk page comment that essentially says, "despite your objections, it looks good to me so I'm reinserting it". I have reverted his edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just checking in on the current status. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion... Tygart claims that his use of alternate accounts has been legitimate. The community disagrees. Those alternate accounts are now indefinitely blocked. Whether or not he agrees that what he did was wrong, he should be warned that any use of alternate accounts will result in an indefinite block. This would even apply to "legitimate" alternate accounts, because the community's assumption of good faith has been exhausted at this point. Does that sound reasonable? -- Atama頭 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Such a warning seems to be in line with consensus, and solves the socking half the above described problem. As for the edit-warring half of the problem, it appears consensus is leaning toward taking it to WP:BLPN to get wider input. The only remaining issue is whether Tygart will continue to insert contested content into the BLP article each and every day while the notoriously backlogged BLP-Noticeboard gets around to looking at the situation. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If "the community's assumption of good faith has been exhausted" I am sorry for that. I have been clear about the motivations for what I've done & I still maintain that I have never done anything with deceptive or disruptive intent. An indefinite block on even my "legitimate" alternate accounts would be unnecessary, in my opinion, but it would also not greatly inconvenience me, so I have no strong objection to that. I think we should move past all this as unproductive.

As for Xenophrenic's "edit-warring half" of the problem, I will say again that I believe I have made a compelling case, at the Bill Maher talk page, for inclusion of the quote in question (three perfectly good sources, etc...). The suggestion of a "firm warning to stop edit warring (for both parties)" actually seems in good order to me because it acknowledges what Xenophrenic never has: that he is (at least) half the problem here. It is not true that "multiple editors" have contested the quote/content... One has (Xenophrenic) & one other has asked for additional sources while explicitly stating he is offering no opinion on the quote/content... The wider the forum for pursuing consensus on this, the better. That is why I asked for discussion on the talk page 3 weeks ago & that I why I lament that none (except Xenophrenic repeating himself) has occurred...

As a gesture of good faith, I will refrain from re-inserting the (to me) perfectly legitimate edit (for now) in the hope that responsible, good faith opinions from other editors will soon be forthcoming on the Bill Maher talk page. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here is one editor claiming he isn't another editor. However, checkuser J.delanoy says both editors are you, Tygart. Was this the part you think we should move past, while still insisting you have never done anything deceptive?

• Here is another editor contesting your edits, Tygart. So yes, it is true that "multiple editors" have contested your quote.

• Saying that you will refrain from edit warring over contested BLP content isn't a gesture of good faith, it is a policy requirement. Thank you for finally agreeing to comply with it.

I came here expecting to see this incident archived. A simple "I'll stop socking and edit-warring" would have sufficed, since the admins have agreed not to pursue further measures, but Tygart insists on posting more denials and falsifications. He forgets there are diffs. This illustrates why a resolution has been difficult to achieve in 4 weeks. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Valerius, I do not appreciate my position being misrepresented. While I have decided to refrain from offering a position on the content at this time, saying that I'm asking for "additional sources" implies that I am accepting the ones you have offered and just want more. This is not the case. Your sources are unacceptable. Continuing to state that you have "three perfectly good sources" when these have been flatly and repeatedly disputed by two editors is part of the problem. Henrymrx (t·c) 19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot say that I will "stop socking" when I don't believe I have ever done so. (Xenophrenic recently mentioned "wife beating" allegations in another context.) I cannot say I will "stop edit-warring" when the edit war -- countless, repeated reversions of my edit -- was initiated and maintained by another editor (Xenophrenic) who bears at least as much responsibility for the "war" (more, in my opinion). Finally, again no... the cited Robert Lanza edit was not me.... Sorry. I wish there were a way to prove it to you.

Henrymrx, sorry if I misrepresented you. I thought I understood your position. Apparently, I did not. (I still maintain, however, that the three sources are perfectly good.) I will not reference you again.

Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Come off it with the games please. You were blocked, you then moved to another account to edit, which is evading the original block, which is socking. There's no question. A block applies to a person and not an account. It is not up to you to say "I don't think I socked" when the community agrees otherwise. It appears you have two choices: a) accept and and admit that you socked, as per the policy - you will then probably be able to continue to edit under this account (and this account only); or, b) have this account blocked, and any others that appear. Your choice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Summarized revisit / renewed request for admin attention

I am asking for assistance in dealing with a tendentious editor: User:Valerius Tygart. The above discussion is just a small sample of the kind of frustrating interaction I've endured for more than 4 weeks now. When faced with facts, links, common sense, diffs, logic, multiple editors and policy that all counter Tygart's position, he plants his feet and folds his arms and declares, "I'm still right, so there. Happy editing!" How is someone supposed to deal with this?

• "Finally, again no... the cited Robert Lanza edit was not me.... Sorry." - Valerius Tygart

Checkuser J.delanoy says it's Tygart. Tygart admits it is his account. Admin NuclearWarfare's Wikistalk report shows 3 additional confirmed Tygart socks also edited that same article. Even the behavior evidence shows they are the same editor. Yet Tygart, with a straight face, insists on an alternate reality. I've been trying to hold an article content discussion with this same person, so you can imagine my frustration.

• "I cannot say I will "stop edit-warring" when the edit war -- countless, repeated reversions of my edit -- was initiated and maintained by another editor (Xenophrenic)..." - Valerius Tygart

WP:BLP policy instructs me to remove Tygart's poorly sourced contentious content, and I have. I will continue to do so. Opinion pieces from ranting critics do not qualify as high-quality reliable sources of factual content. Saying "I know the quote (and above partial transcript) are accurate because I have the show on tape"[1] also does not qualify as a high-quality reliable source of factual content. When I cut & paste the actual policy wording from the policy page for his review, Tygart, with a straight face, insists it doesn't say what it says. C'mon ... this is ridiculous.

So now Tygart can't say he'll stop edit warring or stop socking (see above). In the face of those acknowledgements, I do not wish to re-engage him. Discussions with a pet rock would be more productive. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you really just do this? This isn't a court of law - dozens of admins are already watching, so you certainly don't need to offer a closing argument. You've made your case, others chimed in - if the admins didn't feel that immediate action was required, the additional prompt as if they're idiots was not helpful to your credibility or "case". Of course, getting the "last word" was also pretty sad - I think you've done more harm, and this shall now fade away into nothingness... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92 patroling my edits

Today I received this message from Powergate92 (talk · contribs). This is most certainly not the first time that Powergate92 has commented in such a way. Beginning way back here when Mythdon was not banned, began Powergate92's unnecessary attention to my use of rollback (whether or not it was part of administrator's tools or javascript enabled). He has reported me to this board in the past He has also reported me for 3RR merely because he found out that I had performed more than three reverts in a 24 hour period (ignoring the fact that the dispute had ended and he did not bother to report the other user in the dispute or reporting me while we were in a dispute over said reverted content and he had gotten an administrator to revert me for him).

I am tired of this. I do not need anyone policing my edits, looking and waiting for reverts that they think are bad and seeking to get me punished for not following every single rule. Powergate92 has most definitely shown a propensity to just seek to get my editing privileges removed or restricted in some fashion. He is effectively treating me just as Mythdon had, but Powergate92 is not under any restrictions from this case. So I am bringing this to the community for assistance.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not "looking and waiting for reverts" like I said on your talk page "I was looking at my watchlist and I see an IP moved the hidden message in the episodes section of the Power Rangers: RPM article, so as today would be the day that the title for episodes 29 and 30 would be on TV Guide.com, I go to the TV Guide link and I see someone linked it to the episode list when they should have it to the TV listings (as the episode list only list episodes that have aired not episodes that will air, the TV listings list episodes that will air). So I go back to the Power Rangers: RPM article to fix the link and then I see that you reverted the IP good faith non-vandalism edit as vandalism." How is saying "I think Ryulong should use Twinkle's rollback (AGF) button for reverting good faith edits." at this discussion "unnecessary attention to your use of rollback"? Powergate92Talk 22:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like someone other than Powergate92 to say something about his behavior past and present.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitting revert for vandalism instead of AGF'd? It happens. I've done it. You apologize, or the user accidentally warned says something and they talk it out, or it's never noticed. I have no idea how a third party would be brought into that specifically, so a diff would be appreciated if it were request.

• Ryulong; You did seem to take advice on the second ANI. I'm also going to assume you've known what 3RR is for quite some time and comprehend your past minor infractions. You've been here long enough to know the AGF vs Vandal Twinkle revert thing is pretty serious if at all frequent, but twice doesn't really count as that. I'm not the most qualified to state this, but checking those incident reports and seeing that Powergate92 offers zero diffs of actual premeditated harm or incivility? No action to take.
• Powergate92; is there a particular reason that you're the cause of all administrator reports filed against this user remotely relating to sought blocks? Can you offer any diffs that show continued abuses and would warrant continuous observation for several months? If so, they should be reported much sooner. That 3RR report listed 12 hours after the edit war is a bit saddening, as it means you must have been digging into contribution history to spot it. As someone calling for Twinkle to be taken away from an experienced editor, surely you know the primary use of blocks is to prevent future disruptions and not punish pasts. 12 hours after the fact being a pretty clear indicator of no further edit warring, especially from someone with zero past history of it. Last, no one but an administrator has any right whatsoever to threaten someone about their Twinkle rights, or threaten anyone like that whatsoever, for that matter. This threat was particularly discouraging, especially after a lengthy history of it being shown that Ryulong has never shown anything but good faith in edits with only a few questionable marks in those ancient ANIs.
  

Walk away, please. An apology with some honesty offered would be even better. Whatever your odd fascination is with Ryulong, make a point of leaving them be. Same goes the opposite direction. Anything. Voluntary lack of contact all places and at all times, basically. Shared project already? Try different articles. No one wants to waste time on higher dispute resolution. This matter may not be suited for ANI anymore if it for whatever reason it comes up again, though it shouldn't. Walk away, please, and save the whole community later time spent in dispute resolution when it's completely unnecessary with just a tiny bit of good faith from both parties. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see Powergate92 even remotely acknowledging your opinion in this case. In this regard, he is similar to Mythdon in that he will not change topic areas in the slightest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll work from talk pages, if that's okay. Best to let this archive, though it is noted that Powergate92 hasn't reacted in any way, though the user has made edits since additional postings. Thanks for letting me know. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Having one person say "Move on" is not "resolved" in my book.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I marked as resolved since it was the extent that ANI can take dispute resolution, and the hope is that the other party will heed the advice and realize that the possibility of a block on next offense would cause it to stop. Usually, the easiest reminder before that step to either side is "you don't actually want to get blocked over this, do you?" ...If someone knows they've done no wrong, they can see if it continues knowing that'll be the end of it regardless. WP:WQA would be the step listed next up the scale for dispute resolution, but I cannot make any guess at actions there if there was not a specific final warning given in the past and a third party overview with suggestions given proved fruitless. Marking again as resolved as this angle of discussion is completely exhausted. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not an administrator who can decide whether or not action should be taken in this instances. You are a user who registered on Wikipedia two months ago. You do not know what can or cannot be done in this case. I would respect you if you did not act as judge and jury over a dispute between two users who have both been on this project longer than you have and one who used to be an administrator who helped diffuse these situations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming to this late, Ryulong, but I am an Administrator, I have been around Wikipedia a bit longer than Datheisen, & I think she/he makes perfect sense here. You appear to have made a simple (& minor) mistake here, & Powergate92 has over-reacted to your mistake. That said, there really isn't much an Administrator can do than to encourage the two of you to either play nice or avoid each other. Any sanctions at this point on anyone would be overkill & may even result in a bigger problem -- or unneeded wikidrama. -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for me to "change topic areas" as I have been a good contributer to the television topic area. Powergate92Talk 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Here's some diffs for good faith non-vandalism edits that Ryulong reverted as vandalism: [2][3][4] If you would like me to look at Ryulong contributions, I would most likely find more in his contributions.

2. I was not looking at Ryulong contributions when I made that 3RR report, I was looking at my watchlist, Kamen Rider Decade is in my watchlist you know.

3. What doe's "the primary use of blocks is to prevent future disruptions and not punish pasts" have to do with "calling for Twinkle to be taken away"? Powergate92Talk 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1) I shouldn't need to label reverts on my talk page. 2) Addition of unverified information. 3) Removal of verified information. And it is not that you are a good contributor to the "Television" topic area. It is that you are not a good contributor to the tokusatsu topic area.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, by the way, WQA is an "informal non-binding noticeboard" whereas AN/I is a notice board for when one "requires the intervention of administrators", at WQA we can't take any actual action, we can offer support and advice, but if you want intervention, then WQA isn't really the place. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Again? Powergate92, however innocently it happens and however much you may not be aware of the bias, your interactions with Ryulong haven't been productive. Your complaints typically aren't acted on because honestly, you're stretching to find something "wrong" with his edits/reverts/rollback etc. Its time to let it go; the next time you have the urge to interact with Ryulong, don't.

  Ryulong would you agree to make more liberal use of the AGF rollback and make sure the edit summary includes you reasoning (things like "removal of verified information" or "addition of unverified information")? If you save the "vandalism" button just for edits that everyone would consider vandalism (replacing an entire article with "WIKIPEDIA SUCKS" for example), you'll avoid any future concerns over your use of the tool. Reverting someone's edits to your talk page and labeling it vandalism certainly isn't going to win you any points. Shell ^babelfish 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  The "rollback (AGF)" button version is just weird. I usually just use the "restore this version" or "rollback" or the regular "undo".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  As long as you're not clicking something that identifies the edit as vandalism, that would solve the problem (wasn't this the same thing I said last time?). Obviously Powergate92 found a few instances where you did click the wrong button recently, so it pays to be careful when using those tools. If you're finding that you're having trouble, perhaps its best to stick to the standard undo or restore this version links. Shell ^babelfish 06:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  Apparently, he identifies vandalism differently than I do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, Wikipedia identifies vandalism differently than you do apparently. The examples Powergate92 cited were not appropriate use of the world vandalism. If you feel differently, then perhaps we do have a larger problem here. Shell ^babelfish 19:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'll second Shell Kinney. Those edits don't fit with what WP:VAN defines as vandalism. -- Atama頭 21:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  The definition changes so often. And there are simply instances where I really do not want to type in any form of reason in the edit summary and I would rather go directly to the talk page (such as instances where I see the same deleterious edit repeated multiple times in the edit history). The popup that says "Put in something else for the edit summary" often gets in the way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well no, the definition has been standard for the five or so years that I've been here. If you aren't willing to use edit summaries and avoid labeling good-faith edits as vandalism then we do have a problem. Shell ^babelfish 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's a very important distinction because if you revert a non-vandalism edit, you really should have a reason. Any other kind of revert is essentially a content dispute and you should have an explanation for what you're disputing. -- Atama頭 01:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  So removing clearly referenced content or adding entirely false and/or unverified content is not vandalism in any way?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. That info is not needed as it's just something that is said at the end of the next time promo. 2. The name has been said on fan sites like Power Rangers Universe Wikia so the user most likely added the info in good faith not knowing about WP:Verifiability. So yes the edits are not vandalism in any way as the users most likely made their edits in good faith. Powergate92Talk 03:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  1) It is still reliably sourced content and 2) no one should be using that particular Wikia for anything reliable. Even if it is in good faith, it is still incredibly wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Correct. In the case of new contributors it may simply be a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies, in the case of experienced contributors there may be a valid reason for their edits (content disputes for example) or there may be an issue. No matter what the case, it is not vandalism. It might help to take another look at WP:VAND which specifically states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Shell ^babelfish 03:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia --nutshell at WP:AIV. The most important word in the definition below is "deliberately". So no those cases aren't vandalism. Uninformed and inexplicable edits just aren't vandalism, just as Shell is spot-on. I see now where I made my mistake in the ANI at start and why sanctions were sought; It wasn't that you were scolded in general for being hounded and the view of your hitting the "VANDAL" TW button was a shove over the top, it's also due to a misunderstanding of the definition. Was a "final warning" type message to you appropriate? I still feel not, but now I understand it a bit better. Before clicking for any revert, think about how you felt before coming to ANI for this report when someone suggested your edits could be vandalism and disruptive enough to take away Twinkle access. Take a second to think about it before someone else is branded by you as the same. It's always an oddly human moment, even when I have no doubt, and Huggle reminds all its users of its serious nature by providing many other revert reasons. Ok. End side 'A'.

Powerguy92 needs "a talkin' to" yet? I don't know. Words a bit harsh in my view and I'm still really miffed from the decent evidence of contribution list hunting. If no warning had ever been given about smacking the red button in the past, isn't a final warning pretty brutal for Ryulong as a first warning on the matter? Likely all moot now since mutual avoidance should be a given. Unofficial advice to both, same as before; Think about what a pain ANI is and how only the truly disturbed like myself actually try to spend free time here. Toxic for most. You can both just call this whole ANI as a high-level or even final warning depending on future actions. Please play nice? Better yet, not at all? Great! Good luck to you both. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was warning given before: [5][6] and an AN/I discussion. Powergate92Talk 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot changing referencing style, again (dearchived)

As I have pointed out a couple of weeks ago, some users have been using bots and scripts to impose their own preferred style of referencing, the "named" references, on articles previously not using it.

This system (the same footnote re-used again and again) is common in some fields and used by many science journals. It is, however, absolutely non-standard in the humanities. Many contributors, not just me, do not like it and do not want to have this system imposed on all articles.

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Replacing duplicate footnotes with named footnotes. User:Postdlf makes a good job there of summarizing the reasons against this style in three points. A fourth point is that of usability. Named refs makes references dependent on each other, which makes it more cumbersome to edit them, for instance to correct a page or page range, to add an additional source with a contrasting view, or to clarify how a reference supports the claim made. This point was touched on by me, earlier in that discussion, and expressed very clearly by User:Golbez in a previous (now archived) discussion (from July 2009).

The article Charles Boit, which I used as an example, had at that point been hit three times by this:

• First (30 July 2009) by User:Falcon8765, using a script called AWB.
• Second (10 August 2009) by User:DrilBot.
• Third (16 September 2009) by User:SmackBot.

I reverted this every time.

• It has now been hit again, a fourth time, again by SmackBot.

SmackBot, or rather its keeper, User:Rich Farmbrough, has previously been warned by the administrator User:CBM for this behaviour. CBM blocked SmackBot, then unblocked it on the condition that the feature was disabled. Rich Farmbrough agreed to this. (See edit link earlier in paragraph, it's all there.)

Thanks for your attention. --Hegvald (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked temporarily again, and will unblock again once this is fixed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering SmackBot/RF has already been warned about this and that these edits were never appropriate to begin with (as there is no general agreement that named refs are better), it would only be appropriate for SmackBot to be given the task of reverting its own previous edits. Who else is going to do this? --Hegvald (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose User:SmackBot/References Log Log of ref runs would be of any assist as evidence?

When I've been hit by this it's made me assume I'd been a lazy/awful/terrible editor for non memorizing every last work of article guidelines. If I think that way, who knows how many others have been discouraged? This has covered an insane number of articles and as far as we know it could have started edit wars from article creators... especially since the edit summaries given have nothing to do with what was changed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It should rather make you think "Thank goodness I don't have to worry about the niff-naff and trivia". Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC).

These bot edits of yours have had the misleading edit summary "general fixes". The problem here is that your way of "fixing" what you call the "niff-naff and trivia" results in a referencing style that is non-standard for many contributors and contrary to the way they are used to work, and want to continue working, with footnotes and references. While you may think that you are just polishing the formatting of these articles, you actually create an editing environment that is going to discourage some contributors from doing any additional work on these articles. --Hegvald (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've unarchived this, it's only supposed to be archived after 24 hours of inactivity but the bot is doing it after 18. I'm also unhappy about this and find named references often a pain. It needs more discussion. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've changed archiving on this page back to 24 hours; I couldn't find any discussion of the change to faster archiving, and anything less than 24 hours risks missing input from those far off the most active time zones. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more there is do here. I'm informed User:Rich Farmbrough in case he wasn't aware that SmackBot had been blocked. As to the references style, this is ANI. Village pump, MOS, (particularly Wikipedia:Citing sources) are better places for that discussion than here. Like the British/American spelling disputes we sometimes see, I don't think this is really resolvable. Current policy is "follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected" but people just have different preferences. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• But note that while editors making changes can do so across a reasonable spectrum of interpretation, bots cannot. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Well, if Rich has been told before, and can't seem to run his bot appropriately without causing disruption, perhaps he should have to go through another bot approval process before he's allowed to run it again.--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears to have been a good faith error and minor in the context of the number of edits the bot is performing. The damage done is not too significant. The best way forward might be to approach the AWB project about the fact that this is (incorrectly) classified as a general fix, which is the root of the problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    • was this or was this not brought up before? Rich is an experienced editor and bot owner. If this was brought up before and decided to be an inappropriate change for his bot to make, I would expect him to no longer make those changes.--Crossmr (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think that's a reasonable expectation - people make mistakes, including bot operators. One mistake in the context of 2 million edits is not surprising. It is reasonable to expect Rich not to deliberately make those changes, but there is no indication that this was anything but an accident. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, this isn't one mistake. RF has been asked before not to use his bots to change the formatting of references - Wikipedia supports more than one style of referencing, and there is no obligation to use the bot's style. It's not the bot's error - it's the programmer's error.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to repeat my question: Shouldn't SmackBot now be given the task of reverting its own previous edits? To clean up after a bot you need a bot, or it will take a week to revert what the bot did in a couple of hours. --Hegvald (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting it would practically be impossible at this point, unless the magic feature listed at meta could handle it. Given it's been spread out and many articles changed since I have no clue.with the personal style of one user poisoning it. It's arguably the largest possible case of vandalism since it's deliberately removing content and replacing it with a personal POV with a deliberately misleading edit summary on top and in practically a hidden manner. Very depressing form of WP:OWN, but will probably have to be left at never permitting it again unless the bot can be given orders to only act places where it's still top/previous change, assuming compliance. If an editor chooses a certain method of style, it's disruptive to change it, period. Bot operator needs to form a community consensus on the sole form of referencing if such views are so fervently held, as was mentioned above.♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I don't see any evidence above of SmackBot removing content. Would you please either supply a diff or withdraw the accusation of vandalism? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not removing content (Datheisen seems to have got a bit carried away here I agree) but if someone repeatedly replaced the reference style in use in the article with a different style, against consensus and having been asked to stop; after the fourth time I think even you might term it vandalism. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor wording. It's removing formatting (only "content in terms of characters, not actual article substance which is the most basic form of what we call "content"), but it's still removing what someone entered with their own two hands and replacing it, and my resentment was surrounded on that. ... apologies, please. ... None to the any bot again seen trying this. Right. Head into desk repeatedly time. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If it has really happened this much I can't see any reason Rich shouldn't have to go through the bot approval process again before being allowed to run Smack bot.--Crossmr (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion with CBM it happened that I made a short run using some old settings. It is probable that no more than a handful of articles, if that, were actually changed the way described. The only visible change in the article in question would have been in superscripts and the reduction of the notes from 23 to [16]. Given the number of articles that probably have had names added by various AWB users, and that the only complaint has been from one user on one article (although of course it would be that one that got changed again) , your suggestion seems a little over the top. Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

SmackBot is the highest profile user of AWB, but certainly there are a lot of others going around doing the same. If there are other bots, they should also be blocked until the problematic behavior is corrected. Non-bot users are harder to deal with, but a more stringent line could convince the writers of AWB to bring their software into compliance with the relevant guidelines. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as that goes I had put a feature request in to avoid applying this change in cases such as the above example, but I have not been following it. The discussion above suggests that citation style has been changed, and this is a hot-button issue. Of course that is not what is meant by the word style in the guidelines, that is the five citation styles. GRB 970508 uses the shortened footnote style, just as the article above, and uses de-duplicated named references. The citation style is the same, simply the repetitive columns of "Schilling 2002 p126" have been reduced, in that case from 53 entries to 34. If this were paper it would be a different matter, there would be a finger or ruler following the cites, and a another in the end matter, while the feet were used to control a book wheel (do Amazon do those?). Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

Presenting the same information to the reader in two different ways constitutes a change in style, for the purposes of WP:CITE. The "general fix" in AWB encourages users to falsely believe that there is consensus that named references are preferred over sequentially numbered footnotes. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) rev 5730 Change AWB genfixes not to implement named references for an article if there are currently no named references in the article. This should appease editors who believe this constitutes a change of reference style, hence contravening WP:CITE rules. Rjwilmsi 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between HMS King George V and USS North Carolina

Resolved

 – Thread will archive 24 hrs after the last edit, but if people keep agreeing it should be closed, that extends the time it's on here :) Maybe a {{resolved}} tag will help. It seems apologies and calm discussion on other pages has prevailed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I nominated this page for deletion as I feel its not needed, but I have a major concern: Damwiki1 (talk · contribs), the article's creator, has left two messages on different user pages informing of the deletion and asking for assistance. On a hunch, I looked at the history of both pages; and one of the two pages - And heg (talk · contribs) was previously tagged as a sock of Damwiki1. I am concerned because this did not appear to go anywhere, and I know from experience that afd is a haven for socks, there may be an attempt at vote stacking. I have finals and will be occupied until Wednesday at the earliest, so if a few good users could keep an eye on this I would appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent an apology to both users after I realized that this was against wiki policy. Both editors have been involved with the KGV class pages and I thought that they might want to know. This is was an honest mistake on my part. Damwiki1 (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

First, you are required to notify any other involved editors. I have done so. Second, Damwiki1 seems to have realized the issue per this comment. I can explain it to the editor further if needed though. Third, User:And heg hasn't edited for a few weeks so unless there is voting done at AFD, I think it's worth dropping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent an apology to both users after I realized that this was against wiki policy. Both editors have been involved with the KGV class pages and I thought that they might want to know. This is was an honest mistake on my part. Damwiki1 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. It seems counter-intuitive at times to say we don't want experienced editors to be notified but it keeps from gaming the system. I don't think there would be a problem with notification at the relevant WikiProject in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how edits such as this and this are canvassing in any meaningful way - they seem in line with WP:CANVASS as the editors aren't being asked to do anything in particular. I don't see how it's any worse than Tom's own post notifying editors with an interest in this topic of the AfD here (which I also don't think is canvassing). Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, raising a concern here that And heg (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet based on them being tagged as such once and claiming that this "did not appear to go anywhere" seems out of line given that this was actually investigated but not confirmed through checkuser and the editor who raised the sock puppet report acknowledged that the editors may have some relationship but were different people. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry all. I've been more or less off wikipedia for about two months. Revisiting for a few hours yesterday was suppose to help me get back into the feel of things here, but I guess I've been away long enough that I have gotten rusty at a few things. I can safely say I botched this one pretty badly, and for that I apologize to all. -- TomStar81 (talk · contribs) 76.211.107.188 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a pity that TomStar81 (talk · contribs) did not see fit to place a notice on my talk page like the one he placed on Damwiki1's talk page. I had also put effort into the article TomStar81 nominated for deletion. Surely I also deserve to be told that he wants it deleted?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say that my experience as a wikipedian has been less than enjoyable, and this particular process (AFD) is supremely flawed, and should be stopped.And heg (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@Toddy1: we are "encouraged" to notify the article creator when we nominate a page for deletion, but as a matter of course there is no requirement to do so. AS I noted above, its been a few monthes since I have been on here and I have gotten a little rusty with my procedures. For this I apologize, as it was not my intention to offend or upset anyone.

On that same note, this ANI thread I started should never have been opened, as it clears from the others posts that Damwiki1 is not engaging in any unsavory activity in the defense of this article. I believe then that the best course of action for all of us would be to move to have the thread closed and continue this discussion elsewhere; either the afd talk page or our own user talk pages. I reiterate that I apologize for moving on this too soon, as its obvious now that there is nothing behind these claims. I will exercise more caution about this in the future, and will accept a trout for this incident should one be presented. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this ANI thread should be closed.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Peña Sr. (2nd nomination)

I have three concerns concerning this discussion:

• 1. As it previously closed as "keep", the renomination could be disruptive.
• 2. The claims for deletion are that it is an attack page; someone neutral might want to go through it and be sure nothing libelous is contained in the article.
• 3. There could be sockpuppetry going on in the AfD concerning:
  • Cablespy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ludlom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The above two accounts have similar arguments and pretty much all of their edits are devoted to this guy. Someone else has raised this suspicion already in the AfD. In any event, this one might require an experienced set of eyes. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

AN is referring to abusive sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternate_accounts.--Chaser (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think most admins know what abusive sockpuppetry is (and definitely in regards to AFDs), but thanks anyways. First, I don't think renominating following a discussion from May is particularly disruptive. The article was deleted twice before that (with 158 deleted edits remaining), so it's not like this has always been that clear-cut. Second, I think paragraph by paragraph quotes of allegations aren't appropriate under WP:BLP (and the use of primary sources is very concerning) but I'm not even sure what to keep in this mind-numbing paragraph. There seems to be some pruning already done so I think we can wait until the AFD is complete (looks likely to pass) and then worry about those editors and the article itself. A WP:SSI report (or a checkuser) may be useful as it's very odd for "new" editors to not only list articles for deletion but to list them under the WP:BLP policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It was intended for the two editors listed above.--Chaser (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my apologies then. I should have left it alone. Nevertheless, it seems to be passing AFD and we can see how the SPAs deal with the article afterwards. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Threat of Suicide

Please see [7]. I'm unsure as to whether any further action needs to be taken here. It's seriously concerning but this might just be simple vandalism. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In theory it should be taken seriously, i.e. find out where that IP is and inform local authorities. raseaC^{talk to me} 02:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is local to Auburn, Alabama the 24hr police non-emergency number is 501-3100. raseaC^{talk to me} 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified and am currently waiting on a response from the Administrator who recently blocked the IP for standard vandalism. Notified of both the diff and this thread. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not know anything about that threat. I saw that the last edit inserted a bunch of "Blah Blah Blah"s all over the place, that they were after a recent final warning, and then blocked the IP. I was totally unaware of the suicide threat. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we really report every since "suicide threat" to the police? That diff looks very much like a joke. At least in some countries, making unnecessary reports is also a crime, so this reporting policy of ours seems a bit concerning. Offliner (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Better to assume that they're all real rather than they're all fake. Or should we let someone sue Wikipedia because we all ignored their child's suicide warning? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one Offliner, it looks more like a "joke" (a very sick joke) than an actual threat. In regards to policy Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm is the only documented Wikipedia guideline on the subject that I am aware of and it states: "Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat." Though RTTOS is an essay and not an approved Wikipedia guideline or policy. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be a PR nightmare, but there is no liability to worry about. Wikipedia is not a mandated reporter. We have no duty here. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2):::There is a vast difference between a prank report ("do you have Prince Albert in a can?") and a sincere editor reporting an event which might or might not be a suicide threat. We are not paid to decide whether a suicide threat is real or not. The police and 911 responders are. Let them make that judgment. People should not be avoiding reporting these things because they think the police will be angry or annoyed at them - it is the responders' job to take reports and make the judgment calls required, not ours. If our report is sincere, we are not contravening any laws in North America. In my opinion, all suicide threats should be reported if humanly possible. --NellieBly (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I highly doubt any law enforcement agency would take offense to a report of a suicide threat, even if it did seem dubious. Where possible, report. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is going on? I heard the name Auburn mentioned in this thread. -Pickbothmanlol- 13:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware most experts would recommend treating any such threat as serious and you'd have to be very unlucky to find yourself on the wrong side of the law if you did report it. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

All suicide threats need to be reported.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be overly concerned. Usually, suicidals don't tell others about their intentions, until after they've committed suicide (via a letter, of course). GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is absolutely, absolutely not true. I have to step in here and in the strongest possible terms tell you that you are factually wrong. I have worked as a counsellor for years with those who have attempted suicide. It is remarkably common for potential suicides to do just what you're saying they don't do. In fact, I would suggest that well over half of suicide attempts are predated by calls for help exactly like this. Unfortunately, TV and the mass media have convinced people beyond dissuasion that people who actually kill themselves don't ask for help. This has actually prevented friends and family from noticing calls for help or taking them seriously until it's too late. Please, please, please: don't fall into the "the mass media is right about everything, people are crazy and just looking for attention" trap. Suicides do this all the time. All the time. --NellieBly (talk) 07:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd also add that the majority of suicides do not leave suicide notes. Another thing people have picked up from TV and movies that doesn't reflect real life, to the point that survivors don't believe that a suicide actually killed himself if he didn't leave a note. TV is entertainment and doesn't reflect real life. --NellieBly (talk) 08:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was about to reply in the same way (having some experience in the matter) but I assumed that GoodDay was making a joke (a suicide can't tell people of their intentions afterward because they're dead). Many suicides are really calls for help, even our article states as much, and often attempts aren't meant to actually succeed but to draw attention to the problems of the person. That doesn't mean that the person doesn't need help, if they're desperate enough to act out in that way then they have some serious problems that probably should get attention. -- Atama頭 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Correct, as far as it goes; in my experience, those who are determined to top themselves will usually manage to do so, and do so either extremely dramatically (e.g. by leaping in front of a train) or very quietly (e.g. by OD'ing)- in neither case will they advertise the fact beforehand. But there is another case; the "cry for help" from those who may be desperate but not terminally so, and these are the people that tend to advertise beforehand in the hope that they might receive assistance. I realise we should not be in that business ourselves, and should resist false positives, but there is a humanitarian case for reporting them, per Jeanne Boleyn and others above. Rodhullandemu 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

People are actually taking this ridiculous vandalism seriously?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Post disco

There is one user in this wikipedia, called User:RockandDiscoFanCZ, who seems to be highly interested in the topic of post-disco. As you can discover from his contribution, while having been agreed on the issue that topic is even a questionable one to be existing here, he has been adding the tag of 'post disco' to various articles about songs. Those addition were frequently based on his personal opinions on what a song sounds like and what the only 'righteous' version of the history of music is. That is clearly seen from his comments on his edits. Moreof, this user doesn't seem to have appropriate etiquette skills, as his discussion posts often feature strong words.

Since his registration about year ago, he had been already engaged into numerous controversies on the topics of Disco, Techno, Post-disco and on the obsession over genre infobox colours.

I'd like to request for the clarifying of this user's behaviour in terms of this project's rules and his edits made, thank you. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nice. It looks like some kind of provocation. I have nothing to say. This report is just ridiculous. I've expected that Wikipedia is going to bankruptcy or something that serious and finally I had read some kind of "he is a colorphile, he doesn't belong to here, etc" stuff. Funny.

Also "... who seems to be highly interested in the topic of post-disco."/"Those addition were frequently based on his personal opinions on what a song sounds like and what the only 'righteous' version of the history of music is" - a point-of-view comments. Second comment tells to the world, that you have been watching me for a long time. Looks like a some kind of disliking obsession, you know.

"Moreof, this user doesn't seem to have appropriate etiquette skills, as his discussion posts often feature strong words." - personal "WP:OR" "attack".

Have a nice day, dude. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user about this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably falls into the realm of dispute resolution. At first glance, I can't see any possible admin action. Tan | 39 15:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I spotted this problem, and the reality is that post-disco is not a genre, it's a myth, perpetuated by one specific wikipedia user. There's a discussion here, that sets out where the central issue lies, in summary, all musicological sources that feature the term post-disco (or postdisco) are referring to the era in popular music history when disco music was in decline. None use this term to describe a genre of music. The only source that uses it as a genre descriptor is an anonymously written Allmusic entry. Measles (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't say it's a myth and have an article at Post-disco with dozens of reliable sources (even though they look to be using the term for a variety of meanings). If he has a reliable source, then he's fine. If he doesn't, then it should be replaced with one (not replaced with another unsourced version). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's no agreement what the term means, it's hard to decide what sources are reliable on the subject, isn't it? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted all of your conspiracy useless edits, because we're (Wikipedia) working so hard on that article and you deleted that article in a few hours, you just you... without talking with us. You're not a god or something like that and you CAN'T change/delete article without previous discussion. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also I requesting that this new user will be checked for sockpuppets if he's not a user called User:Wikiscribe (i was not in wikipedia for a long time, when i came back... i had reverted that user called Wikiscribe and then appeared this curious stranger called Appletangerine un and he's mostly start reverting post-disco article. So strange). RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky, please take a good look at the "dozens of reliable source" and establish exactly what they are saying; none claim that post-disco is a genre of music, except the anonymous single paragraph from the Allmusic website. I can't find a single musicological source that uses the term in the context of describing a genre of music, but it is consistently used to refer to an era of music, talk disputes this fact, and is at this stage POV pushing on the matter of post-disco as a genre of music. Measles (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not getting involved. If it's not real, AFD it and move on. Otherwise, if you want to discuss sources, there's the reliable sources noticeboard and the talk page. I don't care either way but this is exactly why I hate music articles. For example, Let's Groove has R&B, funk, dance and soul all without sources and for post-disco, Amazon reviews, this blog review, and this non-rs shopping cart website. None of those pass WP:RS and it's actually possible to find real sources if people cared to. If I had my way, I'd remove all the genres but doing that ALWAYS results in a fight where everybody says "But I KNOW it's this type." Either you all take it seriously about reliable sources or let it be a free-for-all. I'd rather you AFD the post-disco article if you think it's really not a real topic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more re:weak sourcing for music reLated content, especially genre specific items, requests for RS cites generally fall on deaf ears, hence the free for all you mention, and the bickering; taking the hard line is very time consuming. Measles (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's really people's choice. The actual music articles that qualify as GA or FA don't have that problem. You can either take it seriously or play games making it up as you go along. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I hurt your feelings, dear fellow editor? All your last edits are just about [deleting post-disco from the database http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Appletangerine_un]and nobody's doing anything. Everybody (include mods - yes, I'm paranoid) supports this, and articles such post-punk, Hi-NRG, Eurobeat are full of original research/wp:synthesis, etc, why so rigorous about post-disco? Haha, I'm such an idiot, I think we should make a consensus... but we can't(?). RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats and personal attack

Two new legal threats from User:Alastair Haines:

"Since I was recently published in the US as a religious expert, though, there are also options I'd like to avoid like formal processes regarding whether Wiki can be classed as a service provider, if it has and exercises powers to restrict protected speech, like widely recognised religious points of view... I trust ArbCom to finally defend me. However, if they don't, and these repeated unsupportable challenges against my professionalism as a writer are permitted to be published, I have no choice but to defend myself."[8]

"I have plenty of time, I've recently been published in the US, and I have legal advice for here and there. I don't want this to blow up in the face of our wonderful project."[9]

He's also personally attacking me on other user's talk pages for seeking enforcement of previous ArbCom restrictions against him. Kaldari (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[Edit-conflict] I left him a request to clarify or reword those comments you mentioned, and also alerted him to the presence of this thread. Prodego ^talk 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, that diff above ("personal attack") is not. Tan | 39 16:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the attack page linked to in the diff (especially the bottom of it)? That most certainly meets the definition of personal attack. Accusing me of "unwillingness to compromise, edit warring, biased treatment of a reliable source" and violating 3RR simply because I reverted a paragraph 3 times over the course of several days (a year ago!), and then advertising this as evidence of my "behavior" problems, sure feels like a personal attack to me. He's definitely not discussing content here. Kaldari (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that the accusations aren't content related. I dunno, nominate it at MfD if you are so inclined. I don't see any admin action required here. Tan | 39 16:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Are personal attacks on Wikipedia ever not "content related"? To quote from Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Clearly he is disparaging me personally, not making a content argument. Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And I agree with Tan that that's pretty far from a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I also wouldn't call it a personal attack. Prodego ^talk 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Marked resolved, there's nothing to do here. Black Kite 18:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unmarked resolved due to the other half of the complaint, regarding legal threats. Make sure you read the whole thread before marking it resolved Black Kite. That said, there is nothing to do now but wait for Alastair Haines to clarify his remarks, which I'm sure will resolve the problem. Prodego ^talk 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, missed that part - mea culpa Black Kite 00:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I would like to offer this diff [10] for those that may have missed it. Seems like a nice quick resolution is close at hand.--Buster7 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Virtually every sentence in that diff is untrue. I have wasted plenty of hours discussing issues ad naseum on article talk pages with him, as have numerous other editors. He is, however, intractable in his POV and editing habits, as demonstrated by the following ArbCom decisions, amendments, and discussions [11][12][13][14], as well as his block log. I fail to see how his "appeal for peace" addresses the issue of the legal threats. Kaldari (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I do find it difficult to imagine that there is going to be a nice quick resolution when this was how he responded to a mere notification by Kaldari. Contrary to Alastair's assertion, the restriction Kaldari was seeking enforcement for was not invalid as ArbCom has noted on the clarification page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Alastair has been blocked twice before for making legal threats[15][16][17], so he is well aware of our policies in this regard. In addition, he was warned about making actual or perceived legal threats in his previous Request for Arbitration, so there is no excuse for his current behavior. Kaldari (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Suggest a block until he clarifies, as per WP:NLT. He has no excuse for this kind of crap with his past record. At some point we need to put our collective foot down. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I echo Ironholds suggestion. Adequately clarifying concerns over NLT is a priority; Wikipedia:Nlt#Conclusion_of_legal_threat specifies that it isn't merely the legal threat that gives grounds for blocking, but four other factors. We cannot look at these comments in isolation, but rather, we should look at them collectively, along with other context (such as his record). My conclusion is that an indef. block until he provides adequate clarification seems appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry to but in here, as I am not involved in this case. However, I suggest to put this thing on hold until Haines returns to WP. Please see his talk page concerning the recent tragedy in his private life. --Crusio (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilian

Help, please, for White Brazilian.

Long-term readers of WP:AN/I and such pages will know that there have been numerous skirmishes over articles related to ethnic/"racial" groups in south America. Two articles that have been particularly affected are German Brazilian and White Brazilian. I no longer remember how it was that I first became involved, but I'd guess that at some point I noticed that some other admin was getting rather too many requests and thought I'd give him or her a break. I've never been to south America, don't read Portuguese or Spanish, and couldn't care a fig if south Americans, my neighbors or my inlaws were black, white or green, or of Nubian, Inuit or Livonian ancestry. Anyway, I entered as a neutral party, with a couple of big red buttons to use if/when appropriate. Since that time I have spent rather a lot of time nudging and mollifying authors, and often wished that I had not done so, or that south America were exclusively and indisputably populated by homogenous llamas rather than variegated humans.

User:Ninguém argued at Talk:White Brazilian (now mostly in Talk:White Brazilian/Archive 2) that the article was seriously defective. He was certainly not unopposed there, but on balance it seemed to me that he was more persuasive.

Ninguém then made a long and almost uninterrupted series of edits from 1 December until 00:43 6 December. One minute after that last edit, User:Off2riorob reverted the last batch of these. Forty-two minutes later, Off2riorob reverted the article to the state in which it had been on 1 December, with the comment "[...] reverting undiscussed mass edits". On the talk page, Off2riorob elaborated slightly, saying variations on:

I have also clearly stated my reasons for reverting to the previous position, mass editing of an article without apparent discussion (talkpage discussion six months old) so as to make the article almost unrecognizable.

So the objection that there had been no discussion was tacitly admitted to be mistaken: the discussion -- which at the time of the reversion was still on the talk page rather than in an archive -- was now merely too old.

Ninguém's edits appeared to me to have been based on cited sources (though in Portuguese, which I have never claimed to be able to read) and to be informative, and they had edit summaries (although I never claimed to have checked the accuracy of these). The material he deleted also seemed misplaced. All in all it seemed to me that his edits were for the better, although I was (and remain) open to argument to the contrary.

As there had been no objection to the substance of Ninguém's edits, and believing that they at least deserved a levelheaded evaluation before they were rejected, I boldly (or rougely) protected the article (more precisely, what I thought was the wrong version) as a preemptive measure. I archived most of the (bloated) talk page, and initiated a discussion of the first stage of Ninguém's edits.

At this point I may have made a mistake. For in addition to describing these edits as neutrally as I could, I also commented on them. "Judge and jury", it could be said. And indeed Off2riorob has politely asked about this.

Now, I'd be happy to take any of several options, one of which is never to involve myself in south American ethnic/"racial" matters again. However, I'm most reluctant to deprotect this article. I'm sure that Ninguém's set of edits merit evaluation, at the least, and that deprotecting the article would lead either to an edit war or to a wholesale and insufficiently considered rejection of those edits.

So I invite one or (better) more administrators to take a look and to keep looking. An ability to read Portuguese would be a help. Patience will be a necessity. -- Hoary (talk) 04:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I might add that User:Lecen has politely chided me for indulgence toward Off2riorob's reversion and demands. Actually I'm inclined to agree with Lecen here. -- Hoary (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hoary's full protection of White Brazilian is certainly justified, and I am not perturbed by the efforts he made on the Talk page to get a discussion started. He added some content opinions of his own, but they seem mild and unlikely to be perceived as bossy by the other editors working there. (Note that Hoary protected the current version). If his efforts lead to a successful discussion, he should withdraw from the content issues. If he wants to have a longer-term role on improving the content, he should ask some other admin to take over the protection. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. In the long or medium term, I'd very much like to withdraw completely from these two articles, from Brazil, and more. I'd be happy to accelerate that, if I had reason to think that I'd be replaced by one or more other people who had no particular interest one way or another in Brazilian or other "color" and who would judge edits on their merits.

As for the content dispute -- which, however this may violate the rules of this particular project page, has so far been inextricable from the reversion/BOLD/OWN dispute -- I have some sympathy for the argument that simplicity here is a Good Thing and that Ninguém's elaborated and longer lead is too long and elaborate; however, the current version strikes me as simplistic and wrong-headed, and if avoidance of misunderstandings takes more words, that strikes me as a good use of words.

So I hope to draw both administrators and fastidious editors to the article. Or rather, to a bunch of articles. Because on the rare occasion when I (wearing janitorial and not editing hat) have thought that one article was settling down, it would soon be pointed out to me that the warring parties were simply continuing the war elsewhere. -- Hoary (talk) 11:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Hoary for commenting, I am not involved in all these previous issues and I am not involved in any of the related issues. I noticed the edits occurring and went to see what was occurring, I saw a recent removal of content that I thought was well written and well cited so I reverted the edit, and had a bigger look at what was going on and decided that the article appeared to be more or less being rewritten to reflect a differing position to the content the article had more or less reflected for a length of time. I had a quick look at the archives and found some discussion six months old, I then had a quick look at the article and a small discussion with User talk:Ninguém about the objective of the edits and the lack of appearance of a consensus to support a rewrite and making a judgment mostly on the additions to the lede that the version the existed previous to the mass editing by User Ninguém was imo preferable to what had just been created, I reverted to that version and am presently in discussion as to how to move forward and what direction the content should contain, there does seem to be some support from Hoary, lucan and Ninguen that they simply agree with the rewritten version, although there is also an acceptance that the new lede is excessive, I have some personal knowledge of the color issues in Brazil and felt that the original article was not so bad as to require a rewrite, I thought that if major alterations were to occur to the article that wikipedia and the article would be better served and more rounded and balanced if it was discussed and edited by two editors. I have commented regarding this position on the talkpage at the article. If there is acceptance that the article is in need of a rewrite and that it should be done by Ninguém then I will happily step aside, as Hoary as also commented, I had no idea that there were additional issues surrounding the situation. Off2riorob (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

At this moment, this article has a curious particularity: it talks at lenght about the subject of "White Brazilians", but the section on "Conception of White" comes not at the beggining, but at the end. But this is far from being the worse.

The article's lead reads,

White Brazilians are all people who are full or mainly descended of European and other White immigrants.

The section on "Conception of White", on the other hand, states,

The ancestry is quite irrelevant for racial classifications in Brazil.

So, is "ancestry" what defines who is and who is not a "White Brazilian", or is it quite irrelevant for "racial classifications" in Brazil? Or perhaps "White Brazilian" is not a "racial classification" in Brazil?!

This is quite typically the quality standard of the articles on Brazilian demography. The most curious thing is that this is not the result of multiple editors placing their POVs without caring for coherence, but rather the result of one only editor's work. Ninguém (talk) 14:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ninguém removed several informations and included unsourced informations to that article. He did not even discuss what he was doing. The article was fine, and there was no need to re-write it. Opinoso (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A degree of discussion has broken out on the talkpage there, revealing a fair bit of underlying conflict, also could I clear this up as Admin Hoary seem to have said that he has no involvment in the article and would rather not be involved but since he made those comments here his recent two edits here and here seem to be reflective of a degree of involvment in the dispute, could he clarify if he is acting as an admin here as as an editor in the way of dispute resolution? Off2riorob (talk) 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're more or less repeating your earlier question, which I repeated above to see what others thought. I didn't say that I had no involvement; I'm disinterested but not uninvolved, as recent edits demonstrate. I froze the article. When time permits, I try to work out where the disagreement lies. This combination may or may not be proper. I asked here about it. So far just one admin has responded, and as he seemed to think it was OK, I continued. I'd be happy if he and others volunteered to look at the article and keep looking at it; I'd then happily leave. -- Hoary (talk) 23:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes its the same question that I felt the need to repeat after your two discussion edits to the talkpage, it is confusing when you appear to be involved and also taking administrator actions on the article. I took from the comment from Ed that your actions were fine, but he also seemed to suggest that you get to one side of the fence regarding the article..either an editor or an admin, in the situation I think it is unwise to act as both there. Off2riorob (talk) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This comment of yours here overlapped this further question of mine there. ¶ As you have said, I haven't edited the article for a long time, if ever. I've no desire to edit it. I don't care whether it concludes that ten or ninety percent of Brazilians are "white", or how it describes these "white" people. I do care that whatever it says is well-informed and well-reasoned, and I am willing to ask questions in order to clear up what appear to be contradictions or to find just what an objection consists of. I'd be much happier if others volunteered to do this work instead. And that's one reason why I asked here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

ec.I am not finding this easy, admin Hoary has now gone off involving himself again in the content discussion asking editors if they mind if he asks questions , under the circumstances I would find it excessive if he was to take any more administrator actions on the article. Off2riorob (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And in the last few minutes I've made other edits to the talk page besides that. Well, I understand what you are saying here. My administrative action on the article so far has been protection; tempted though I occasionally am to take the further administrative action of deleting it, I agree that this would be excessive and intend to resist the temptation. Have my edits to the talk page been improper? Let's see what others here think; and again, I hope that the unbiased among them will dive in to this group of articles and stay there. -- Hoary (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want it, but I am seeing that it's necessary a few coments of mine in here:

1. I stil do not know what is the issue in the article White Brazilian. Neither Off2riorob nor Opinoso has come with good reasons to oppose Ninguém's edits. And when I say that, I mean that none of them brought sources that goes against Ninguém's edit. That is, "according to editor X, he says Y, while what you wrote means Z." All I saw was "I did not like your changes and for that reason I am reverting them and sorry, but I can't discuss with you why I did that because I am too busy in real life." That's the best way to keep the article locked and with the discussion with no end, which means that what they want is an article that can/will not be changed. If no one can change anything in the article unless he/she asks for permission from other editors (that is, according to both Opinoso and Off2riorob, it is needed a "consensus"), that is nothing more than ownership of an article.
2. So far Hoary has not done anything, I repeat, anything that could make anyone, I repeat, anyone, complain about his actions. He blocked the article because he feared that it would take to an edit war probably due to past disagreements in it that he witnessed by himself. And that was a correct action of his. Then, he pointed out what were Ninguém's edits and asked everyone to make comments about it. As a far as I know, trying to settle a dispute by bringing both parties to reason can not be considered a fault, and that was what Hoary tried to do. Off2riorob's insinuations, and that's what they are, insinuations of possible bad faith from Hoary as possibly taking sides is not only a huge mistake but also unfair.
3. Off2riorob complained that Hoary was one of the people who Ninguém asked for help to deal with matter, implying that Hoary was someone that Ninguém could be sure that would take his side. Untrue. Hoary is the administrator who has been dealing with issues related to such article for quite sometime and if he got involved in it it was to do his job as an administrator and also because he, more than any other administrator, already knows very well what it's being discussed.
4. Again, neither Opinoso nor Off2riorob has brought sources to oppose Ninguém's edits. Off2riorob has reverted good faith edits done by Ninguém without waiting for other editor's opinions in the talk page. And he reverted every single thing Ninguém did to a previous version that he considered "stable". To me, that is nothing more than ownership, again.
5. What should be done, then? First of all, Off2riorob should apologize to Hoary for the insinuations he did because wanting or not, they will harm his credibility not only among editors but also among his peers if they are not taken back.
6. Second of all, the article must be unblocked, reverted to the last Ninguém's edit and once both Off2riorob and Opinoso has time to discuss and have REAL reasons to oppose a change, they may ask for changes in the talk page and wait for other editors' opinions. Those are my thoughts. --Lecen (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your kind words about me, but it is indeed odd for an admin to protect a page and then to comment on aspects of content that may or may not have provoked the edit war. It's even odder when the protection was preemptive. And I'm not sure that Off2riorob has been insinuating anything. Certainly I'm not after any apology from anyone. I appreciate your amicable intentions, but let's avoid blowing this up further or making it more personal than it needs to be. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine. So here are my points:

1. Off2riorob was the one who started all this discussion.
2. So, he should bring reasons to why he oppose Ninguém's edits.
3. Those reasons can not be his personal opinions. They must be something like "author X says Y while what Ninguém wrote says Z". Simple like that.
4. If he does not bring sources, reliable sources to where and why Ninguém's edits are wrong, the article must be unlocked and what Off2riorob reverted. Is that fair enough? --Lecen (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Help please: User Makrand Joshi is personally attacking, harrassing me, recurringly over the past many months, almost wiki-hounding me

I am posting this issue out here after not getting an adequate response from user Makrand Joshi on the Wikiquette forum[18].

User Makrand Joshi [19]has been personally attacking and harrassing me recurrently by repeatedly calling me a sock puppet on the talk page of The Indian Institute of Planning and Management.

It started on 26th June 2009 with Makrandjoshi first accusing me formally of being a sock puppet Mrinal Pandey here [20] He changed my user page to say that i was a suspected sock puppet, here [21]

Then on 1st August 2009 he started addressing me again by the name of Mrinal the sock puppet, here [22] As user page harrassment, Makrand changed my user page to again say I was a suspected sock puppet, here [23]

He's continued since calling me a sock puppet here [24], here [25], here [26]. Here he's threatened me saying he's going to expose my being a sock puppet.

I had reported the user for edit warring here, [27] where the finding was that "Reporting user is arguably the more disruptive at that article, but also appears to be within the limits of normal editing-with-discussion." for which Makrand's response was "wifione's malciious and pathetic forum-shopping falls flat on the face". For which user Makrand responded with words like he knew why I was "pissed off" and why I was "so pissed off."

I request you to somehow help me stop this personal harrassment and wiki hounding against me which is happening repeatedly. He is now using uncivil statements and rants that now are aimed at gathering other editors against me. Please help as I know that even past offenders cannot be personally attacked like this repeatedly on talk pages and their personal user pages and I have only involved myself in protracted discussions. Please help Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is no evidence of socking given or any followup action for it, it's a pretty clear case of harassment IMO. The article in question has a long history of serious COI-sock problems leading to (if I recall) a pile of CU-blocking. Flares up every few months. There is discussion, but there is usually mostly edit-warring and eventual blocks. I'm not sure we can do better than perma-full-prot...there's a ton of drama and ongoing admin time spent for usually little if any actual gain on the article quality. DMacks (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think calling someone a sockpuppet constitutes harassment. I do think the above user is a sockpuppet of a previous blocked account and is in fact now creating sockpuppets of their own. Dmacks, I had initiated a formal SPI some months ago which returned the result "possible" with admins and others agreeing that there is a lot of similarity, but since the sockmaster had been inactive for a long time, there was no direct IP-based evidence yet. I see another sockpuppet returning User:Suraj845, and yesterday I raised concerns about it to User:Tiptoety an admin who had run check-user detected and blocked sockpuppets last year. And User:Tiptoety has said she'll keep an eye on it. I have not renewed the SPI yet, but I think letting the admin involved in the previous SPI know of this is "followup action". There is clear behavioral evidence of sock-puppetry.

• I did refer to wifione as Mrinal a couple of times. But I stopped that months ago after wifione asked me not to. FWIW, wifione has been repeatedly calling me an SPA, and when pointed out by others that I was not an SPA, wifione (an account created fairly recently compared to my own) actually had the temerity to take credit for my editing. although to be fair, wifione did post an apology after being caught on this lie by another admin.
• I never called wifione pathetic or malicious. I said that wifione's attempts at forum-shopping (of which this particular instance is the umpteenth example) are pathetic and malicious. wifione has been forum-shopping against me on a continuous basis. And every time, the result goes in my favor. Even in the link above, when wifione talks about reporting me for edit-warring, he/she neglects to mention that the result of it - what I was doing was fine, and he/she is actually the more disruptive user. In the past, wifione raised the same point in 3 different noticeboards at the same time - really prodigious forum-shopping. And this forum shopping continues. Always targetted against me. If anything, I am being wiki-hounded. Every other day when I log into wikipedia, there is some new noticeboard complaint filed against me by wifione. And when that request does not get the desired response, he/she opens up another one.
• How is the phrase "pissed off" uncivil?
• wifione's editing record speaks for itself. The user is continuously trying to whitewash The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management page, trying to get any negative or critical information removed. His/her edits, which some other editors and I have painstakingly gone through and reworded, always exaggerate some things and praise IIPM in words that the cited source never mentioned. wifione's agenda, IMHO, is to turn the article into an advertorial for IIPM and remove all negative information.
• wifione's writing style, behavior pattern and editing are similar to previous pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets. Pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets who have in the past threatened me with a lawsuit, a beating, attack and murder. So if I suspect someone of being a sock-puppet, I am going to call them on it. And not just call them sockpuppet, but also point out evidence for it. Like I said, I have raised an SPI in the past, have followed up with the admin involved in that SPI yesterday. And if the sockpuppetry gets really disruptive, I will of course renew the SPI. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione is also making it seem like I am the one hell-bent on harassing him while he is an innocent babe in the woods. So Here's a timeline of events. When wifione first appeared, I suspected him of being a sockpuppet and raised an SPI. The result of the SPI was possible. So I let it go for then. Then wifione raised a complaint on the RS noticeboard for the reliability of a source that has information that goes against wifione's ostensible opinions. That complaint went against him. Then again, wifione raised the request after a while with the same result. During this, wifione kept calling me an SPA everywhere, on the talk pages, on noticeboards, on talk pages of other users, and so forth. Repeatedly. Clearly baiting me. After other editors pointed out that I am not an SPA, wifione backed out with a faux-apology, faux because even after that, he claimed that he was responsible for my not being an SPA! wifione then tried to make wholesale changes to the IIPM page, essentially whitewashing negative information and putting in weasel-worded praise which was not in the sources cited, and continues to this day (you can see details on the IIPM talk page). And all along, wifione has been repeatedly forum-shopping, raising complaints about me all over the place. First the admin board, which was not in his favor. Then the wikiquette board, where an admin actually asked wifione to applogize to me! And now here. If here, the decision goes against him, I wonder where the next complaint will be raised. This is the definition of forum-shopping, going on an on until you get ba judgment in your favor. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And FWIW, I agree with DMacks about perma-full-prot on the page. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is surprising that user Makrandjoshi can feel he can accuse a user of being a sock puppet with so much alacricity. With respect to his points, I have mentioned my responses below and will wait for definitive response from the administrators against Makrandjoshi -

• Makrandjoshi mentions above "I don't think calling someone a sockpuppet constitutes harassment." I will await what administrators think of this statement of his.
• Makrandjoshi writes "I do think the above user is a sockpuppet of a previous blocked account and is in fact now creating sockpuppets of their own." I ask administrators, can users make such accusations for over four months, harrassing me by changing my personal user page, and continue editing under the reasoning that they are going to raise another SPI? Makrandjoshi also writes he has informed user Tiptoey and that constitutes his action against sockpuppetry. Does it? Evidently, there's something deeply wrong about my understanding of discussions.
• Makrand Joshi writes "I did refer to wifione as Mrinal a couple of times. But I stopped that months ago after wifione asked me not to." It's quite clear from the links I have provided above that neither did Makrandjoshi stop when I requested him to, he continued calling a sock puppet on and off.
• Makrandjoshi writes "wifione has been repeatedly calling me an SPA, and when pointed out by others that I was not an SPA, wifione (an account created fairly recently compared to my own) actually had the temerity to take credit for my editing. although to be fair, wifione did post an apology after being caught on this lie by another admin". If Makrandjoshi can provide a diff of his statements, it would make sense. It's worrying that Makrand can continue giving wrong statements. The reason I called Makrandjoshi an spa in August was because he did seem to be an spa. His edits on other pages started exactly after I had encouraged him to edit on other pages. His contributions are listed here [28]. You will notice the 8th August 2009 timeline. The reason I apologised to Makrandjoshi was clearly not because of any lying. I apologised so that we could get on with discussions in a constructive manner, here [29]. But does all this allow Makrand the right to call a user a sockpuppet repeatedly, personally harrasing the user?
• Makrandjoshi writes "I never called wifione pathetic or malicious. I said that wifione's attempts at forum-shopping (of which this particular instance is the umpteenth example) are pathetic and malicious". That's exactly what I have written in my above complaint. I am surprised Makrand is not noticing what I am writing. He also accuses me of forum shopping, a mistake credibly made by me the first time I ever used the wiki templates in my life. That done, does this, therefore, allow him to call a user a sock puppet repeatedly?
• Makrandjoshi writes "How is the phrase 'pissed off' uncivil?" Dear administrators, kindly inform me whether this statement is or is not uncivil so that other editors can start using the same with regularity.
• Makrandjoshi writes "wifione's writing style, behavior pattern and editing are similar to previous pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets." He also says I am trying to harrass him on various forums. Can he provide a diff of the same? Or is he referring to the wikiquette requests I have raised against him on his behaviour? Is that enough to repeatedly call me a sock puppet?
• Dear Administrators, I mention out here that it is ironical that a user like Makrandjoshi has been allowed to continue on the whitelist for so long. Irrespective of everything, irrespective of whether (to cover his past accusations) he raiss another spi, how can there be justification for Makrand having called a user a sock puppet for so long? I will await your quick action Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• And all this is apart from numerous other personal attack that Makrand has done on me. For example, here [30], Makrand writes that You on the other hand are an IIPM employee who does this full time. Now, this is an action by Makrandjoshi to expose my personal information whether or not I am an IIPM employee and should necessarily qualify Makrandjoshi for a block as per Wikipedia NPA guideline. It is absurd that he can be allowed to do all this on a recurring basis, even on admin forums. He is using an Ad hominem argument against me. Perhaps he should see the chapter on Guilt By Association before writing all that he has written above. Dear Administrators, I await quick action please that behoves recurring personal attacks, harrassment, action to reveal personal identity. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 09:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the same link above, Makrandjoshi also writes, "Are you denying being an IIPM employee?" I would like to address this as a clear Attempted Outing Harassment issue on user Makrandjoshi. I want to inform administrators that I am writing directly also to the oversight committee for deleting that talk edit from Wikipedia permanently, irrespective of whether I am or not an IIPM employee. And I still await when user Makrandjoshi will be blocked pending action. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 09:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Two choices: either file an WP:SSI right now or the next time I see a sockpuppet or outing attempt, you will be blocked. If it's true, we'll deal with it. Otherwise, it's nonsense that disruptive. Repeated on the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize I probably went overboard and violated WP:OUTING. For that I apologize to User:Wifione. You (Ricky81682) said I should start an SSI immediately. I wanted to ask you about another choice. According to Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption-only, "accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization" can be blocked indefinitely. I think based on User:Wifione's history, he clearly falls in this category. Every edit is aimed at reducing the negatives and embellishing the positives of IIPM. I can provide a long list of diff's if necessary. Should I start a separate request on the ANI for that, with supporting evidence? Makrandjoshi (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not necessarily a problem. For example, if an article were heavily and unduly skewed toward the negative then an editor who only removes negative info and embellishes positive would be improving the article. I've looked over a couple of edits from Wifione at the article and you might have a point, but it doesn't seem so blatant that the editor should be blocked; usually these issues are resolved on the talk page of the article as they're essentially content disputes. -- Atama頭 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User Sensei_2105

I am having problems with a new editor who is having difficulties working with guide lines and consensus. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)#Names specifies Japanese name order for people born before 1868 and Western name order for people born after 1868. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Honorifics_and_academic_titles specifies that we follow the manual of style Wikipedia:NAMES#Academic_titles.

The user Sensei 2105 would like the article Takayuki Kubota to be named Soke_Kubota_Takayuki and to contain the titles 'Soke' and Grand Master'. He has not participated in the discussion Talk:Takayuki_Kubota#Requested_move but has attempted to undo the moves [31]. He has not responded on his talk page about title policy and he has repeated reverted the article to use titles. [32] [33] [34], the last with the comment 'no comment': [35]

Similar experiences with the article Gosoku-ryu‎ [36]].

Could I request advice and assistance concerning this user? jmcw (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

First, some friendly advice :) The best thing to have done would have been to let the editor know, on their talkpage, what they were doing wrong. There are templated notices and warnings available (such as {{uw-3rr}}), or a handwritten note sometimes works better. It's also considered good practice to inform an editor when they're being discussed here.

That aside, I've now warned the editor and linked to this discussion. We typically don't take admin action if the editor hasn't been warned, but from now on if they continue edit-warring you can drop a note back here, on my talkpage, or at WP:AN3 if they've broken WP:3RR, and someone will take another look. I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly advice - if you were on the talk page, you could see that I did attempt to talk with the editor before coming here. Let us hope the warning will help. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed that. It was specifically the edit-warring I was referring to; I apologise if I gave the wrong impression with my comment. Anyhow, glad to be of help and we'll see where this goes. EyeSerene^talk 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Sensei 0208 appears to have the same poor habits as Sensei 2105 [37]. jmcw (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over expected FFD vote-counting

Just liked to express my concerns that the admin willing to close the FFDs discussions for December 7 will have to master some excellence in weighting popular vote, policy knowledge, core-value commitement, personal attacks (with a varying level of civility) and discussions based on user reputation (admins vs frequently-blocked users).

Of course, I am an involved part. --Damiens.rf 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• So you want me to close a dozen or so FFDs where yours is the only delete vote as delete? Protonk (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I want you (or any other admin who volunteer to take the task) to weight the arguments against our policies and mission, and to avoid counting votes or weighting individual user's reputations. --Damiens.rf 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • By closing them as delete...Protonk (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Or maybe by being unhelpfully sarcastic in a well-intended call for attention. --Damiens.rf 19:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Well-intended? Doesn't seem that way when you nominate a series of important historical images from the same subject area (Puerto Rico) in one day, calling people lazy, using words like "imbecile" 1 and engaging in edit warring 2. --Jmundo (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've looked at the page in question, and Damiens.rf's request is quite reasonable. There are a number of nominations where people are voting to ignore WP:CSD#F4 (images must have sources), or WP:NFCC#8 (non-free images must be significant). --Carnildo (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While I did not vote! to keep all of the images, several of them were nominated with loose reasoning. Its ridiculous to suggest that an image of Hiram Bithorn is not relevant to Hiram Bithorn. The subject in question died decades ago and a free alternate has yet to surface. Juan Evangelista Venegas is the first Puerto Rican to win an Olympic medal and as such his relevance to Sports in Puerto Rico should be clear. However, in both of these cases he continued edit warring with several members (I was late to notice the issue, since by my arrival three more users had already expressed concern) of the project, refusing to pursue any consensus and responding with masked incivility. Even knowing this, he continued to nominate several images in what appears to be an attempt to prove a point. At a certain nomination the user went as far as suggesting that being historic does not warrant the inclusion of an image in a relevant topic. Its quite hard assuming good faith when an user ignores at least five active members of the project that monitors the quality of the topic. Labeling the response to this point proving as vote-stacking is ridiculous. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Damiens. There are a ton of non-free images of people that were/are being used to decorate a lot of articles, with the only rationale being "the person is mentioned in the article", which is clearly insufficient to meet NFCC. As often happens when we begin enforcing this policy in an area where it hasn't been enforced in a while, there's some backlash, and I think it is certainly appropriate to ask for extra sets of eyes on these discussions. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue is not modifying the use of some images, but the pattern of nomination relevant images (such as the ones used to depict people that have been dead for decades in their own biographies) for deletion without reasoning other than the user's POV that "the image its decorative". - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    • There are two distinct issues that have come to light as this user has gone through the tireless work of reviewing these images - (1) non-free images without proper sourcing information; such images cannot be used anywhere under any circumstances - and (2) non-free images being used with the justification that "the person is discussed in the article", which is a clearly insufficient rationale. I think you're perhaps confusing some of case 1 with case 2. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
      • That was only one of the examples, he has also removed several other images (Venegas' from Sports in Puerto Rico) under said rationale. Can you honestly say that an image of the first Olympic figure in a relevant article is "decorative"? Then again, the issue would have been avoided if the user acted in a civil manner to begin with. Tony is is patient man, but if your edits are called "idiotic" or jokes on a constant basis, then you can not place blame on him if he begins to discard the assumptions of good faith. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Can I ask for him to stop the mass nomination and list the images at WP:PUR so we can fix the issues? We have a limited number of editors and it seems that Damiens has unlimited time to nominate Puerto Rican related images. I hope he is not trying to prove a point. --Jmundo (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • With most of the images, the only possible fix is to delete the image. Listing them anywhere else is simply delaying the inevitable. --Carnildo (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• It is true that I have been subject to personal attacks during the process, it should not have happened. I also warned the editor making the attacks with a possible "block" when instead I should have resorted to a discussion here, my bad (mistake). Now, there are many cited situations where a solution could have been found or a fix made by a simple discussion in a "talk page" before going on a mass deletion nomination of Puerto Rican related images. There are some images that are of historical importance which in my opinion should not be deleted. I do not believe in the cry of vote-stacking which has been made. Every member has a right to express themselves and to be heard when it comes to the deletion process. The closing administrator should listen to all arguments and then determine the proper course to take within Wikipedia policy, that is his/her job. However, take into consideration that many images do not deserve to be eliminated and that the excuses and cry of "decorative" is used all too often as a means to convince that there is wrong doing Tony the Marine (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempted WP:Outing

Resolved

 – Delicious carbuncle has been unblocked, and there is nothing more to do here. NW (Talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs)

Delicious carbuncle who knows full well that attempted WP:Outing is a blockable action, has done so anyway here with the telling edit summary " Ok, Benjiboi, if that's how you want it..." I have been WP:Wikihounded by them for months and would like to see what I view as harassment to stop. This is roughly my sixth request for them to leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

p.s. If someone would be kind enough to alert them I would appreciate it as I avoid their talkpage for obvious reasons. -- Banjeboi 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done :) GiantSnowman 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link to get it out of subsequent revisions to the page history until this is resolved. Request WP:OVERSIGHT if necessary.--Chaser (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sort of outing is unacceptable. Whether he is right or wrong, providing links to external photographs and names, and connecting that to an on-wiki personality seems to me to be an eggregious violation of WP:OUTING. --Jayron32 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for two days in an attempt to prevent any further violations while this is discussed. I offered to copy any comments he had over here -- if I don't get them in a timely fashion, would someone else please take care of them? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi's identity is known and has been confirmed by him both in discussions and in his edits. It has been openly discussed several times - see for example Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 37#Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward. I posted the offending link on WP:AN, so I'm not sure why it is necessary to open a thread here. If my action is considered outing, I will be happy to refactor my comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Copied from usertalk by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)

The outed editor disclosed this information on Wikipedia in the past, and he also created two bios about his fictional alter egos (written as if they were unique individuals). The bios have since been deleted. And the other guy gets blocked for "outing" rather than the apparent COI problems with this editor being dealt with. Huh?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How was the alleged 'outer' able to acquire personal information of the 'outee'? see above. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Those links are valuable in that they show the ongoing drama being stirred up by Delicious carbuncle, including a relevant statement from Shankbone about his experience with them. What's missing from that narrative is this which is right smack dab in the middle which unambiguous also states that even if you think someone is COI editing there remains no excuse for harassment of any kind, this has gone on for months. While much accusations and general harassment ensue. What came of all that? The correct conclusion that a COI existed on some articles but no actual COI problems did. This again demonstrates that even though everyone else chooses to move on Delicious carbuncle insists on stirring drama and repeatedly dragging me to one admin board after the next, we've done COIN, BLP, ANI, AN, certainly I'm tired of this nonsense, I would hope others would be somewhat weary as well. I have generally stuck to just LGBT articles/subjects and am blissfully unaware of what Delicious carbuncle does outside articles where we intersect. I remain convinced they won't leave me alone unless ordered to. I wish they could just move on and leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@GoodDay This edit by the "outee" [38]. The email he disclosed in that edit was the same email used by the fictional person that was the subject of the BLP created by Benjiboi that was deleted after this [39] discussion.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@Benjiboi, per this [40]. Oh, brother.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any case for WP:OUTING. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the COI claims, that this diff has hung around for years and been discussed on multiple pages makes it impossible to rectify the situation. It's hard to see this as outing since those diffs have remained in the page histories and the archives for so long, including that AFD. I suppose you could still request oversight for all that, but I fear that time may have come and gone. I think Delicious Carbuncle ought to be unblocked.--Chaser (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle knowingly violated WP:Outing, they even reference it in their very next edit. The only reason this is repeated anywhere is because they re-dredge it up, like we see here. -- Banjeboi 19:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if anyone wants to unblock: I was just playing it safe. I'd prefer to do the unblock myself, if that's what consensus/policy calls for, but if I'm not here to do it, don't wait.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the key thing is that we get a commitment from him not to "out" Benjiboi with such a reference again. If he's already made such a commitment, I wouldn't favor unblocking.--Chaser (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have requested that Benjiboi cease editing a list of pages I decline to provide here. If he cannot cease editing the pages I am thinking of, I suggest that he has placed individuals concerned about his behavior in a catch-22. Complaining about his edits without providing the full amount of information to justify the complaint is impossible. As such, I suggest that an uninvolved adminstrator ban Benjiboi from a privately listed series of articles. If an adminstrator bound by the foundation privacy policy contacts me, I will provide them with an initial list of articles that would resolve this situation. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You just repeated what has already been stated; accusations were made and I posted that exact same diff myself. I have never purposely identified myself because of harassment both on and off-Wikipedia. This is fairly obvious to anyone who assumes who I am, my actual name, gender, etc. And, none of this excuses harassment of any kind. Even if you think you know who I am I answered that "smoking gun" diff as noted above. The rest remains recycling the same accusations again and again. If those articles have been deleted then the issue should be done, but certain editors just seem to want to try to re-fling the same muck repeatedly. Not because any problems have been shown to actually exist and not because I'm COI editing, but because no one stops them, no one cares enough to say it's time to move on. If Delicious carbuncle and enablers can't move on voluntarily then unfortunately other routes have to be considered. For months they have been the only disruptive factor in the equation. They cause drama, I try to answer the concern. I can't swear I've shown infinite patience but neither have I wanted to even interact with them. If they can't stop wikibullying then unfortunately I need others to step in. -- Banjeboi 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever requested oversight? You have to take some responsibility for fixing this old problem, otherwise any new damage is marginal.--Chaser (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was over and done, obviously it has to be oversighted now, as these folks can't seem to let it go. -- Banjeboi 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To Hipocrite, just so we're all clear here, you have a list somewhere in your imagination that I should avoid because I may have a COI? I'll let someone else try addressing that concept. -- Banjeboi 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't post the list on-wiki because it is basically you and a list of people and organizations close to you. If I were to post the list, it would WP:OUT you. If you grant me leave to post the list, I'll do it. Otherwise, both you and I and everyone else reading knows what the list entails, and you are prohibited from editing articles on the list. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You just missed the point of all the previous thread - a possible COI remains only that, if there is actual COI problem as spelled out at COIN then prove a problem exists. -- Banjeboi 19:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't do that without outing you. I have more evidence than that linked here, but it's still not for public consumption. Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Likely it should remain in your head then. -- Banjeboi 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This highlights the problem with the WP:COI guideline, in that editors are free to totally ignore it and any attempt to enforce it becomes harassment.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually this highlights that WP:Civil is under- and unevenly enforced. We can disagree with others without being disagreeable. We can discuss editing issues without violating civility policies. It's never acceptable to harass and bully other editors. It destroys community and is unneeded. The focus of this thread is Outing, that anyone feels that remains acceptable under any circumstance is problematic and that wobbly ways of justifying harassment continues is disturbing. It was wrong, they knew it was wrong clearly, and the did anyway and continue to do so. -- Banjeboi 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest a way of discussing a COI that doesn't bring up the problems you raise? Or must we accept editors who have COIs, even if that biases the contents of the encyclopedia, to avoid hurting their feelings?   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Outdent, I suggest a cautious post at COIN would likely yield the most constructive way forward. The point isn't that we don't hurt someone's feelings, but that we discern between a suspected COI and COI editing problems. Atama seems pretty on top of things there but others likely can also help. -- Banjeboi 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

One possibility is to create such a list and then immediately delete it, so that only admins can see the deleted revision.--Chaser (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If the accused is also an admin that may seem like a good idea, COIN is still the likely the best place to discuss the options as they are used to sorting out what is applicable in each situation. -- Banjeboi 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Or we could just email you the list.--Chaser (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle posted another message to his talk to be copied here. It deals with past edits by Benjiboi relating to his RL identity. I think it will be better to leave it there to be read, just in case this is found to be an OUTING violation. And yes, if it's agreed this isn't one, I'll be happy to post a suitably contrite unblock, as requested. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's obvious that this is simply more of the same. Instead of promising to leave me alone and avoid outing me in any way they instead compile a greatest hits against me adding nothing new and again trying to spell out even more of who they believe me to be. I think Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy or similar concept that we work with and not opposed to one another. And we don't shelve WP:Civil to make a point. -- Banjeboi 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure a block was warranted. I'm concerned (per will, above) that we have successfully blocked an editor for attempting to investigate a COI. That's especially troubling when this isn't the first time Benjiboi has clashed over alleged COIs (most prominently at paid editing). Protonk (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. I was 'accused repeatedly of being a paid editor because I refused to out myself as not being one. There was no clash accept the ... incivility of several editors who should have known better. And Delicious carbuncle was not "investigating" but WP:Outing. A previous case was made and dismissed at COIN where Delicious carbuncle also harassed at least one other editor with accusations galore and was also summarily dismissed. So they know what WP:Outing is and they certainly know what WP:COIN is. No, this was not some investigative attempt it was the unfortunately miscalculated latest effort to harass me despite many requests to be left alone. -- Banjeboi 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't really fault SoV for being cautious in this situation (outing another user can be a big deal) but it has become fairly obvious that this information was already available for consumption and it can't really be said that DC is engaging in outing here. Best resolution IMHO would be fore SoV to do the unblocking, given the info that has come to light here. Shereth 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This info has been perpetuated by Delicious carbuncle, they are doing so on their talkpage again. Every thread where they've pushed to out me it's blindingly clear that I wish to keep my private information private. That wikilawyering to get around Outing - well gee if I dig over here and dig over there and connect that to a diff from several years ago ... - that's a lot of work to Out someone. -- Banjeboi 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any editor who writes two articles about himself can complain about being outed. This complaint itself appears to be "wikilawyering". If <x> has been hired by Michael Lucas, then it's fair to say that <x> has a conflict of interest regarding Lucas. If Benjiboi doesn't want these issues to be raised then he should avoid editing articles where <x> has a conflict of interest.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Have edited Will's comment to replace names with x's.--Chaser (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note Will Beback, seems to be Outing who they think is me to make a WP:Point, and that strong evidence? Isn't that only suggesting that Lucas and the DJ might have been in the same room at the same time? Isn't that just a press release for an event? Really? This seems another person who knows quite well this is unacceptable. -- Banjeboi 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Lucas is listed as the host of the event that premiered one of his movies, at which DJ <x> was hired to be a DJ.[] BenjiBoi has asked for this issue to be handled with discretion, yet he rejects Hipocrite's suggestion for one way of doing so. This issue will keep coming up until it's resolved.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the flimsiest of excuses for trying to tie together an alleged COI imaginable. That remains a press release with little to prove that any two people there even knew let alone worked for or with one another. Are you seriously hoping to prove something? -- Banjeboi 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard for me to see this as a legitimate attempt to address a COI concern. The diffs are from around November 20, whereas the AN thread dealt with a more current AFD problem.--Chaser (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked Delicious Carbuncle. I too find it difficult to see how one could out an editor who has posted his email address & details on WP and never asked for them to be removed, and who has a record as a serial autobiographer. The only person who outed you is you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about to, but you beat me by four minutes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Likely because it didn't seem like someone would bother to wikistalk and harass me and whoever I wrote about. If the new standard for Outing is that one has to have oversighted various Outing attempts against yourself we should make that clear. -- Banjeboi 22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi posted an email address where they could be reached - while it can be inferred as being Benjiboi's address, that isn't necessarily the case. (For example, if my wife wanted to be reached, but didn't want to give her email online, she might reasonably offer mine). If we're going to respect the idea that editors can edit anonymously, then the only way they can surrender that anonymity is by saying "I am x". Inferring or deducing an identity, even by gathering evidence on-wiki, seems to me to be outing. - Bilby (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, you need to take some responsibility for your own mistakes. Either you outed yourself by posting your email address or someone outed you because you let them use your account. Either way, it's not the community's responsibility to clean up a situation that you let languish for years. Don't blame us if you haven't bothered to protect yourself.--Chaser (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I certainly didn't expect to be wikihounded or harassed, what volunteer does? I will look into what makes the most sense. -- Banjeboi 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Carbuncle should be unblocked post haste, as the info seemed to be already readily available, and therefore he was not outing anyone. And maybe a serious investigation of the COI issues should be started, with possible topic bans from related articles. Just my opinion. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He was unblocked and a COIN thread already happened. -- Banjeboi 22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unusual Unblock Request

I found this request. I haven't ever seen anyone who wants to extend their block period, so could someone please take a look at this?--Iner22 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Consent blocks are done from time to time, I invited them to email info-en@wikimedia.org to request the block. –xeno^talk 19:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe that it's the usual practice to accept such requests, though perhaps you ought to get this guy to ask the OTRS list from his official email account (to check it's not a student playing a joke)? ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what Xeno did. The blocked you linked to was also done on the basis of such a request.--Chaser (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I see that now that the edit-conflict that I mentioned above has come through. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem too unusual of a request. As a high school teacher, I can see how the school administration may want to prevent its students from making changes on this site.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Long term sock puppetry

In the past 12 hours, I have blocked two new obvious socks (User:Historiananna and User: Wiki Response) of the long term puppeteer outlined at User:Barneca/watch/Barbaro. This is a long term issue dating back two years now. It centers around the attempt to add information concerning the alleged current head of the Barbaro family by the name of Vitus Sebastian Barbaro. I have no idea whether these claims are true, however from what I have seen this person has not been able to provide compelling evidence of any sort either on Wikipedia or on any other website, like Royal Forums or Freebase. I am hoping that someone might have a better idea about how to deal with this beyond the whack-a-mole blocking of these obvious socks. I know IP range soft blocks have been used in the past. Thanks for taking a look. --Leivick (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you file a report at WP:SPI and list every known sock of this person, it would be helpful as it will keep everything in one place, and checkusers tend to respond there faster than here. A checkuser can institute a rangeblock if feasible. --Jayron32 20:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and created a new SPI. I guess we will have to see what they dig up. --Leivick (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the persistence of this hoaxer, I don't think there's anything Wikipedia can do other than playing whack-a-mole. Over 60 blocked sox hasn't dissuaded them in the slightest. They also have used several variable IPs and even if those were all permanently blocked, I think the hoaxer would just acquire another account. Edward321 (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

86.136.34.228 at System of a Down and other artists

Resolved

 – Wp:OWN, WP:BITE and WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

86.136.34.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a run of the mill genre troll, except that they change the order of band members (which are listed in the order they are on album covers) and remove correctly wikilinked instruments. They are continuing to repeat the same edits despite numerous notes, cautions, and warnings. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he hadn't edited for nearly 2 hours before the start of this thread, so I think that just the warning you gave him will serve. If he keeps reverting, then report him at WP:AIV.--Iner22 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. The last warning was before his last vandalous edit. The warning before that I gave several days/reverts ago. I will go to WP:AIV. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the vandalism. I've rejected the report at AIV. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What I see is Floydian (talk · contribs) WP:OWNing the article and WP:EW to defend his/her control and WP:BITEing. Warned as such. Toddst1 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this is resolved, but it looks like you missed this [41] bit of vandalism. Perhaps this is the reason Floydian is a bit annoyed. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, now that is WP:Vandalism. I've warned the IP. However that doesn't excuse the WP:EW.Toddst1 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it's an edit war for an established editor to uphold consensus against an uncommunicative IP. In case nobody has noticed, this has taken place for a long time, well before 86.136... showed up on the scene. The exact same edit, reverted by several different editors on several different occasions, going back several months. The instruments are sourced (that is, Serj as a rhythm guitarist), and the other change, Backing vocalist to Live backing vocalist, creates a redlink from a bluelink. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You may not believe it, but it is. IPs are not second-class Wikicitizens that can be reverted at whim. It's definitely problematic behavior for the IP to keep redoing the same edit over and over, but you should ask for assistance for an uncommunicative editor long before you breach 3RR. The only exception to this would be if the edits were blatant vandalism, in which case the reverts should be accompanied by escalating warnings and then a report at WP:AIV for a block. -- Atama頭 19:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is blatent vandalism, according to WP:vandalism: ""Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is." The IP was warned not to insert their personal opinion when the article is sourced otherwise, they continued to do so. At that point it became vandalism. If an IP changed an obscure band's genre from rock to techno, despite several sources that say "rock" (in addition to the fact), and that IP was then reverted and warned, but they continued to persist, once per day, then what? Do I have to go through the trouble of calling another editor in to do the same thing I would, day after day (since the edits aren't vandalism by your obscure definitions, I can't go to AIV)? Why? The edit goes against core policy (verifiability/original research), the user was warned about it, yet made it anyways. That is vandalism. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Methinks you fail to understand the very policy you're claiming. WP:OR != WP:VAND. A violation of WP:V !=WP:VAND. The definition of vandalism includes nothing that you claim, according to the community. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well then maybe the community should rewrite WP:Vandalism, because the text I quoted from it that contradicts everything you just said. Funny, isn't it? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin Toddst1

toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I would like to submit the administrator toddst1 for a "review" of sorts for his recent actions today. The admin has a conflict of interest with me (in my opinion), and in the midst of that stripped my rollback rights. In addition, he is frequently accusing me of edit warring in my attempts to A) Hold the well-discussed consensus viewpoint on biographical articles, and B) Counter a conflict of interest user from making a self-advertisement about themselves. The user is holding guidelines and policies on a pedestal and wikilawyering them rather than actually observing the issue - That of a genre troll and a COI that need to be removed to prevent daily vandalism (Please note I use vandalism in a broad sense, and consider that edits in bad faith are vandalism, even if WP:Vandalism provides a more technical definition)

A more detailed history

The issue began with me requesting the blocking of an IP (86.136.34.228, who is possible the same as 217.42.55.180) who on a daily, or twice daily basis, was changing the instruments of band members on System of a Down, which are sourced, to their own opinion, as well as removing a correct wikilink and replacing it with a link to a disambiguation page. This user appearred on November 30th,[42] however, the exact same edit has been performed by various IP's for a long time, and reverted just as often by regular contributors to the article. Of those contributors, I am the most active on wikipedia. Since then, I reverted the same edit by the same IP half a dozen times.[43][44][45][46][47][48][49]

Eventually, after first giving a nice warning on the issue,[50], waiting, and going through the warnings I am offered with twinkle,[51] and a week of reverting, I brought the ip to WP:AIV on December 7th.[52]. Toddst1 rejected the report saying the user isn't committing vandalism. I responded to take another look, was told the user was "incorrectly warned", and given absolutely no advice as to where to go (as is the normal for admin run operations, you get a generic response like you would from a company feedback line). Toddst1 decided this was not enough however, and decided to hound me around a little bit.

Two issues arose. One involving the mentioned editor at System of a Down, who Toddst1 proceeded to negotiate with and act like the user is here to do something useful (All but one of their edits have been reverted. The one unreverted edit was the addition of a comma), and slash me off as biting the newcomers.[53] At the same time, he posted a message to my talk page.[54] A day later, toddst posted at the IP's page with a Final Warning for something they were already warned for by User:Verbal (vandalizing my userpage).[55].

The second issue involves the article Ed Unitsky, a album artwork artist for several progressive rock bands. The subject of the article showed up and started making COI edits, boasting themselves highly. In the midst, they also added a rather thorough list of their works. The list was a nightmare of external links. I politely welcomed the user and fixed up the article to remove the multitudes of links. The editor returned, did not comment back to me, and undid the edits and added more external links. I once again partially cleaned the page and reverted a few tag removals. At this point in time, Toddst1 had come to my talk page. He then declared I was involved in an edit war with Ed Unitsky, locked the article, nominated it for deletion, removed most of its content (rather than making use of it), and then banned the COI user! After getting him to unlock the article, I restored Ed Unitsky's version, and began fixing all the external links into internal wikilinks. This only got me told rather quickly to revert or provide sources, to which I responded with WP:DEADLINE (I also note that only contentious material need be removed on sight from BLP's), as I can only work so fast to dig out this information. However, I believe the COI, while self-boasting, knows what works they have done. It is not reliable, but it is temporary for now. (Diffs are available by request to validate these events on Ed Unitsky)

I could go on, but I think this speaks for itself. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: also note the circuitous discussion on my talk page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so what you're saying is:

1. Rollback is to be used only for cases of clear and obvious vandalism

2. But you use a broader interpretation of vandalism than the Wikipedia definition

3. So you shouldn't be sanctioned for misuse of rollback when you rollback edits that fit your personal definition of vandalism

Am I on target here? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're in the ballpark, Shadow. Rollback rules are rollback rules, no matter how ridiculous I personally think they are. However, the second part of this shouldn't be summarily dismissed. No judgment anywhere yet; I'm just saying we should take a closer look. Tan | 39 21:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I believe you're being just as much of a beaurocrat (I don't mean that in an insulting way just as an fyi). Ignoring the issue of unconstructive users in order to nit pick at pointless details, technicalities, and nuances. This was clear and obvious vandalism, as WP:Vandalism states, clear as day: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 December 2009

As a side note I would like to point out that the response that the user was "insufficiently warned" is on target with the general consensus of vandalism policies. The diff you posted indicates that 3 warnings were given. Typically the appropriate response is a fourth warning before going to WP:AIV. The fourth warning, more specifically, is the one which clearly indicates the consequences of continuing actions and the imminent likelihood of a block if things don't change. Occasionally, it's OK to go without 4 warnings by skipping one or more of levels 1-3, but generally the level 4 warning is a must before approaching WP:AIV. --Shirik (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I mistakenly assumed this was a final warning[56]... I thought I had selected level 4 final warning, and just now realize that I did not. However, I could have gained something from being told what you just told me when I brought this to AIV. I gained jack all from a generic "USER WAS NOT PROPERLY WARNED" message. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand as we all make mistakes. Please note that I am trying to enter this as an uninvolved third party in an attempt to reach a mutually-agreeable conclusion, and neither try to find fault in your actions nor try to defend the admin in question. I'd like to ask what type of response you would like to see. To be honest, were I an admin in such a situation I might have made the same response, noting that the warnings followed the typical pattern of 1-2-3 but were lacking a fourth. The user was, quite literally, insufficiently warned. All-in-all this is beginning to look more like a miscommunication issue than it is anything more, but that's just at taking a cursory glance at the dispute. --Shirik (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A simple "{big red symbol} Give the user a final warning and wait for them to make another inappropriate edit, then come back" would have made it much more clear what the issue at hand was. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Note that I declined the immediate request for re-adding the tool [57]. I make no further comment at this time. Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the edits appear to be in good faith, and while you did ask him once to dicuss any changes to the page, it was somewhat veiled, and the rest of the message was to, basically, get his nose out. As well, I advised you to report to WP:AIV after another edit to the page, which was, I admit, a wrong decision to make, as I didn't look at his contributions to the page carefully. It appears to me that Toddst is fairly close in his observation that you appear to be taking ownership of the article, evidence being the edit summary here--Iner22 (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which edit summary? There are a hundred there. I'd be happy to bring in the other editors who have worked with me in maintaining the article, which is in the list of most vandalized articles, and have them tell you the same thing - That is that the article was built by consensus. The fact that I did the reversions here is because they only come around every other week or so. Breaking the rules or not, I'm not leaving the unsourced and poorly made changes for a week on a heavily read article, when the end result would be the same. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There's really no way to kill the validity of your complaint faster than making blanket statements about the intent of all editors here. Try not to do that. Tan | 39 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anybody of not caring, I'm just wondering rhetorically. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Ed Unitsky

I came across this article observing that the subject of the article was having an edit war with Floydian after I had warned Floydian about edit warring on System of a Down as described above. However, the reverts Floydian were making were reverting tag removal and insertion of inappropriate WP:EL. It appears that the editor removing tags, Ed Unitsky (talk · contribs) was the subject and had clarly violated WP:3RR. I proceeded to remove unsupported claims in this mess of a WP:BLP. Then, thinking to end the edit war which had been going on for days, I protected the article. After looking further and finding almost no reliable sources and claims like "He is touted as the modern day Salvador Dali." and "Many seem to believe it is inspired from the Divine." it appeared that this editor was only here to promote himself. Finding a COI warning and an EL warning already on his talk page, I then blocked the user as an advertising-only account - all of his edits were to the article about him in the spirit of promotion. I continued to clean up the article and forgot to unprotect it until this morning. I unprotected it and then after Floydian had re-added much of the unsourced material, politely asked him/her to self-revert until sources could be found.

While it is clear to me that the editor Ed Unitsky (talk · contribs) is only here to promote himself rather than contribute to the greater encyclopedia, I should have engaged the user in discussion rather than blocking/protecting after I had edited the article so I have unblocked the user. Enough of this mess. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't you see that's unconstructive? You know the users intentions! You should block the user, much the same as 86.blah should be blocked. It doesn't take one extra warning, a bunch of reverting (except now I'll be undoing the edits one at a time, so I can take more time to do the same thing) and 2 days to figure that out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP situations, especially when the subject is highly involved, need to be handled with higher principles in mind, as well as ensuring that links are appropriate and V, OR, RS and NPOV are strictly enforced. Open combat almost never works. I believe Toddst1 did his best in these circumstances. Orderinchaos 16:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats what I was doing, removing many the external links, and changing the others into references. Toddst1 should have just banned the user, or given him a one and only warning (for spamming and COI) and end up banning him the day after when he ignored it anyways. He should have NOT locked the article when another editor was making the proper changes to it (an editor who actually knows the subject matter), and he should not have nominated it for deletion if he was locking it. That is the proper course of action. I was not in open combat, but at the next edit by Ed Unitsky (and before making a third reversion myself), I would have reported the COI. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Unban request by Wiarthurhu

Wiarthurhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked by Cowman109 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in 2006 for the following reason: "Consistent breaking of unblock terms through use of checkuser confirmed IPs and accounts, exhausted community patience, reinstating community ban". Wiarthurhu is now requesting unblock for the following reason: "indefinite block was set back in 2006, but this account has not generated any problems / complaints for a long time since then, am willing to switch to a time-limited topic block if that helps. Blocking admin has not been active since early 2009".

If the user is indeed community-banned, a lifting of the ban would need community consensus (and an admin willing to take responsibility for unblocking and supervision), so I am referring the request to this board. This is a procedural referral and I have no opinion myself.  Sandstein  21:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Support unban. A lot can change in 3 years. I'm willing to give him another shot, based off the calm manner in which he requested the unblock. Assuming a checkuser can verify there has been no abuse on other accounts, I see no reason against it right now. Worst thing that can happen is that the user continues to be disruptive, gets blocked, and that's that. --Shirik (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC) changed to oppose --Shirik (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here is his ANI request for unblocking from sept 2006. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see comments from folks more knowledgeable about this user and any indications of more recent sockpuppetry, etc., if any, before opining on an unban. Anyone got any further detail they might be able to share? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If no further evidence of recent socking can be obtained, I'd cautiously support a straight unblock.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, violations from last year are too recent. Oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Pending the confirmation by those involved in his original case and/or a checkuser who can confirm the claims that he is no longer socking, I am inclined to also conditionally support an unblock here. --Jayron32 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is Iamandrewrice? Um, heeeeeelllll no. Not now. Give it another year, make no attempt to sock or edit Wikipedia in that whole time, and then maybe we can discuss. But not this level of problem. --Jayron32 23:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here are sock details. Here is the ANI discussion regarding one sock User:Iamandrewrice from this board from Dec 2007. There are some quite strong comments on the second link to the sock discussion, like..this user should never be trusted. Well worth a read before passing an opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a comment there from User:MaxSem on the 2nd of June 2008 that says...per this he and his friends must appeal the ban directly to Arbcom . Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Per SarekOfVulcan and the strength of comments at the previous discussions. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, User:Iamandrewrice is Wiarthurhu? Oh hell no. Oppose Tony Fox (arf!) 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Re the possible confusion below: I'm still uneasy, as there seem to be some discrepancies either way here. Recommend the user go to ArbCom and sort it out with them; they'll have more access to technical information to work with. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Not a chance, Iamdandrewrice is one of the worst possible candidates to consider unblocking. Horologium (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose unbanning user. If there was no sockpuppetry involved, I would be fully inclined to support unbanning. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Lor no. This is like giving JarlaxleArtemis the mop because he's good at pagemoves. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 01:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose such an unblock seems imprudent. Crafty (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose based off the shown evidence. --Shirik (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The general rule is 1 year of no editing at all before asking for a community ban to be lifted by the community. See {{secondchance}}. He has the option of appealing straight to arbcom but given they usually respect the community he probably won't get anywhere unless there is something we don't know. By the way, I'm big proponent of second chances, but I tend to start the clock over when I see repeated and ongoing violations. If he had violated once, I might not make him wait a full year since his last infraction. How about this: We keep him blocked and community banned, but we allow him to submit articles through WP:Articles for creation, with the proviso that he notifies the AFC editor that he is community-banned and that he is only allowed to submit articles, not edit them once submitted. If he can create a few good articles in the next few months I'll be much more open to lifting the ban even if 12 months haven't passed since his last infraction. I am also in favor of him being allowed to "edit by proxy" using the mechanism provided for in Template:secondchance. After all, that's what it's there for. Given his history, it will take a significant positive contribution over a significant period of time - months, not weeks - OR 12 months with no violations before I would lift the ban. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Addendum: Per User:Off2riorob's link I am saying keep ban out of respect for the previous community discussion and refer him to arbcom directly. I stand by my recommendations above: ARBCOM should seriously consider giving him permission to take advantage of secondchance and WP:AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  In light of the name confusion outlined below the above comments may not be applicable to the editor seeking reinstatement. If he really has honored his ban for 3 years, then unblocking with a short leash for the first few months and few hundred edits is appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• According to User:Iamandrewrice userpage, "Per this, he and his friends must appeal the ban directly to ArbCom." So if this user is in fact Iamandrewrice, isn't his unblock request moot? Shouldn't he have to go to Arbcom anyway? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the decision to make him to go ARBCOM was made by the community. Since consensus can change, technically, the community of today, or the community of 2010 or 2011, is not bound by that decision. However, stare decisis and forum shopping likely indicate the community of today and likely the community a year from now will uphold the "take it to arbcom" decision. If he were to go away for 2 or 3 years and come back, it might be a different story - the community may lift the ban outright, or they may send him to arbcom, who might lift it. The point is, it will be within the community's power to do so if they so choose. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE BE CAREFUL:

With respect - I think you're all making a terrible error. I was involved at center of the storm with both Wiarthurhu and Iamandrewrice. I STRONGLY do not believe they are the same person.

Iamandrewrice was giving me grief - and early on in the long chain of grief, I explained to Iamandrewrice about a previous encounter I'd had with Wiarthurhu a year or two before - hoping that this cautionary tale would convince him/her to calm down and try to behave more reasonably. Subsequently, when things had gone further down the toilet, Iamandrewrice made a sockpuppet called Wiarthurwho (note that: wiarthurWHO - not wiarthurHU) - probably in an effort to annoy me or perhaps to try to gain more notoriety - or simply to muddy the waters - I dunno. I suspect my efforts to calm Iamandrewrice down was merely WP:BEANS.

It would be a truly astounding coincidence if Wiarthurhu and Iamandrewrice were the same person - I stumbled over the two of them in completely different ways - years apart - they had very different editing patterns - nothing about their behavior was in any way similar. Wiarthurhu was obsessive about cars and planes and tried to stick pictures of his model cars & planes into articles. Iamandrewrice was editing an article about my old highschool...what are the odds that Wiarthurhu could figure out which school I went to 45 years ago?!?!? I carefully explained this at the time:

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice#Iamandrewrice_2

So I don't think it's correct to conflate Wiarthurhu with Iamandrewrice - there is zero evidence that they are the same person - and lots of reasons why you'd believe they are different - and the wiarthurwho connection is easily explained by my failed efforts to prevent Iamandrewrice from climbing the reichstadt.

Hence, nearly every objection to unbanning Wiarthurhu (above) has really been a much more valid objection to unbanning a completely different user - so we should discount all of the discussion above and start over.

I think Wiarthurhu has been out of the picture for a long time - and is therefore (arguably) someone who we might consider unbanning.

I strongly advocate that everyone take a step back from their previous comments and re-examine this case on it's true merits.

I for one would cautiously back an unbanning of Wiarthurhu (but I'd certainly argue it's way too soon to even consider unbanning Iamandrewrice).

SteveBaker (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal but to call whether or not one known sockpuppeter is allowed back because he may be confused with another more annoying sockpuppeter "a travesty of justice" is a bit melodramatic, don't you think? I'd like to see if Wiarthurhu has anything to say (even if it's likely to be ignored), but honestly I'm not that sorry that people who aggressive screw around years ago sometimes get mixed up with people who more aggressively screw around a year later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the community is making a decision to disallow a Second Chance (or actually a Third Chance in Wiarthurhu's case) based on incorrect assumptions, than that would be wrong. I am not familiar with either the Wiarthurhu or Iamandrewrice. But based on a quick reading of those editors' comments and editing history -- I agree with Steve Baker that they are not the same person. Their writing indicates they are from different age groups and different nationalities. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, but being over the top doesn't really help anybody. May I suggest waiting for this to archive and trying again with cooler heads? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I also don't like over-the-top shouts -- though it did catch my attention enough to look further here. You maybe right that we have already poisoned the well on this thread. I'll wait to see if there are any responses from the above !voting editors after they log-on later. If nothing changes, then I agree that the discussion should start from scratch on another day with more complete information. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off as "over the top" - but look back at the history of the discussion above. There were a couple of supportive comments - then someone said that Wiarthurhu and Iamandrewrice are the same person - and then we find the original supportive comments crossed out and uniformly opposing comments from that point on...several of whom are actually talking about Iamandrewrice and not Wiarthurhu. Now, you may well say (and I might agree) that Wiarthurhu doesn't deserve another chance - but the case should be discussed on its true merits - and not on the basis of false information. SteveBaker (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On the wiarthurWHO - not wiarthurHU well spotted SteveBaker. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive Conduct at Mass killings under Communist regimes

I am requesting an administrator use Digwuren discretionary sanctions to counsel User:Termer in relation to their disruptive conduct at Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Mass killings under Communism has had a disrupted life as it falls under the heading of a number of strongly felt Eastern European experiences. The article has been moved, had no consensus at multiple AFDs. Recently, the article has settled down due to an agreement to use academic sources dealing with the article.

Termer has been disrupting this relatively settled editing pattern on a difficult article by:

• mischaracterising and misrepresenting sources, particularly on talk
• mischaracterising and misrepresenting consensus decisions made by the article editors
• misreading, or acting as if misreading, comments posted by other editors

The depth and rapidity of Termer's responses, on an easily disrupted article, are causing disruptions of the article's editorial process.

Termer was warned repeatedly regarding this: Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#Capitalist Mass Killings. The article and Termer have been informed of this.

I request that the first stage of Digwuren Discretionary sanctions be applied: warning and counselling regarding the conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This article was largely written and defended by members of the EEML. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess I come from the other side of the trenches on this, having defended the article in the past, but I wholeheartedly concur with regards to Termer's conduct - whether it is intentional or not, it is certainly very disruptive to the editing of the article. --Anderssl (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think maybe Termer should have a chance to explain himself. His talkpage comments are getting in the way, but this may be partly because other users (me included) are confused as to what he is about. On the other hand, Digwuren sanctions, as far as I understand them, look as if they could help without harming in this case. I wish I had known about them in previous cases (do they only apply for articles relevant to Eastern Europe?). What is EEML, btw?--FormerIP (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Eastern European Mailing List (EEML). Termer has been notified.[58] The Four Deuces (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The core of Digwuren Discretionary sanctions is, "12) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process." I would classify this request as an article relating to Eastern Europe, that warning has been given, the conduct is repeated rather than serious, and the conduct violation relates to disruption which goes against the purpose of Wikipedia (through misrepresentation of sources meanings) and normal editorial process (misrepresentation of editorial consensus on the article). In this case there is an excellent opportunity for counselling to effect a change in the conduct. There may be other standing sanctions, or discretionary sanctions out there. See Wikipedia:General sanctions#Active sanctions Fifelfoo (talk) 03:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Invoking comparison of users to the EEML must be the new wiki-Godwin's law of reductio ad EEML. The claim by The Four Deuces that "this article was largely written and defended by members of the EEML" is laughable, if you look at who has contributed to the article. --Martin (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is some merit to that objection, but it doesn't really affect the question of sanctions against Termer.--Anderssl (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair you haven't explained what your view is of what the consensus was that led to the renaming of the article or adequately articulated your view of what the sources say, imho. This is a content dispute, bringing this to ANI rather than getting a third opinion or mediation seems to me to be a bad faithed approach. --Martin (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion, Summary of article direction, Discussion leading to the summary of article direction. Termer was an active participant in these discussions. Now that the material investigated as a result of the consensus does not substantiate his position, he has taken to disruption. The content discussion is ongoing, and has been conducted politely. Termer visits ongoing content discussions and disrupts them by mischaracterising external sources (lying baldly about what they say, and reactive abusively when caught in the lie by extensive quotation) and past agreements. The disruption is the issue: Termer's conduct. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Could editors please discuss EEML elsewhere. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree and request that The Four Deuces strike his original comment that invoked the reductio ad EEML argument. --Martin (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Martin, but I do not understand what you are saying about the reductio. The Digwuren Discretionary sanctions apply to "articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted". Evidence in EEML shows that this article qualifies. Do you agree that this article relates to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted? The Four Deuces (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I've read this thread but since there has been absolutely no evidence given to support any of the allegations. and since I've been labeled with worse tags than a "liar" on wikipedia before, I really don't see any reasons at the moment to react to those allegations here. In case any evidence are going to given in here later on that would clearly show my mistakes in this situation, any uninvolved administrator is welcome to take action against my editing privileges as deemed necessary. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Diffs would be nice. That's all I can say. I see some sections on the talk page that look completely irrelevant but people need to learn to enforce WP:TALK and not get involved (or just collapse or archive the sections). Honestly, what did people expect when they engaged this silliness]? While not the best conduct, it's a bit fast to immediately demand sanctions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of these arguments are essentially repeats of the AFD discussion. As such, they are irrelevant to the article itself. People can dispute the AFD debate at DRV or somewhere else in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Any disruptive conduct does not appear limited to the one editor, to be sure. If Digwuren applies, it should apply to the others who appear to be engaged in contentious conduct. It should also be noted who nominated the article for deletion, etc. as that may have a bearing on the discussion. Collect (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should uncollapse those sections Ricky. Yes, it may be going over ground that's already been gone over, but users are entitled to do that if they want, even if you think it is a waste of time. Discussing the title of the article, whatever the merits and demerits of engaging in that, cannot reasonably be said to be irrelevant or inappropriate on the talk page. --FormerIP (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not that the topic is a waste of time so much as the discussion has long gone beyond being fruitful. I really don't think whether Theodore Kaczynski is a Eastern European serial killer has any bearing anymore. If there's an actual dispute about the title, that's fine, but a dispute about "why aren't these articles around, why is this article not deleted" is doing the AFD debate, round 2, with no end in sight. If someone wants to uncollapse them, go ahead but if the section goes off again, I'm just pulling it straight into the archive. And honestly, I'd probably vote to delete it in the AFD since I cannot figure how this is not just a random essay with people just pulling quotes without a single bit of thought behind it. But consensus is consensus. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There were indeed some problems keeping the discussion on-topic, but neither of the sections you collapsed were supposed to be about Eastern European serial killers etc. Would it not be better to warn about arguing over off-topic matters? --FormerIP (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel like reading that whole thing and trying to figure who at which point went off-topic. Frankly, I think the original IP's comment was irrelevant, but that's just me. If someone else feels like taking on a different tack (as I've instead spent time actually, you know, editing the article), fine with me. I really don't care. If someone is serious, they can start a new topic if they wish, but I don't know how anyone can seriously have a discussion about the scope of the article without first a discussion of the sources in the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll contribute diffs for the part I have reacted to, but that came at the end of a long discussion so someone else should document the previous parts. I initially came in to support Termer against arguments that I thought were irrelevant: [59] and [60]. I then reacted to this confused comment from Termer, asking him to slow down and make sure he had understood other people's comments correctly before responding (as the misunderstandings were flourishing and continuously derailing the discussion). He responded by altering the grammar of my comment to change the meaning of the statement, and then arguing against this new version. I find that particularly unsettling given that the very topic of the discussion at this point was his continued misrepresentations and misunderstandings/misinterpretations. After this ANI discussion started, Termer has admitted to pursuing at length points he knew to be irrelevant, indicating that at least part of the disruption is intentional. --Anderssl (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

By diff then if we must Termer claims to edit on the basis of reliable sources this is after he engaged in deliberate mischaracterisation by selective quotation the lie can be seen here. Yes, we can expect blow in editors who feel strongly about their pro- or more typically anti-Soviet education to spout lies and garbage when they discover this article. Termer, who is a party to the current consensuses by forming them, has not repudiated them, and claims to abide by them, is introducing deceptive and misleading article sources to the end of mischaracterising the sources. This is a conduct issue as we rely on editors to adequately and correctly draw out the nature of sources. This is a conduct issue because the effect of Termer's mischaracterisation and deception is to cause the drama llama to come to town, especially as he is unwilling to accept any measure of fault in his characterisations (as demonstrated up thread). Fifelfoo (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kdietz

He repeatedly reverted changes on 2010s, 2020s, 2030s, 2040s and 2050s, despite the advice to first discuss this change on the talk pages. --bender235 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Kdietz (talk · contribs) of this discussion. GiantSnowman 23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I received (or saw) no such advice. I thought my corrections to the pages were being somehow not saved. I was quite shocked to find that such a simple issue is a matter of some controversy. I will check the Talk pages before making such edits in the future. Kdietz (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave you the advice a few times through the edit summary plus I sent you a warning on about the 3RRs so i dont know how you didn't know or see them but i hope you will also check the edit summaries in future as well. Pro66 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In fairness Pro, new users might not use the history tab or a watchlist and therefore it can appear that their edits are "disappearing" since they don't see the edit summaries of the reversions. I doubt there was any malice in Kdietz's edits and I'm sure there is no need for admin intervention. Fribbler (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, your edits are incorrect (at those decade articles), Kdietz. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Kdietz, while I see you commented at 2070s] (which you oddly enough never edited, I think you'd agree that you should be talking on the pages where you are actually editing? Instead of Talk:2000s_(decade)#2000s_begins_on_2001.21 and every decade/century/year, wouldn't it be better to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years where it's been argued about multiple times? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me underline that suggestion. I'd be happy with decades starting with 01 myself, but it needs consensus and so far hasn't had it. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cry for help or vandalism

Resolved

 – Reported to local law enforcement.

Durova³⁷³ 03:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Can a wandering admin or editor take a look here. [redacted link] I am tempted to take cries for help seriously, but I really can't tell here.  7  01:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an old lady I used to have to deal with years ago when I collected the general rate. She used to ring up insisting that the FBI were watching her, and Special Branch were using electricity to strip the pile off her carpet. Because of this, she had been unable to get to the Post Office to pay her rates. I was never sure where you drew the line on 'genuine' in a case like that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to revert and watch contribs for now, because I don't like the phone number being in there in case this is a harassment attempt. Googling the name turns up other similar posts in equally inappropriate websites.  7  01:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Then contact Oversight. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that this necessarily means anything, but whois reports Texas rather than California. Equazcion (talk) 01:14, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Ignore previous comment, geolocate says Cali. Texas is the provider address. My bad. Equazcion (talk) 01:15, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Contact the local police department for the IP address. Either it's real and we've helped or it's a hoax and the idiot has learned their lesson. We aren't qualified to determine those kinds of hoaxes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Or third possibility, mental disturbance, which a visit from the police may be the first step to getting treated) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The phone number geolocates to the location the IP gave. I would be tempted to contact law enforcement and let them figure this one out. Tiptoety ^talk 02:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that this has now been reported (per above), I'm now oversighting that diff, as it contains non-public, personal information, and may not even be related to the the person who wrote it (aka trolling). If the authorities have yet to be contacted, just let me know and we can take it from there - Alison ^❤ 04:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I contacted the authorities about an hour before your Oversight, Allie...with a diff to that post (gah). They were confused enough already...email me for the officer's addy; here's hoping you kept a screenshot (I didn't). Durova³⁷³ 04:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Text forwarded to authorities; we can archive this now. Durova³⁷³ 06:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Alb28

Alb28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This has just been raised at WP:BLP and a quick look into the users edits includes this. I think that this user needs their edits seriously looked at. Martin451 (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also I think the correlation between this edit by User:Alb28 and this edit by the 3RR reported User:190.53.244.15 strongly suggests WP:Sockpuppetry as well. Moogwrench (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you taken this case into WP:RFC yet? 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 11:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not gone to RFC yet most of the contentious material has now been deleted by 3 diferent editors. I Think RFC is fine in regards to S/He NPOV issues which can probably be worked out at talk page. IMHO a large percentage of his edits were problematic and dubiously sourced. The bigger concern was the BLP issues - worst offences listed: First Edit on the account included (previously posted as ip) • 22:47, 1 December 2009 (hist | diff) Manuel Zelaya ‎ (Too much removed, including entire sections about Los Horcones and Hondutel. Restored and added more information.) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) [61] introduced Los Horcones massacre into article from CIDOB [62]which is definitely not an RS Theen Reverted to reintroduce • 22:47, 1 December 2009 (hist | diff) Manuel Zelaya ‎ (Too much removed, including entire sections about Los Horcones and Hondutel. Restored and added more information.) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)

• 00:50, 7 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Marcelo Chimirri ‎ (←Created page with 'Marcelo Chimirri is a Italian-Honduran businessman.

[63] “1998 murder of a girlOn January 1998, Yadira Miguel Mejia was found dead in a septic tank in Honduras. Mejia was pregnant and according to her friend, the father was ….source is a blog [64] referring to a newspaper story.

• • 19:21, 8 December 2009 (hist | diff) N David Romero Ellner ‎ (←Created page with 'David Romero Ellner is a Honduran politician, journalist, congressman, convicted child rapist who was stripped of his parliamentary immunity and sentenced to ...')[65] source is a blog [66] and an oppinon piece in the WSJ [67]

In fairness while combing through the article I did find one reliable citation that was buried in a duplicate ref name in a website archivedlink. This verifies that he was sentenced for the offence and ref predates the political crisis.Cathar11 (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've told him on a revert about this thread and will post it to his talk page nowCathar11 (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits and I do find that User:Alb28 is a gung-ho editor whose first language is not English. I do not believe that Alb28 is the same as the IP 190.53.244.15 due to their different use of English.

I have copyedited Alb28's work on Manuel Zelaya and Marcelo Chimirri and I have found in all cases that there are facts and Reliable Sources behind his edits. He does have a distinct target (Honduran officials who have been charged with corruption during the presidency of Zelaya) and does have a unique way of writing, but I find no attempt to circumvent or ignore the rules at Wikipedia. Madman (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, mentioning a rumor that the friend of a dead woman said that Chimirri was the father of the dead woman's baby (and thus possibly implicating him in her death) is sensationalistic and poorly sourced. I think that it is convenient that the same day a BLP-problem article Financial irregularities during the Manuel Zelaya administration gets created by one user, it is agressively wikilinked in another article, per above links. This, as I said before, suggests WP:Sockpuppetry. I think WP:Checkuser could actually illuminate the situation a little better. Moogwrench (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Archange50

New account, Has multiple warning and speedy deletes regarding copyright material on talk pageUser_talk:Archange50, and just created (previously deleted?) page Harold_Greenwald with single phrase "Fuck off" Gerardw (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Page deleted, no further action needed, I think Gerardw (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Charles Quieter

Resolved

 – MuZemike 07:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Author has by now created the second obvious sock to remove the speedy template. Does this meet WP:DUCK? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Lauranapiranha blocked 1 week, User:CharlesQuieter2 and User:Lauranapirhana indefinitely blocked and tagged as sock puppets of Lauranapiranha, and Charles Quieter has been deleted and temporarily salted. MuZemike 07:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thx. I think User:Conor427 is also a sock. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Missed that one. MuZemike 07:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Feeling harassed

Hi can an impartial admin, preferably a senior one who isn't involved with communicating with me currently, and doesn't have a working relationship or friendship with the other administrators and users who are communicating with me currently. My problem stems from being falsely accused of being a sock-puppet. I'm a relatively new user - I'm feeling sad and ganged up on - I'm completely innocent but I'm now being threatened with blocks for both being a sock-puppet (I"m not one, I'm being accused of being a sock-puppet which is false.) I responded to these false allegation and I admit I was really annoyed, I was then accused of personally attacking people and was threatened of being blocked for this. I had no intention of personally attacking anyone, I was feeling threatened and wanted to defend myself - nothing more. Here is an example of how I'm feeling attacked: the Joe McElderry heading and chat between Nacy and Pedro here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nancy - they're making an insinuation that I'm in the wrong, and a sock-puppet, without any real evidence, and Pedro says that I'm on a "final warning" over my attitude - and I really don't know what I've done wrong. I'm not a sock puppet, and have not had, and don't have, an "attitude." I've only defended myself, and described how this situation and other users are making me feel. I really am saddened by this whole situation, because I feel like no-one at Wikipedia is on my side here - and by "my side" I don't mean in a fight because I want peace and to be able to edit Wikipedia and become a better and more experienced editor with time. "My side" is the side of truth, peace, and respect. People have accused me, repeatedly, of being a sock-puppet, without doing an investigation into my IP address, or history of IP address - and I don't even look at my IP address, it's assigned to me by my ISP. I just want someone to see that I'm innocent, and this behaviour towards me is horrible, and if Pedro blocks me I feel this is completely unfair because I don't deserve it. I'm frustrated to the point where I feel like leaving Wikipedia, which is why I say I feel bullied, because if I leave Wikipedia now, I would have literally been bullied out of Wikipedia - by both being falsely accused of being a sock-puppet, and being threatened of being blocked when I defend myself against behaviour that feels threatening and abusive towards me. I'm taking my PLEA FOR HELP here because I'm at my wits end, and crying out for help here, please can someone look into my IP address history to show that I'm not a sock-puppet, and show that people who are either experienced admin or non-admin Wikipedians. I didn't post this on the sock-puppet part because it's more that just about a sock puppet issue, it's me feeling that Nancy and Pedro are "ganging up" on me and would like to block or ban me, given half a chance - and I'm not saying that they're privately saying to each other, "let's try and ban that Whitebrightlight guy," and then give a stereotypical "evil laugh" to each other - no, I don't know for sure what their intentions are, but I do know that the way they're behaving is making me feel THREATENED and INTIMIDATED, it FEELS like a clique of more experienced Wikipedains than me have decided that I'm a "problem" and a "sock-puppet" and are now looking at all of my actions in the worst possible light, like they're looking for me to put one foot out of place, (which if I was to do so would most likely be an innocent mistake by me due to my inexperience,) so that they can ban or block me or "prove" that I'm a sock-puppet. Again, I'm not personally attacking these people, I'm saying I feel threatened. If some impartial fair-minded administrator with CheckUser powers was to look into "my case," I'm confident that the truth will come out, that these sock-puppet allegations are entirely without foundation, and if anything, these sock-puppet allegations may be made with malice. So please, when investigating me so that the truth can come out, (which, as I'm 100% innocent, will prove that I'm not a sock-puppet,) please also take a look at the behaviour of these other users towards me, which should show that their behaviour has been less than friendly. Please, show me that there is another side to Wikipedia - a good, friendly side, that makes new editors welcome, and takes them seriously when they're feeling harassed. Thanks for your time so far, reading this, and I hope someone out there can simply serve truth and justice. Whitebrightlight (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. I had a look at Nancy's user page and Pedro's page and they are not administrators, so they are definitely making this up by the looks of things. The bullies attempting to ban you are just personally attacking you or making a legal threat only based to you. As you're a new person, the bullies are refusing to do this as well. All of those are not acceptable to Wikipedia, at least you're not doing them. Just to let you know that I'm not an administrator, I just came here for reassurance. Why don't you ask someone on an administrator's talk page (If you can find one, that is). Minimac94 (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Both Pedro and Nancy are administrators, Minimac94. Icewedge (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering both Nancy and I have "Category:Administrators" and the admin logo on our user pages your minimal lack of research Minimac94 is disturbing, and you agressive "making this up" un called for. Pedro :  Chat  10:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Any checkusers out there want to look at this? I glanced at a few of the mentioned parties talk pages, and something does smell fishy. Plaxeco moment maybe? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've alerted both Nancy and Pedro on their talk pages, so we can get their side of the story as well. Jhfortier (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a "side" to get out. Whitebrightlight came to my talk page to accuse me of leaving bullying messages for him[68] regarding Joe McElderry. I was confused as I had never left a message, bullying or otherwise, for Whitebrightlight however I had left a final warning for User:Hassaan19 on the same topic. User:Hassaan19 is no stranger to socking so I asked WBL to explain why he was leaving first person messages on my page about another user[69]. Now this has exploded on to ANI, a CU would be a good idea to confirm or deny the circumstantial evidence. I'm just about to leave the house & won't be online again until this evening. Nancy ^talk 08:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved in this "from the sides" and there's a fair bit of history to it. Here's what I can add.

Some background: Before Whitebrightlight came onto the scene, User:Hassaan19 was socking, using fixed IP 82.36.17.10 in addition to their account. They were reasonably open about this, but ended up !voting twice in an AfD. Eventually the IP got blocked permanently and then Hassaan19 got a 31 hour block for edit warring and repeatedly restoring an article against the outcome of the AfD. The points of note here were that I raised this at AN/I, User:EdJohnston was the primary involved admin, admin User:Nancy also issued Hassaan a warning (so the two admins talked on Nancy's talk page), and a typical edit when the socking took place was for the IP to recreate a page which was a redirect and update Hasaan19's user page which contains a list of created pages.

Then it gets interesting. Whitebrightlight made the exact same edit Hassaan19 got blocked for and then updated Hasaan19's user page just as the IP sock got blocked for. I notified EdJohnston of this as I thought it was suspicious, and he warned Whitebrightlight against socking. Then Whitebrightlight went to Nancy's home page (who has had no interaction with Whitebrightlight, only Hasaan19) and in the section where EdJohnston and Nancy discussed Hassaan19, says to Nancy "stop issuing bullying-tone messages to me" (my emphasis).

It is hard to explain the above (particularly the message on Nancy's page where Whitebrightlight refers to Hasaan19 as "me") any way other than that Whitebrightlight is Hassaan19.

I42 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The WBL account does look fishy--created in August, then no activity until edits to the Joe McElderry article, then a quick jump into an AfD for an article Hassaan19 had been involved with. They also appear to have similar writing styles. Being recently falsely convicted of sockhood, however, I would like to urge caution. A CU is definitely in order. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I only got involved because I have Nancy's talk watchlisted. I feel my warning was perfectly acceptable for this [70]. Coming to ANI with ALL CAPS type shouting when you have yet to explain the diff above regarding the sockpuppet issues is probably not wise. So exactly why Whitebrightlight, did you respond in the first person to Nancy about a comment made to another user? Answer that and then perhaps people will take your bullying allegations more seriously. Pedro :  Chat  10:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellente! Coming to an ANI while shouting on an ALL CAPS message IS definitely unwise, except lines such as "If you continue to make personal attacks on Wikipedia, you WILL we blocked". Even those lines cannot be used too often. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 10:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm feeling harassed by Pedro and I've specifically came here to ESCAPE his/her harassment and find some neutral person - I clearly stated this. So for Pedro to come here and carry on talking to me is making me feel uneasy. I want someone who isn't involved, so is therefore neutral, to look into this. 142 has also been involved and left a "biting"-tone message on my user page shortly after I started editing Wikipedia. 142 and Pedro are two users who are making me feel harassed, and the text above by 142 is like something from a court-room prosecutor - twisted in such a way as to TRY to suggest I'm "guilty," without any evidence. So now, having came here for some refuge and even-handiness, I feel that those who are making me feel harassed and threatened, are perusing me here. PLEASE can an independent administrator, who doesn't have a waking relationship or friendship with these two (142 or Pedro) or Nancy, come and investigate. As I said, I came here to get away from harassment, so I'm not pleased that 142 and Pedro are here to seemingly muddy the water. In the text written by 142 above (s)he states: "I have been involved in this "from the sides" and there's a fair bit of history to it [...]" No, this is highly misleading from my point-of-view - 142 has been with the same clique of people who are either accusing, insinuating or otherwise supporting the false-hood that I'm a sock-puppet. This sock-puppet accusation remains the big black lie that it away has been. If 142 was confident (s)he could rely on the truth coming out, why does (s)he feel the need to come here, to (1) TRY to give the impression that (s)he's been involved "from the sides" as (s)he puts it, and (s)he puts "from the sides" in quotation marks for some reason. Well the reason to me seems that this is being said so that when the CheckUser proves that I'm not a sock-puppet, 142 and this "clique" who are supporting the accusation that I'm a suck-puppet, can then fall back on this supposed "circumstantial evidence," that 142 had moulded into a perfect fit. Well there is no evidence. There was a weak hunch that for some reason has turned into something that makes Wikipedia seem to me, from my perspective as a new member, a stuffy, cliquey, old-boys-type network when outsiders are made to feel unwelcome. Well it's not going to work. I have been, and remain, completely innocent. The little story from 142 above is just that - a fiction. What I've noticed is that when I defended myself before, my own self-defence was used against me, in an attempt to accuse me of violating the Wikipedia policy of personal attacks. An interesting note is, 142 has behaved, since he first wrote on my user page, like he has some authority - is (s)he an admin, or is this just the way (s)he behaves? Well I'm NOT making, nor have I made, personal attacks. I am defending myself, as I have done, and continue to have to do. Someone above states that I and Hassaan19 "appear to have similar writing styles." Well this is another vague courtroom-prosecution type statement that could be applied to anyone. APPEAR to have SIMILAR ... yes lots of people who write in the Englsih language and are using British English (which since Hassaan has make X-Factor related articles and this is a British TV show, which I've been falsely accused of being a sock puppet due to X-Factor related page editing,) could be said to APPEAR to have SIMILAR writing styles. It's the sort of comment that may make an initial impression, but when thought about, even a small amount, is revealed from being the vague, general statement, that could be applied to a lot of people, that it is. The whole of 142's statement above doesn't stand up to a small amount of analysis either. Also, I've had enough of Pedro and 142 treating me as though I'm guilty until I jump though the hoops that they put up for me to prove myself innocent. I'm not playing your games. This thing about me apparently writing the the first person is a non-issue, as an independent admin investigating would see, or as anyone neutral would see. My accusers have already, on an unconscious level, so it would seem, decided that I'm guilty, which is why they seem to have made the square pegs fit into circular holes. The reason for using the first person was I was replying to this: " 07:37, 7 December 2009 Nancy (talk | contribs) (72 bytes) (Reverted to revision 329844498 by Themfromspace; Redirect per AFD (note the as per the AFD discussion, recreation is only permitted if JM becomes independently notable of X Factor). " I left my reply on Nancy's talk page. This was Nancy reverting to the previous edit (i.e. the re-direct) below my edit which was the re-instatement of Joe's Wikipedia page. Nancy stated; " permitted if JM becomes independently notable of X Factor, " but I knew the policy was the top-three in music competitions, the three finalists in the case of the X-Factor, are permitted their own page, which is why I re-created Joe's page only once he was voted into the X-Factor final. So now my reply to Nancy's talk page should make sense - my reply was: "Joe is now in the TOP THREE or to put it another way he's a FINALIST ~ so according to Wikipedia rules, he warrents his own page now, so stop being a bully and let him have his own page... play by the Wikipedia rules please and stop issuing bullying-tone messages to me. " Since I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, I thought at the time that since Joe was in the top-three, I was right to re-create his page. Now I'm unsure whether it was right for me to re-create, or whether, since the page was previously subject to AfD, this means another process should have been followed. I was frustrated, at the time, having had my page re-creating undone by Nancy. Now, Pedro has said that I was all-caps shouting, in his statement above. He then links to the article where he states that I was "all-caps shouting," but on the page he links to, I used capitalised words occasionally which were for emphasis, in the same way Pedro has typed ALL CAPS above for emphasis. I was, I feel, understandably annoyed by being falsely accused of being s sock-puppet, as I'm sure anyone would be. Therefore, I added emphasis to my post using caps. The majority of the quote of mine, Pedro links to above, is in lower case. So just as the messages above by 142 and Throwaway85 don't stand up to rudimentary scrutiny, Pedro's claim that I was "all-caps shouting" doesn't stand either - I used caps in the minority of the quoted text, and was not shouting but using the caps for emphasis. Whitebrightlight (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To address your first point, you started a thread on AN/I about Pedro and 142. They are well within their rights to comment here, and give their side of the story. If that includes accusing you of something, they're well within their rights to do that as well. Calling you a sockpuppet merely means that it is likely an investigation will be opened, wherein your IP address, location, edit history, style, etc will be compared with that of Hassaan19. If it's determined you are the same person, you will be blocked. If not, you won't be. Any complaint against Pedro and/or 142 will be handled seperately from the sockpuppet investigation.

On a personal note, I'd council you to maybe take a break, relax a bit, and come back when you are less worked up. We are seldom at our most eloquent when we are emotional, and are usually far better able to present our concerns when we are calm. Also, perhaps jot down what you'd like to say in point form, and then briefly explain each point. A wall of text is an impediment to the reader's understanding, and will decrease the likelihood that they either comprehend your complaint or take it seriously. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake Whitebrightlight. Answer the question. Why did you post this. A wall of text about how I'm now here harrasing you (when you're here to complain about me - clearly you don't get this) is no solution. Just answer the question. Why did you post that, and why did you use the term me?. Pedro :  Chat  13:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I find in th e"wall-o-text" above "This thing about me apparently writing the the first person is a non-issue". Laughable how you accuse everyone else of lies and misdirection yet you dismiss the commen tthat clearly calls you as a WP:SOCK out of hand. Not it is not "a non-issue" and neither is you calling people bullies. Answer the question Whitebright pleae. Pedro :  Chat  13:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have been "on the side" of this issue because I have raised my concerns via admins - at AN/I and in discussion with EdJohnston who took it up. For the record, my direct interactions with Whitebrightlight have been minimal: (1) The "biting tone message" I left was a standard level 1 template following two occasions where Whitebrightlight made unreferenced controversial edits in a BLP (so that he would understand why he had been reverted twice) - and this elicited the response "Also "142" don't send me messages, you're not above me so don't act like it." (to which I responded in kind); (2) I queried the use of the first person on Nancy's talk page; (3) I reverted changes to Hassaan19's user page. Not much to provoke all that vitriol above, or the similar here, which I refused to be drawn into. Of course, if there is sock puppetry going on then you have to also include all the direct interaction I had with Hassaan19 which ended up with them blocked. I42 (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical question: If the IP 82.36.17.10 used by the Hassan user were to be hard-blocked, would that prevent registered users on that IP from logging in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an anon-only block; that means registered users are still able to edit under that IP. MuZemike 16:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence for Whitebrightlight (talk · contribs) being a sock of Hassaan19 (talk · contribs) is pretty strong, but at this stage it would be best of a checkuser could take a look and provide a more definitive answer, so that all involved editors can more onto more productive editing. Can someone ping an available CU ? Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

the use of "me" in this circumstance is not necessarily evidence against him, for only a sockmaster who had lost track altogether of what they were doing would have made such a blunder. The occasional caps & the writing style in the comments above indicates a just lack of understanding how we do things here, and should not be held against him. Id wait for checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also this, but I agree that there can be innocent explanations for all these actions. Hoping that a CU will be able to resolve the issue. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add, I did answer, in detail, the question about talking in the first-person. The answer is above, so why Pedro is repeatedly asking the same question, even though I've answered it in detail, you'd have to ask him. Also there is ZERO case that me and Hassaan are the same person, ZERO evidence. Whitebrightlight (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm stupid, and can't be bothered to read the wall-o-text above, would you mind giving me a concise answer as why you said the word "me" when you were refering to a comment made to another user? Just a few lines if possible. Pedro :  Chat  17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Easiest thing for you to do, WBL, is to provide a diff to where I apparently left you a "bullying tone message". Nancy ^talk 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made the points I wanted to make, by the posts I've already made on this page. Progress can now be made when an independent admin addresses the issues I've raised in my original post; this admin may need to lease with an independent admin with CheckUser, who can look at my IP address history to address the sock-puppet allegations. Thanks. Whitebrightlight (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If he's not a sock, he's doing a great impression of one - evading specific questions that need to be answered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

CU can't prove that an editor isn't using another computer on another IP address, right? It can establish the locality, if there's no way of beating that. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Whitebright User:DGG seems to be a neutral Admin.Cool down a bit a provide the differences asked above.Preventive action is regurarly taken on WP you do not need to worry , Just cooperate, 'Please' I'm not an admin--NotedGrant Talk 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah - I'm not neutral. Check out my extensive history of disputes over content and project space with Whitebright. I hate this place. Pedro :  Chat  18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedro I came here because I have your talk page on my watchlist I do not doubt you or your actions as an admin .My comment was aimed at the new user who is a sock and thinks that wp cannot survive without his pov My comment was just to assure the user that wikipedia is fair and that wikipedians do take action against problematic editors (even if they are at a position of authority).--NotedGrant Talk 20:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ I came here to report harassment, now the same people continue to bully me as 142 is below saying, " his reaction to requests for explanation cast serious doubt on his ability to work collaboratively regardless," no the truth is 142 is showing that he's a bully and now you're falsely accusing me of being a sock-puppet and basically saying I'm not wanted here. Well I've certainly not been made feel welcome but have every right to be here. Whitebrightlight (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for my brusque reply and misinterpretation of your input. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ I just posted something but it didn't show up. Well here it is again. Baseball_Bugs: I've addressed answered Nancy's question in a reply earlier on this page. Whitebrightlight (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For those not willing to pour through the wall-o-text supplied above here's what I could find regarding the first-person response:

The reason for using the first person was I was replying to this: " 07:37, 7 December 2009 Nancy (talk | contribs) (72 bytes) (Reverted to revision 329844498 by Themfromspace; Redirect per AFD (note the as per the AFD discussion, recreation is only permitted if JM becomes independently notable of X Factor). " I left my reply on Nancy's talk page. This was Nancy reverting to the previous edit (i.e. the re-direct) below my edit which was the re-instatement of Joe's Wikipedia page. Nancy stated; " permitted if JM becomes independently notable of X Factor, " but I knew the policy was the top-three in music competitions, the three finalists in the case of the X-Factor, are permitted their own page, which is why I re-created Joe's page only once he was voted into the X-Factor final. So now my reply to Nancy's talk page should make sense - my reply was: "Joe is now in the TOP THREE or to put it another way he's a FINALIST ~ so according to Wikipedia rules, he warrents his own page now, so stop being a bully and let him have his own page... play by the Wikipedia rules please and stop issuing bullying-tone messages to me. " Since I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, I thought at the time that since Joe was in the top-three, I was right to re-create his page.

Hope it helps. Padillah (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the wall-o'-text. And in the analysis there in is revealed the lie. The first ever comment by Nancy to Whitebrightlight was here [71] at 11:10 8 Decemeber as seen at[72] However Whitebrightlight requested Nancy to stop "bullying" ME here at 22:29 7 December - half a day before Nancy ever interacted with the user. Screw WP:AGF. A bit more WP:DENY of the WP:TROLL people. Pedro :  Chat  20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the use of Checkuser to help settle this matter, but I do have my doubts. I think there's more bark than quack here; while I'm not all that familiar with Hassaan19 I did take the liberty of checking their contributions list and looking at their communication skills and this feels like a different person to me. This bizarre wall o' text seems uncharacteristic, though of course it might be an intentional obfuscation; but if so, why stir up this drama while unblocked? Again, run CU to help settle things because there's enough suspicion for it, but my gut tells me these aren't the same person. -- Atama頭 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The specific edit from Nancy was this. The text was an edit summary, generally directed and giving reasoned rationale for the change with no sign of "bullying-tone" that I can see. Whitebrightlight had edited the page several hours before and was separated by other edits.

I do not know if Whitebrightlight is a sock or not - just that the behaviour quite reasonably warranted investigation. His message to Nancy, the other accusations he's thrown around, and his reaction to requests for explanation cast serious doubt on his ability to work collaboratively regardless. I42 (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How embarrassing that the most illiterate edit summary I have ever made becomes the subject of such scrutiny. C'est la vie. Nancy ^talk 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ Well now you're changing your position from implying I'm a sock-puppet to now saying you don't care, and then yet again smearing me by implying that my self-defence against untrue accusations and implications that I'm a sock-puppet mean I'm somehow bad for Wikipedia - and you've slipped in, "the other accusations he's thrown around," implying that I've somehow been making false accusations when I haven't - I won't make a personal attack against you whatever the provocation. All I would say is please if there are any honourable admins reading this, please see what's going on here and don't be taken in be crafty characters like 142 who try to attack me without breaking the rules of making a personal attack, and manage to pull the wool over the eyes of others that I'm somehow the problem when I'm a new member being victimised. Whitebrightlight (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be cavalier but is anyone going to do the CU? How will anyone know the outcome? Padillah (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could go to WP:SPI and open a legitimate request given the diffs and this thread, but to be honest I really, really don't care anymore. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a checkuser look at this very soon after it was originally posted, and I think most of the hullaballoo could've been avoided if one had just looked into the situation. It will either clear the user or condemn them. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ Well Pedro I want someone who is impartial to CheckUser and listen to my original post, because you've made and continue to make unproductive posts. Whitebrightlight (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who brings a complaint here also opens up their own behavior to scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by WBL noted and, well, ignored. WP:DENY Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone who has been following this going to file an SPI? I almost just blocked Whitebrightlight myself due to the sockpuppetry being pretty blatant. Fences&Windows 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Kristen Ringwald

Resolved

 – — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This "article" seems to be either vanity or worse. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Article was deleted. Contributor was warned after a recreation. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cathar11

Background: To my surprise I discovered that the articles about Manuel Zelaya lacked anything about Hondutel and the corruption investigations which were initiated by the FBI in the US. This was surprising, given that it has been one of the most reported stories in Honduran history. Newspapers have run daily articles for months. The article was like Richard Nixon article without a single word about Watergate.

The editor responsible for deleting other editors' additions is Cathar11 (talk · contribs):

• Extensive history of deleting citations from the largest newspapers in Honduras (La Prensa, El Heraldo, etc. [73][74]) and elsewhere ([75][76][77]), the Reporters Without Borders ([78]), the largest and best-known human rights organizations such as Association for a More Just Society/Revistazo ([79]) That is just to name a few. The users leaves comments such as "BLP", "unconnected", even though other editors' additions are well-sourced (and every Honduran newspaper has dozens and dozens of more articles if needed).
• Its has become more than obvious that the editor has a clear agenda to remove citations about the scandals.
• Perhaps it's time to do something about his disruptive editing. Alb28 (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

3 editors had to clean up this individuals attacks on BLPs, He uses poorly sourced, blogs and information that isnt in the articles quoted, and I can explain on a point by point basis most of the edits made particularily the ones mentioned above. I sugest he should reply to the AN/I about him which I didnt open but helped to clean up some of the mess he left.13:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No one else except you have blanked entire sections of citations in a disruptive way. Other editors, including editor Madman2001 (talk · contribs), have already warned you. Alb28 (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Cathar11 about this thread. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, this still appears to be only a content dispute. Have you or others previously discussed these edits with the editor on their talk page or the article talk page? — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I see there is already a thread about this issue started above at WP:ANI#User:Alb28. I suggest closing this thread to consolidate the discussion in one section. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User: Nouse4aname

Resolved

 – Page reverted back to remove copyrighted material and protected for 2 weeks. Will leave a note to the offending users. Jauerback^dude?/_dude.

I feel Nouse4aname should be block for persistent undoing on the Heineken Cup 2009-2010 page.--Dunshocking (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And you should be banned for inability to grasp the rationale which was explained on the talk page? Minkythecat (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Nouse4aname (talk · contribs) about this discussion. GiantSnowman 13:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute over a flag icon in 2009–10 Heineken Cup. The viewpoint of the OP here, on the flag usage, is the same as several IP's observable on the article's history page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The situation re: copyright status of a flag was given on the talkpage. Given there's not much argument over that issue, we're faced with a registered account and several IP addresses with the same outlook railing against their edits rightly being reverted. This should be closed as there's simply nothing to sanction / guide nouse over in any way shape or form. Minkythecat (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing at this point is that the page might need to be protected. But which version is the "right" version? Probably Nouse4name's version, if using that flag is a copyright violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The flag is a copyright violation. I have provided links to the discussion(s) where this has been firmly established to the main IP editor. It now seems that this IP editor has created an account and is accusing me of some form of vandalism. Although disruptive, reverting copyright violations is entirely acceptable in my point of view. I left the IP another (rather blunt) message regarding this issue after they restored the copyvio flag for the eighth time. If such edits persisted, I was intending to bring this to ANI myself, so I am glad the issue is now being dealt with. Please also note that User:Noq and User:PeeJay2K3 have reverted the same edits, for the same reasons. For the sake of avoiding an edit war, I will not revert the most recent edit restoring the COPYVIO flags, but it is clear from previous discussions that this flag should not be used: see here, here, and here in addition to the policy WP:COPYVIO and style guideline WP:MOSICON. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a wider issue at play here, copyrigting is a smokescreen and you know it. Glad there is a wider discussion, beyond the polar views of both sides. You fail to remember that removal of all flags was discussed as well. In the utopian Wiki world agression is unjust and does not help anyone or any issue.--Dunshocking (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that "discussion", but that doesn't change the fact that you continued to re-add a copyrighted image. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I apologise and apologise to Nouse4aname - we will see if he is man (or woman) enough to do the same. Peace comes from being able to contribute the best that we have, and all that we are, toward creating a world that supports everyone.--Dunshocking (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a copyrighted image, then why is it on Commons, and part of {{Country data Ireland}}? If you really thought it was copyrighted, I would think you'd be edit warring there and not here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Four Provinces flag is not copyrighted, the IRFU flag is. The reason given in the old consensus for not using "4prov" was that the IRFU doesn't use it, the IRFU flag because of COPYVIO and the flag of Ireland because Irish rugby is All-Island. WP:RUIRLFLAG - Fribbler (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone could create a little bitty generic flag with the word "Ireland" on it, to fill in the gap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kils -- Violation of SPI-imposed restrictions, canvassing

Resolved

 – AFD closed, Kils cautioned --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kils/Restriction is the end result of a SPI from a few days ago, which came after several days of messy happenings in lots of other places. This should be more straightforward to write up at least.

Per my mentions of these happenings on the talk of the user the SPI directed we report to here and here, which was after Cirt caught on here (who I give kudos to on following this basically all night). The violation is in regards to events at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (3rd nomination) and its talk page, the restrictions evidence suggests are being broken are mostly #3 and 4, which the user agreed to as a condition to an unblock last evening.
Here's some collection of the users canvassed (but far from the whole list): [80] [81] [82] [83] [84][85] [86] [87][88] [89] [90] [91] ... ... Thanks. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support block. Account Kils (talk · contribs) continued to spam canvassing to users' talk pages after I warned him about canvassing. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

from Uwe Kils

I only asked them to vote, no influencing, and I was allowed to make comments on the talk page. Uwe Kils 14:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You were warned about WP:CANVASS and proceeded to do spam user's pages anyways. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: There has been no block yet, but one is recommended due to the spammed WP:CANVASS and violation of User:Kils/Restriction. Cirt (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was only one straight delete !vote on the last AFD apart from the nom, so it's kind of hard for him to notify both sides of the debate...Never mind, he managed it--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second -- why was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (3rd nomination) opened less than four days after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (2nd nomination) was closed as keep? While this is a fairly clear violation of the restrictions, it's also a pretty clear case of poking the bear. Let's speedy keep the AFD, ignore the canvassing, and save the restrictions for a point when everyone's calmed down a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He is still canvassing (just got a notice on my talk page). I was going to sit this one out because I initiated AFD#2, but this is getting ridiculous. Does donating a few photos to Wikipedia give you license to blatantly ignore policies and sanctions? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jamie, if you nominated him for deletion, then it was not canvassing to notify you--quite the opposite--I think he may in fact be making a belated attempt to do things right. I do not think he knew that what he did was canvassing, or realise that he was violating the spirit of the restrictions he agreed to. In a more experienced Wikipedian I'd call this wikilawyering to take things this literally , but it is apparent that he is remarkably naïve in how to work at Wikipedia--just as he has been remarkably imperceptive over a considerable time in how to support the article, and a good deal over the top in writing it. This is an excellent illustration of why people generally should not write articles about themselves--even if they are clearly notable , they are unlikely to do so objectively. And for that matter, why they should generally not participate in the discussions about such an article, except to correct errors. I would support only a short block of an hour or so to make it clear that what is being done is not acceptable. As for the AfD, I support Fences and Window's suggestion there that it should be closed, and reopened in a month or so--if anyone wishes. The notability is supported by Sarek, David E, John Z, Eric N, and myself, among established Wikipedians who work in this sort of topic & do not take kindly to being canvassed & are unlikely to be affected by it. The only reason I myself had not !voted this time is that I thought it was an obvious keep, so I did not bother. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd just noticed this and was following up on it but you beat me to it. I'm not going to dispute closing the AfD either; there were numerous cogent !votes for keep the last time around. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What Kils is doing is not explicitly outlawed by the terms of his restriction, but it's annoying, contrary to WP:CANVASS, threatens the integrity of the third AfD, and violates the spirit of the restriction. I'd favor a short (1 day?) block, as a way to (I hope) focus his attention a little more on the fact that we see his behavior as something that cannot be tolerated. (By the way, I too was canvassed...after I had already weighed in on the AfD. What's the point of that?) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not help matters that Kils (talk · contribs) decided to continue violating WP:CANVASS after receiving a warning at his talk page for doing so, and then again after receiving a notice regarding this very ANI thread. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Notifying both sides of the debate, which he has finally done, is hardly contrary to WP:CANVASS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the 3rd AFD as too soon after the prior close. The proper procedure in this case would be to take the matter to WP:DRV to see if the shenanigans noted above played an unacceptable influence on the final outcome. Starting a fresh AFD only 4 days after the old one closed was a poor way to handle this, IMHO, and I agree that doing so may have been unnecessarily antagonistic towards the article's subject. Yes, he probably canvassed inappropriately, and yes the conflict of interest is something that needs to be addressed, but he's hardly familiar with Wikipedia's protocols and standards, and we should keep that in mind. --Jayron32 18:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete corrupt old version of an image

Resolved

 – Questionable version of image deleted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The old version of File:AVMeiyappan_young.jpg (here) needs to be deleted, as it is causing trouble with Symantec security products. See the discussion on the technical pump. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it need to be deleted? If it's not active, I'd just as soon leave it where it is to keep the contribution history intact. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically, some old versions of Internet Explorer or Outlook Express could be induced to render the malicious code. It shouldn't be a problem otherwise, but I think it's best to avoid hosting archived malware lest we get used as a side channel for distributing such things - or worse yet, gain a reputation for being such a side channel; we are vulnerable to such usage, if people think of it. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the delete. There is really no significant change (image-wise), so this should be uncontroversial. Maybe credit the original uploader on the file page? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please delete the image and do not link it above, I just got a virus warning from it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, both the good and bad copies went bye-bye. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

vandalism by user: Rockinator555

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. Next time report to WP:AIV. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I request a block for user Rockinator555 based on these 2 vandalistic diffs: [92], [93]. Note that in the second diff he's defaming two living people.  Dr. Loosmark  18:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin:Rama ignoring previous consensus, refusing to gain new consensus

In 2007 a user (User:CBM) proposed to delete File:Chicago Spire.jpg. After a discussion 2 users (myself and User:Wikidemo) and an administrator (User:Quadell) gained consensus saying the image should be kept and was not a copyright violation (the user proposing deletion (User:CBM) was the only user disagreeing). I was anticipating replacing the image once some measurable progress had been made on the structure.

A few days ago, the admin User:Rama ignored that previous consensus and abruptly (speedily) deleted the image without discussion. I briefly introduced points where I disagreed with his assessment (on Rama's talk page) and pointed out that others disagreed as well. I thought it would be best to restore the image and propose it for deletion so that a proper discussion could take place and another administrator could determine consensus.

User:Rama refuses to do any of this; he has ignored previous consensus on keeping the file and refuses to gain new consensus, stating that he is the only one who is right and everyone else is wrong - User:Rama stated "I do not care whether people disagree with me or not, this is not a democracy. If you want to vote reality out of existence, do that in a sandbox. I am very obviously right, and no matter of how many people are wrong and disagree with me, they are still wrong." He then stated that pointing out others who disagreed with him was a "waste of time" and that this discussion was "futile". Another administrator (User:Xeno) stated to Rama that "the 2007 discussion was closed as "fair use permitted" so it's probably unwise to unilaterally reverse that decision with a speedy delete".

All I am requesting is that the image be restored and then proposed for deletion so that other editors can discuss this. I have many points to make about why it shouldn't be deleted, but wish to do this on a deletion page, not on a user talk page. Thanks! DR04 (talk) 19:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Rama does look to be taking a particularly aggressive "my way or the highway" stance here. I've noted that a few other editors who work in the Fair Use area tend to get like that as well. Also User:Rama/Fair use is quite unhelpful, as it uses an obscure slang word throughout, without explanation (the more mainstream use of the word gives it the meaning 'manly' [94]--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, I don't believe that English is Rama's first language. Where he uses the term jocker, what he probably means is joker, in the sense of a wild card, free pass, or get-out-of-jail-free card to wave about as an excuse to ignore the rules. I thought his explanation at the top of the page was reasonably clear as to his intent — and the approximate meaning is certainly clear from context later on. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The correct place to request restoration is WP:DRV. — Kusma ^talk 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See wider issue I commented about below @ 19:41. –xeno^talk 19:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would also invite a review of other recent F7 deletions. I am not familiar enough with the NFCC and fair use criteria, but I am concerned that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail with the community's - however admit that I am a novice in this area. I think it might be more appropriate they bring these to FFD, given that they take a somewhat hardline on fair use. –xeno^talk 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So what do you guys recommend I do? Kusma, should I go over to DRV now and request undeletion for this and/or the other images? Or will you guys be doing something? Should I wait? Thanks!. DR04 (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think DRV is the best place for this. I won't do anything about it, though, as I am WP:VEGAN and don't touch non-free images if I can at all avoid it. — Kusma ^talk 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Working in this area is a pretty thankless job. I'm not sure that it's an area where local consensus can rule in any case. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I am a novice; but if I have understood Rama's argument correctly it's that the image is replaceable by a 3D model rendered by an editor and released into the public domain: but isn't this simply a recreation of a copyrighted work? –xeno^talk 19:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Rama's interpretation may not dovetail comfortably with the bulk of the Wikipedia community, but I have a strong suspicion that Rama's perspective is probably much closer to legal reality. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy, even with a relatively lax interpretation. is deliberately stricter than the legal standard. There seems to be fairly general consensus that it ought to be. DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that certain aspects of Rama's personal interpretation of fair use, located at User:Rama/Fair use, do not seem to jibe with either official foundation policy OR with community standards. Some of what he says there seems perfectly legit points he is making, his peculiar interpretation of replacability seems to be bothersome. For example, Wikipedia:Non-free content, the primary guideline which contains community standards on the enforcement of the foundational policy at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, only states that pictures of people still alive are considered to be unsuitible for fair use claims, however Rama seems to unilaterally declare that pictures of dead people are also unsuitible for fair use claims, with absolutely no community backing at all. I am concerned not that he is trying to enforce a foundational policy (which is a good idea) with a personal interpretation that is unsupported by the community. Now, in this case the fact remains that there can be no freely-made reproductions of the archetectural plans of this unfinished building because, say, if "I" drew my interpretation of these plans, they would still be derivative works. Furthermore, the detailed rationale at the image description page seems perfectly fine to me, so I see no reason to delete an image of this type, when everything seems in order. --Jayron32 20:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I hope you don't mind if I chime in again, but to TenofAllTrades - I'll quote something I posted on Rama's talk page. "A much safer, IMO legal situation would simply to be use the renderings as provided by the architect [add copyright information] (and I actually went through a great deal of work to get that permission). It seems Wikipedia is more at risk if we create our own renderings of a copyrighted design and then post them as "our own." The way I see it, either no images are allowed of unbuilt buildings - drawn by the architect or drawn by Wikipedians based upon models drawn by the architect or the copyrighted version itself is used. Shelbourne Development and Calatrava gave Wikipedia permission in an e-mail to me to use the images. I doubt they would look so kindly on us creating our own images of their copyrighted works, however. The bottom line - modeling your own renderings of a copyrighted design is much scarier from a legal perspective IMO. DR04 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Even more problematic with Rama's deletion then, is if, as you claim, the original copyright holder did give email permission for this usage. --Jayron32 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jayron, Kim Metcalfe, a representative for Shelbourne Development (you'll see she is quoted in many of the news articles of the structure), gave me an FTP login to the directoy where Calatrava uploaded the copyrighted images for release (for publicity). She also provided explicit permission for the images to be used as long as the copyright information was included. I have saved these emails if anyone needs to see copies of them. DR04 (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did they give permission only for Wikipedia or also for possible reusers? "Only for Wikipedia" used to be a reason for speedy deletion. — Kusma ^talk 20:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Kusma, it was a copyrighted image that she gave permission for Wikipedia and others to use, but obviously I requested permission for Wikipedia to use it (I didn't ask for anyone else). I think you are referring to images that people upload but only allow Wikipedia to use - you are right those get speedy deletes ("This includes "for non-commercial use only", "non-derivative use", "for Wikipedia use only" or "used with permission". See CSD F3" from Template:Db-f3. But this was a copyrighted image, with a fair use rationale with permission to use (the permission isn't required and is an optional addendum. I believe both of the following copyright tags were used on the image page {{Non-free fair use in}} and {{Non-free with permission}}. As you can see, permission for Wikipedia tags (Non-free with permission) are used but must be used in conjuction with another tag and fair use rationale. The image's file page satisfied all of these requirements. Here is a cached version of the page - [95] DR04 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean a majority vote, it means that all parties can agree with the solution. It strikes me that the original decision was not a consensus but a decision by three individuals to overrule a fourth. Dabbler (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nor is consensus unanimity, especially in a binary decision. –xeno^talk 21:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it does mean unanimity in the sense that all parties are prepared to live with the solution. If someone still objects to the solution, it is not a consensus but an over ruling of that individual's opinion. To establish a consensus, the minority opinion must consent to the solution voted on by the majority. I suppose it is arguable that User:CBM consented to keeping the disputed image because he/she made no other attempt to remove it. Dabbler (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Dabbler I agree and disagree. Consensus, as I understand it on Wikipedia, is the ability for everyone involved to make a case and a decision to be made. Not everyone agrees, but hopefully each argument has been looked at in depth. You see "rulings" as you call them being made all the time on nominations for deletion, nominations for featured articles, etc. Not everyone always agrees, but at least everyone knows the reasoning for decisions and had a say in the matter. You are right, in the original nomination 3 were for keeping the image, 1 was still against, but the issues were discussed at length and in the end an admin made a decision. This is my point with what happened with Rama's speedy deletion. Previous precedence existed, it was ignored, and there was absoultey NO opportunity given for further discussion - although I guess I will eventually need to go to WP:DRV. DR04 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

But no matter our definition of consensus, I do think it is important Wikipedia's community do come up with some type of decision or precedent of image use - this image is a perfect example (copyrighted images for unbuilt buildings). I hope the discussion here will result in some decision, either for or against their use in articles. DR04 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem here is that none of us, not you or I or Rama, are lawyers who specialize in intellectual property rights (well, I suppose we could be, but even if we were, we are not acting as such when we edit wikipedia, but I digress). This is a place where, IMHO, the foundation has fallen eggregiously short. Of course they cannot police every aspect of Wikipedia, but it seems to me that copyright violation is one place where the foundation stands to be on precarious legal standing (much like the WP:BLP policy, except that I think they have handled that one well). The existing foundation guidance is too vague, IMHO. There is too much room for interpretation, so you get a situation where the interpretation of some users (a conservative approproach favored by Rama) is in conflict with more liberal interpretations, and absent community consensus here, there is no way to resolve this, since no one has standing to say their interpretation is the right one. If we return this to a community consensus issue, and as some state above, Rama is expressing an opinion in the matter, as some contend above indicating that this represents a !vote of 3 to 1, then as a participant in the discussion, Rama should not be involved in enacting any results. Still a bad delete, if he wants to have an opinion that's cool, but he should then pass off to another admin to enact the decision. Admins should not be participants AND enactors of a consensus discussion.

I know I kind of rambled a bit there, but the basic point is that the BEST solution would be clearer guidance from the Foundation on this issue; absent that guidance we must default to community consensus, and in this case I cannot see consensus to support Rama's move here, either in the general sense of interpreting WP:NFC or in the specific sense on how to deal with this image. --Jayron32 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Of the two images (File:Nakheel Tower.jpg and File:Freedom Tower New.jpg) speedily deleted by Rama (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that I have discussed with this admin, (only after the fact on Rama's talk page), Freedom Tower New.jpg had a very similar fair use rationale to the one on File:Chicago Spire.jpg. I am unsure if Nakheel Tower.jpg had similar, but given the chance I would have improved the rationale. Whilst there is the question of potential copyright violation if Wikipedia editors create their own derivative work, I am also worried about amateur artists misrepresenting a building's design and leaving readers wondering whether we have used accurate dimensions, accurate colours, and so on. Astronaut (talk) 22:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Rama appears to have also bypassed the procedure outlined at WP:CSD#F7 (i.e. add Template:Rfu and wait 2 days). –xeno^talk 22:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thinly veiled threat

Resolved

 – A harmless if racy joke, seemingly misinterpreted. –xeno^talk 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler, in a dicussion about doughnuts, implied that I would be eaten by a cannibal if I confused the definition of "Berliner" here. This was absolutely inappropriate. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, yes? Crafty (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A joke that is a little racy, but did it really need brought to ANI? –xeno^talk 20:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It was very inappropriate. I would imagine if I ever said that to someone that they would raise their eyebrows. I simply do not appreciate the ungentlemanly language. I'm not drinking buddies with Hans, I'm here to edit, not to be threatened. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You have serious problems with reading comprehension. I implied that if you can't distinguish the two meanings of "Berliner" correctly according to context you might end up eating the wrong kind. Unless you are afraid of being eaten by a doughnut your interpretation is not internally consistent.

Let's continue this discussion where it belongs. Hans Adler 20:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For goodness' sake. There's enough drama here without making up more. Hans simply meant that you might be considered a cannibal if you were to consume the wrong kind of Berliner, I'm sure. Kindly move along ... --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I see loud over right is still a problem in this world after all these years, Hans. Thanks :) GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The original posting here is about the funniest thing I've ever seen on ANI. I think (and hope) it was meant as humorous, in which case I'm glad for the rare opportunity to laugh while reading this page. Equazcion (talk) 20:17, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, wiki wiki wiki wiki. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. All I can say. Isn't there a list page for stuff like this, I'm sure I ran across it before, some kind of humorous goings on on Wiki. Anyweay, would make an excellent addition. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This has no place here on ANI. It wasn't a threat, it was a literary illustration of why the terms are spelled/sound the same, but have grossly different meanings. How is this a thinly veiled threat is beyond me. I use literary devices like this all the time in my workplace. This is silly, and take it to the damned talk page. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of cents. Discussion's resolved. Thanks! GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I once asked a native-born German about this "I am a donut" stuff. He acknowledged that it could be interpreted that way, but the key issue was, "We knew what he meant", and the sentiment was appreciated by the German people. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I like a Hamburger. Wdl1961 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Tzniut

Resolved

 – requested page protection A8UDI 21:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What to do with Tzniut? A few IP users are making the same edit again and again, against three editors (me included) who are experienced Wikipedia editors who are knowledgable in this field. The edit is not vandalism, but represents an opinion which can not be presented in the way the edit does it (if at all). I have tried to contact two of the IP's on their talk page (User_talk:128.59.186.71 and [96]), but unsuccessfully. Actually, I wonder if they are different editors. Neither do they post on the talk page of the article. What can be done? Debresser (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You could request page protection, though without a history of recent vandalism, that might be unsuccessful. Astronaut (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Block them. Problem solved.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done and ive requested page protection. Consider using the WP:UTM NPOV warnings for them then report IPs to AIV. Thanks A8UDI 21:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Telangana

I don't think there's a place to ask "please put this article on your watchlist" so I'm bringing the issue here. There's some political developments occurring in Telangana and many anon/new editors have been contributing to the article. Some edits have been good (which is why I'm reluctant to ask for a semi-protect) and others not so much. I've been cleaning up the worst of the POV/unsourced material and doing some copy edits as English is probably not the native language of some of the editors. I'd continue doing so but don't want to get caught up in a WP:3RR (technically, I'm reverting edits and no one's reverting back so I don't know how that's viewed). So can a couple people please watchlist Telangana and help out? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to look at the Content noticeboard for more eyes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - didn't know that existed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Taggerung549

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely. NW (Talk) 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Taggerung549 (talk · contribs)

I came across this user in the newbie contribs, I thought at first it was a mostly harmless user who just thinks WP is a social network, so I templated them, but then I noticed this diff: [97] where they solicit for talking to a 12 year old (or younger), they claim they themselves are 18. While not overtly sexual, it sure seems to have some connotations, and I'd thought I'd post it here for further input. Gigs (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy & User:Jojhutton

This user has continued to undo my edits to various pages. I have asked him [to stop], but has just started up again. It is over a dispute over how cities in the United States should be written in articles. Although there is no basis for the inclusion of the country name (ie: City, State, Country), he insists that there is. All I want him to do is stop undoing my edits.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

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

This user has been removing the term 'United States' and its abbreviations from infoboxes, citing WP:PLACE#United States. He has been told that he is misinterpreting policy and asked to stop [98], [99], [100], is edit warring with anyone who reverts him (please see contribs as this is too lengthy to link to here) and threatening an AN/I for me (and presumably others) for reverting him. Radiopathy •talk• 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He posted an AN/I thread right above this one, RP. Crafty (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify one point? It looks like Tinton5 was correcting you for doing the same thing a couple weeks back. Is there any strong reason for including the country designation (outside of the infobox, where it makes sense and doesn't interrupt the flow)? Including the country in the text itself where there is no danger of ambiguity just interrupts flow; if they want to know more about the location, they can click the city link and go there anyway. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

These edits are all in regard to the infobox. It is quite arrogant that the U.S. would be exempt from having the country listed. If this is the case, then it applies to every city out there, including Taiyuan, Qingdao, Jamshedpur etc. Anyway, it's being discussed here at the appropriate talk page. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 22:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed the earlier edits that targeted the infobox. The most recent edits were simply removing it from the text, but looking back further I see the edits that are touching the infobox. I agree that the infobox should keep the country designation. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, its not the fact that they are in the info boxes, but MOS clearly states that geographical areas in the United States should be listed as (City,State), not (City, State, Country), as they all have been. I would not be against listing the country somewhere in the info box, just not in that sequence, per every MOS in the modern world for the past 200+ years. Never, in the history of the world has an MOS ever said its OK to list U.S. geographic areas as (City, State, Country), nor can anyone link a wikipedia policy that does as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The MOS entry is specifically addressing whether the article title should include the country. It doesn't address general usage. From what I can tell, there is no policy on general usage, though a few discussions have concluded with a general impression that including the country in the text is ugly and unnecessary. In the infobox though, even if it is a little ugly, it doesn't disrupt flow, so you should really let it stay. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User: DriveMySol

Request Warning based on disruptive editing. The editors talk page shows a pattern of warnings about originally researched material and lack of sources. My concern was raised when the editor deleted the original research and citation warnings in the Synthpop article. Edkollin (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Continue warning with Twinkle or WP:UTM and then report them to AIV. A8UDI 22:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)