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

Terra Novus

Terra Novus is a creationist editor who has been topic banned form broadly defined "Young Earth Creationism topic ban" Terra Novus has recently created an WP:SYNTH/WP:NOR article called Interpretive science where the entire thesis is

"Though it (Interpretive science) originated in the field of Sociology, applications in the natural sciences can yield insight into the process of forming a scientific theory, and some of the fallacies that persist in consensus ideas.[9] Interpretive science calls into question the ability of an individual to accurately assess all of the data that is processed, without first making a value judgement.[9]"

This pretty obviously once you see the context of his past editing in creationism its a pretty meant to be a round about attack on "Normal Scientific consensus of a 4.3 billion year earth."

Given his past ANI visits in topic area after a [1] [2][3] and misuse of retirement and Clean start. We need to have another talk The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You have provided absolutely no connection with how Interpretive science is related to my Young Earth Creationism topic ban. When it comes to the WP:SYNTH issue with the above article I have actively requested and approved the proposals for merging and removing the problematic content. I believe that my recent editing history will show that I have complied with the topic ban while focusing my contributions on editing and improving the article in question.--Novus Orator 00:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

indeed even more explicit evidence of the article purpose from the FAQ on the talk page "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Let me add wikilinks to the statement to make it more clear what i am reading " "Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives." The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid that you are extrapolating without sufficient data.--Novus Orator 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am also surprised that ResidentAnthropologist instantly elevated this conflict to an ANI without going through the proper dispute resolution process. Perhaps his edit history would yield some insight into this odd behavior...--Novus Orator

This is not content issue its a violation of your topic ban. Please Specify an accusation rather than make vague statements The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

My original question remains unanswered.--Novus Orator 02:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Issues with Terra

(ec-od) I am not aware that a formal topic ban was ever enacted. There have been various agreements, all of which Terra Novus has not really adhered to. The discussion of the article Interpretive science started on WP:FTN; at present Terra Novus is disrupting the merge/deletion discussion on the talk page of that article. He is equally well being disruptive by not recognizing criticisms from multiple editors. Personalizing this as a dispute with ResidentAnthroplogist is a completely unhelpful strategy and just more disruption. There are several other issues. He declared himself a co-organiser of WP:WikiProject Cryptozoology.[4] when he made a WP:CLEANSTART. Just recently he has been active with that WikiProject.[5] And he has made several abortive attempts at starting Wikiproject Jupiter. He himself does not seem to have edited any articles related to Jupiter, so the many structures he has put in place for Taskforce Jupiter are perplexing. Mathsci (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I concur. I read the archived material, and I noted several supports for a topic ban, but no formal discussion of one was started (e.g., under that heading), nor did any administrator conclude that a topic ban proposal had reached consensus. Jclemens (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

He does not seem to have disengaged from the article Cryptozoology as this edit in support of an edit-warring IP shows [6]. The IP 68.224.206.14 (talk · contribs) has broken 3RR on the article and the normal reaction would be a request for semiprotection and/or a report at WP:AN3. Instead he requested Dougweller to impose a sanctions template. Mathsci (talk) 01:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

In support? No, I merely requested that all of the editors involved seek a more collaborative solution.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat predictably, as on each other occasion when he's caused disruption, he has now diseppeared for a while, hoping that matters will settle. This is the fourth time this has happened. Isn't it time to say "enough is enough"? Mathsci (talk) 07:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Disappeared? I am right here if anyone wants to comment.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed that is frustrating, on a side note I have a hard time seeing how Speedy deletion under Blatant Hoax should not be used on Interpretive science. It seems pretty clear with the from my interpretation of his FAQ that its merely that... a WP:SYNTH Hoax to push a POV The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because you have still not provided evidence for the original reason of this ANI.--Novus Orator 02:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

After an absence from the discussion, I looked into things again when I bumped into Terra Novus on other science-related pages, including Climate Change Denial. I had quite a history with his editing a few months ago (under User:Gniniv), but specifically chose not to participate in the ANI threads under this new account name. Having looked at the archives, particularly the one Jclemens alludes to, I've seen several instances where either a topic ban or outright block reached near-unanimous support, but nothing was enacted. Is there a reason for that which I've been unable to track down?

As I've mentioned before, I have no issues with the idea of Terra working collaboratively, or having a 2nd chance, but I've become fully convinced that's not possible after he blew through his 10th+ chance some time ago. Unfortunately, it is still the case that the overwhelming majority of his edits to mainspace are reverted for POV issues, and he seems to be increasingly encroaching on his self sanction by creating YEC wikiprojects and contributing to physics and pseudoscience articles. These issues have been going on for 7 1/2 months, and the only dent in WP I see that he's made is to frustrate and waste the time of other respectable editors. One of the reasons I took a wikibreak some months ago was due to frustration stemming from this issue. From the responses of other editors I've seen, I'm undoubtedly not alone. Is it appropriate that we lose editor time, or editors all-together, in order to salvage some hope Terra will finally turn around and work constructively despite mountains of evidence to the contrary? I know we all want to assume good faith - I did it working with him every day for months - but good faith or not I'm having a hard time finding value in this user's history.

This discussion is fully warranted, and I think it's about time we act on what appears to be consensus support. Jess_talk|_edits 20:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The above assessment seems reasonable. Terra Novus has been given umpteen second chances but despite that has shown little sign of changing his attitude to the project. He appears to be somebody not cut out for editing wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Note that the problematic article he created, Interpretive science, is being discussed here, on WP:FTN, at its own AfD [7] and at a merge discussion on its own talk page. I'm not sure that spreading round like discussions in this way was the best procedure. Mathsci (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban

After the above discussion and past discussions on Giniv/Terra Novus and any future identities from editing articles or participating in discussions involving the topic of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly defined.

• Support as proposer The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Unfortunately I think an indefinite community ban is more appropriate, considering his conduct and past attempts to impose topic bans of this kind. There seem to be hardly any redeeming features in his editing. Mathsci (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I dont blame you an indefinite community ban is jumping the gun. We have never formally given out a topic ban as the ANI threads have shown. Lets give him WP:ROPE, I hate to say but I think he will hang himself with the rope. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Requests of this type have been started before, as Jclemens correctly commented. If anybody can point to a body of useful edits, that might be helpful. Mathsci (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Thats why the community imposed ban rather than one he agrees to. bottom line he break the one we are imposing right now we will adress the next step.
• Support and Comment I think his long history of self-imposing topic bans and breaking them makes a strong case against another one being effective. I also think his history of editing other topics to include wording which relates to, but doesn't directly involve, creationism or pseudoscience makes the case for casting a wider net than those two topics alone. Therefore, I (very unfortunately) think a community ban is preferable to wasting more editor time reviewing contributions and inevitably discussing this again later. However, I would change my position if someone can find a string of useful edits he's made in the year he's been editing which we'd be remiss for losing. If they exist, I would encourage changing the topic ban to also include Science, generally. Jess_talk|_edits 21:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I thought of that but thats far too broad to be reasonable. His only issues in Science are when brings in Creationism or Pseudoscience into play... at least that I have observed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support expanded topic ban per Jess, at least. If a formally imposed ban is ineffective, as seems very possible, then a community ban would be appropriate to consider. This needs to be truly his or her last chance to contribute productively, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support the original proposal, with a caveat that if Terra Novus is unable to abide by the topic ban and contribute to other areas of the encyclopedia, any further disruption will result in a full community ban. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 22:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support I thought I was abiding by a topic ban on the above subject already. I am surprised that Interpretive science is considered to be under that umbrella, but I will stop contributing to this area of Wikipedia if my behavior is viewed as disruptive. Taskforce Jupiter keeps me pretty busy anyways. I would leave with the note that perhaps some of the editors involved in this ANI are going on a wild goose chase without substance.--Novus Orator 02:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
  •  Note: since Terra Novus has added support for the ban would someone do the formality of offically closing this? As the last topic ban discussion went the archive with support but no formal topic ban was implementedThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Query Can I close this although I've been involved in the past? Dougweller (talk) 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I think so. (Note there is a duplicate earliet version in the archive, I'm not quite sure why.) Mathsci (talk) 13:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I think so, Terra Novus added his support to his own topic ban so I dont think you could be grilled for being involved at this point The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson and Byzantine names

Unresolved

 – Split ~70kb thread to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Pmanderson and Byzantine names --slakr^\ talk /

• Could an admin willing to do so please review the above thread that was split to a subpage? It has received only a few comments over the past few days, likely due to a combination of the holiday season and being split off to a subpage (where the visibility is lower). Could I also suggest that when long threads that include some form of proposed sanction are split off, that the notice left here explicitly mentions that sanction (or that the urge to subpage is resisted), as it is important that threads like that get full visibility and are not just subpaged without ensuring that traffic to the thread does not drop off. If any admin feels that more discussion is needed before closing, then please unsubpage it. If anyone does review that subpage, could they leave a note here and on Pmanderson's talk page? Also, this subpage pointer will not archive before midnight on 31 December 2010 (I've used the process described at User:DoNotArchiveUntil), so hopefully someone will deal with this before then. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is resolved as a sanction, I would appreciate a time limit on it, whether a month or a year; to do otherwise is an incentive to abuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

J. Hartwell Harrison

User:Carmarg4 insists that the lead sentence in J. Hartwell Harrison must be the form that was used by the subject, and the citation be removed for fairly fixable reasons. I have directed him/her to WP:MOSBIO in edit summaries, and even posted a note on his/her talk page, but it has since been removed and ignored, and my edits undone. Since I don't want to start a WP:LAME edit war, I've decided to bring it up here. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted Carmagh4's last edit, protected the page, and posted the following on his talk Please stop removing information. The correct first name is better than an initial, and a cite without an author is better than none at all. I've protected the page pending ANI. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite full protection seems a little excessive. Was that what you intended? I think Carmarg4 needs to be encouraged to discuss issues like this before we reach ANI. Could the article be unprotected now and we see how things go on? Adambro (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Aside from this action being perhaps too big a hammer, the way it was handled (reverting to a version that appeared in the middle of the edit war and leaving a talk message that supports one side) feels contrary to WP:PREFER. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 23:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In my view, we have no source showing Dr. Harrison used the name John himself, and therefore we cannot assume that his first initial stands for John. Also, in my opinion, a cite without an author cannot be evaluated on reliability or verifiability, and is therefore not acceptable.Carmarg4 (talk) 16:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite sure tat this isn't a matter for ANI - it's more a content dispute. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely a content dispute - a warning to the editor and an instruction to discuss the matter on talk before making any more reverts would have been appropriate. Changing the page to your preferred version and then fully protecting it is not. Trebor (talk) 17:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

It's in the citation I added - I can look for an author, but I'm not sure why you just couldn't look - it seems to be a book that it's from, which should be reliable.. Connormah (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you scroll up of the PDF, you can clearly see 6 authors listed - S. P. Desai, M. S. Desai, D. N. Wood, R. Maddi, S. Leeson and N. L. Tilney. Connormah (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that was a valid cite, and the claim that there was "no author" was completely spurious, I see no problem with the revert-then-protect.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

No, read WP:PREFER. If a user's edits are "wrong" then talk/warn/block the user, don't protect the page. Trebor (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It was only my intention to protect until the matter was dealt with here. It was not a matter of "preferring" a particular version, I've never heard of this guy. It just seemed to me that repeatedly removing information and a citation was not good faith editing unless the name or cite were obviously improbable or wrong. Anyone here can remove the protection if they wish. I'm being to remember why I normally only visit this page if asked to do so. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, I was being a bit blunt and focused on procedure. Assuming both editors were acting in good faith, I'm not thrilled by a revert and protect (just because it makes the "losing" editor feel a bit powerless); but you explained your reasoning (which was perfectly sound) and said it was temporary "pending ANI" so it was fine really. It's not exactly a critical issue. Trebor (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The protection on a preferred version was a minor procedural error. I wouldn't worry about it too much. If someone really wants to be fussy, then revert Jimfbleak's edit through the protection, leaving the "wrong" version protected. The protection itself might have been slightly out of order too, but in this low-activity article, since the protection is already there, I'd say to minimize drama by leaving the protection in place (up to a day or two) while the issue is sorted on the talk page. That avoids a lot of hostility such as 3RR warnings, blocks, etc. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 21:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I have reduced it to a one-week full protection. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 22:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Carmarg4 has done good work on the article and shouldn't get discouraged. S/he just has to understand that a biography normally documents all of a person's names. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Added: A slight oddity--it's not obvious where most discussion related to this took place? It doesn't seem to be in the article talk page or Carmarg4's user talk history (I see a few removed ANI notifications but no real discussion). 67.117.130.143 (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is a removal as noted above. And it's these removals, (and claimed refusal to discuss) rather than the "content dispute" itself that made this a reasonable matter for ANI. Rich Farmbrough, 16:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

Hoaxes

Unresolved

 – Activity continues, apparently.--Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, ClemmingsEnd (talk · contribs) needs an indef block and all edits removed as they are blatant hoaxes. They are very elaborate, but links provided as "references" go nowhere and are there purely to deceive. Thanks, AD 17:37, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, ClemmingsEnd looks like a sock of Jake Picasso (talk · contribs) to me. They seem to share the same M.O. - JuneGloom Schmooze 00:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, they haven't all been checked. (I tagged a page of his for speedy deletion as vandalism not long ago.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the same person, right? DarrowFebal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Is there a checkuser in the house? Are there other sockpuppets spewing similar hoaxes? I strongly suspect that Gary Howard is a hoax like the others. Antandrus (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I hope I have not gone overboard, but I have blocked User:DarrowFebal and deleted the new article. This is likely not a coincidence. Review welcome --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You were right. Turn over a log and see only one bug, and you're probably not looking hard enough: look at this for the archive, and check out these enormous categories: [8], [9]. Looking at a few of the contributions, it's obvious that it is all one person. Apparently a range block is impractical. Antandrus (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this one is the earliest known account. Reaper, the picture is on Commons, and has been there for a long time. It was probably chosen randomly for the hoax articles. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

 Confirmed the following are the same person, and indeed, Jake.picasso:

• ClemmingsEnd (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• Ken Donovan (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DarrowFebal (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• PoleKobe (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• SherbotLemon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) TNXMan 15:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! To anyone else helping with this -- always remember to check what-links-to for anything you delete as a hoax; this person often adds those links using an anon IP (typically BT Internet), for example most recently 86.170.56.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and you can catch a lot of other nonsense that way. Antandrus (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That is a really good idea. In fact it was the re-use of the photo that tipped me off that this was another fake article, so I checked to see if the pic was in in any other articles. We could watch-list the whole set of vandalised articles and get alerted to further activity that way, too. You should come to ANI more often, Antandrus. Verrrry helpful stuff. :) --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Lanternix

A few days ago I opened a complaint here about Lanternix (talk · contribs) and their continual and repeated edit-warring and use of unreliable sources (archived here). In that thread Vassyana (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) wrote further incidents of edit warring should be rewarded with week-long plus blocks and/or month-long plus topic bans. Since then, Lanternix has continued to edit war at a number of articles, and has repeatedly used unreliable sources. In the article Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians, Lanternix has continued the edit-war he had been carrying on with another user. Reverts since the prior ANI are [10], [11], [12], [13]. At the article Criticism of Muhammad, Lanternix has revert-warred to maintain unreliable sources, rvs [14], [15] (that reverted the prior 2 edits), [16], [17]. Included in the "references" Lanternix added is the website answering-islam which has been called a hate site by more than a few people. On Egypt Lanternix has also been edit-warring to maintain a collection of unreliable sources and op-eds and ignoring the complaints of several users on the talk page. The latest reverts are [18], [19] and [20]. Finally, on the talk page for Egypt, a sock of a banned user had made a comment. I, as is common practice and in keeping with WP:BAN, struck those comments. Lanternix has edit-warred to remove the strike-through, effectively meat-puppeting for a banned user. The reverts are [21], [22], [23]. Within the last week, after being given a "final" warning, the user has continued to edit-war and has even violated the 3RR yet again. A very long block of this user is long overdue, and I request that it finally be made. nableezy - 21:16, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• I became aware of User:Lanternix on a WP:AE request about Nableezy, where Lanternix removed all Egyptians from list of Arabs [24]. Lanternix appears to be the garden variety of nationalistic/ethnicity-focused edit-warring POV pusher who spares no bullets [25] in his WP:BATTLE. Someone Wikipedia could well do without. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

An additional revert at Arab Christians: [26]. This user has demonstrated that they will revert to no end, restoring non-neutral material sourced to unreliable sources. The user was just warned about continuing these actions with the warning saying that further incidents of revert warring would be met with extended blocks. nableezy - 23:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

And you demonstrated that you would lie to no end. The revert was accompanied by this.--λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I request that the user be blocked for an unambiguous personal attack. I did not lie, and I do not appreciate being called a liar. That you left a note at the user's talk page does not magically make it so that you did not edit-war at the article. nableezy - 23:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

If you block people for saying that others lied on Wikipedia, then I would request that User:Nableezy be also blocked for accusing me of lying, accusing me of meatpuppeting, (twice), insulting me by accusing me of working out of retaliation, and for blatantly insulting me in edit summaries by calling my changes tendentious bs and vandalism. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:39, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of lying, and the edits you made were tendentious bs, arguably vandalism, and you were meatpuppeting for a banned user by repeatedly restoring the comments made by a sock of a banned user. None of this changes the fact that you made an unambiguous personal attack, and did so here of all places, and should be blocked. But that is the minor point, the larger one is that you deserve a very long block for continuing to edit war following a warning that if you did so you would be looking at week-long blocks and month-long topic bans. nableezy - 23:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You did accuse me of lying as stated above, and all the above are examples of personal attacks on me and insults against me, none of which were appreciated. Mind you that other Wikipedia administrators have already expressed concern about the incivility of your insults against me! --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 23:58, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Saying that a statement you made is false does not in any way compare to calling somebody a liar or saying that they lie. Also keep in mind that another admin wrote the edits that I called "tendentious bs" and "vandalism" are inexplicable. But this is getting way off topic, which I imagine is the point of all this. This section was opened to deal with your repeated edit warring and generally tendentious behavior. I await an admin to comment about this and I am on pins and needles to see if [this warning meant anything at all. nableezy - 00:02, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

My experiences with this user are limited to Criticism of Muhammad. There, when I attempted to delete some paragraphs which seemed to be novel or unsupported interpretations of primary source material, I met resistance from three other users, including Lanternix. Though I admit I have been somewhat aggressive in attempting to rid the article of this material, I believe I am acting fully in compliance with Wikipedia's policies. Initially, Lanternix argued that the sections were appropriately referenced. When I pointed out that the sections used no secondary sources, he seemed to relent, but responded by introducing a number of self-published and unreliable sources (e.g. [27], [28], [29], [30]). Thus far, he argues that "these sources are perfectly reliable" though he has not used any Wikipedia policy or guideline to support his statement. I'm not sure whether this user is simply ignorant of Wikipedia's reliable sourcing standards, or simply chooses to not abide by them. Planuu (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I dealt with Lanternix at Pan-Arabism, where she/he engaged in exactly the same behavior: Lanternix edit-warred to preserve a poorly written polemic chock-full of WP:OR that was sourced to web forums and opinion columns at non-reliable sources. For an editor who has been here since 2006, Lanternix demonstrates a tremendous ignorance of WP:V and WP:RS. Lanternix seems more interested in promoting her/his POV than in following our policies and guidelines. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments by User:Lanternix

User:Nableezy continues their edit warring on this site, either expecting everyone to agree with them, or going around filing complaints about them. Of note, the user was blocked for 72 hours, only recently, for edit warring with other users. The user's block history for edit warring speaks for itself.

Recently, User:Nableezy has been insisting to removed a very relevant section from the article Egypt, in accordance with this user's general trend of downplaying any relevant information pertinent to minorities in the Arab World and Israel. In fact, User:Nableezy is currently topic-banned for a few months from all articles, discussions, and other content within the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict, as defined in WP:ARBPIA#Area of conflict, and I believe this includes Egypt. The user has been repeatedly violating this ban, and a complaint was recently filed against them because of this. No action has been taken yet with regards to this complaint.

Regarding the user's recent complaints about my edits on Egypt, please refer to the page's Talk Page, where you will find that multiple users have been arguing against the reverts that User:Nableezy insists on instating. After the user called all the references provided unreliable, we (myself as well as other users) proceeded to add what we believe are definitely reliable sources including CNN, BBC, der Spiegel, the Associated Press, ABC News etc. Unfortunately, User:Nableezy continued to insist that these sources were unreliable, and as a result went ahead today - in spite of all the discussion on the talk page - and again removed the entirety of the disputed section, including all of the aforementioned sources added on the talk page by multiple users. Admin Vassyana was made aware of this problem on their Talk Page#Egypt.

The other pages on which User:Nableezy is accusing me of edit warring do not even deserve a reply. On Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians, this is clearly reversion of vandalism from a single user whose contributions are EXCLUSIVELY reverts of my edits on the same page (the user refused to even participate to my complaints about their edits on the Talk Page). Moreover, my edits on Criticism of Muhammed are hardly an edit war, as can be seen from my contributions to the article's Talk Page. On neither of these pages did I, at any time, violate the 3RR rule.

I have had it with User:Nableezy making the environment on Wikipedia hostile for a number of users. I believe it's about time for them to be undergo a long-term bloc (longer than just 72 hours this time, since this clearly did not change their attitude). I will be filing a complaint about the user shortly with the evidence provided above. --λⲁⲛτερⲛιξ^[talk] 21:52, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

You realize the block you reference was not related to edit-warring and was lifted by the blocking admin as a "fuck up" (his words) on his part (see here)? This is typical of the above, bogus assertions made that any person that looks at will quickly see are false. nableezy - 22:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix and Nableezy blocked

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

I have reviewed the evidence provided by Nableezy. It shows that Lanternix has edit-warred at Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians and at Criticism of Muhammad (in both cases the user with whom Lanternix edit-warred has not yet received a 3RR warning; I've now warned them), as well as with Nableezy at Egypt.

Taking into consideration that Lanternix has had seven previous blocks for similar edit-warring since 2007 (!), and agreeing with Vassyana's assessment and warning from the previous ANI thread, I am blocking Lanternix for a month. Any subsequent edit-warring should result in an indefinite block.

I would appreciate opinions by editors not involved in disputes involving Islam, Egypt or the Arab-Israeli conflict about whether a community-imposed topic ban against Lanternix about anything involving Copts, Arabs, Egypt and Islam might in addition be useful.

Nableezy was the other party to the edit war on Egypt ([31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]). Nableezy has a history of four (non-overturned) edit-warring blocks. Consequently I am blocking Nableezy for a week.  Sandstein  16:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unconvinced by the block of Nableezy - six reverts over a period of nine days, one of which was reverting an edit by a sock of a banned user, and two were reverting the addition of very dubious and completely unreferenced material? Black Kite (t) (c) 17:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, sorry Sandstein, on those diffs alone, it's a terrible block, seemingly a mistaken attempt at "plague on both your houses" evenhandedness. You could block most active contributors on Wikipedia with this level of proof. Rd232 ^talk 02:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, six reverts of substantially the same material is still edit-warring, no matter whether over a period of six hours or six days. The quality and sourcing of the material is not a factor in edit-warring blocks, except in BLP cases. But I'll be mostly offline for the next few days, so as far as I'm concerned any admin is free to lift this block if they feel it is not or no longer necessary. The reaction of the blocked user is at any rate encouraging, as is the fact that they stopped edit-warring and brought it here. (Addition: I agree that the revert of the sock is less of a problem, but the sockmaster NoCal100 (talk · contribs) is not currently marked as banned, and WP:EW has an exception for reverting banned users only.)  Sandstein  05:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
      • The sockmaster has been indeffed since June 2009, so for these purposes should be considered banned. The six reverts are not "substantially of the same material". And we're not talking about exceptions for WP:3RR, we're talking about whether to interpret something as slow-motion edit warring, for which relevant talkpage discussion (as exists here) should be material. Bad block, please don't do the like again. I've unblocked Nableezy. Rd232 ^talk 08:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Support Rd232's unblock per Rd232. Nableezy's conduct wasn't disruptive, and the block was punitive rather than preventative. THF (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Lanternix in his request for an unblock states that he "would LOVE to see what material was completely unreferenced..." and hasn't broken the 3rr rule. When I pointed out what material was unreferenced and that he did indeed break the 3rr rule at least twice, he proceeded to delete the comment as unwelcome on his talk page. I guess he wouldn't really "LOVE to see what material was completely unreferenced..." Planuu (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm So Happy I Can't Stop Crying

Can someone put an end to this? A user keeps somehow thwarting Xlinkbot by throwing an unnecessary YouTube link on I'm So Happy I Can't Stop Crying. It's nothing but spam. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

That aggravation is the price you pay for being a deletionist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

What?! Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I was commenting on his deletion, today, of an image I had posted 3 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

How is that relevant to this discussion? Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Council45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(edit conflict) The user in question is Council45 (talk · contribs). This user has made only about seven edits since January 2010, all of them edits to add a link to the video on that same article TenPoundHammer mentions above, so it looks like this could be called a single purpose account. The user has a red-linked user page, and the entire contents of his/her talk page are notices about the link he/she has been trying to add to that article. Who knows, this may even be the person who made that video, and wants to put a link to it on Wikipedia. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Blockable or no? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know. However, considering the number of reverts he made on the article within the past few months to get his link back on there, he may well be violating WP:3RR.

Note: The user under discussion here had not been notified yet, so I just notified him/her a few minutes ago. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

He hasn't violated 3RR, but he's an SPA who's waging a slow-speed edit war. If he reverts once more he should be dispatched. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be that Council45 is also user:Rossdv. In the talk archive: Talk:Sting_(musician)/Archive_1#Invited_fans_on_stage, and in the mediation archive:Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-11-15_Sting_(musician)_trivia. It looks like simple self promotion to me. HumphreyW (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It's a WP:LINKVIO. Taping musicians in concert may be common, but that doesn't make it legal. I'll explain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Youtube will take down copyrighted stuff if the violated copyright holder complains. Instead of fighting this character directly, would it work to report that violation to the folks who run Youtube? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not the responsibility of a Wikipedia editor to patrol YouTube. It is the responsibility of Wikipedia editors to patrol copyright violating links on Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 19:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it's our responsibility; I asked, "Would that work?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if YouTube will respond to any John Doe off the Net with copyright concerns, I think the copyright holder would have to be the one to make the first move, and that doesn't address the problem that as long as the copyvio is there, it should not be linked to from here. Corvus cornix_talk 19:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, some artists are fine with people sharing audio and video of their concerts, but I'm willing to bet that Sting isn't one of them. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

So are we gonna keep beating around the bush or do something? I'm hearing lots of blah blah blah but I'm not seeing any action. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Action has been taken. I explained the copyright situation to him yesterday. He hasn't edited since the 16th of December. So far as I am concerned, nothing else is necessary or appropriate at this time. If he doesn't restore the link, there's no more problem. (I've put this thread back in sequence. There's no reason to move it.)--Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Vintagekits seeks unblock

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

Such a poor unblock request probably didn't merit more than a swift WP:NOTTHEM. Anyone keen to help Vintagekits formulate a proper unblock request is welcome to do so. Rd232 ^talk 11:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested an unblock.

There is a long and contentious history here, so may I suggest that it would be best if this unblock request is not hnandled by any single admin? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:49, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The unblock request should be summarily declined for not addressing the block reason and in particular per WP:NOTTHEM. No opinion on the merits so far.  Sandstein  17:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sandstein, here. I see no hint of a change in behavior. T. Canens (talk) 17:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose unblock. Given all the hassle and disruption this user has given us over the years, and given the sheer number of absolutely final no-going-back last chances this user managed to game his way out of before he was finally shown the door (at least three), I see no reason why we should have to go through the whole rigmarole again. That's aside the issues that Sandstein notes with the unblock request. Pfainuk talk 17:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin comment: "The actually block was malicious in the first place" should not be accepted as part of an unblock rationale. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock No compelling reason given, user was hugely disruptive (possible record for most blocks?) and the community finally decided that the bad outweighed the good. No reason given to re-consider that position "Time served" is a completely invalid reason and the accusation of bad faith on the behalf of the blocking admin (not sure if that was aimed at me or whoever the now-vanished final blocker was) seals the deal. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock (non-admin) "time to unblock I think. The actually block was malicious in the first place but I think time has been served anyway" is a ridiculous unblock request, especially when many of the problems that lead to the block seem to have involved incivility and a refusal to work with other editors in a respectful or productive manner. ClovisPt (talk) 21:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support extremely conditional unblock - sorry, but yeah. While I'm not overly impressed with the unblock rationale or lack thereof, Vintagekits has had a history of positive contributions to many articles, especially professional boxing. Were he to be unblocked, I'd require a complete and absolute topic ban away from articles directly connected to Irish or British politics, as well as articles that are Troubles-related. Furthermore, he'd need a community-appointed mentor that would be not of his choice. Were this to go ahead, I'd like to see 3-monthly community reviews and if there were any shenanigans he would be banned from the project. This would need to continue for a year at least. In short; VK is capable of collegial and positive editing - I've seen him do it before, He would, however, need to be extremely restricted in what he could be allowed to participate in. I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion, but I've worked with VK (not always cordially) for a long number of years now - have blocked him, have argued with him, and have been involved in dragging him up in front of ArbCom for one of the longest Arb cases we've had on the project. Nobody is beyond redemption & by way of illustration, I've recently un-indefblocked his POV-pushing counterpart on the other side, with noted success. I'd like to see more discussion and debate before this is summarily closed shut - I can see it heading that way already - and I'd like to invite more admins who have been involved with the Troubles dispute to take part and weigh in here - Alison ^❤ 23:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Alison but those editing restrictions are going to have to be nailed down really tightly. The Troubles, obviously, and I would probably suggest anything to do with the BI dispute as well, just in case. Also, no editing of projectspace pages at all unless directly related to him (per previous issues at AfD/ANI etc). I'm sure there's more, but it's late here. I'd like to see a decent unblock request though, with an idea of what VK intends working on if unblocked. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock Though I respect Alison tremendously, I think that unblocking any user who throws this much blame around and refuses to acknowledge that their own actions are their own responsibility serves no net benefit to Wikipedia. Good, quality edits can be made by users that do not behave like Vintagekits, whose actions only serve to drive away those very editors. --Jayron32 01:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The unblock rationale has no trace of any desire to change their ways, quite the reverse.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Question for Alison and anyone else supporting an unblock: just how many times do you want the community to have to repeat this cycle?
  The WP:NOTTHEM unblock request announces a continuation of the WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset, but that alone is a relatively minor point in this case. Surely there is a limit somewhere to the amount of drama that the community has to endure from any individual. Vintagekits has has numerous final-final chances, and has blown them, despite explicit warnings that he was getting an absolutely final and irrevocable last chance. Yes, VK has made some great contribs to boxing articles, but Jayron32 is right to note that drama such as VK's drives away other editors, who don't want to give their time to such a hostile environment. The endless dramas also waste hours of other editors' time in discussing and invoking the admin processes, and in monitoring and reading the many huge threads it generates at multiple locations; VK-style drama imposes huge costs on wikipedia. As to Black Kite's suggestion of editing restrictions nailed down really tightly, well ... we've tried that several times before. Despite having been involved in several disputes with VK, I strongly supported the first such unblock-on-strict-terms (see User talk:Vintagekits/terms) on the strict understanding that it really was a final chance. Why repeat this cycle when we have so much experience of where it leads? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Opppose The proposal to unblock Vintagekits only reinforces the idea that productive, conscientious editors are expendable peons, whereas troublemakers like Vintagekits deserve to be mentored, cultivated, and lavished with our time and attention. It's time for that to stop. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
  • To be fair, VK is both productive and a troublemaker. If we could ensure he's only able to be the former and not the latter, I think it's worth a try. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But it has already been tried, at least twice, with a huge effort put into drawing up the conditions set out at User talk:Vintagekits/terms (which itself followed even lengthier discussions about whether to try this path). Why do you believe that a further attempt is any more likely to exceed than the hugely time-consuming efforts so far? Is there evidence of a change in VK's attitude? Or some great idea for new terms? Or some better enforcement mechanism?
      Note that so far I have just asked, and not opposed, because I am assuming that you and Alison would not want a return to the Groundhog Day cycles of the past ... but so far I don't see anything from either of you explaining the basis for what looks to me like a triumph of hope over experience. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per Boris and BHG. I see no indication in the unblock request of a more collegial attitude -- quite the opposite, actually. The correct "time to unblock" will come when the editor indicates their understanding of the disruption they've been responsible for in the past, and makes a credible pledge not to do so in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• oppose unblock No. No. No. I remember all too well the drama. Coupled with "the actually (sic) block was malicious in the first place"? He needs a heavy dose of clue first. KrakatoaKatie 04:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock There is nothing in the request for unblock that acknowledges their past behavior. MarnetteD | Talk 06:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - a block log as long as your arm and over a year to contemplate, and he still doesn't get it? Bettia (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support as we've no evidence of socking since his indef-block, no evidence was presented that MFIreland was his sock (SPI since closed). Colourful langauges in posts and/or edit summaries aren't a problem with me (though I'd recommend the pratice be dis-continued, if an unblock is granted). GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Postpone Not enough eyes on this for ANI's lifecycle, especially with the traditional drop off in activity at the end December. Will comment on the particular merits later.--Tznkai (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

We've already got about twenty different users participating here, despite it being a slow time on WP. I think that's a pretty decent group to determine a consensus on the matter. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Twenty users is not an indicia of consensus. Its not even a decent sample, being as this sample is not sufficiently large, random, or representative. If we think that our decision making should be in part based on what the people best informed have to say (and I think it ought), then no number will be sufficient.--Tznkai (talk) 04:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Are you really saying that no matter how many editors share a particular view, there cannot be a consensus? Or that we should disregard all except a few chosen voices? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Unblock. That's not even really an actual unblock request, it's more like a muttering. Dayewalker (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This user just doesn't get it. If he'd posted something along the lines of "I screwed up. Foul language, posting when drunk and insulting other posters is never acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia. Therefore having had a year to think about it I'll change if reinstated" I'd support. But posts along the lines of "I did no wrong, the admin not me is to blame for my block" suggest that after an unblock we'd be here again and again and again. Why waste time? Valenciano (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock per NOTTHEM. Not a net benefit to the project. --John (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Alison - I usually take a hard line on these types of cases, but I think this may be an example of someone who should not just be written off. I grant you that the unblock request is most unpromising, but close mentoring per Alison could be worthwhile. I have seen much uglier cases than this one get the same kind of deal. Call it the holiday spirit that moves me, but let's think this over. Jusdafax 23:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

  As above, how many times should he be offered such a deal? And why do you think that yet another absolutely-unequivocally-final chance will be more successful than the previous absolutely-unequivocally-final chances? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  I admit the block log is unbelievable and is the longest I have seen. And yet... Alison, who, like you, has blocked him, has some good points, as does Black Kite. Also noted is the argument that he's been blocked a year, and appears not to have attempted to come back via a sock. (As soon as I see sockage, I go hard core punitive.) Sounds to me like you want a ban. I admit I have not gone through every edit he's ever made, just a sampling... it appears he has issues with some topics... and I noticed his detractors include some names who I judge as dubious. This just seemed like a good case for a conditional "pardon", but again, I get a little soft around the edges on the holidays. I daresay I might feel differently if I had been threatened by him. And I again note that the unblock request is pathetic. Jusdafax 02:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

  I understand what you say about him having not socked this time, and I agree that he has some done some good work as well as cause untold drama ... and we agree too about the unblock request. But you don't appear to have answered my two questions, and while you obviously don't don't have to answer, it would help to know how those supporting an unblock can address those concerns. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Before we can even seriously consider the byzantine unblock scenario proposed by Alison we should probably ask if he would even agree to such a firm set of conditions, given the continued persistent denial of ever having been at fault for any of his blocks and the fact that he has actually bragged [37] about being blocked so many times. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec - @BrownHairedGirl) Fair enough. How many times? If I understand WP:STANDARDOFFER correctly, if the community has not banned VK, there is no limit. I respectfully suggest you may desire to start a ban discussion to put an end to the unblock discussions. After all, even Charles Manson gets parole hearings every couple years! As for your second question... I admit to being troubled. No way would I care to mentor this character. Yet, I spent another 30 minutes poking around, and looked at the facts of the case including VK's talk page. It appears there were certain irregularities, which I find disturbing. The bottom line: this does not seem to quite be the open and shut case some here make out. Yes, he takes a number of highly unpopular stands, has a potty mouth, has pulled some fast ones and is a damned slow learner and dramamonger. But again, over a year later, the policy that most seems applicable is the Standard Offer. Finally: this is all moot unless VK can write a sincere unblock request, agree to mentoring, topic bans etc. and win consensus here... none of which seem in the offing anyway. Jusdafax 03:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

From the essay WP:STANDARDOFFER: "On the other hand, if the indefinitely blocked or banned user continues to be especially disruptive then some may become unwilling to consider a return for a much longer time or, quite possibly, ever." I'm not quite in such a hardline camp, but I also don't see any point in endless re-runs of the same cycle, so I guess I'd summarise my view as being in favour the current de facto ban (that's policy) unless and until a better option comes along. I haven't entirely ruled out the possibility that a better option may exist, which is why I was pressing you and other supporters of unblocking to explain how and why you think it can be different this time.

You are right that there have been irregularities in how VK's antics have been handled. However, given the heat and volume of the dramas VK stokes, it would be quite surprising if everyone trying to restrain him got everything right all the time. But it rather reminds me of a workplace law case between some friends of mine, where the court found for the claimant because the defendant had made some serious procedural errors, but awarded zero damages because the outcome would have been the same if they had done things properly. And I do wonder whether VK ever intended this unblock request to be taken seriously: it has none of the characteristics of a request made in any hope of a favourable response, which as you says renders most of this discussion moot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And Beeblebrox's note re: VK's brag about being blocked is a major stopper. I'd now strike my support if this discussion was close, but I leave it as is as a record of the reasoning. Jusdafax 04:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Content creation doesn't act as some kind of counterbalance on behaviour: if an editor cannot behave, he's gone, without regard to whether he created on article on Winnie-the-Pooh's belly-button lint or a dozen featured articles. Good behaviour is a prerequisite that cannot be waived.—Kww(talk) 00:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock:The long standing sock master who taunted and provoked most of VK's worst behaviour has now been unblocked following a long ban [38]. Therefore, it seems rather strange that VK should remain banned. One law for all, is the custom here - so perhaps that needs to be applied.  Giacomo  11:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Serious discussion of that might make a serious unblock request slightly more convincing. You're welcome to help VK on or offline in formulating one. Rd232 ^talk 11:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Offline? Too much seems to happen offline here, far too much. It seems to me this whole matter is being dealt with offline. There is no justification for unbloking his opponent, who behaved worse and leaving him blocked. You need to learn to judge things in a fair and even manner. Something I see no sign of here at all.  Giacomo  11:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. As I just said on VK's talkpage, I had no involvement with his "opponent"'s unblock. If there is anything offline going on here I'm unaware of it. And I don't see how you or anyone else helping VK draft a request offline (for posting onwiki in the usual way) is a bad thing, seeing as it would minimise drama and maximise his chances of creating a request that might succeed. And to reiterate what I said elsewhere: taking such a crappy unblock request seriously does no-one whatsoever any favours, least of all VK. Rd232 ^talk 11:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

re-archiving after Giacomo re-opened: this discussion isn't helping Vintagekits. Rd232 ^talk 11:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not supposed to just descend on a case, like some second rate Fairy Tinkerbell alighting on a Christmas tree, but to reveiw the case properlyand thoroughly - this you miserably failed to do.  Giacomo  11:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT much? If an experienced user doesn't take the unblock request seriously, there is zero reason anyone else should. And I did take it seriously enough to read this ANI discussion and highlight key concerns for them and their supporters to address. You asked for "One law for all" above - but now you seem to be asking for some kind of special treatment for VK. Rd232 ^talk 12:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. Uninvolved editors and admins are Wikipedia's rarest and most precious commodity. There's no reason to believe that Rd232 is uninformed. The facts of this case are undisputed.   Will Beback  talk  12:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We're already past the HAT. Let's let this sleepy matter lie for another while. Perhaps Giacomo could proxy-upload good articles on boxing in the meantime.   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Legal threat on User talk:Stephen

Hi. User:Barnaby1919 makes what appears to be a legal threat on User:Stephen's talk page with this edit and this edit. The edits are long; the relevant parts are "so have a think about whether you want legal action to be taken against you or not" and "of course if i have to persue a human rights violation action against you the costs of the verification process involved in the case will be charged to you. not to me." As a side note, I have no idea what this is about. ClovisPt (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked per NLT. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for the quick action. It seems like User:Stephen gets a lot of hostile traffic on his talk page, he could possibly use more talk page stalkers, at least to throw some NPA warnings around. Merry Xmas, ClovisPt (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, this person may be a BLP subject. Possibly? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Reading the Google cache of the article he wrote about himself, I'm inclined to think that he hasn't yet met the notability requirements, although that could of course change as his career advances. I am sorry to hear about his car, however. ClovisPt (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, we could learn something here - we could certainly cut down on the unreferenced BLP backlog if the references just said "My article was written by me and is verifiable by asking me". Pure genius :) Black Kite (t) (c) 22:25, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Support change in policy. Per Black Kite.--Gnowor^T_C 20:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Beeblebrox, noted genius, world's strongest man, philosopher, ladies man, and the brains behind Large Hadron Collider, which to him was as easy to engineer as a doorstop, came from humble beginnings.... Just ask me, it's all true. Contradict and I'll sue your pants off. (and I really don't want to see most of you with your pants off) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The deleted BLP he wrote on himself is certainly interesting reading. If you find utter bullshit to be interesting. Good deletion, good block, case closed for the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

SPA promoting Dana Ullman at Charles Darwin article and elsewhere

A single purpose account, User:BeatriceX (Contributions), has read a Dana Ullman speculative commentary linking Charles Darwin to Homeopathy and Homeopathic dilutions and is spamming talk pages to point out, against community consensus, that the Ullman article and a quote from Darwin should be included somewhere in wikipedia. She refuses to read or understand the fact that the Ullman article is listed by its journal as a speculative commentary ("Evidence-based CAM will publish in the section Hypotheses-Conjectures-Comments papers proposing hypotheses that are interesting but still lack certain evidence. The paper can be purely speculative, ....").[39][40][41][42] She says she's not attempting to promote homeopathy and that what she is adding is not about homeopathy, but her first section title on Charles Darwin talk was " Darwin and Homeopathy ,"[43] and she is posting on the Homeopathy talk page[44] and the Homeopathic dilutions talk page.

She has been asked and warned to stop her WP:Disruptive editing.[45][46][47]

She is spamming talk pages at Talk:Charles Darwin (→"Darwin and Homeopathy ", and ‎→Darwin experiment on High Dilutions, when the first attempted failed), Talk:Dana Ullman (→Ullman's article on Darwin and Homeopathy - wikipedia), Talk:Homeopathy (→High Dilutions and Darwin's experiments), Talk:Drosera rotundifolia (→Darwin and Drosera), and Talk:Homeopathic dilutions (→Darwin's book on his experiments with Drosera and Ullman's article). She has posted the same passage from Darwin at least 4 article talk pages seeking a place in wikipedia to add this quote.[48][49][

The Homeopathy and Dana Ullman articles have both been the subject of arbitration hearings.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy I think a ruling in the Homeopathy case is applicable to the current situation:

"1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited."

This user is a single purpose account, single-mindedly devoted to adding Ullman's interpretation of Darwin to any possible article on wikipedia.[50] She's making personal comments about people, bringing up other stuff, and generally disengaging editors from editing and into arguing with her. It's disruptive, completely. Considering the nature of the arbitration proceedings, the amount of time wasted on pointless discussions, her refusal to read wikipedia policies, her game playing with other stuff, and her subsequent failure to understand policies from her not reading them, I think it is time for a non-involved administrator to step in.

--Kleopatra (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, she registered only two days ago so perhaps she's just a bit over-enthusiastic. Maybe some uninvolved, experienced editor could offer to adopt her?Six words (talk) 12:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And encourage her to read a single paragraph of policy, rather than arguing against all the ones she hasn't bothered to read.... --Kleopatra (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think what's needed here is a bit of coolness and calmness. We have a new user who may just be enthusiastic about something she thinks should be included, so we should assume good faith. What I think we should do is back down from shouting at her and criticizing her style, and demanding she reads this and that page of the rule book. We should just state clearly what is wrong with including this material, and not just keep repeating ourselves. And then back off a bit and give others time to join in - it's still a holiday, and not much time has passed yet since the start of the discussion, and as long as there's no edit-warring going on in the actual articles themselves, there's no urgency. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've already stated clearly and multiple times that the source she is using, Ullman's speculative commentary, is just that: a speculative commentary, according to the journal it is written in (see link to journal above). She has turned this around and stated that means we think Oxford journals or Charles Darwin are unreliable, something no one but BeatriceX has said. In other words, she'll just continue talking and ignoring and misstating, but not reading, anyone's clear statements about what is wrong and about what is wikipedia policy. And, yes, although I agree with you that outside of article space most matters on wikipedia have little urgency, there is no reason to provide her with article talk pages as her personal soapbox as long as she is not willing to listen to other editors, or understand policy, as indicated by her purposeful misreading/unreading of others' comments and non-reading of policy indicates she is doing. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, she does appear to have stopped for now, and surely that's what we want - let's not condemn her for what she's going to do next, and let's wait and see if she does it first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

1. BeatriceX (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) could be a ban evading sock puppet.
2. I am going to notify them, per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary_sanctions, that they will be topic banned if all the soapboxing does not stop.
3. We don't need users who come here to Right Great Wrongs and import real world battles. Jehochman ^Talk 14:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Probably one admin watching is sufficient at the current level, although still necessary. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm 99% sure I know who "BeatriceX" really is, but would rather not say. Even sockpuppets have a right to personal privacy. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you. The sockmaster edited within the last 60 days, so I think we can resolve this with a little technical help. Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This has parfum de "Bald DUCK" sprayed all over it....;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure why User:Loeny021, an editor with a single edit, was included in and then removed from this. Or why I was included for that matter. I have notified the editor in question. Brunton (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre! Also that it was started as the first edit by a "newbie"?!! Include them in the CU. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Truth be told, the SPA is exhibiting the classic "I'm a block evading sock" behavour. While I don't have a problem with any proposed edits to articles they may have, they haven't proposed any but just seems to be interested in lots and lots of heat with little to zero light :-( Shot info (talk) 05:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Since these account appear to be up to some sort of mischief, I am going to block them, that is BeatriceX (talk · contribs) and Loeny021 (talk · contribs). Jehochman ^Talk 15:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 Checkuser needed

Tendentious AFDs

Matthewignash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has nominated two articles for deletion, and then immediately opposed the deletions and accused himself of being a sock. see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugnut (Transformers) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rapid Run. Don't know if it's just plain dickery, or a compromised account, or what. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's one of our standard trolls (Wiki brah/Rainbowwarrior1977/Courtney Akins etc.) Note the extra "t" in the username; it's not Mathewignash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This kid's usually a number 7. I'll block the latest if no one else gets to it as I'm posting this. Antandrus (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I really like the April-Fools-Day-featured observations Antandrus just linked to and apparently wrote! Especially #60. betsythedevine (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That was quick, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And I've closed both deletion discussions per WP:SK #3. —DoRD (talk) 17:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ironic that both deletion rationales are absolutely accurate as regards these articles, though... Black Kite (t) (c) 18:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been one of Wiki_brah's recent practices to make sock puppets that are one letter different from another user's name to harass them. He did the same to user NotaRealWord by making a sock puppet called "NotaRealWorld". Mathewignash (talk) 18:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks - it fooled me. I'll keep my eye open for that next time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User Smokefoot called me a nutter

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

Resolved

 – WP:BOOMERANG Jehochman ^Talk 22:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

User Smokefoot called me a nutter and violated the Wikipedia:Five pillars User Smokefoot http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smokefoot User Smokefoot undid my good contribution to the Fluoride talk page twice and called me a nutter when user smokefoot undid my contribution the first time. User Smokefoot should be reminded of the Wikipedia Wikipedia:Five pillars and User Smokefoot should be punished for disregarding the Wikipedia Wikipedia:Five pillars. See where user called me a nutter on this page when user Smokefoot undid my good contribution the first time. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fluoride&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.44.123.5 (talk) 18:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

And you falsely accused him of vandalism, a serious charge. Between the two I'd say that your offense is by far the more serious. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock

It appears we possibly have a sock at work here. Compare with this IP:

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

See also Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Freedom5000, several of whom are anti-fluoridation activists at work here recently. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• /me laughs uncontrollably at the Fluoride Song, another good contribution by another IP.[51] Tries to sing the line "Fluoridation started in 1952". Bishonen | talk 21:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC).

• The mention of 1952 reminded me of "I Hear You Knocking". The phrasing of the Smiley Lewis version actually gives a reasonable match to the meter of the Fluoride Song. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah? It gave me associations to Ottava Rima's poetry. [52] Bishonen | talk 00:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

That's User:Freedom5000 on one of his roving IPs, WP:RBI. I've seen enough of him to say, the PoV isn't the worry, his behaviour and socking have brought all the woes, he's never given policy here the slightest heed. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

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

User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

Earlier this year, User:SqueakBox answered an advertisement on www.freelancer.com (advert & response) to create an article on an artist. The article was deemed non-notable and later deleted as an A7 speedy. There was an ANI thread on the matter at the time which can be seen here which was scathing of SqueakBox's activity.

Now, the same user has created Beber Silverstein Group in answer to an advert on the same website - advert & response. The article claims no real notability and was sourced to primary and non-RS sources and so I have redirected it back to the (possibly) notable owner.

Previously, SqueakBox said "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing." (here), which is clearly now a lie, because he's denied actually creating this article for money - see his responses at User_talk:SqueakBox#Beber_Silverstein_Group. Opening it up to the community - any action required? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If he were being honest about it and following COI guidelines, I wouldn't think it is worth taking action. However, since he blatantly lied bout the clear evidence and demanded that the accusation be retracted, it seems that some sort of sanction is needed. I'm not sure exactly what would be effective,, but it should be more than a warning (or admonishment) and less than an indefnite siteban. Perhaps a community sanction prohibiting him from editing BLPs or articles related to corporations (broadly construed)? Also a restriction to one account seems prudent, though I do not believe he has socked. The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's generally agreed that User:SqueakBox (normally) contributes productively to the project, why beat around the bush and implement these sorts of topic bans? Why not simply bar him from editing the project for pay? jæs (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a big if; I've been unimpressed by my interactions with him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't say SqueakBox has a huge conflict of interest here, as he has no relation to the subject of the article; his main goal is to prevent it from getting deleted. I'd just say if any more articles that don't follow notability guidelines are created, just delete them. -download ׀ sign! 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what we normally do to articles that are inherently not notable? In all honesty though, I think that he should be restricted from editing anything to do with paid editing and be restricted to one account (which is also something we kind of already do). I feel as though he should also alert us if he is approached to edit or create an article in a way that will involve reimbursement of some kind. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

BLPs and corporations are the most common types of paid articles. The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

His conflict of interest is between his loyalty to Wikipedia and the $250 he seems to have been paid to write this article. $250 would be enough to pay my car insurance and gas for a month, so even if it wouldn't win out, even I would be tempted (and thus the interests would be conflicting). The Wordsmith^Communicate 19:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I find the very concept of paid editing to be a bit of a terrifying Pandora's box, but the fact remains that the mere existence of a conflict ought not disqualify anyone from editing. If they can't balance that conflict and our policies and guidelines, then it becomes an issue requiring intervention. Does the repeated pattern of creating non-notable articles for pay qualify as such a problem? Seems so. jæs (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes - creating NN articles with useless sources (i.e. both the articles mentioned above) is a clear violation of COI - "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.". Black Kite (t) (c) 20:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Note here the contrast between Squeakbox's apparently successful $250 bid and the apparently-unsuccessful $250 from Sequoyah who made the contract explicitly conditional on the subject meeting WP:N and on declaring the contract at WP:COIN. I would have no objection at all the a contract like that which Sequoyah proposed, but am also unsurprised that Squeakbox's unconditional bid was preferred by the advertiser. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

This is not what I thought wikipedia was all about. I must say that I'm surprised and not a little disappointed that editors can be paid to write articles, of note or otherwise. Quite a business. Fred DeSoya (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some people will do anything for a few dollars. Is that really the kind of editor we want on Wikipedia, knowing that future COI problems may not be as easily detected? Chester Markel (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not the money in itself; the problem is what Squeakbox did to try to get paid. The problems are that: a) Squeakbox suspended hir judgement on notability and primary sources used in the article zie created; and b) that Squeakbox did not declare the COI, which would have drawn the attention of other editors to scrutinise the article. If squeakbox had acted openly (by declaring the full terms of the contract) and had followed editing policies (by telling the client "sorry, I cannot find evidence that you meet WP:N"), then there would be nothing to discuss here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Squeakbox's disruptive behavior is seeking financial compensation without any moral scruples. This suggests that the community cannot trust the user in the future. Chester Markel (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Squeakbox ripped off his client by writing a crappy article. Beber Silverstein is notable.[53] If Squeakbox had made any effort to create a good article that met Wikipedia standards, there wouldn't have been a problem. I don't know who the A7'd artist is. THF (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"It's is a women owned Florida Certified Minority Business Enterprise,..." Ouch! I'd be pissed if I paid for that: he should have at least mentioned that it was notable for its time as a business owned by women, which is in the NYT reference. Since he is so open about who he is on the pay-for-edit site, and seeing the reaction from other WIkipedians generated by his writing-for hire projects, I would think that others would be less likely to hire him for this sort of thing in the future. You don't get the "bang for your buck", and others will seek reasons to delete it anyway. Caveat emptor Doc talk 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution: three month block

A three month involuntary wikibreak may be sufficient to convince SqueakBox not to violate WP:COI and lie to us about it again. This certainly isn't the first time SqueakBox has caused trouble on Wikipedia. Chester Markel (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary; this would be very punitive and SqueakBox is known to be a solid content contributor elsewhere. See above for my proposal of an editing restriction preventing him from writing articles on living people or companies, which account for nearly all paid editing. The Wordsmith^Communicate 21:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Support a lengthy block; I'd prefer one month, but would oppose anything less than that. Squeakbox has clearly breached COI, twice, despite a promise not to do so again after the first time, and has also lied about the second instance when specifically challenged on it. A month is long enough for Squeakbox to reflect on the nature of trust and the fragility of reputation, and to figure out to apologise to his client for making a fool of her.

I am aware that SqueakBox has made many other good contribs, so despite the seriousnes of this abuse I would have supported a warning if it wasn't for the lie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps a restriction on writing articles on "living people or organisations, or any edits for which SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) for". Reword as appropriate, IANAL. That way, it also covers any edits which aren't BLP or ORG-related, but which are still discovered as 'paid'. At present I don't have an opinion about blocks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I support that restriction, and the wording looks fine by me. As above, I'd like to see a block as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I Support any restriction, the stronger the better, as I've always found him ... difficult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Poll

Proposed restrictions

"SqueakBox is banned for an indefinite period from editing articles about living people or organisations, or any articles where there is a reasonable suspicion that SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) in exchange for editing. If an editor has concerns that this restriction has been broken, further sanctions, including a block, may be administered after a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard." - Sound good? No blocks just yet, but this is a good starting point. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why put up with this at all? Permaban, and revert everything in sight that could possibly be affected by such COI. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Permaban on what grounds? He'll just make another account, and we'd lose someone who's otherwise a good editor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Permaban on grounds of spamming and falsifying sources, with reasonable openness towards unbanning on appeal after 6 months (or 3 if you must) on the usual sorts of terms. 3 months and automatic unblock doesn't seem like enough. I don't see likely heavy COI in SqueakBox's top 35 edited articles by edit count: Cannabis (drug): 507 edits, Javier Solana: 480, Rastafari movement: 479, Honduras: 268, Pedophile movement: 253, Haile Selassie I: 240, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero: 188, Bob Marley: 168, Spanish language: 157, Fidel Castro: 140, List of Internet television providers: 139, 420 (cannabis culture): 134, Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman): 119, Manuel Zelaya: 116, Jimmy Wales: 108, Child pornography: 107, Ted Kaczynski: 106, Gary Glitter: 97, Pedophilia: 89, List of European television stations: 89, Deaths in 2008: 85, Augusto Pinochet: 84, Deaths in 2007: 82, Tony Blair: 80, La Ceiba: 73, Video clip: 73, Crack cocaine: 72, Hashish: 72, Child sexual abuse: 70, Hippie: 69, Saddam Hussein: 67, North American Man/Boy Love Association: 64, Cannabis smoking: 63, IP address: 63, Efraín Ríos Montt: 62. On the other hand they don't seem like really tasteful choices, and it continues in about the same way. "There's no point banning that person since s/he'll just sock anyway" is usually a really bad reason to not ban someone. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. Though given his previous deception, if he's determined to carry on his paid editing antics I suppose he could sock round the restriction as well. Still, it's a start. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Something needs to be done about this since nothing has changed since I first brought this issue up over half a year ago. I've uncovered several of these paid editing articles that have bit the dust through AfD and SqueakBox has always assured me that he would be more open about this pratice in the future. He has not been open about it, calling the suggestion that he wrote his latest piece a "rash lie" despite being totally open about his connection to the SqueakBox account on freelancer.com. This would be a feasible solution to this ethically problematic practice. ThemFromSpace 13:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We should of course establish that the Freelancer account is not lying about being SqueakBox. Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

It isn't - SqueakBox admitted that the same account was him during the previous ANI (see link in my first post). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Other articles

THF above is right - the two previous articles created early this year were fairly obviously non-notable at the time, which was bad enough, but this is almost worse - if this company is notable then he's clearly just tossing out any old crap in a few minutes to earn his cash. I looked at what he's created since March, and it includes Global listings (deleted as an A7), Diamond Ranch Academy (looks possibly notable), Pressure (reggae musician) (one line BLP stub with one source), and Alacan (probably notable). I have no idea whether any of these were paid for (and asking SqueakBox is pointless if he lied about the last one) but it does seem like an odd range of interests. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but Reggae music is within Squeakbox's previous interests.   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Solicitation of fake sources

Before we close this, we should take note of the fact that the last time SqueakBox created an article for money ([Mario Zampedroni]) he went to that freelancer site asking someone to create fake sources he could use in the article. Here is the AN/I thread on the subject, and here is the request he made for the fake sources, mentioning that he is writing an "artist biography". This is the bid he placed to write the Zampedroni article, which was accepted. So, to recap:
1. A little less than a year ago SqueakBox creates an article on a non-notable Italian artist for pay.
2. On 23 March 2010, in and effort to have the article kept, he openly solicits "fake sources" for the article on freelancer.com.
3. On 25 March, he promises never to create another article for pay without being completely transparent about what he's doing.
4. On 21 July, an AN/I thread appears when someone notices his solicitation of fake sources, a thread to which SqueakBox never sees fit to respond.
5. On 3 November he creates another paid article, violating his previous pledge.
6. On 20 December he is confronted about this on his talk page. His response? "Stop talking rubbish." When shown detailed evidence, he replies "that is complete rubbish and I advise you to withdraw your rash lie. I havent received a penny for doing that article or any edits in connection with this subject." All clearly false statements. Although he continues to edit, SqueakBox has not seen fit to reply further, either at his talk page or on this thread. Apparently he thinks if he just keeps quiet it will all blow over like it did before.
I will also note that SqueakBox accepted at least one other project on freelancer.com, the nature of which is not available to non-logged in users.[54]
Conclusion: Nothing that SqueakBox says or does can be taken on trust. He should be banned. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I see no insuperable reason against honest paid editing, or honest declared COI editing of any other sort: COI is inevitable, for few people would work on a subject they did not care about. The COI from payment is no worse than the multiple other forms of coi that are in escapable at Wikipedia, and is, arguably, not as disruptive as some sorts of ideological commitment. Since we cannot avoid it, better declared than undeclared, for it can be judged more visibly and openly. I think we have a right and a responsibility to insist upon such disclosure . I think that those who knowingly & repeatedly introduce bad articles for any reason need to be prevented from continuing, and have therefore agree with the earlier suggestion for a block; though there have been many blocks for edit warring, the earlier ones were for other matters, and there have been none since 2008. therefore, a month seems appropriate. I suggest that any attempt to evade this, or to again construct equally poor articles, will be met by a discussion about a permanent ban. Additionally, any further article writing for pay must be declared; if there is evidence otherwise, we should similarly proceed to a permanent ban. The only reason I do not do the block immediately, is that this discussion has lasted for only a few hours, and at the end of a major holiday weekend; there is a tendency here at AN/I to be over-precipitate; in the absence of major harm, we need some time for consideration . For fairness, we also need some time for a response. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • We are talking about flat-out spamming. There's a big progression between "I get paid to work with computers, and sometimes edit computer-related articles (e.g. about algorithm theory)" (not much of a COI), through "I sometimes edit about products that I have used at work" (arguable COI), to "I write advocacy/spam promoting the products of the company where I work" (seriously bad COI). 67.117.130.143 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • i think the creation of fake newspapers and other fakedsources is as erious issues. i have seen many articles in my area of expersietise (science and medicine and health) where a "source" was a link to someones blog or to a Google search of random terms; i think that this is a serious issue which is being ignored in favor of teh sexier and more effervescent paid editing issue. are you allowed to solicit someone to create fake sources for you to cite, regardles of whether or not you are a paid editor or not? User:Smith Jones 05:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, obviously this is the real issue here, the open solicitation of fake sources and bald-faced mendacity about editing for pay after promising not to without full disclosure. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for explicitly noting this, Steven J. Anderson. Writing poorly sourced articles for financial gain is a problem; soliciting fraud to accomplish it is a problem of a different magnitude. I agree with DGG above both that some action should be taken and that we need due time to consider that action, the end goal of which should be both to prevent further misuse of Wikipedia and to impress upon the contributor the need to adjust his approach to the project. This can't continue. Deliberately attempting to insert fraudulent sources into the project undermines everything we stand for in the worst possible way. It is about as explicit a demonstration of "bad faith" as I can imagine. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
• Banning isn't yet the answer since he still makes constructive contributions when acting as a volunteer. The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions. I think the proposal above by Moonriddengirl is good first step. Of course if he violates this things may escalate, but we shouldn't go this far this soon. ThemFromSpace 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? In the absence of auditing every assertion and claim in SqueakBox's edits to ensure that the sources they purport to cite are legitimate, and fairly represented, a definitive assessment of his contributions would be quite difficult. While such matters are usually taken on faith, the assumption no longer applies when refuted by definitive evidence of malice. SqueakBox has shown himself to be a thoroughly dishonest and unscrupulous editor who would violate WP:COI, solicit fake sources for sneaky vandalism, and who knows what else, all for a few dollars. The only appropriate response to such an immoral user is to be rid of them. Chester Markel (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not take a look for yourself? His account has been registered on wikipedia for five and a half years. He has about 53,000 non-deleted edits of which 28,000 are to articles. Mathsci (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I would be looking for a needle in a haystack. I assume that he wouldn't have gotten away with editing for this long if he routinely misrepresented or faked sources. If any fraudulent sourcing occurred, it would have been camouflaged within legitimate edits, much like he hoped to conceal his WP:COI violations. SqueakBox knows full well that we can't audit everything he's contributed. Chester Markel (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I will say something heretical, but I think if it is a needle, then it is not such a big drama. It's not like the rest of Wikipedia is perfectly sourced or something. - BorisG (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at maybe 100 diffs by now, mostly in icky subjects (checking out a socking theory that didn't hold up). I see some mildly tendentious editing in distasteful subjects,[55] some random gnoming (not always well-considered, e.g. [56] bypasses a redirect but slightly changes the connotation of the source), some reasonable vandalism reversion,[57] occasional addition of sourced info (TMI?), some well-meaning but clumsy removals,[58][59] etc. All of his editing is in a somewhat inarticulate style[60][61] (non-native English speaker? Spanish-language ref added: [62]). I haven't seen anything I'd consider to be a substantial contribution of quality content, but there's an awful lot of edits that I haven't looked at. I agree with Chester Merkel that evaluating a history this large is quite difficult. But my basic impression is we're dealing with (among other things) someone with a borderline WP:COMPETENCE problem everywhere he edits. Turning Wikipedia into a work-at-home scam for editors of this sort is the last thing we want. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment My path has crossed SqueakBox's from time to time over the years, & while I wouldn't say I'm a friend of his -- just look at our interaction at Talk:Shashamane, which led me to take this article off my watch list (although I try to monitor all Ethiopia-related articles) & ignore any problems it might have -- I find his latest emphasis of activities not only troubling, but bewildering. SqueakBox is a self-described white Rastafarian, whose previous mentions on WP:AN/I involved his crusade against pedophiles/child molesters -- not the profile of someone I'd expect to decide one day to use his Wikipedia account to make money writing crappy articles. It would be just like, if I may make the analogy, finding THF brought before WP:AN/I for being paid to write deletion-fodder articles on Marijuana-related topics (e.g., "Joe Blow is an influential political consultant who was responsible for successful ballot referenda legalizing marijuana in 37 states.") IMHO, SqueakBox's recent freelancing is a cynical act to make some money from Wikipedia -- a symptom of WikiBurnout. And if I am correct about this, there really isn't anything we can do about him other than to indefinitely block him; he doesn't want to play nice with others here any more. But before we seriously consider this, I'd like to give him a chance to tell his side of the story; I've been known to make mistakes, but I don't want banning someone from Wikipedia to be one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

actually I had the same speculation about motivation as you, and for the same reasons. and, like you, I do not want to do an indefinite ban on speculation. Even if we are right, people have burnout, stay away a while ,either voluntarily or because we enforce it, and some return and do OK after the break. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from very strange defence of Giovanni Di Stefano on the article's talk page - and this perhaps illustrates one of the downsides of paid editing, one naturally wonders if the defence was paid for - I remember SqueakBox as a positive contributor. Paid editing, as I have commented before, is far from the worst form of COI, and the comment that we should somehow be concerned from his customers' perspective if he produced sub-standard material is laughable. The only matters that need attention here are (minor) it would be good if paid contributors acknowledge their potential COI and (major) the request for fake sources - and unless these were actually used there is nothing we should be worrying about. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

If we're doing speculation, I'll go for "economic necessity" rather than burnout. I can sympathize: the economy sucks, decent jobs are hard to find, and lots of people have to do what they can to make ends meet. For reasons similar to NOTTHERAPY, we should sympathize with anyone in such a plight, but at the same time we must not let them turn Wikipedia into a spam sewer that other people then have to clean up. Rich F: paid editing of the form "Professor So-and-So gets a grant to develop a series of FA's about astronomy or biology, announces it on wiki, and engages in discussion about what these articles should contain" is one thing; spammers should be banned. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Requesting review of recent request for input

It has been alleged at Talk:Ebionites that my recent requests for additional comments on the restoration of a quality template to that article was a violation of WP:CANVASS. I would request input on that page from anyone here regarding that allegation. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This wasn't neutral, so yes, such posts do stray somewhat from Wikipedia:Canvas#Campaigning. If there's a need to say so much about why the input is wanted, one should put forth, in a neutral way, all the outlooks in the disagreement. Rewriting those posts should fix any worries, though. Also, it's not taken as neutral in such a post, to bring up an earlier sanction: That has nothing to do with the content, so it doesn't fit in a neutral post about content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia copy and pasting

I have noticed over the past few months copy and pasting of text from Conservapedia. What seems to be happing is an editor is was editing Conservapedia articles in its American conservative Fundamentalist Christian point of view. Then simply pasting those edits here (copyvio?). Let me give you an example History of Newfoundland and Labrador (secure) and its counter part text from conservapedia (User:Rjensen) and User:RJJensen. Before i go on i am wondering if others see a problem here. Not sure what others think of Conservapedia, but its bias simply by its mandate. Moxy (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't care where it comes from, as long as it adheres to our guidelines and policies, especially NPOV and V. Of course, coming from Conservapedia, that's unlikely, but possible. Another question, which I'm not qualified to answer, is that of attribution: if it's wholesale copy/pasted from somewhere else, that may not be in accordance with our licensing policies. --Crusio (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Unless the source article was written entirely by the same person moving it over here, it is a copyvio and has to be removed. Prodego ^talk 23:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Per Prodego. I checked and there are a few names in the Conservapedia article edit history, and it is unlikely that such copy'n'pastes would therefore be the work of one individual. Per AGF, it may be that the copier, whether a substantive contributor to the Conservapedia article or not, is not familiar with the issues. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Question: how do you violate this copyright? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 23:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this has more to do with our licensing, which says that all writers must receive attribution. AniMate 00:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless the Conservapedia article is cited as the source, it is plagiarism: "...public domain content is plagiarized if used without acknowledging the source, even though there is no copyright issue". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I see, thx BE——Critical_{__Talk} 01:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It says right there "This license is revocable". We can't use text under such a license on Wikipedia, so the only way we could use text from Conservapedia in Wikipedia is via a separate permission from the creator(s) of the material. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

So should someone revert this edits? The editors has been informed of this conversation, but continues editing.

Gava, that is somewhat cherry picked :) because it invokes a slightly more exclusive scenario (and entirely shoots itself in the foot with the wording). More importantly #3 invokes normal copyright which means we need to attribute source. However, given the idiotically bad wording of the license (it is stupid, and has been written by a grad law student without a doubt) we can't really make a solid judgement so I guess... kill it. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It is cherry-picking, and it's definitely a badly-written license, however noble the intent is - but the badly-written "this license is revocable" clause really does express a right to revoke the license. Even apart from the worries we would have about revocation of our own permission to use the material, we cannot redistribute material that might be subject to unilateral revocation of the permission to use it, because our own license conflicts with that clause. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's entirely unsurprising that CPs copyright policy is as contradictory and nonsensical as it's actual content, which we certainly do not want here. From their main page right now: "Barack Hussein Obama, the arrogant liberal elitist, may get off his high horse and mingle more with other US politicians in the near future" and the even more ignorant "Atlanta will see its "first white Christmas since the Chester Arthur administration" in 1882. [20] Global warming???" Licensed properly or not, CP was not, is not, and in all likelihood never will be an appropriate source. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just to confirm, on advice of counsel, we can't import content from Conservapedia. (I queried just to be sure in November, as I had frankly forgotten that we had prior conversations on the subject.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a shame, we won't be able to have this gem [63] of unbiased recording of just the hard facts. By the way, unicorns are real and you are all banned for five years for questioning anything CP does or says. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AIR, Associate Counsel's reply also included a whiff of "And why would you want to?" about it. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The big concern now is how many articles have been infected with this fantasy additions by this cross over editors from Conservapedia.Moxy (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Conservapedia have very different standards, and editors who contribute to both sites need to be very careful when editing Wikipedia, particularly regarding NPOV.   Will Beback  talk  01:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. I reverted it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Conservapedia has standards? There was something a few days ago about an SPA called "Scoobertjoo" who had copied-and-pasted a section from CP about the BC/BCE subject, complete with that site's spelling errors. I wonder if it's a group of users, or a single user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

With 39,895 edits hope theres not to many more. Glad i am not a part of WP:USA looks like they have lots of clean up for there articles.Moxy (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I really hope that RJensen's Wikipedia additions don't include gems like this Conservapedia "reversion of vandalism". I would be surprised if someone with views that wacky was able to edit Wikipedia neutrally (kudos to them if they have been, though). Black Kite (t) (c) 04:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • And the "vandal" was blocked afterward by RJJensen for five years!!!!! If blocking people for five years for little stuff like that is "Christian", then no peanut butter cookies for me tonight! :-( I guess they can be downright nasty sometimes. >:-( They really need a some whale-whacks for their behavior. >:-P [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I actually looked through some of their other contribs but it started to scare me that someone educated could be so ignorant, so I stopped. I suppose I'm somewhat naive; over here in Europe we tend to only have a fraction of the number of right-wing fruitcakes that the US does. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
      • That looks familiar Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We should see if this problems are systemic. As i am the one that mentioned this user -I think its best a second part looks at the edits. Top 100 edits in the Mainspace namespace by Rjensen.Moxy (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

A quick look reveals that Rjensen is an established historian with conservative views, and a prolific Wikipedia contributer. As an example, he made many contribiutions to History of Scotland. History of Scotland at Conservapedia is entirely written by RJJensen but is very short. - BorisG (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I have come across Rjensen in many articles on U. S. politics and found his editing to be relatively neutral and he has always shown a willingness to discuss differences of opinion. I wish more editors were like that. The "History of Newfoundland" article in Conservapedia was substantially written by him and is informative and written in a neutral tone. The only issue for concern is copyright, which probably did not occur to him. TFD (talk) 06:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• As I said above, kudos to him if he has managed to resolve his obvious IRL biases with Wikipedia NPOV. If that's the case, we don't have a major issue here. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but that just isn't relevant. Regardless of the merits of the person who makes the copy and paste, there are still possibly issues of copyright, and definitely issues of plagiarism if the article has more than one author. There is also the more general issue of 'sourcing' from another Wiki. An editor writing an article on Wikipedia can be at least assumed (per WP:AGF) to have looked at the sources, but if something is copied wholesale, there is little reason to assume this will occur. For this reason alone, Conservapedia cannot be seen as WP:RS, and therefore cannot itself be used as a source. I'd also point out that Consevapedia may be using Wikipedia as a source, with the obvious hazards this implies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has used Conservapedia as a source. If material is properly attributed to reliable sources, there is no way to check whether the author had actually read the source. - BorisG (talk) 06:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I was unclear there, there is obviously still a possible copyvio/plagiarism issue, I was referring more to the bias issue. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is about my Wiki edits dealing with Newfoundland. I wrote those passages originally for Citizendium in March 2008. In summer 2009 I copied them over to Conservapedia (citing Citizendium on the Talk page http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Newfoundland) and added some new text. In 2010 I copied my own writing to Wikipedia. For the Citizendium history see http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Newfoundland_and_Labrador&limit=250&action=history For the Conservapedia history see In any case, I wrote the entire text myself under my name (RJensen, RJJensen, Richard Jensen). I also provided numerous specific footnotes and bibliographies to published books and articles for RS. There is no political POV in my Newfoundland material--it's straight political and economic history. Meanwhile, this month, I expanded the History of Newfoundland text with new material that was never on Conservapedia or Citizendium. Rjensen (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the Conservapedia history--I wrote every single word of the history section that got ported here (it was originally written by me at Citizendium). (that is, I did NOT carry over any text written by anyone else). see http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Newfoundland&action=history Rjensen (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case - No objection from me. Good work, btw. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work?? Moxy (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

As has been noted, if the text is referenced and Neutral - yeah, good work. It seemed like the objection was to the source (Conservapedia), not the content - and that objection has been addressed, at least according to the diffs I'm reading here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Lets be carefull here as to what we are saying. So you think its ok to add all the reverted text back? Is it ok for editors to do this - that is copy and past from many wikis to make articles if they are the original creator of the text. Moxy (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Due to the explanation above, I will restore it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Blood libel

There's a user at this talk page who talks like he's spoiling for some kind of a war (Btmaisel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). The latest thread began when another user suggested the removal of the antisemitism template. The response to this occasioned a long rant from Btmaisel devoid of reference to policy or reliable source on why the phrase "almost always Jews" should be removed from the article. When reverted at the article, he responded with another rant on everything he sees as wrong with the article and Wikipedia generally that includes this gem.

If I had the time, I would just improve the article by reorganizing it completely, with citations, including ten or fifteen other minorities, log in to an account with page-locking privileges, and tell everyone to sit and spin on the final product.

He goes on to inform us:

I'm not against referrals, I just find it to be a hypocrisy for you to refer me to a policies that I can edit and have been familiar with for years, especially when I cite a reliable source in my argument. Not only that, but I've been a registered Wikipedian (in this account) for around a year longer than you, number of edits on this particular account notwithstanding. I've been a registered user since before there was a reliable source policy.

Now, this guy has exactly 61 edits and is doing a lot of bragging about his wiki-powers, including an apparent claim to control an administrator account and maybe some others. I think, at minimum, he should be required to disclose his other accounts and perhaps a checkuser should be run.

Just as a point of information, we used to have two articles, Blood libel and Blood libel against Jews, but when no one could come up with any sources for accusations against others being called "blood libels" the articles were merged, with the content from the second article placed under the first article's name (not that the content dispute is relevant here).

Also, I don't know if this matters, but he's taken to signing his posts with this: O sibili, si ergo! fortibus es inero. O nobili! demis trux! Si vats inem: caus en dux. a bit of Dog Latin that is explicated here--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Claiming to be able to log into an administrator account seems to me to be a clear invitation to be blocked. In fact, I see a clear history of tendentious editing and beligerent battleground mentality that shows that he's not likely here to be a positive contributor to Wikipedia. Any objections to that assessment? --Jayron32 03:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see a CU done, certainly. I think we can ignore the dog latin, though! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I had better own up to my mistakes here, now that I'm sober. I'll admit I screwed up pretty badly. I just went on a 2-week bender, idiotically trying to chase my father's memory away, among other things. My life generally falls apart this time of year. My father died on Thanksgiving a couple years ago, I lost my job this past week, I'm losing my apartment at the end of this week, and my car has no heater in a mountain town in Colorado. I apologize for being disruptive and taking it out on Wikipedia. I can guarantee it won't happen again. I'm actually thinking of either going on wikibreak or requesting my user and talk pages be deleted, anyway. It's not like I'll have a whole lot of Internet access while I'm homeless. O sibili, si ergo! fortibus es inero. O nobili! demis trux! Si vats inem: caus en dux. (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever regarding the rant. The basic premise of it though seems to be not entirely devoid of reason. This notes that the lie has been used "against lepers, Jews, heretics, Cathars, Knights Templar, and Witches." It really doesn't take much to discover that "almost always Jews" is factually incorrect. The article lede also has an unreferenced assertion that "These libels have persisted among some segments of Christians to the present time, and recently Muslims as well." The modern accusations from some Muslims appear to be plainly rhetorical (they accuse Americans, and others too). Unfortunately as with the article here some are taking the rhetoric literally, when in fact to do so would be just as contrary to Muslim law, as it would be in Jewish law. It was taking that sort of stuff at face value that got us into the Iraq War. An encyclopaedia deserves better. John lilburne (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Wolverine (2nd nomination)

Normally this is the sort of thing I'd fix myself, but unreliable power/internet service is making it tricky. We are accidentally on the third nomination of the fictional history of Wolverine, not the second. My guess is a relatively new user just made some formatting mistakes when doing the nomination. If someone could move the new discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fictional history of Wolverine (3rd nomination) and restore the result of the second I would really appreciate it. AniMate 05:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done - for future reference, this requwst belonged on WP:AN, not here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Agdaban massacre DRV

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 24 has gotten out of hand. The original Agdaban massacre DRV listing was non-admin closed because the deleting administrator reverted the Agdaban massacre deletion.[64] A new editor (editing since 6 December 2010) reopened the non-admin closure and added a few more articles well after discussion had taken place.[65] The original DRV nominator is under A-A2 restrictions. An admin should close the Agdaban massacre DRV because the deleting administrator reverted the Agdaban massacre deletion and a consensus can't be developed on the late additions since the participants who posted prior to those listings didn't comment on them. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

And the titles all seem pov - I couldn't find any books or news sources to verify them. I realise that's a different issue but if they are restored I hope someone looks at it. Dougweller (talk) 08:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

All three articles were mentioned in the nominator's statement [66] as being considered for restoration at the DRV. I merely clarified the header. The only way the deleting administrator could have missed the presence of the request to restore the other articles is if he didn't read the statement by the nominator. A comment by another user participating in the DRV, prior to my fixing the headers, also recognizes that the nominator's statement requests the restoration of three articles [67]. And moving pages to correct titles is more efficient than rewriting articles from scratch. Chester Markel (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Can anything be done about this?

This is getting old [68] and I really hate to see a sock making up an account with my name (plus mangled swear words) and using it to vandalise. See my earlier requests at [69] although a range block doesn't seem feasible, see [70], so maybe nothing can be done. Dougweller (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Added your name to edit filter #102. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much. Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Outing by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling

Is this outing [71] of an WP editor, by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.95.83.51 (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that this indeed LAEC's blog besides the self-assertion? NW (Talk) 16:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Links to it on his userpage (Blogger userbox), and in his conflict of interest notice. --208.95.83.51 (talk) 16:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That is true. On the other hand, he is "outing" three to five year old IP edits. I'll leave it up to the rest of you to determine whether or not that is sanctionable. NW (Talk) 16:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also claimed in the blog post itself, so probably pretty certain. However, it's not done on Wikipedia. And, of course, this probably has drawn more attention to the blog post than it otherwise ever would have gotten. Ravensfire (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Does the policy Wikipedia:OUTING#Off-wiki_harassment apply here? "Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Wikipedia." 98.92.184.204 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps some admin would like to revert this thread, to reduce on-wiki outing? But it seems clear that a blog publicly claimed by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling has attempted some major off-wiki harassment, and to quote policy, Wikipedia:OUTING#Off-wiki_harassment: "As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely." betsythedevine (talk) 19:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I gather that the ALA leader in question owned up to the claims, so in essence she outed herself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, as hinted by Ravensfire, that the blog post is now getting a lot of attention it might not otherwise have gotten. And I agree, as stated by betsythedevine, that reducing this on-wiki outing (not by me but by an IP addy on his first edit ever) would be a great idea.

That said, I am in no way harassing an account that has not been used for about 2 1/2 years but for a single edit about 1/2 year ago. It has made only about 86 or so edits ever. Further, as NW said or as I inferred, is it even possible to out IP addys or to even care since they are years old?

In addition, even on the blog post itself, I admitted my one and only outing years ago was due to my inexperience: "I exposed her true identity on Wikipedia, something I learned later I should not have done...." There's no outing, neither will I be outing anyone now or in the future. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 19:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

is it even possible to out IP addys[?] For what it's worth, WP:OUTING does not make a distinction between usernames and IP addresses, so I don't see why outing IP editors would be any more excusable. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse is not the issue. The issue is IPs don't have identities. Is it possible to out IP addresses that have no identities to out? --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If you don't feel its possible to link an IP address to an identity, then the entire premise of your blog post (that those IP addresses are an ALA employee) is nullified. You can't have it both ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.107.243 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AfD closure after 5 hours

Resolved

User:DragonflySixtyseven closed this Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghada Abdel Moneim 5 hours after it started. The AfD had 4 responses in that time 2 for deletion and 2 against, so why did this admin close it after 5 hours? They also used the edit summary of "as per AfD" I have asked them to explain but they haven't responded dispite having made edits since I asked the question. So should this article be re-instated and the AfD re opened or can admins just close an AfD when they feel like it? Mo ainm~Talk 17:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked - cat problems, plus my browser crashed; by the time I got started again, I'd completely forgotten about your question. And I think I may have misread that AfD... let me check. DS (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that was an error on my part. I've restored the article and re-opened the AfD. DS (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock of banned user Dodona wreaking havoc

Pelasgon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an obvious sock [72] [73]of the banned Dodona (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is wreaking havoc on various articles, falsifying sources [74], trolling [75], etc...He is even taunting users about getting a CU [76], once he became aware of it [77]. This account is also almost certainly him [78]. The only reason he has gotten away with this much is because Future Perfect at Sunrise, the admin most familiar with him is away at the moment. I should add that this is a particularly prolific sockpuppeteer, with hundreds of blocked socks for something like 3 years now. The disruption is ongoing, any help would be greatly appreciated. Athenean (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Pelasgon and Albani82 (talk · contribs). SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

I placed an indef block on Someone65 (talk · contribs) last week because of his disruptive editing. However, I never intended it to be an infinite block, and was hoping for more input after an unblock request. However, the unblock request has been sitting untouched since the 23rd. I know it's a holiday weekend, but I thought there'd be someone around to look at them.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

IP 'flouride' conspiracy pusher on WikiLeaks talk page

We've been getting problems with an IP-hopping 'fluoride' conspiracy theorist here: Talk:WikiLeaks#WikiLeaks_Fluoride_Document. Can someone take a look, and also if possible confirm that it is ok to delete these comments, as of no relevence to the article without evidence that external WP:RS have shown an interest? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We had someone just a day or two going on and on about water fluoridation. They were eventually blocked. I think it's safe to revert and block here. NW (Talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I can't block, though given the IP-hopping going on, I don't think this would do much anyway. It will be ok to revert/delete these edits though, will it? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I presume it's the same person accusing Admins and experienced editors of being sock puppets, I've reverted at the SPI talk page and that IP was blocked. Go ahead and revert. Dougweller (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll cut the lot out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

All these need semi-protection

.... permanently!

• Fluoride
• Water fluoridation
• Water purification
• Water fluoridation controversy
• WikiLeaks
• Fluoride Action Network
• Information published by WikiLeaks
• Water fluoridation in the United States
• Dean Burk

Brangifer (talk) 20:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Crusade initiated?

I have come across Rkononenko talk who appears to be on a crusade to right wrongs in reference to Ukrainian connections on Wikipedia. These changes are dramatic, arbitary and never explained, sourced or verified. See: list of previous contacts with other editors. The editor appears particularly concerned about spellings and useage:

1. warning about deliberate errors introduced,
2. major changes to article regarding loan words from Ukrainian
3. change to name of person Bzuk (talk) 19:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC).