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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Iaaasi

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

It is time to review the unblocking of Iaaasi. Iaaasi is an extremely disruptive editor with a long history of abuse [1]. Iaaasi was unblocked following a cited "mild consensus" in [2] this discussion. However there are some reasons now to reverse that decision:

• - The unblocking proposal was based on the outrageous lie that Iaaasi did not sock since March [3] This lie was told by Iaaasi on IRC on September 27 (check the dates on socks before that date[4]). Since Iaaasi lied to a person in a position of high trust (MuZemike, Administrator and CheckUser) the effect of the lie was devastating to the integrity of the discussion.
• - The discussion took place during IRC canvassing, with multiple people commenting confirming this. One participant even said: "I dislike the IRC canvassing" [5]
• -Several people only supported the unblock with a full topic ban yet none was imposed at the time of unblock

So the consensus was 1. Based on a lie 2. Based on IRC canvassing 3. Based on votes actually supporting a topic ban.

Please note that IRC actions are not always transparent to the on-wikipedia community. Things such as Unblock request spam is somewhat evident on wiki, by counting the number of UBs on socks and main account (dare anyone to try to add it all up) but there is evidence to IRC requests as well [6] With the case of IRC requests responders may be unaware of previous requests. They are even hard to find if they posted about on wikipedia (diff above). Thus the community is unaware of the previous actions, and most previous declined requests. If dozens of admins decline to unblock that certainly shows something in way of consensus doesn't it?

Yet the unblock happened, let's see what changed since then. Iaaasi was recently blocked again(5RR), proving once more he is highly disruptive. [7] This block was about the 25th block [8] he recieved, he immediately reacted with posting three different unblock requests, previously he posted about 15 of them, on various accounts. Funny how all the declined unblock requests are later, discounted and forgotten huh? In fact before Iaaasi was unblocked he had an unblock request declined 20 minutes prior... [9] Yes let me repeat that, 20 minutes later Iaaasi already submitted a new unblock request which was accepted [10].

So the unblock was done in EXTREMELY questionable circumstances, to say the least. Iaaasi is back to disrupting wikipedia continuing the exact same patterns, the exact same types of edits only with more gaming more wikilawyering and more pushing the limits. We have confirmation that he is abusing IRC in various ways, fishing for reverts, canvassing, you name it.

Simply put Iaaasi have exhausted the patience of the community by operating a multitude of sockpuppets for well over 2000 edits and various other antics. There is no way he is a net positive to the project under these circumstances.

Proposal1 : Iaaasi to be banned from wikipedia indefinitely

Proposal2 : Iaaasi is topic banned from Central and Eastern European topics broadly defined indefinitely.

Please indicate below whether you support or oppose the proposals.

• Support Siteban Hobartimus (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban Hobartimus (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment When I got noticed about the fact that the indef block of Iaaasi was countermanded, I believed that that couldn't be any other thing than a joke ,and no it wasn't. First I would like to quote what administrator Toddst1 told about the case [11] when the voting was about the second chance of Iaaasi that "This user has exhibited some seriously racist hatemongering. Please read [12]. This should have been logged as an WP:ARBMAC block. I think unblocking would be bad for the community in general even without the sockery.". And then one another administrator FisherQueen told the one detected sockpuppet of Iaaasi that " You really have broken too many rules for us to allow you to edit at all. If this information is truly important, it's inevitable that someone else will eventually add it, but you seem not to understand that you really are blocked from editing the encyclopedia at all. You've created so many sockpuppet accounts that it's very unlikely that you'll ever find an admin willing to unblock you, or at least, not until several years have passed without any more edits from you. You've tried often enough that you know now that any accounts you make will be blocked, and the changes you want won't be made by you"[13]. But ,unfortunately, sometimes there are when the impossible things come true, and now Iaaasi is allowed to edit the English Wikipedia under a legal account. And now the user follows me onto almost all of the pages that I posted on or edited from the onset of his unblock even though I do not want to encounter this user, but so were with his sockpuppets ,too, that followed me around on Wikipedia, and when I wanted to commence check user investigations concerning this user, or I just mentioned my suspicion in connection with his sockpuppetry to an administrator, the sockpuppet still emerged at the same place to hoodwink the administrator that he was not a sockpuppet of Iaaasi.--Nmate (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Siteban--Nmate (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – If I may, I would like to direct those involved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi as well as the previous SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi/Archive#15 March 2011. All of the socks submitted have not edited since July 2010 at the latest, but yet they are just now being brought up at SPI, while Iaaasi is currently blocked for 3RR (which may be interpreted as akin to kicking a defenseless person while down). I'm sorry, but I have to question the motivation behind this proposal, as it looks like skeleton-digging to me and an attempt to Iaaasi re-blocked for something in which he was already blocked for. Moreover, there are other commentary made by other users [14] who question this same motivation. –MuZemike 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So what suggests you that Iaaasi being blocked for a violation of 3RR, MuZemike?--Nmate (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, assuming I don't have ESP to read other admins' minds, I'm looking at his block log. –MuZemike 16:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear MuZemike, before commenting anything on this case, first can you please explain to the community, why did you post the following to Wikipedia from a position of high trust? since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. as opposed to reality [15]. Was this because of the IRC lies told by Iaaasi? Hobartimus (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer. I have not seen the additional socks, nor was I aware of any additional socking, if that is true, then I have nothing else to say. Before this past week, I have not communicated with Iaaasi since virtually his unblock; it has only been the last couple of days that I have been communicating with him as a result of the two previous SPI cases. If he is socking again, then I am the one who would be very disappointed, and I'll let the community carry on with whatever they choose fit to decide. –MuZemike 19:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You see that answer is far from simple. In fact it's extremely complicated, first in your reply you say "additional socking" as compared to what? Your original comment clearly states "has not shown to have socked during this period of time". So what is additional here? On the day in question the user page of Iaaasi looked exactly like this, [16] with the links to the categories clearly visible [17] [18]. Once again, the comment posted by you following your extended IRC discussion with Iaaasi [19] and the reality [20] In your comment you also claim "He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki and at ro.wiki". Did you have help in determining that the contributions were constructive, or do you have a native like understanding of the Romanian language as well? Hobartimus (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That being said, also keep in mind that on User:Hobartimus/sandbox4, all the socks were from last year; User:Zzzsolt, while it says "15 April 2011" was part of the recent two SPI cases which was just discovered, and you list 3 more suspected socks, all of which have last edited in June 2010. Why reporting them now? Do you have evidence that Iaaasi is or has been socking in 2011? Because how I see it, we're basically having the exact same ban discussion from earlier, except you seem to be digging up whatever old sock puppets you can find to be taking into account stuff he did back in 2010 as the result of his first indef block in order to try and sway the community in your favor. –MuZemike 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why reporting them now? Because they were discovered now... Because some members of the community were busy spreading statements about "no socking" and "constructive contributions", instead of investigating finding and handling them at the time, when it should have been done. Isn't it the admins job to enforce policy? Why wasn't policy enforced, why were these socks not blocked at the time? Aren't you an admin with the CheckUser access? You ask me why the sockpuppets were not found earlier? Hobartimus (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, I wasn't a CheckUser at the time, and even after the fact (i.e. September 2010), there was no reason for me to "go fishing" for further socks. Unless you brought something up privately with another CU or even another admin about suspicions of further socks; no SPI cases were ever filed until a couple of days ago; I cannot be everywhere at once who is able to "sense everything". Unless there are more socks after August 2010 which we don't know about, he has kept clean for several months, at which point I requested the community reconsider the indef block, which achieved a rough consensus in support of. –MuZemike 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are definitely more socks after August 2010. Were you unaware of this? Does anyone read any of the evidence presented in these cases? Hobartimus (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell us who they are then, and provide some evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Warning Since we have confirmation of abusive stealth canvassing (on IRC) from the last discussion, [21] I explicitly ask everyone to not whether the same thing is going on here now (Iaaasi going to IRC urging others to post on his behalf in an extremely abusive manner trying to derail consensus). Please preserve any off-wiki communication you have with Iaaasi because if the IRC abuse case goes to arbitration, the committee would presumably want to look at all the evidence. (Note MuZemike has a history of communicating on IRC with Iaaasi, so I would ask him if he was explicitly asked to comment above by Iaaasi, or influenced in any way by off-wiki communication) Hobartimus (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see any evidence of recent sockpuppetry. If a past decision to unblock is now judged to be wrong, we'll just have to live with that - we don't ban people as punishment for past problems, we only do it to prevent future disruption. So lets leave the current block to expire, and then consider taking action if necessary based on future behaviour. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you please comment, to confirm or deny whether you were canvassed on IRC by Iaaasi into this present discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Boing; this seems very punitive and vindictive to me. Also, since when has off-wiki interaction been considered in on-wiki blocks and bans? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you please comment, to confirm or deny whether you were canvassed on IRC by Iaaasi into this present discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I go on Wikipedia IRC only twice a month and have never had any contact with this user. How about you learn to assume a bit of good faith? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I do assume good faith. But with confirmed abuse on IRC in the past in a discussion like this, and confirmation below that Iaaasi is presently on IRC right now, you could see that it may be important to get the facts straight. And you seem to have misunderstood the request, off wiki behavior is not the reason to block, present and past disruption and abuse on-wiki is the reason to block [22]. Including as administrator Toddst1 put it "seriously racist hate mongering"[23]. Hobartimus (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - How ironic that at the time of this proposal an additional method of Iaaasi has surfaced as well: he seems to be keen on harassing users on accusations of sockpuppetry regardless of whether it's proven or not. In this case he seemed to have achieved the blocking of an innocent user that's been caught up in the crossfire between Iaaasi and some others with the user's only fault being the fact that he was a regular editor of the Golden Team article. The accusation of sockpuppetry was also quite hypocritic from a user who has his own list of sockpuppets (though truth be said, it still pales to Bonaparte in comparison). In fact I still don't know what was anyone thinking when they voted to allow Iaaasi to come back....
  

The other thing that amazed me about Iaaasi's attitude was his obvious lack of respect for even the most credible sources (provided they don't fit his agenda): this was the first occasion when he removed the source in question (an academic source published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences). He also proceeded to remove the same source from the Matthias Corvinus article and used an absolutely bogus and irrelevant argument for defending his move much like in the John Hunyadi article, albeit with some difference in wording. All in all I

• Support a complete site ban as per the reasons above and the fact that I fear it's unlikely that his attitude might and will change in the future. I think that the site ban is necessary due to the fact that Iaaasi might view his methods as "useful tools" in "settling disputes" (i.e. silencing any opposition) in any other topics as well, should he be given a topic ban only. CoolKoon (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Apparently Iaaasi's currently online on IRC. He doesn't say much though, only seeking the help of admins. Interestingly enough he only seems to appear there when he wants support for his cause. CoolKoon (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I was pretty shocked when Iaaasi was unblocked without providing a response to this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Iaaasi asked to be unblocked so that he could post here at ANI. I declined the unblock and offered to transfer any comments from his talk page to this board. So far he has not posted anything but I am watching for a response and will copy it here when it appears. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I've been sort of half-following and occasionally commenting on this rather tedious battle. There's quite a bit of apparent acrimony between Nmate and Iaaasi, and between Hobartimus and Iaaasi. Some problems with Nmate's editing are in this thread from a few days ago. IMHO there was no intervention because the editing from all sides was pretty bad, and the dispute is too complex for outside observers to reach reliable conclusions about. Iaaasi has made some good contributions and also (IMHO) some subtly tendentious edits that he defends with wikilawyering. Be that as it may, I have NOT seen evidence of further socking since his unblock, and I think Nmate focuses too much about the pre-block socking which is not news. If Nmate has evidence of recent socking, s/he should please post it. My alternate hypothesis is that Iaaasi has become skillful enough with WP content guidelines to be able to game them without having to resort to socking, which of course isn't a good thing either. I hate extended DR but I don't see a way to get to the bottom of this short of an RFC/U that would have to examine the edits of several of Iaaasi's opponents as well as that of Iaaasi himself. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The socking was never the issue it was the disruption caused by the socks. Edit warring, harassment, wikilawyering, gaming, etc. If you look for signs of recent disruption you should look over Iaaasi's recent contributions, or might consider the fact that he is currently blocked for disruption. Btw, the original unblock given, was conditional on being fully reblocked on further disruption. Now that disruption was proven this shouldn't even be a question. Hobartimus (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's blocked for some lame revert warring, with unblock requests declined because he should know better by now, but excessive reverting per se is fairly low on the disruption scale, which is why he only got 1 week block. One of the reviewing admins made noises about indef if the disruption continues; we're not there yet though. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As other editors stated there are no evidence of recent sock-puppetry. He can`t be banned again for something he was already banned before, otherwise one user who receives a block could be blocked indefinetly and never receive a second chance by all this. He was banned for a arbitrary rule (3RR) that doesn`t really state anything that Iaaasi is acting like before(sock puppets and similar). I also don`t think it is right to file a report about someone who is blocked and doesn`t have a possibility to defend himself. Adrian (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Could someone ask for a Commons checkuser to look into this? commons:user:Hobartimus was created in February so data might still be around. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don`t believe it was really Hobartimus, especially because that day he had activity on Wikipedia at 23:13 and commons 15:03. I don`t really know, when someone logs in your commons account, is that the same account as on wiki? Can that person, once he had access to commons account to use the wiki account also? Anyway, maybe there should be a check on this matter to avoid any further confusion. Adrian (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Adrian, there is a feature called Unified login that allows a single account to be linked across all the Wikimedia sites. However, Hobartimus is not enrolled in it.[24] I proposed a checkuser because that might be able to tell who (if anyone) impersonated Hobartimus. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Me neither, I think it's quite obvious that it's a sock made by someone with the intent of libeling Hobartimus. The problem with Commons is that you have to log in in order to be able to upload anything. The account created on Commons doesn't have to correspond to your account on EN WP at all, just like it's the case with WP in other languages. A unified account is a convenient tool for preventing similar situations from happening in the FUTURE, but doesn't help in resolving issues like this. I'd say that these require some sort of arbitration by admins. CoolKoon (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Now THAT is an excellent idea indeed! Good job, AB from Oakland, CA ;) Even if the SPI won't reveal Iaaasi's connection to this account, I have a feeling he isn't by far the only one who doesn't see eye to eye with Hobartimus (to say at least) so it might reveal a sockpuppeteer for sure... CoolKoon (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I have posted a checkuser request on Commons as described above.[25] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral (for now) I think that perhaps the most involved and a neutral editor on the Hunyadi articles with the least experience of Iaaasi before the socking began is perhaps me.

It is true that Iaaasi can be domineering in arguments, his warning on my page for redacting his Stubes comments off the John Hunyadi article were somewhat aggressive, although this seems to be true to his form. In the last six months he has argued vehemently with other users, taking it to their talk page and putting multiple posts before they have responded, I believe that in his time-frame quick is ten minutes and slow is an hour :¬)

There have been plenty of discussions and editing approaching warring, the main problem is that the editors who mostly edit the Hunyadi page are either swamped with Iaaasi's enthusiasm about the Romanian aspects or by a general brow-beating to which they quickly succumb. There is also the problem of him introducing the "this might be a sock of Stubes" all the time, that really has to stop as it really does Iaaasi no good at all - report it to the appropriate notice board and once a decision is made, then act rather than putting it all over article and user talk pages. For the articles he is involved with it takes a lot of work to get him to co-operate in discussions before reverting and, once BRD has been circumvented, he does not really take the point that consensus is the way forwards before the second revert.

In reality it is difficult to opine on the previous behaviour. It seems to me that he has calmed down and the week block has not been evaded (to my knowledge) or any nasty posts made on his talk page. There were some recent posts on his talk page during his block that were not really to do with an unblock request and seem more of him keeping an eye on things - posts he would normally have put on a user sub-page and which he has deleted today.

My main concern is the build up of this feud. People are collecting evidence against each other and I suspect that the situation must be resolved before any further progress can be made. Collecting evidence which proves ones innocence and another's guilt is, in reality, that old "I am in a war" scenario that is to be avoided at all costs - escalation is inevitable.

Iaaasi's block runs out tomorrow. There have been several of the old crowd editing the John Hunyadi page after coming out of their shell holes, I hope that there will not be any edit warring over the work that has been done since Iaaasi was prevented from editing. I have kept an eye on them and they seem fine, but we will see what happens once his block is lifted.

In conclusion I suggest that Iaaasi tries to get out of his very narrow scope of editing and tries to look at a more broad set of articles that he can turn his hand to. He is an excellent researcher and has, in my opinion, tried to gain more balance in his editing. That said, he really does need to stop at the first revert, discuss, and if consensus is not found, he needs to learn to let it go. After the improvements that I have seen in his behaviour it is true that he still needs constant watching and prodding with the NPOV stick every now and again - but I really do think that a permanent block, whether or not it should have been given earlier, is not appropriate now. Someone who has had that many socks, entered into so much warring and wikilawyering can also learn to edit in a collegial fashion. I would hope that he has learnt by this block that it is better to edit than not and that he will also have learned that warring achieves nothing. I urge him to look for guidance and consensus much earlier on in disputes and once he can abide by BRD things will be better for all.

(I have not supplied any diffs as I do not think they are necessary and would perhaps just add fuel to any fire - If anyone has a need for them I will be happy to supply anything requested) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems to me that User:Hobartimus just will not let go. He is constantly trying to amass any evidence he can to try to rid User:Iaaasi - as can be clearly seen at User:Hobartimus/sandbox4 where some considerable time has been spent to document every possible (old) error by User:Iaaasi. The consensus was to give User:Iaaasi a second chance offer (not to just unblock unreserveably) , he formally accepted that offer, did the second chance requirements, and was finally unblocked on the 8th December. Since that time, as far as we know, he has continued to edit under a single user name. I see no point in continually dragging up old history just because some editor dislikes him. If a new (post Dec 8th) sock can be found then I'm for a ban, but we have stated that he could have a second chance, and I think that to now revoke it would give a bad impression to others - are we going to say to other editors "Have a second chance, but we might block you again if the mood takes us"? We must not lose sight of the policy The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment - to me this request is all about punishment, not prevention. It's time to let it go and get back to building an encyclopedia  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Please do not claim there was a consensus when there was only 4 users who supported the unblock, who didn't either 1. want a topic ban imposed 2. were mentioning the lie that WP:OFFER applies because of the big lie that Iaaasi did not sock. 3. mentioning that they came to vote after persuaded on IRC. These false claims of consensus are getting really really annoying. Please also note that unblocking someone 20 minutes after their request was declined by another administrator (in this case Sandstein) is a very interesting procedure to say the least. Hobartimus (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's no longer relevant - a decision was made, and even if it was made badly, we do not go back and punish people retroactively for things that were done months ago. Any new block or ban would only be to prevent future disruption, and you have given us no evidence of any *ongoing* disruption that you think needs a ban to prevent -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For transparency reasons which I feel should be here instead of fragmented on my talk page, the first set of comments is in response to [26]:

1. With regard to my thought that Iaaasi was being constructive on Simple English and Romanian Wikipedias, that is a question on interpreting judgment.
2. The only ways Iaaasi could have possibly communicated were either via email or via IRC. According to his block log, between 18:24, 10 March 2010, and 07:16, 26 November 2010, his talk page editing privileges were revoked. The talk page restriction was lifted by another admin. Shortly after, he posts an on-wiki unblock request.
3. Yes, at the behest of Iaaasi, I requested that the community take another look at the indef block of him; I figured, if he wishes to be constructive in his editing again, and the community can agree to it, then why not try? I did what any other Wikipedian would do and AGF in that he sincerely wishes to be constructive on en.wiki.
4. I wanted to see if I had some time to go through some SPI cases, and that's when I saw the first SPI; at that point, I watchlisted it. That's how I saw the 2nd SPI case; I have already explained this to Hobartimus before.

I am a fairly approachable person, and I take most requests (such as the December 2010 unban request) seriously. I made the unban requests and the comments on the two SPI cases as a member of the community and not just as an administrator. That's why I decided to leave the unblock situation with the community, and that's why I only commented on the two SPI and took no action.

Now, let's go through all the socks Hobartimus recently reported to SPI, if I may:

Socks reported to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations the last 4 days

Account	Date of last edit
BBorbely (talk · contribs)	05:16, 11 June 2010
SlovenskýMuž (talk · contribs)	15:30, 21 June 2010
Zzzsolt (talk · contribs)	09:46, 6 July 2010
Karpatia1 (talk · contribs)	05:56, 7 July 2010

Other socks listed at User:Hobartimus/sandbox4

Account	Date of last edit (or account creation, if no edits)
Nauneim (talk · contribs)	13:22, 11 March 2010
Ddaann2 (talk · contribs)	15:53, 17 March 2010
Nauneim1 (talk · contribs)	14:58, 9 March 2010
Umumu2 (talk · contribs)	07:19, 19 April 2010
Umumu (talk · contribs)	06:41, 20 April 2010
Conttest (talk · contribs)	07:12, 12 May 2010
JanVarga (talk · contribs)	16:44, 25 May 2010
DerGelbeMann (talk · contribs)	17:42, 7 June 2010
MarekSS (talk · contribs)	06:38, 7 June 2010
EurovisionFan2010 (talk · contribs)	15:09, 3 June 2010
DusanSK (talk · contribs)	17:35, 16 June 2010
Karpatia1 (talk · contribs)	05:56, 7 July 2010
MartinMagera (talk · contribs)	13:09, 20 May 2010
Rogvaiv1 (talk · contribs)	14:52, 9 August 2010
CyanMoon (talk · contribs)	08:24, 11 August 2010
YellowFF0 (talk · contribs)	07:57, 25 August 2010
NimeniRo (talk · contribs)	06:29, 18 June 2010

Iaaasi has very well made some edits anonymously under 79.117.128.0/18 (see [27] and [28]). As far as the other edits on that range, keep in mind that this is coming from a mobile ISP, so we are dealing with many people on this range editing similar things.

Anyways, with the exception of the two anonymous edits above, can anybody name another possible sock of Iaaasi whose last edit or account creation was September 2010 or sooner? –MuZemike 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean ones that were active after 2010 Sepetember? There are several fairly obvious ones, but I'd rather not waste the time on explaining it. It seems that a good 90% of what I was saying was ignored anyway no matter how much the evidence. If you actually spend a minimal amount of time investigating the case you will see them anyway. Don't get me wrong I'm very happy that some of the evidence is actually getting looked at now, but I'm afraid the discussion is already populated by comments which were made before such new developments. (not to mention the previous discussion) I understand that some admins (or others) don't have much time for looking at cases. I guess it's something to take into account for next time. This is why I became a bit concerned; when I realized that the person who was the blocking admin in May of an account from the above list became the person who said the following in September since his block this past March he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. Hobartimus (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have some evidence of post-unblock socking that you don't want to put on the wiki, please email it to MuzeMike or some other checkuser or the checkuser mailing list (WP:CHECKUSER). Alleging there are/were socks you know about, without giving evidence, is not going to result in action. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as I am now rather involved in this dispute, it should be left to another uninvolved CheckUser. You claim "fairly obvious socks", but you are not mentioning a single one of them. –MuZemike 09:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm certainly no fan of Iaaasi's editing but I'm pretty ticked off at Hobartimus's alleging "obvious" recent sock activity without giving a shred of evidence for it. I'd like to formally request that Hobartimus refrain from casting such aspersions in the future, unless he provides credible specific evidence on-wiki or to checkusers. If he makes further such unsubstantiated allegations he should receive administrative sanctions. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I will send the evidence of "2010 September or later activity" to any uninvolved CheckUser or administrator who promises that sanctions (1rr/ week on CE, EE articles, Topic ban whatever) will be enforced should the evidence be deemed "credible" by them. Btw dear IP "fairly obvious" was written above and not "obvious". And even then, to become anything close to that you would need to put in quite a bit of time to analyze the edits look for patterns etc. Since you seem hesitant to AGF, that a "shred of evidence" actually exists IP, I will send you a "shred of evidence" if you send me an email. (it will be quite the short version, as it is not much fun to collect it just to be ignored). Hobartimus (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, "fairly obvious" then. The issue is when you bring a complaint about somebody, you have to present the evidence, not tell people to go look for it themselves. And I didn't say no sevidence existed (I consider that an unknown), just that you haven't presented a single shred, and I haven't noticed any myself despite having spent some time looking at content problems with Iaaasi's edits, and nobody else seems to have presented any either. If you have some, don't email it to random admins or users (if someone emailed you claiming to be me, they weren't). If it's private, send it to a checkuser since they are authorized to deal with confidential info. If it's something that you think non-checkusers can be allowed to see, post it on-wiki. Your condition that an uninvolved admin or checkuser agree ahead of time to impose specific sanctions before you send the evidence is almost certainly a non-starter, since that creates new opportunities for you to get into further debates with them after the fact if the outcome isn't what you want, and it would be crazy for them to allow that. You have to just send it and let them decide for themselves what to do with it. That said, I'd expect their level of tolerance for more socking by Iaaasi at this point would be very low. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"(if someone emailed you claiming to be me, they weren't)" Thanks for that warning IP. Btw are you an admin logged out? You seem to be speaking quite a lot in the names of the admins. Hobartimus (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You should not ask an IP to out themselves. There may be a very good reason why they remain as an IP - also some IP's are very knowledgeable about Wikipedia.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation, stolen picture present in Wikipedia

I have opened a separated section on the ground that a picture uploaded into the commons by Iaaasi, is given counterfeit license saying that the author of the picture is User:Conttest, who is the name of one detected sockpuppet of Iaaasi, and the picture is included in two Wikis, the English and Romanian ones in the articles ro:Ioan de Hunedoara and John Hunyadi when in fact the real author of the picture is Glatz Ferenc , which was published in a historical book under the title of "A magyarok krónikája" on the page of 174 in 1995 and the original name of the picture was "Hunyadi János birtokai 1456-ban". In my opinion, by doing this, Iaaasi committed a violation of GDFL license trespass ,mainly because the user is being blocked for a violation of 3RR at the article John Hunyadi that contains the aforementioned picture. And when the user wanted to ask for an unblock, this moot map was brought up as a reason for being unblocked on the ground that this map is a significant part of his constructive contributions here on English Wikipedia."Except referenced text, I've uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and inserted in the article the following images: [1] [2] so I don't think I can be accused of having disruptive intentions regarding it."[29]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huniade-domeniul.jpg
• http://mek.niif.hu/01900/01918/html/index74.html

--Nmate (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a clear cut case, the picture was uploaded as if it's author was Iaaasi. While in reality it was the work of others. If you look at the picture it becomes quite evident but with exact source given at the above link [30] (A magyarok krónikája. Officina Nova, Budapest, 1995, 174. oldal) there could be no doubt. Hobartimus (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow! Talk about cynicism! He not only "pirates" a picture off the internet to claim it as his own, but also cites it as a "fine" example of his "constructive" work. Just how many of such mishaps are you willing to tolerate him before cutting him off for good? CoolKoon (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, that was pretty lame of Iaaasi. Still, incorrect and/or bogus image attributions are one of the most common serious mistakes on Wikipedia, and that was from almost a year ago. Has this or anything similar been brought to Iaaasi's attention before? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly from a year ago it was present in the Wikipedia article John Hunyadi as of today. Hobartimus (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The file was uploaded on 27 April, 2010.[31] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's hard to assume good faith in this case especially due to the fact that Iaaasi was bragging about that picture at a time when he was already well-acquainted with WP rules. And besides, when you download something from the internet (especially one that doesn't have copyleft/CC/public domain written in its proximity), in >90% of the cases you just know it can't be used by you and uploaded to Commons as it were your own, due to the fact that it is NOT your own. CoolKoon (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It was rather unwise of him to refer to it recently as an example of his good work. But the correct action is being taken - it's up for deletion. Again, we should not be considering bans based on things done a year ago. It looks to me like there has been a long standing content dispute and a lot of emotion and bad feeling, and that neither side in it is entirely innocent - but that some progress has been made in calming it down. What we should be looking for now is evidence that it is likely to continue, or whether it looks like Iaaasi (and others) can be brought round to editing collegialy and within Wikipedia policy -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (Updated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

I wouldn't say this in itself requires banning but I think it's wrong to just think of it as something that happened a year ago. The fact that they were boasting about it shows they were aware of this image and hadn't simply forgotten about it. This either means they completely forgot that what they were boasting about was an image which was not their own and which they did no receive the permission of the copyright holder while claiming it was their own (possible but doesn't seem that likely) or they were aware of this and didn't do anything about it (choosing instead to boast of their good work). Given how serious we take copyrights the later is completely unacceptable for an established editor. As I said I'm not calling for a ban, but it needs to be made clear to them that they must respect copyright policy and should not make misleading claims about the copyright status of content they contribute and no we're not going to keep giving them second chances on this like we may have done with sockpuppetry and whatever else they have allegedly done wrong. Frankly I'm far more concerned about this then their alleged? xenophobic personal attack mentioned above or whatever socking they may have done in the past or heck even if they are socking right now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask for Iaaasi to list all images that he's uploaded from any account, for license checks. That said, unless he's been in trouble for this particular issue in the past, I wouldn't flip out about it. NFCC problems are rampant on Wikipedia because of the tendency of users to click past the confusing or unfortunate requirements, and endless drama results all the time. I've elsewhere suggested that users should not be allowed to upload images directly (they can still use WP:FFU), without a rollback-like permission that would only be given after showing some basic understanding of license requirements. However, that idea has never gotten much support. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'd take Iaaasi's images with a pinch of salt indeed. It turns out he was already warned for copyright violations in the past. Despite that he proceeded to upload some additional copyrighted images using his sockpuppet even after this warning. Sure, this all happened before he was "pardoned" for all his deeds before December 2010, but the fact is that he SHOULD know better than this by now. Hopefully he'll refrain from this in the future, but I won't count on it. CoolKoon (talk) 02:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tehwhirled

I need advice regarding user:Tehwhirled. The user in question was created on March 10th, 2011 and his first edit was to create an article about the Libyan no-fly zone on his user page. Since then every edit of his 160 edits, except for 11 has been on this one article Libyan no-fly zone. His intention seems to be to keep as much criticism of the operation as possible in the article, even if it based on wrong or outdated quotes i.e. he had Alain Juppé as a critic of the no-fly zone. He says Clinton is critical of the no-fly because of a statement she made on March 3rd about lack of demands for it in the Arab world. He puts Richard G. Lugar into the section of people saying it is "An act of war", when Lugar has never said such a thing, but criticized how Obama intends to proceed and opinions that Obama seek first "a declaration of war against Libya" from the US congress. Lugar does not criticize the no-fly zone, he doesn't call it an act of war, and when you try to remove this misquotation [32], and remove the outdated quote by Clinton [33], he reverts and calls it abusive editing. Then I took to the talk page pointing out that Clinton has been misquoted and that Alain Juppé is definitely not against a no-fly zone this happened: "Wikipedia is not your SOAPBOX", I then told him to please watch his tone and [34] and to not misquote. His answer: insulting me and avoiding to discuss the wrong insertion and misquotation of officials. Asking him to take it down a notch [35] and for a NPOV [36], were ignored too. Now he continues to add criticism of the no-fly zone [37], [38] which is fine with me as long as he does not do it in a POV way [39] and as long as he does not refuse to accept any criticism of wrongly listed people, edits with a NPOV and stops insulting other people. But the advice I am looking for is what do to about the suspicion that this is a sock specifically created for POV warring by an editor: the focus on one topic, the one sided editing, the abrasiveness of his style and the refusal to allow anyone to remove "supposed" critics of the no-fly zone, points in my view to POV-war sock specifically created to control this article. What can be done about that? Should there be done anything about that? thanks, for any advice. noclador (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You know what. I don't give a shit about this fascistoid bullshit. I request of the admins that my account be deleted. It's the last time I countribute to this website. Thank you. --Tehwhirled (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Because of attribution requirements for edits we do not delete accounts. You are free to wipe your user and talk pages and discontinue contributing if you desire. -- ۩ Mask 23:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

user:Tehwhirled is adding again "criticism" to the article Libyan no-fly zone. The problem: it is not criticism of the no-fly zone or the operations currently underway, but a opinion piece from March 8th about what could happen after Gaddafi is out of power: [40]. noclador (talk) 13:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

More on Tehwhirled

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

user:Tehwhirled POV warrior, misquoting sources, 3RR at Libyan no-fly zone‎ and personal attacks "you fascist bureaucrat psychopath", "you perversely biased POS". Repeated warnings and discussion attempts have been ignored. noclador (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That guy's still not blocked yet??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

They've put him on the sand for the next 24 hours. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

He is now using socks: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tehwhirled noclador (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

continued attacks on other editors

Calling tow editors: "fascist". noclador (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Given this,[41] the admins might want to revoke his talk page privileges until (or if) he's unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

and again he is back - new username User:Catsycat and his first two edits are to misquote Zuma and Museveni; noclador (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Harassment and Detrimental Edits by Jack Sebastian

Summary

User:Jack Sebastian has been hounding me for days to the point of now making article-harming edits. Below is a history, item (3) is the serious one, the rest shows his attitude.

I also note he has a recent history on this notice board.

History

(1) We had a disagreement over the article Justified (TV series). (There is no admin involvement.)

After two net edits [42][43] there by me, he advised me that I had "violated" wp:3rr and then lectured [44][45] me on how to indent my comments (!) on talk pages.

(2) He followed me to an unrelated page, and advised me [46] not to make edits [47][48][talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Japan_Trench] which were correct, despite his lack of understanding. (The information was later made more exact, but my edits ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg Eurasian>North American) were correct as made.)

I advised him [49] his hounding was unwanted. He advised [50] me that he was acting for my own good and that I would regret not having his advice.

(3) He then followed me to a page he had never edited, Excalibur (film), partially reverting [51] my edit, thereby (b) removing a citation for a direct verbatim quote, and creating a bogus quote from an editor's summary, (b) changing a balanced comment reflecting mixed reviews to a wholly positive one, and (c) leaving an obvious spelling error. He reverted to these blatant errors twice even when they were explicitly brought to his attention on the talk page [52] and in the edit summaries.

I "restored [the] balanced critical reaction, restored [the] source for verbatim quote, and [the] restored proper English spelling" [53]. He insisted he knew I was a troubled editor "I know about you from another page" [54], and again reverted [55] his ungrammatical and unbalanced statement with a bogus quote.

I left the mistakes stand to come here before further conflict. It's obvious this isn't about content any more - it's about emotions. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

End of Medeis' Complaint

Wow, when I advised the editor to learn more about WP:LEDE, and maybe to ask an admin about how we currently implement that part of the MOS, I guess I should have expected that it was going to turn into a Thing with her.

Now, for a bit more accurate interpretation of events:

1. Medeis is a bit off on her revert counting (1, 2, 3, 4). Last time I checked, that's at least three reverts (I counted one of them as a successive edit as opposed to an outright revert). Rather than reporting the user, I went to Medeis' user talk page and let them know they were in violation, and to use the article discussion page to argue for their edit. I also took the time to point out to her that she needed to indent her posts - perhaps a trivial thing, but annoying as hell when you are trying to follow a discussion and one person treats the discussion like their comments need not be following others. It's a pet peeve of mine, but I certainly wasn't lecturing her; indeed, I even offered to help her along "the learning curve", especially since she seemed to confuse outdenting with proper indentation.
2. Actually, i didn't even go to the page being discussed; I simply pointed out (pretty nicely, I thought) that adding uncited information is a sure recipe for getting reverted, and to respect the collaborative process. Medeis' response was to remove the post and then post in my page that I was hounding her, threatening to report me if I posted in her page again. Again, I didn't go to the article in question, but was simply responding to a comment from Medeis who stated that a sourced article was wrong, and that her single academic course meant that she didn't need to add such "rather basic and well known information" without citation. As to the statement that she'd "regret not having my advice", one need only go to the link that she thoughtfully provided to see that this is a fairly uncharitable and incorrect interpretation of the post. I respected her wishes and have not posted on her page since.
3. The only part of this accusation that is correct is that I had not in fact posted to Excalibur before. The one time I'd read the article, it seemed fairly well-done. After watching it again recently (big Helen Mirren and Nicol Williamson fan), I went back to the page to see i there was anything I could add. Yep, i noticed Medeis' edits, and they were the only recent ones that were wrong. I thought I fixed it, and went to the article discussion to further discuss the matter.

Without delving too far into content issues, Medeis keeps adding content to the Lede and nowhere else in the article. This was pointed out by several other edits when it first popped up in the Justified article, but she doesn't appear willing to read WP:LEDE, which marks it as both an introduction to the subject matter as well as an summary of the article.

And that "obvious spelling error"? I left off the 'i' in the word 'it' - mea culpa. I think it uncharitable in the extreme to think that I'd revert any spelling fix, and esp. one dealing with a simple typo. Almost everyone knows what a stickler I am for both perfect grammar and spelling. If I've corrected someone's grammar in an article, it isn't a personal attack - its a fix to the article. I am not going to see a typo fix as an affront to my person. Saying that this is about emotion and not content is both silly and absurdly egoistic. It isn't about her.

Long story short (too late!), Medeis needs to grow a thicker skin and maybe consider the advice - even of the unsolicited sort - that she is getting from several different editors. No one is out to get her or hound her, and I could frankly care less about her edits. Prior to the Justified edits, I'd never run into her (though wikistalk says that we both have non-proximally contributed to two other articles last year). All I feel I did was offer advice, and found myself defenestrated for my effort. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian forgets his own admission [56] "As for where I edit, I will edit whereever I wish. If I happen to see a problematic edit of yours - well, I know about you from another page, so I know you better than someone off the street. " that he is following me around for my own good, [57] putting the lie to the excuse above that he simply happened by chance to revert me on an article he had never before edited.

The "four" edits Jack Sebastian supplies are two separate sequential edits by me which count as two, not four reverts. But this is not about content. I have not accused Jack Sebastian of a spelling error. I have accused him of ignoring content entirely while stalking me, which he still justifies as being helpful. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting tedious. If Medeis would be so good as to point out all the many, many articles where I am supposedly stalking her at, that would be nifty. As it is, there appears to be only two articles where we've have interacted at all. I guess its too much to actually ask her to read the policies and guidelines regarding the accusations that she's making. As it is, it's tedious, stupid and tendentious to state one thing, add a supposedly supporting link that says nothing of the kind. Clearly, she's made up her mind that attacking, and not learning, is the better course of action. I won't waste any more time trying to assist her or correct her clearly inaccurate assessments; her links do that for me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And maybe Medeis could stop refactoring my post, putting it in its own special little category. I've now removed it three times, which means this clever girls has added it more than three times. Also, it bears pointing out that Medeis has been altering her initial post successively now; the response I'd posted above is not to the initial complaint filed. I'm close to losing my patience and calling for her block for tendentious editing and edit-warring. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note the sexual harassment: "this clever girl". I am not following this person from page to page, appointing myself as his guardian and editor, claiming like him the right to determine how I should indent my comments or complaining that I should not edit them. This is a very simple matter and has nothing to do with content - just his highly inappropriate and unwanted stalker-like personal attention. Please advise him to cease harassing me. μηδείς (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I would susgst that both parites agree to disengage from each other for a few days.Slatersteven (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is certainly no sexual harassment either. Making that statement serves to discredit claims of harassment because it makes it look like you don't know what that means.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 19:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Whilst not sexual harrisment it is condenseding. I think that both sides need to cool down and get a sence of persepctive.Slatersteven (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't done anything that requires me to 'calm down', SS, so don't treat our behavior as being equal - it is not. I freely admit to being condescending to someone who:

• is disruptive to the point of exasperation;
• doesn't appear to want to indent in discussions, or even use talk discussions to collaboratively edit with others (as per WP:TALK);
• doesn't listen to multiple editors (not just myself) when advised as to what and what doesn't belong in the Lede (as per WP:LEDE), and;
• seems fully willing to refactor the edits of others without allowing even the most innocent fixes (ie, indenting) of her comments (violating WP:REFACTOR). :::Additionally, her page is littered with requests and warnings to stop edit-warring - something she has clearly engaged in the two articles I've had the misfortune to find myself sharing editing space with (who knows how far her nonsense extends?

And now, she pulls out that conversation-killing claim of sexually harassment??? Clearly, she doesn't understand the term, and I've had enough - this completely asinine behavior on the part of Medeis needs to cease immediately. Drop an obviously inflammatory statement like that an you deserve to be blocked until the cows come home, have a steak and head on off to bed. I would like to ask that - because her behavior is exceptionally disruptive - that she be blocked. Ask yourself if you think that being accused of sexual harassment is an effective editing technique. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I was briefly involved in the conversation on Justified and must concur with JS's assessment of that specific situation. Medeis struck me as being (perhaps unintentionally) combative in that thread and, quite frankly, a little insulting. I don't know if that helps the ANI peeps figure this out at all but I thought I'd throw it out there. While this type of edit is not my usual forte, I've done the same thing Jack did here and checked several of the edits of someone who has dropped in what i know to be problematic material based on the policies that pertain to the projects I'm most familiar with. it's hardly stalking; it's quality control. Millahnna (talk) 05:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Wikinews links regarding Japanese Earthquake/Tsunami

Admins: Since I've now retired from Wikipedia, would someone mind closing this? Seems no point keeping it open since the discussion has moved, and I'm no longer active. Thanks. BarkingFish 20:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. It has been brought to our attention that an as yet unnamed editor on WP has been removing links from Wikipedia to Wikinews, to our articles concerning the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami. I'll show you what was posted to us in the early hours of this morning, and by whom.

"As an established editor on Wikipedia has removed all specific links to Wikinews from the various articles of the 2011 quake/tsunami/nuke incident, without even bothering to note their removal, and when asked, said that Wikinews articles were not worth linking to, I will no longer be adding Wikinews links to Wikipedia; it's not worth the effort, when someone else will just come along and delete them without even writing it into the edit comment that they're doing so. You may notice a drop in page accesses due to the link removal. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)"

Since Wikipedia and Wikinews are sister projects, I find this behaviour to be totally unacceptable, and would request that whoever is responsible for this (I have requested the name of the "established editor" at Wikinews), is dealt with by whatever means are necessary unpleasant, and would ask the administrators here to review the situation, and see what can be done (if anything). The fact that you link to us from the Main page is wonderful, but I can't honestly see why someone would do this without even making note of it, and then make such an appalling statement as "Wikinews articles are not worth linking to". We do a lot of work to make sure what we publish is relevant, accurate, and appropriate to the situation we're covering.

Your help in looking into this issue would be welcomed.

BarkingFish 13:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (admin @ en.wikinews, My talk page at ENWN)

I see nothing actionable per se in removing wikinews links from wikipedia, sister project or not. I'd suggest it's only actionable if it becomes a revert war to remove said links. Just my non-admin opinion. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): If we are dealing with an IP, we (here at en.Wiki) could do a CU and find out who they are. Otherwise, they should be sternly warned that something like this isn't something they need to be doing without consensus. I would wait until the name of the user is found and then deal with it on our end since this was done on en.Wiki. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 13:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear who the user is if one looks at the talk page for the earthquake. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Things are a bit hectic at Fukushima I nuclear accidents. But the issue or removal was raised at Talk:Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Wkinews a day ago without receiving any justification. My suggestion would be to readd and explain that again at Talk:Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Wkinews suggesting discussion rather than edit-summary-less reverting (btw: I haven't checked if that was generally or always the case, navigating the page history is a pain). The same might applies mutatis mutandis to the International reaction to Fukushima I nuclear accidents. We are still far away from and endless discussion or revert-war on the subject that would require action here... L.tak (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• There's a larger issue here. Wikinews has been superceded by Wikipedia. Whether you agree with it or not, any major current event will have an article started within a few minutes on Wikipedia and will be rapidly updated in almost real time. We're now a de facto news feed on major events and links to Wikinews are redundant - the information is already here. Taking the Japan earthquake article as an example - our first coverage was approx 1/2 hour after the event [58] and unless I'm missing an earlier article, the first coverage on Wikinews was FOUR hours later [59] - since we're outpacing wikinews by a ridiculous margin, linking to them is pointless. Exxolon (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 2 Things. Compare your "first coverage" with ours, and look at the difference. You must understand that because we're published over Google News, our stories undergo a full peer review process confirming the absence of copyvio, plagiarism and general errors in work prior to their publication. Your articles undergo no review whatsoever before someone slaps them up, they only get taken down after something's already been done wrongly. Our story was actually started at 9:26AM UTC, yours at 6:18AM. Maybe we are being outpaced by Wikipedia, so what? The fact is we're publishing news - you're publishing an encyclopedia. Either way, we consider that our articles are worth linking to - that's part of the reason we publish them. If we're not useful in articles, why do you link us from your main page? BarkingFish 13:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • While our initial article was very minimal, it rapidly expanded into well referenced and useful information. By the time your article went live, our article [60] was at least equal and arguably superior to yours and evolving information had been available for the previous four hours for anyone desparate for an overview of what was happening while Wikinews had nothing on offer. While our articles are not reviewed before publication, high profile events attract prolific effort and errors are quickly found and corrected, often within seconds. If a news service is being beaten timewise by us doesn't that make it redundant? By the time your articles go up, we've got the information already here - it's pointless linking to your articles. I'm going to propose that your main page link be removed as it's simply no longer useful to redirect people away from here to you. For better or worse WP:NOTNEWS is no longer in effect and a separate wikiproject for news articles is no longer viable. Exxolon (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Considering that the first article on the BBC's website concerning the Earthquake (albeit as an across the screen-rolling news-type of thing was more than 25 minutes after you put it up here, does that mean the BBC News Online service is redundant to Wikipedia too? I doubt it. BarkingFish 16:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• This is just an edit removing some links. Do we "sternly warn" people for removing wikilinks? Ohconfucius stated their reasoning for removing the links on their talk page, it doesn't sound unreasonable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. It's not unreasonable a place for BarkingFish to bring this up, in an effort to get eyes here to look at it, but we can probably point people on this thread to the thread at the main article's talk page. Keeps things central, apart from anything else. I've placed my view on the dispute there. It's certainly something consensus is required for, and it looks to be vaguely against Ohconfucious just now. In xyr defence, WP:BRD is quite applicable, although edit summaries would have been nice. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Has BarkingFish tried discussing it with the person removing the links, or even on the talkpages of the affected articles? That's always the first step of dispute resolution. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• This whole situation is utterly unacceptable. We always link Wikipedia from Wikinews, because it is a sister project, and as a family, the projects should support themselves. This is not the case, though. I reverted like twice an editor (user:Gold Hat) some days ago after removing Wikinews links from the eq/ts page, they gave no reason at all. This needs to be solved; Wikipedia is becoming a diva these days. "There's a larger issue here. Wikinews has been superceded by Wikipedia. We're now a de facto news feed on major events and links to Wikinews are redundant - the information is already here." – WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE NEWS, okay? Diego Grez (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Funny that. Sniping at Wikipedia and its contributors has become de rigueur on Wikinews, yet as soon as links start disappearing you're all over here playing up the "sister project" angle. the wub "?!" 22:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I object to that. I'm a Wikipedian every bit as much as a Wikinewsie. I also question what relevance that issue over there has to a content dispute over here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I second what BRS says, I'm also a Wikipedian anyway, but this is kind of stupid, and disruptive. Links to Wikinews do any damage whatsoever to Wikipedia? No. So...? --Diego Grez (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
        • We're a diva because we're better. WP:NOTNEWS is universally ignored, like it or not. Wikinews links should not get higher priority just because - only if they are useful. Exxolon (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
          • So you're openly admitting that Wikipedians ignore an actual site policy, in favour of publishing stuff which isn't supposed to be here. I'm gonna prove theWub's point now... "Like that's anything new?" :) BarkingFish 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not required to carry links to Wikinews, nor must they link to other Wikimedia Foundation projects (Wikinews, Wiktionary, Wikiversity, Wikibooks, etc.). Indeed, the quality, reliability, and relevance of other WMF projects varies quite a bit from project to project and even from page to page within a given project. The implicit or explicit assumption made by some individuals here that Wikipedia is obliged to link to other projects wherever and whenever possible is not justified by policy or practice.

While I share concerns about the tendency for Wikipedia to be treated as a wire service and the effects of instantaneous news updates on our goals as an encyclopedia project, that problem is unlikely to be solved by mandatory Wikinews links. Links to sister projects should continue to be evaluated in the same way that we evaluate any other external link. Demands that we 'deal with this by whatever means are necessary' come across as a tad overwrought, given that your contributions seem to show no attempts whatsoever to resolve this issue, BarkingFish. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's somewhat unfair to BarkingFish. This post here is exactly an effort to deal with the situation. No, it isn't in the correct place, but xe's trying to sort things out as best as possible - which is to try and find people over here to look at things. Remember, at the time of the original post there was no indication to the poster as to what user or even which article(s) to look at.
Sister project links are not dealt with in (quite) the same fashion as all internal links; my interpretation of the relevant guideline is in a more suitable place - an article talk page. This ANI thread has served its usefulness and the content dispute should now be worked out over there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't just consider that to be "somewhat" unfair, I consider it to be very unfair. My contribution here, TenOfAllTrades, was an attempt to raise the concern with people who actually have the ability to review issues like this, since I don't have that facility to hand myself (I'm not an admin here), and I find your comments about my "demands" (which I wasn't, it was a request, which you're free to ignore), to be frankly insulting. This is my contribution to attempting to resolve the issue - as an administrator of Wikinews, I have no power whatsoever to use my position there to negotiate with individual users here over something which affects the project I work on. As for theWub saying that our project has become de rigeur for sniping at WP and its contributors, proof of such an allegation would be welcomed. If it's raised, it will be dealt with. BarkingFish 02:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That's an awfully charitable reading of BarkingFish's request. He wasn't looking for people over here to "look at things", he was asking us to shoot first and ask questions later — it's difficult to read his 'I'm not an editor, I'm an admin' declaration followed by a demand that we "[deal] with [the responsible editor] by whatever means are necessary" in any other way.

Based on his comments immediately above, it's obvious that if he did have an admin bit on enwiki, he would be misusing it right now to threaten the editor who removed the links. While I have not participated at Wikinews, I have had very...mixed...experiences in dealing with administrators on some of our other 'sister' projects (including Wikiversity and Commons). If BarkingFish believes that one must have the "power" of an admin's position (ha!) in order to discuss article content on Wikipedia, then Wikinews administrators obviously have a very different set of prerogatives and responsibilities from those enjoyed (ha! again) by admins on enwiki. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What I'm about to say is "awfully charitable" too, because it could be a lot worse. What I meant by the comment above is obvious to me, but it may not be to others. There is a clear difference between an administrator discussing something with a user, and a regular user discussing something with another user. I don't believe I should have the "power" of an admin's position to discuss content, simply that my position there means precisely bugger all here. I will however reword my initial comments, since it's patently obvious to me that you in particular are offended by them. BarkingFish 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Barkingfish. You've edited on Wikpedia, you know that you discuss edits with other editors on article talk pages or on user talk pages. What you don't do is charge in here, state that you find "this behaviour to be totally unacceptable" and demand that Wikipedia administrators deal with someone "by whatever means are necessary." Especially over some links that may not be needed in an encyclopedic article. Don't you think that your behaviour might be a bit aggressive, over the top, and a poor reflection on the project that you represent? 86.159.92.13 (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@IP Above - Frankly, yes I do think they were aggressive, no I don't think it's a poor reflection on the project I represent, it's an accurate reflection of how a project feels when we're told that basically we're redundant to an encyclopedia which isn't a bloody news source. We record the news, you record the events which made the news. There is a big difference, and the quicker Wikipedia realises that it's not a news service, it's an encyclopedia the better.BarkingFish 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Everyone: The 'means necessary' could be as simple as a quiet word, or whatever. An unfortunate choice of words, but okay, it's happened - and now been struck as not a great way of putting it. However, there's a real need for those in this road-to-nowhere argument to sit back and cool it - especially you, BarkingFish. The last thing I want is for this discussion to flare into a disruptive dramafest - especially when the content dispute is being discussed in a mature, constructive way elsewhere now that the ball's rolling. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:44, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• See also: A proposal on T:MP directly related to this thread. —GFOLEY FOUR— 15:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems there is a noticeable degree of antipathy between theoretical "sister" projects. Like at Commons, where you can bring up the fact that a malcontent has been indef'd here and they continue to edit freely at Commons, and the response is, "Yeh, so?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a fair comment. The Wikinews community has only just given itself a good hard shake and realised that Wikipedia is not the Antichrist - last thing I want to see is a reversion to old attitudes. I don't feel this thread is helping either project's view of the other - as someone who contributes to both (albeit currently low-activity here), I really want to take the two and bang their heads together when arguments like this get heated. Can I get a bot to trout every single active contributor to both projects? I'm kidding.... I think. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

ELN could use a few extra eyes

I am increasingly concerned about some recent civility issues at WP:ELN and would really appreciate having a few extra admins watching Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Paraphilic_infantilism for a few days. The section has just been closed, but we have had something of an epidemic of WP:LASTWORD, so there's no guarantee that it will stay that way long enough to be archived.

In the best-case scenario, it will stay quiet, and you can write this note off as an overreaction. That is the outcome that I'm hoping for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it's already been reopened here. I'm done with it personally since I get attacked constantly by this editor. More eyes would be appreciated since everyone except this editor feels the discussion has come to a conclusion. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As the main recipient of what I consider a lot of unwarranted hostility, I'm happy to comment if anyone is interested. I'm happier just to close what I see as an issue with an extremely obvious consensus, a whole lot of drama, and little else. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I reclosed the section because nothing good can come from more discussion about this issue. The editors agreed that the external links didn't belong so there is nothing more that needs to be said. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point two things. First, as "this editor", I would have appreciated being notified about this discussion. The selective participation here echoes WhatamIdoing's sending personal invitations to specific editors[61][62], asking them to get involved in that EL discussion. Second, that there have been a number of incivilities and improprieties involved. Most recently, Crohnie deleted my comment[63] to try to secure her and WLU the WP:LASTWORD, while accusing me of "rude and uncivil"[64].

Please note that WhatamIdoing is not uninvolved in this discussion. This started as an edit war between her and myself, summarized here. WLU became involved. It could have ended there, but did not. My request to WLU not to involve other locations was deleted with the comment "or I can just delete this without reading it"[65]. From there, WLU spread the conflict onto four other pages (Paraphilic_infantilism, infantilism, Diaper_fetishism, and Adult_diaper) starting a number of edit wars (eg [66][67][68][69][70], including one with a bot[71]. He also created other messes and left them to other editors to fix, such as using a Wikipedia printout as an RS[72].BitterGrey (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

BitterGrey, I invite the ELN regulars and members of relevant WikiProjects to comment on discussions all the time. As in this case, I typically select victims volunteer editors for such notes based on the noticeboard's history statistics. You will discover that these editors' names are at the top of the list.

Also, I can't really imagine why you think that an essay I was invited to start out of a conversation at WT:MED has anything at all to do with WLU deleting an internet chat room and your personal website from an article that (1) isn't within WPMED's scope, (2) I've never edited and (3) I've never even read. It frankly sounds like a conspiracy theory.

I agree, however, that it was appallingly rude of you to repeatedly accuse Crohnie of "puppetlike foible[s]". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you think regulars needed to be invited? If they really are monitoring that board, wouldn't they already be monitoring that board?

Since WhatamIdoing brought up that conversation at WikiProject Medicine, I'll explain how it also fits in here. WhatamIdoing's post included glowing praise for one editor who was being "chastised by a handful of (minority-view-holding) editors for not re-re-re-re-disclosing his 'conflict of interest' every single time he edits certain pages."[73]. This is a reference to discussions such as those at COI/N and ELN. In both those examples, WhatamIdoing was that editor's sole advocate. I was among the "handfull" of other editors in some of those debates. As I wrote, she isn't uninvolved here.

A neutral editor would have first commented about the accusation that I was misleading readers (ELNO#2), made by WLU[74][75][76][77] and later echoed by Crohnie[78]. Not only were these accusations made first, but are more serious than a mere foible. That foible was pointed out here[79]. BitterGrey (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody invited me, and anyway, I am sufficiently independent to disagree with whoever has invited me to a discussion. Yet I did not comment on ELNO#2 simply because it was not necessary for deciding the situation. We are not here to stroke people's egos, we are here to build an encyclopedia. And for the more professional among us this means coming straight to the point and not wasting time getting side-tracked.

Frankly, this is ridiculous. It's a clear case of ELNO#11 (which basically follows from ELNO#1 + WP:SPS), and in 3 weeks not a single editor argued for including your link. I have seen a lot of foul play and mobbing at Wikipedia, but this is not an instance of it. Hans Adler 01:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Why did you think regulars needed to be invited?"

Because they hadn't commented, and you wanted people that met your personal definition of "uninvolved" (i.e., had never opposed you in any dispute, ever) to comment. In my experience, most people don't jump into a very long and distinctly unpleasant conversation with a wikilawyering website owner who is insulting other participants and spewing conspiracy theories unless they've been directly encouraged to do so. Perhaps your experience is different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that a lot of people are saying unpleasant things here, but only one person is providing diffs.

@Hans Adler: I attempted a factual closure yesterday[80]. Apparently others weren't happy with it and wanted to argue more. BitterGrey (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Except your close wasn't accurate, at least my part in all of this. I didn't withdraw from the discussion, I withdrew from discussing things with you only because you couldn't be polite and kept attacking. As for difs, there are plenty of difs added to that discussion. The discussion was over, the editors all decided that the two EL's you wanted were not acceptable to the project so we closed it stating this. There was no reason to allow you to close it as you are very involved and was only telling part of the story about what editors had to say which wasn't needed. Please, lets close all this out for the sake of sanity already. Bittergrey has been rude and has attacked multiple editors at this thread and at other locations. If difs are requested by anyone other than BG I will gather them up. I will not interact with Bittergrey though any further. Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"There was no reason to allow you to close it as you are very involved"[81]? I think all the uninvolved editors tacitly accepted my attempt at factual closure[82] and stepped back, content to let the discussion archive. They had been heard and didn't need to get the last word in. I needed to stay involved to hold things to the facts. For example, regarding the "the two EL's [I] wanted"[83], I never argued for the second EL ( http://abdlplay.com/forum/ ). As already discussed[84], I've long avoided making any changes to the external links section myself due to the COI. This is why I hadn't removed the forum link. I also didn't disagree with Hans Adler that it was a forum, and so ELNO#10 applied[85]. I did, however, question[86] Crohnie's application of ELNO#10 to Understanding.Infantilism.Org. BitterGrey (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

It's amusing to me that Bittergrey is claiming to try to close the issue given both myself and Crohnie tried to actually close the section and it was twice reverted by Bittergrey. There are no outstanding external links issues in that section, not a single editor besides Bittergrey supported including the links, I simply can't see a reason for anyone to continue posting in this section. The only issue I actually see is WP:BATTLE. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between summarizing an apparent consensus, as I tried to[87], and hiding the discussion to reserve the WP:LASTWORD for themselves, as WLU[88] and Crohnie[89] did. This is a repeat of WLU's behavior where this all started, at wp:Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine), where he archived the entire talk page[90] immediately after removing my comment[91]. At least WLU has started including diffs, so everyone can see that what WLU considers a second revert was actually me restoring my comment after they deleted it, just as I had to at Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine)[92]. (Crohnie later apologized for the deletion at ELN, WLU did not for COI_Med.)

As for this being a WP:BATTLE, it involves multiple articles, mostly ones that WLU had never edited before this began but that I have long been involved with [93][94][95][96]. In the multiple conflicts (eg. [97][98][99][100][101]) the person spreading the conflict is made most clear by the edit war between WLU and Yobot (a bot). While a fan of the Terminator series, I have to side with the machine on this one: Yobot didn't start the conflict, WLU did. BitterGrey (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's an edit war, doesn't it look like someone repositioning a template as part of a set of edits? Calling it edit warring seems an almost irrational over-reaction. And don't you think that's the sort of thing you would politely bring up with an editor on their talk page, rather than first starting a section on an article talk page, then spamming the comment across multiple message boards? Has anyone else commented on my "edit war"? Did they support your interpretation? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification: I did not purposely delete anyones comments as I state here that it was probably an edit conflict that I missed. I apologized for not catching the edit conflict which is different than saying I "apologized for the deletion". It's time to stop this battle that is ongoing already. Enough should be enough already. Would someone please close this section? Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Bittergrey seems to ascribe personal malicious intentions to any mistake or difference of opinion. I would rather further outside input rather than closing the section, but that is less likely the more posts are made, so I'll make this my last one. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 11:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

@WLU, the last message I left on your talk page was deleted with the comment "or I can just delete this without reading it"[102]. That message asked you to please not spread this issue to other locations. As for outside input, this thread was started explicitly as a mere civility issue, WP:LASTWORD,[103] on a board that explicitly doesn't handle incivility. This might have had the effect of innoculating the audience, to prevent involvement. This might have been a mistake, but whatamidoing's extensive background with this board[104] suggests otherwise.

@Crohnie, your apology was noted (last sentence, first paragraph in my last comment). Assuming that one's opponent simply reverted and so should be simply reverted isn't a rare mistake. The topic of the deletion was raised here by WLU, who counted my restoring the deleted text as a repeated attempt to "reopen" the discussion[105]. Fortunately he is providing diffs now, so his points can be quickly shown false.BitterGrey (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

My search of the archives with an AN prefix shows that I have made just fifty-four (54) comments to any AN board, representing 0.11% of all of my edits over the last four years. I doubt that is what most people would consider "extensive". If you want to consider the baseline for "extensive", please note that dozens of editors have edited just this one AN board more than one thousand times.

Your allegedly "factual" close looked to me like an effort to enshrine a distorted version of the reasoning as The Truth™ about that conversation. It was also completely unnecessary, since all we really need to know is the plain fact is that nobody except you supports the inclusion of an external link to your personal website about paraphilic infantilism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Those 54 edits put WhatamIdoing somewhere around 93rd percentile here. Reasonably extensive. Besides, even at my lowly 16 edits[106], I'm aware that the text at the top of the page clearly states "To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts." (i.e. This isn't the place to report a case of WP:LASTWORD[107].)

@WhatamIdoing, could I ask you to actually read and understand my attempt at factual closure[108], as opposed to arguing based on what it "looked" like?[109] BitterGrey (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Need uninvolved admin to close contentious RfC

Resolved

 – RfC closed. --RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I am requesting an uninvolved admin to close the RfC at the Family Research Council page related to whether the lead should mention the controversy about the hate-group listing by the SPLC. It was originally added after a long discussion before it was removed after a vote counting discussion. For that reason, I opened a RfC on the question. A major issue I see with the discussion I see is that various people, at both sides provided arguments that have nothing to do with the question at hand, but everything with their personal dislike for the facts (this happened at either side of the discussion), and I think the Admin closing should be well capable of sifting the non-policy arguments from the policy arguments. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --RL0919 (talk) 12:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Users Epeeflech and Wjemather

Wjemather (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Those two have been debating for awhile about various issues. Epeefleche asked me to look into it. I don't know who's right or wrong (maybe they both are somewhat both), but it seems to be at an impasse. Specifically, Epeefleche has asked Wjemather not to post on his talk page; which he continues to do, and which he justifies on policy grounds. I advised Wjemather that posting on others' pages when they ask you not to is a breach of etiquette (as I myself have been told from time to time), and that he needs to seek another course of action, such as talking to his most trusted admin about the issue. I would like to hear some opinions by the folks here who are smarter than I am (which is most of you), as to what these editors need to do to resolve their disagreements. It's worth pointing out that Wjemather was issued a 2-day block in January for harassment of Epeefleche. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I’ve got to catch a flight and am not in much of a mood to use wiki-jargon and beat around the bush with oratory about “assume good faith” when it’s clear that WJE is just trying to harass Epeefleche. WJE thought he discovered a valid rationale to go rattle a stick on Epeefleche’s cage. I actually backed WJE on the thrust of his point (Epeefleche failed to add a proper fair-use rationale to the image of a book cover). But his second post roughly 20 hours later was clearly intended to badger. Then WJE tried to leave an alibi note on my talk page here. Greg L (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
• No editor has the right to request that other editors not place valid warnings on their talk page. Wjemather's warnings are valid, Epeefleche has not responded to them properly. I would suggest that Epeefleche simply act on the warnings and move on. As a rule of thumb, any editor that goes the "so-and-so isn't welcome on my talk page" route creates at least as much trouble simply by posting the warning as whatever problem he was reacting to.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

^^^ReplyAerobicFox (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I suggest a week's block for Epeefleche; if he is not willing to make himself accountable to editors and address their concerns then he needs to ask himself if he belongs in a long collaborative project. He has made a point of not addressing the issues raised, and as such is creating an atmosphere which is not conducive to collaborative editing. Copyright notices/rationales are not pointy issues, it is important they are done right, and that is the issue of concern and it shouldn't be deflected away from that. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

^Kww and Betty Logan, while it would certainly be inappropriate to ban someone from your talkpage in an attempt to avoid receiving legitimate complaints, Epeefleche requested that Wjemather leave his page over a year ago due to ongoing harassment, and not recently in response to these complaints. Even if legitimate they clearly demonstrate a lack of caring for Epeeflech's request, and at worst could be his attempt to purposely disregard his request to leave his page by finding legitimate reasons to post there.AerobicFox (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• If an editor has asked another editor not to post on his/her talk page, then the second editor shouldn't do so. This is particularly the case when the second editor has been blocked for harassing the first. There are 1,000 admins and 10,000 other editors who can post there, I'm sure everyone can find one; for example, by posting on this board instead. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's anything in Wjemather's editing history that warranted the block or the "Stay of my page" request, someone will have to point it out to me. In general, I advise that everyone ignore such requests. Requesting other editor's to refrain from talking to you is very rarely warranted, and I can't see a valid motivation in the case.—Kww(talk) 20:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I will point out that the user page guideline does anticipate users asking others to stay off their page. From WP:UP "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests (although a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to)". So you can ask people to stay off your page, but they aren't obligated to do so. That said, in my limited experience the best thing to do with those who persist in posting to your user page after you've asked them to stop is to just delete their comment. Certainly allowed and occasionally called for. Hobit (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I think I've talked past your point, sorry I misunderstood. My point is that there is nothing wrong with asking a user to stay off your page if you feel it's the best way forward... Hobit (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't miss my point: I think WP:UP provides a weak accommodation for a distastefully common practice. " ... it is probably sensible to respect their request ..." is hardly a rousing endorsement.—Kww(talk) 20:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Leading up to the request that Wjemather stay off of Epeefleche's talk page was a significant ammount of wikihounding on Wjemather's part. Certainly this occurs on many articles that Epeefleche had written or substantially contributed to including; Richie Scheinblum, Monte Scheinblum, and The Israel Law Review . Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Not in any policy or guideline or essay that I can recall, but I remember a bit of advice regarding the "necessity" of posting on anothers talkpage; if there is a legitimate issue then someone else will post the necessary advices or comments - and if you are the only person thinking that notices or comments are required on someones talkpage, then you are likely wrong. Therefore a request to not post on someones talkpage is reasonable - there are plenty of others who can raise any legitimate issue. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree; the request by Epeefleche for WJE to stay off his talk page after Epeefleche had been hounded no-end by WJE (to the point that WJE was blocked for a period of time over it), is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect; no one wants to have their own personal wiki-hounder on their tail at every turn. Moreover, the community doesn’t need more wikidrama just because an editor has a deep personal dislike for another editor and can’t leave well enough alone when the first opportunity presents itself.

  WJE knew full well his poring over Epeefleche’s activities to find a legitimate shortcoming was going to A) be pushing it, and B) probably going to be passable because Epee’s failure to include the proper fair-use rationale was indeed something that needed rectifying. So Epeefleche reminded WJE that Epee had received a belly-full of his hounding and wanted to be left alone, without his own personal inspector looking over his shoulder giving him the white-glove treatment. WJE’s response was, only 22 hours after his first notification, to weigh in again on Epee’s talk page, demanding immediate action while employing a threatening tone (This is the final warning…). That’s just baiting under a pretense.

  I think we are all reasonably experienced wikipedians that we don’t have to beat around the bush and ignore the 800-pound gorilla of human factors at play here. WJE was blocked for wikihounding Epeefleche and simply seized an opportune moment to rattle another editor’s cage and then had to go the extra mile by using a bossy and demanding tone to push buttons. Greg L (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest WJE Block & Interaction Ban for Harrassment//Hounding/Disruption. Hounding and disruption by WJE has been a year+ problem. For 13 months, I've turned the other cheek. I limited my reaction to only warning WJE, watching as others warned (and blocked) him, and otherwise ignored him. But it seems appropriate to address the problem now. The point that BB raises above, while it falls squarely within the harassment guideline, is only the tip of the WJE harassment problem that has now come to a head, as detailed below. I request that WJE be again blocked (for harassment/hounding/disruption reasons, as he was 2 months ago), and banned from interacting with me.

January block. WJE was blocked 2 months ago for disruption on my talkpage (harassment and a personal attack, and starting an edit war), following his hounding me.

His block was affirmed 3 times. First by the blocking sysop:

"Your unblock request only makes me more convinced that this block is the only thing preventing you from carrying on whatever dispute you have with Epeefleche, much to the detriment of both of you and the project. This block has ... to do with ... your conduct on Epeefleche's talk page and the dispute which you then took to ... an article to which Epeefleche is ... far and away the primary contributor and to which you made your first edit today—to revert somebody who thinks (whether rightly or not, I don't know and I don't really care) that you're hounding them, no less! That's before we get to the matter of the edit warring or the edit summary."[110]

It was then affirmed by 2 other sysops.

Hounding. In addition to the above, sysop Beeblebrox in affirming WJE's January block advised WJE:

"It's really not a good idea to fixate on another editor and get into a prolonged conflict with them, which you clearly have done."

Editors Legitimate and Bachcell identified WJE's behavior over a year ago as hounding as well. I requested many times that WJE not hound me. Such as on February 3 and 6, 2010[111], February 28, 2010, March 20, 2010, November 7, 2010, January 17, 2011, and March 20, 2011.

An example of his hounding--Just hours after a testy exchange on another subject, WJE's next act on February 3, 2010, was to single me out and AfD an article I had just created. His AfD failed. But as I pointed out to him, that suggested an apparent effort on his part to confront or inhibit my work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress.[112] The core of wikihounding.

Yet here WJE is--after a year of warnings, and after receiving a block and admonitions from 3 sysops—doing it again. Fixating on my 6 recent "image-creation" edits.

How could WJE just "come across" my adds of 6 images? The images are not within the area of interest he professes to have--UK/golf/cricket/darts articles. Indeed, all WJE's top article edits are golf and dart related. But these edits that he is confronting me on relate to covers/logos of a US philanthropy book, and 5 local US Jewish newspapers. As has been his pattern for a year now, WJE just showed up at some obscure part of the project, moments after I edited there, at pages he had never edited, to revert me or attack my edits.

This also calls into question WJE's assertions, at his unblock request, that:

"I absolutely contest their characterization of my edits as hounding"; and

"I am not fixated on, nor am I carrying on a dispute with, Epeefleche, and I certainly have no desire to get into any conflict with them"; and

"I repeat, I do not wish to engage in any dispute or conflict with Epeefleche ... now or in the future.... I cannot be any clearer on that."[113]

Wikipedia:Harass states:

"Wiki-hounding is the singling out [an] editor ... and joining discussions on multiple pages ... they may edit ... in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."

It also indicates that consequences of harassment can include "blocks, arbitration, or being subjected to a community ban." And says: "If wikihounding persists after a warning, escalating blocks are often used, beginning with 24 hours." WJE has already received multiple warnings over the past year. And his first block (for hounding, disruption, and a personal attack) 2 months ago.

Disruption; ignoring request he not post on my talkpage. Another sysop (Sandstein) in affirming WJE's January block said to him, as to WJE's disruptive personal attack on my talkpage: "you do not convince me that you won't repeat it".

I had earlier requested that WJE not be disruptive and not post on my talkpage. Most recently, twice yesterday,[114] November 7, 2010, and January 17, 2011. I requested that WJE not revert my deletions on my own talk page on November 29, 2010. That was a violation by WJE of WP:HUSH, part of the harassment guideline. I also requested that WJE not be uncivil and not edit war with me on November 7, 2010.

In posting yet again on my talkpage, WJE ignored my clear request[115] that he not do so. To put this problem into stark relief, I am the editor whose talk page WJE leaves messages on most often. By a 2-1 margin. Wikipedia:Harass includes "repeated annoying and unwanted contact".

Substance; Non-AN/I issue. The substance of WJE's uninvited message is a non-AN/I side-issue. And what appears to be a baseless one, at that.

He is singling me out to attack my use of a book/newspaper cover "use in infobox" rationale in half a dozen images. But, that is the accepted rationale for many thousands of such images.

Furthermore, I added those images only after receiving precise advice from a senior editor (Beyond My Ken) who focuses on images, which I followed.

See BMK advice, and BMK's comments on the substance of WJE's assertions here ("technically correct, but in my opinion is being overly pedantic. ... As far as I am aware, most people understand that "for use in the infobox" means "to visually identify the subject of the article" or whatever wordage the editor used. Per WP:BURO I don't think it's absolutely necessary to change what you did (on my advice)").--Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• I think an interaction ban would be the best way to go with this, and would support a temp block of Wjemather. There is no need to be dealing with any problems from an editor you have a past history of harassment with, there are plenty of other copyright violations in the world, and many other people you can contact to deal with copyright or other concerns with Epee. Not assuming good faith this seems like an attempt to look for a mistake Epee has made just so that he can have a legitimate reason to post on his talkpage, and if that is so then that would be completely inappropriate. Whether or not he deserves a block, an interaction ban should prevent any further problems between the two.AerobicFox (talk) 23:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche. I agree with Aerobic Fox 100%. The injured party is Epeefleche, it seems plain to me, and this is a pretty clearcut case of Wikihounding by Wjemather, who appears to be unable to get over his previous issues. Many of us have other editors who aren't our cup of tea; the answer is to walk away instead of following their edits and looking for a fight, which almost always turns into a violation of WP:BATTLE. To sum up: an interaction ban for Wjemather is called for, and if imposed and not acknowledged and full compliance not agreed to by Wjemather, a protective indef block should be imposed until compliance is agreed to. The community should not tolerate cases of this type. I would also suggest Epee make an attempt to stay clear of Wjemather as possible. Thanks to Baseball Bugs for bringing the case here, well done. Jusdafax 00:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support interaction ban on Wjemather regarding Epeefleche. I guess I am not as experienced an editor as I thought because, though I’ve been on Wikipedia for quite a few years, I didn’t know interaction bans were a tool that could be employed. Regardless, it’s just the right tool for this case. The interaction ban ought to 1) allow those two to be more productive for the betterment of the project, and B) create less wikidrama for the rest of the community from hereon. Greg L (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• It seems to me Wjemather has raised legitimate points of concern, and the argument that "someone else" could do it is hardly an argument for not raising these points yourself, let alone justification for a block. The question here is whether or not the concerns raised by Wjemather were justified and have been adequately addressed. If someone has to keep confronting editors with legitimate concerns and they are not being adequately addressed then I think there is a deeper problem here. Epeefleche's name seems to pop up an awful lot on ANI, and the same pattern emerges every time: deflection by endlessly reiterating policy. This editor has lots of problems with people simply because he creates problems for these people. He creates the situations in which he is "harrassed" through this compulsion to make resolving issues editors have with his edits as difficult as they possibly can be. I think the admins not familiar with this editor should take a closer look at the discussions on his talk page and his history on ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Quoting you, Betty: The question here is whether or not the concerns raised by Wjemather were justified and have been adequately addressed. For any ordinary editor who notices such a thing, that would indeed be the question. But Wjemather is no ordinary editor in this case and it’s exceedingly unlikely he just accidentally *noticed* what Epeefleche was doing. So the question is whether or not Wjemather violated (again) WP:Harass. Greg L (talk) 01:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Totally avoidable. Usually, there cannot be too much calm communication. Although Mather singularly failed to identify the offending images, he flagged it as a minor, easily correctable issue, including suggestions as to how to solve the underlying issue. It was a bit nit-picking of a complaint, but not one that warranted the drama that seems to have followed. Usually, it could/would have been put to bed without much fuss with by a simple "oh, thank you. I'll fix it". However, given the raw nerves between the two, the message on Epeefleche's talk page was probably unwise however "in the right" he may have felt he was. I'm unsurprised it was taken as baiiting from the onset. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• [redacted: just as an observation] As to the alternatives to posting to Epeefleche's talk page... in his place (and taking responsibility for my own actions), I would find it even more stressful if Mather would post to venues such as ANI, or another user's talk page instead of mine. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I suspect that Mather probably knew he was waving a red flag to the proverbial bull by making that post. The feud seems to have been going on long enough... I think an interaction ban between the two is probably wise precaution given the background. An interaction ban should also include banning provocation such as taking each other to WQA or ANI. However, it should not exclude seeking mediation, if necessary. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

David Cote

Articles about a filmmaker called "David Cote" have been repeatedly recreated on Wikipedia, with deliberate, concerted attempts to circumvent policies and guidelines. The latest is M. David Cote (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Background

David Cote (film director) was created in October 2010, and deleted following an AfD.

The discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cote (film director), was affected by numerous sockpuppets (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NickSoroka/Archive) and manipulated in other ways, e.g. NickSoroka (talk · contribs) a) edited the article removing display of the deletion notice [116] and b) moved the AfD page changing the word deLetion (with an L for Lima) to deIetion (with an I for India) [117].

• NickSoroka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

The article has been repeatedly recreated under different names, by various (now confirmed) socks;

• Dave Cote
• David Cote (Actor)
• Cote, David
• Overwriting David_Cote_(writer) [118]

Various articles for creation have been declined, including Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dave Cote.

Feb-March 2011

M. David Cote was created by JulieLeon80 (talk · contribs) on 10 Feb [119].

It has also been edited by Davecotefilm (talk · contribs) here and IP 70.69.60.99 (talk · contribs) here. That IP has also added links on other pages, e.g. [120] [121] [122]. The same IP also had a single post in 2010 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Cote (film director) [123].

• user:Davecotefilm appears to be an SPA (one edit to this article) and is a violation of WP:Username policy.
• JulieLeon80 (talk · contribs) appears to be a SPA (only edits to this article).
• IP 154.5.190.200 (talk · contribs) has only one edit within the past three years and that is to this article.
• IP 24.82.162.63 (talk · contribs) has only one edit within the past three years and that is to this article.

Actions

As it matter is likely to require various admin (and CU) actions, I bring it to ANI, to keep things in one place. Please advise if SPI and/or AfD is required. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  18:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Since the original article already went through the AfD process, and presumably no DRV was initiated at the time, wouldn't it be easier in the long run to delete and salt? It would be more efficient than just playing whack-a-mole across several IP blocks or socks. Just my 2p worth... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I redirected the spammy article M. David Cote to the dab page David Cote because the title blacklist stopped me from redirecting it to David Cote (film director). That should at least keep the spam content away from search engines for a while. Could an admin please delete and salt the redirect? File:Davecotefilm02.jpg should also be deleted from commons, per NOTWEBHOST. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a history of activity here, please see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/NickSoroka. As far as that goes, the accounts in the SPI archive are  Stale, but Davecotefilm (talk · contribs) and JulieLeon80 (talk · contribs) are  Likely matches to each other. If someone could add this to the SPI page, it would help keep everything together. TNXMan 21:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Added.[124] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Article salted, but image not deleted as Twinkle fails when I try (Ah, it's Commons) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

David Cote (writer), about a different David Cote than the main subject of this thread, also looks somewhat marginal and COI-ish. Sigh. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

requesting undo of non-consensus move of Libyan no-fly zone article

Despite non-consensus and non-closure of a Requested move from Libyan no-fly zone to Coalition intervention in Libya, User:Ronnotel at 19:42, 20 March 2011 made the move. See this edit: Template:Sec link auto or Template:Sec link auto for the move summary. The un-closed discussion can presently be seen at Talk:Coalition_intervention_in_Libya#Move_to_Coalition_intervention_in_Libya. Myself and two other editors in the discussion have stated opposition to making the move prior to consensus. i'm not sure if this really needs an admin, but because of the need to preserve page history and talk pages, my guess is that it probably does need admin intervention. Boud (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Any autoconfirmed editor can move a page back to where it came from, provided that that the only line in the history of the redirect is the move, which, in this case, it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that there were multiple discussions on-going and I attempted to determine consensus across all input. I looked at the persuasiveness of the arguments and, in particular, the fact that the article is currently linked from the front page and the former title was somewhat incongruous with recent events. Indeed, this was not an admin action, and, like many page moves, it may yet be undone before we arrive at the real title. I hope and expect that Coalition intervention in Libya is deemed better than Libyan no-fly zone, but something else may become the final choice. Ronnotel (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell: thanks for pointing that out. Ronnotel: thanks for turning up to chat. Since admin intervention is not needed, we can continue discussion at the talk page of the article (even though that could be difficult if we now start having frequent page moves by every editor who looks at the persuasiveness of the arguments and moves the page without waiting for consensus because of the "urgency"). Boud (talk) 23:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Another user has renamed the page... So, indeed, people are just moving it about. 184.144.166.85 (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I locked the page from moving for at least 1 week. Highly visible page, this is something we don't need. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The move to 2011 Military intervention in Libya was done in good faith - following my recommendation based on the closest thing to a consensus (IMHO, and in the opinion of the person who did the move) on the talk page. Someone else (presumably an admin) moved to 2011 military intervention in Libya based on WP:MOS. In any case, a move protection for one week cannot hurt IMHO: it's obvious that the page will receive a lot of attention in the coming week or so, and there's no urgency in changing the name. People can (temporarily at least) pipe | the rendered name if they feel it's urgent. Boud (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I need help right now

At Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011. The third phase was initiated this morning. A few users who don't like the phrasing of one of the questions have decided their objections constitute some kind of consensus to obstruct the entire process and have unilaterally placed it "on hold." Need uninvolved admins, as many as possible, to come in and deal with this. I am stepping back and will take no further action in this matter today. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I am not involved in the "obstruction", I'm concerned that you have not initiated the 3rd phase of this RfC in good faith. In particular, you seem to have completely ignored the opinions expressed in the 2nd phase despite claiming that the questions in the 3rd phase are based on the responses from the 2nd phase. You seem to be trying to railroad this through, without actually caring about community feedback, in my opinion. I imagine if you just changed the wording of your first question so that it does not present a false dichotomy, no one would object any more, although I'm not aware of the other objections that have been raised. Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We discussed this phase for over a week. Some objections were raised but they were all over the map and/or complaining about things outside the scope of this RFC so I went ahead anyway as there was no coherent consensus not to. I don't feel it is appropriate for me to take any further actions here and I am afraid an edit war may be on the brink of breaking out, so more admin eyes and/or tools in the area would be much appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on my Talk page might be useful for people to look at. Kaldari (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand why you are so averse to adding the phrase "for now" to the first question, as this is the most prominent opinion of the people who want to turn off pending changes. At first you said it was because the Foundation had taken that option off the table, but Steven Walling clarified that that was not the case. Since I don't see any other compelling reason for ignoring the opinions of those editors, I have to wonder if it's some type of "divide and conquer" strategy, where you are presenting a false choice between two options, when in reality, more editors support a third choice. Kaldari (talk) 21:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia talk:Pending_changes/Request for Comment February_2011#phase 3: what to ask., which I'm guessing is what prompted Beeblebrox to open this thread. Kaldari (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011#Re Question 1 seems to be related as well. Kaldari (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Chzz's 10¢p

• "there was no coherent consensus not to" (above) is an extraordinary rationale for such a massive change to the RfC.
• Previously, phase 2 was introduced after just 2.5 days chance for discussion - I didn't even know about it; I objected as soon as I did. The discussion was quickly archived [125] with the 'reset'. There was a shout on AN, and I commented there - offering a possible alternative (which some others thought useful too) [126] - but got no response.

Prior to that, we'd had a long, rambling discussion but we had made progress. People were discussing the concerns. Phase 2 put an end to the discussion, forcing people into boxes. Phase 2 was never going to tell us much we didn't already know - it told us a) lots of people care about lots of things, b) some people care about some more than others, c) we all want Wikipedia to be better.

• There was considerable opposition to the suggested 'phase 3' over the last few days. Between 13 March and 15, five users discussed it (on the RfC talk page). Four of the five gave specific, reasoned concerns about it - Chzz, UncleDouggie, SpinningSpark, and WhatamIdoing. The closest to supporting it was Off2riorob - and even xe wrote, "I am in two minds about phase three".
• During the short time while 'phase 3' was implemented, everyone except Off2riorob and Beeblebrox raised concerns, of one kind or another - in essence, "Whoa, hold on a bit...please let's talk about this". (I hope, now, we can do so)
• As soon as I saw "phase 3", I said, I'm tempted to just revert the page; I'm amazed you've done that, with such clear opposition shown here - and ongoing discussion. I can understand a need for bold steps, and I'm sure your intents are good; however, I think that was a serious mistake, not in line with consensus, and that you've imposed your own viewpoint - and maybe I should have reverted right then - but I hate causing a fuss. So, others added their own criticisms, but still, Beeblebrox insisted on forcing it. And here we are.
• Finally, I am disappointed with Beeblebrox's comment, "I'm sick and tired of this obstructionist crap. You guys want an answer then you bitch and moan" [127]. We're all frustrated but, that is uncalled-for.

I appreciate the good intentions, trying to resolve this very complex issue, but... It's hard on us all. I've personally been asking why the 2-month trial has been continuing since August 2010. "Establishing consensus can be a lot harder than taking a poll, but so are most things that are worth doing." WP:POLL

Throughout (and including right here), I've tried hard not to repeat - and tried to quietly interject e.g. "No, that's not right, please see [this]" - but sadly, that fails. Those who write in BIG BOLD LETTERS tend to be heard more - and Beeblebrox has done just that, in this RfC - not always in CAPS and bold, but sometimes by the fact that he has put *his* slant into all the == Section headings == which then makes it look all nice and 'official' The very format of "Phase 3" slants the argument against any idea to halt PC until we can resolve the mess.

Please - if you read nothing else of all the long debate - consider the basic, core problem - Wikipedia talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011#Re Question_1.  Chzz  ►  22:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As one of the dissenting opinions (as evidenced at Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Request_for_Comment_February_2011/Archive_2) it seems like the expression of dissenting views is being swept underneath the carpet (by archiving the previous discussion) and expecting that those were previously involved to re-express their dissent. As expressed many times on "Phase 2" there are several dissenting opinions (and even some that were overwhelming consensus against moving forward with PC until answers get answered (and not swept underneath the rug). Don't roll along on the tracks if people are expressing concerns about the way the process is being railroaded. Hasteur (talk) 00:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, whether PC is in use right this minute is not what the RFC was intended to resolve. And the idea that I am trying to suppress dissent is just wrong. Phase three, as I designed it, was intended to solicit the widest possible spectrum of ideas. Once they were all collected they would be read and analyzed by a "jury" of an as yet undetermined nature (since nobody would even discuss this point at the RFC talk page), and commonalities between the various proposals would be used to formulate a rough policy which could be improved over time into a more comprehensive policy as the community sees fit. The problem with the objections to phase three is that they did not agree as to what the actual problem was. I think the process is straightforward and simple and in fact we have already had a few users turn in completed questionnaires. This will be the seventh time I have stated this: if leaving PC on is a deterrent to continuing this discussion then remove it from all articles and we can move on. I really don't think it has any bearing one way or the other but some users do and they have been told again and again to go ahead and do it. Two admins over at WP:AN said they think it is a good idea, yet they won't act on it. Why? The alternate proposal for a phase three is a dogfight between completed policies on the use of PC. I think that is a terrible idea and will only cloud things further, take even longer, and be much more contentious than my simple questionnaire. I seem to have to keep repeating myself on some points so I'll say again that I am open to discussing the phrasing of the questions, but the "big one" has got to ba answered as it has been the primary goal of this RFC from the very first edit to find an answer to it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Update' It looks like we are quite close to a compromise and there has not been further edit warring so the failure of the cavalry to show up wasn't so bad after all and this thread can probably be closed as we shouldn't be discussing this in so many places at once. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Racist anon on Talk:Hristo Tatarchev

User: 79.125.227.27/User:79.125.225.85/possibly a few others insists on using the talk page as a forum in which to write about their anti-Bulgarian racist theories. They keeps reverting my attempts at blanking their edits to the talk page. The anon's opinions have nothing to do with the topic of the article. — Toдor Boжinov — 22:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The anon apparently doesn't know what talkpages are for. Please explain it to them. Meanwhile, I have reverted them, and will semi-protect the page if they keep up their edit war. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC). P.S., TodorBozhinov, you must alert the I.Ps on their talkpages that they are being discussed on ANI. {{subst:ANI-notice}} is convenient for the purpose. Bishonen | talk.

Thanks for the semi-protection! I think they do know what a talk page is and what it's used for. They've been alerted that it's not to be used for personal opinions on vaguely related matters, and they clearly associate it and differentiate it from the article page in mainspace.[128] I wasn't aware that I'm supposed to notify the anon, I'll do that immediately. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 22:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I also added {{Talk header}} and {{Not a forum}} to the talk page. This should help clarify to the anon and others what that talk page is for. BurtAlert (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Good call, BurtAlert. I haven't semi'd it yet, Todor—I like to avoid that on a talkpage, if possible—I've just warned them I will do so if they keep reverting you.[129] Bishonen | talk 23:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

Oh, sorry, I misread that. That's cool, the talk page doesn't have to be semi-prorected unless they come back reverting. Thanks! — Toдor Boжinov — 12:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology, fringe POV pushing, meat-puppetry and general disruption

An admin's attention would be much appreciated at Talk:Astrology. Pro-astrology, fringe POV-pushers are causing all kinds of ruckus and apparently coordinating their activities offsite. Familiarity with the pseudoscience arbitration would be useful. I'm wondering personally if it isn't time for an admin to hand out official warnings about the arbitration case and discretionary sanctions, so that escalations of disruption can be more easily handled at AE. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I support this move in the hope that an administrator will be more reasonable than the pseudo-skeptic trolls on the Astrology page. Disciplinary action is called for due to obstructing Wikipedia policy implementation as per WP:FRINGE/PS and violating the spirit and letter of Wikipedia. 99.240.213.177 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's... unexpected to see a non-logged-in user pop up at AN/I on their second edit, to complain about WP:FRINGE/PS. The original problem was one of extensive synchronised pov-pushing and sneaky offsite collaboration by a blogger who complained about WP:FRINGE/PS (before deleting their post when I pointed it out on-wiki). Just saying... bobrayner (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The whole debate is over whether the lede should say astrology "is" a pseudoscience or "generally considered a pseudoscience by the scientific community." The second version is more in alignment with the arbitration case, which specifically puts astrology in the "generally considered pseudoscience" group. There has been a lot of nonsense in the argument, from both sides, including many accusations, name-calling, etc. It would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic. Mystylplx (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AN/I is more concerned with behavioural drama than content, I think. There's a lot of potential for this to spill out into other venues (for instance, a few days ago somebody was complaining on Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view) and the subject has spawned huge threads. So, it might be wise to try hard to keep the content dispute corralled on Talk:Astrology, even if some side-issues (AE, meatpuppetry, disagreements with policy) inevitably end up on other pages. bobrayner (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree the issue here is off wiki canvassing as well as trying to claim that eliciting views on a wiki notice board is in some way analogous.Slatersteven (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Protected for several weeks as an interim measure to stop further edit-warring while I sort this out. Clearly some "rent-a-crowd" astroturfing going on, doubtless being coordinated via some mailing list or other. Moreschi (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • See WP:AN#Astrology bannings. Moreschi (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User 91.155.234.89 making allegations of 'criminal deeds'

User:91.155.234.89 has been making ever-increasing suggestions that editors who disagree with her at Talk:Rauni-Leena_Luukanen-Kilde are engaged in some sort of criminal conspiracy - see [130]. S/he has repeatedly been asked to be civil, but refuses to do so - I think that this has gone beyond a civility/etiquette issue, and the IP needs to be blocked - and warned that making similar accusations on his/her talk page will result in a block there too as he/she already has (see User talk:91.155.234.89). It should be noted that he/she is attempting to have (possibly libellous) assertions regarding an alleged 'depopulation' program involving Henry Kissinger added to the article as facts, rather than as the opinion of a fringe conspiracy theorist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a deliberate character assassination going on here [131] and here [132]. Nothing I have suggested to improve the article has been accepted. All my edits were systematically reversed for several days until a semi-protection was put on the article. I have already been banned from every page except from my user page and I'm am continuously threatened. I have already contacted Wikipedia.org in the US (Greetings to Joe Daly) and Wikipedia.org in Finland. The editing policy practised on the article is completely out of line and criminal. Only biased sources aimed to ridicule the subject are used. None of the sources I have suggested have been accepted. The members involved in this act are: Dipa1965, AndyTheGrump, LuckyLouie, Dougweller and Moreschi. 91.155.234.89 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. This guy can't take a hint. Cheers. lifebaka++ 00:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This user has now posted a message on his talk page in Finnish that google translates as "All the Finns to sabotage this playground of criminals!" I understand we can't indef an IP but I think this justifies other editors adopting a revert and block on sight policy toward this editor if he returns. Do we need a formal consensus for this? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say this IP will not be making any useful contributions [133]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I say we revoke the talk page if all she's going to do is use it to attack users and post incitements/threats to vandalize. If she's not going to put together a cognizant unblock request, why should we give her a soapbox to rant atop? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 03:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Their response to the ban says Wikipedia is run by "Still Existing German Nazi Psychiatrists' Mindcontroller Secret Service". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 05:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk page has been revoked, and I extended the block to 1 month. –Herr MuZemike 05:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate to say this, but shouldn't the 1-mo. block be reset on account of Δδ (talk · contribs) showing up and editing in an identical manner to 91.? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 21:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaimechelle COI, Incidents

Resolved

 – Closed by Seraphimlade. Jamiemichelle is topic banned re Frank J. Tipler and Omega Point theory, broadly construed; can appeal after a reasonable period of productive editing (generally speaking, 3 months minimum). 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This user has a conflict of interest with this article and is hostile to other editors while trying to push in inclusions without consensus into a Fringe Theory article Frank J. Tipler with his beliefs that it is mainstream [134]. He has been attempting to do this by citation overkill [135]. This is evident from the talk page of the article Talk:Frank_J._Tipler. He has also previously been hostile [136]. He also has been making accusations [137] (non-exhaustive list). I can provide many more diffs if required. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, because Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been so widely published in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature, including those papers makes this whole affair unfair.

How dare I include his papers which have been published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings.

At any rate, your objection is absurd. Administrator N419BH already settled this issue, so stop attempting to go over his head. His requirement was that the references more appropriately pertain to the sentences which they address, and with that proviso he agreed that all of these peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings can stay in the article. Hence, *at most* all you can do is rearrange where the citations appear in the article. You cannot simply *delete* them.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, would you be able to provide more diffs of his accusations? I feel that those diffs show him as a bit arrogant, but not hostile. LiteralKa (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Diffs? How many diffs do you want? I could spend a large portion of my time collecting them. But see the latter portion of this discussion: [138].--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I regret having to put the matter bluntly, however Jamie Michelle is a known crank with a long history of disruption at Wikipedia articles relating to this subject. Clearly on a mission to promote the unorthodox theories of Tipler, his repetitive cut and paste monologues on Wikipedia Talk pages are evident all over the internet as well, simply Google the phrase ""the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics" for a taste. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

After seeing that, I agree. (Though diffs would be cool too :D) LiteralKa (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

LuckyLouie is part of an athitheist crowd that got worked up after Prof. Tipler appeared on a television news broadcast. The online video of this made the rounds and was posted on a number of antitheist discussion boards, after which they started disrupting all the articles associated with Prof. Tipler on Wikipedia, even though they knew nothing about the Omega Point cosmology other than that they disliked its theological implications.

LuckyLouie follows me around on Wikipedia in order to inject his would-be wisdom.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that I added the ANI template to LuckyLouie's edit page as an editor recently involved in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are some diffs. Some of these diffs are from this administrator noticeboard [139]

[140][141] [142] [143] [144] [145] [146] Here he misquotes a settlement plan to justify edits against concensus. [147] IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that IRWolfie-'s complaint here has no foundation whatsoever. This issue has already been settled. Administrator N419BH already settled this issue, and IRWolfie- is here attempting to go over his head. N419BH's requirement was that the references more appropriately pertain to the sentences which they address, and with that proviso he agreed that all of these peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings can stay in the article. Hence, *at most* all IRWolfie- can do is rearrange where the citations appear in the article. IRWolfie- cannot simply *delete* them.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of this alleged settlement. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

N419BH is not an administrator.[148] But it wouldn't matter, because administrators make mistakes as well as non-administrators and are usually open to having their decisions reversed if other factors surface. Doc talk 21:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me. "[R]eviewer, rollbacker", I ought to have said, if I could have found out that information, which you have now provided me with.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Civility problems aside, a more long-term solution might be to request that Jamie Michelle stop edit-warring and abide by consensus at the article: i.e. cease "citation bombing" the article with any and all papers published by Tipler. Continued edit warring might be followed up by a topic ban if needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Because, Lord knows, Wikipedia needs less citations to papers in mainstream peer-reviewed journals and proceedings. This is what is distroying Wikipedia. We must put a stop to it! Yet this issue has alreadly been settled by "reviewer, rollbacker" N419BH.

It's clear what your objective is here. And that objective is not to tell people about how widely-published Prof. Tipler's papers on the Omega Point cosmology are in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals and proceedings.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

At any rate, IRWolfie-'s posts here are an attempt to get around "reviewer, rollbacker" N419BH discession on this matter. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is quite clear, and so there is no ground for IRWolfie- to say that this discession is out of bounds, as N419BH's discession was merely based upon Wikipedia policy.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaimemichelle, conference proceedings are not peer reviewed and therefore not considered reliable sources for science articles. They are definitely not reliable sources for fringe theories. IRWolfie has plenty of policy based reasons for removing the sources you added. See policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:SPS. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, proceedings are peer-reviewed. Peer-review is a standard process of proceedings papers.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is about your conflict of interest with regards to the topic, not what occurred in an imaginary settlement (provide diffs). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside to Jamie Michelle, N419BH's opinion on the matter is merely one editor's opinion. There's obviously a discussion going on, so one previous opinion isn't sufficient to gauge consensus. Please focus on the current matter. Dayewalker (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because how horrible it would be if Wikipedia started citing peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceeding. Wikipedia could never last were that to occur. This is a horrific outcome, which must stop if sanity is to prevail.--Jamie Michelle (talk)

Oh, so you don't want to be implicated in bringing up an already-settled issue. How convenient of you. Wow, you're really looking out for yourself. You're really taking the high road there.

Perhaps we should all just bow-down and worship you for your selfless devotion to truth and beauty. Lord knows you have only the highest of motives.

At any rate, your posts here are an attempt to get around "reviewer, rollbacker" N419BH discession on this matter. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is quite clear, and so there is no ground for you to say that this discession is out of bounds, as N419BH's discession was merely based upon Wikipedia policy. And N419BH's discession was that all the peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceeding must remain in the article.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jamiemichelle, you need to drop this "reviewer, rollbacker" nonsense, because it is meaningless here - any editor who has been around a while and hasn't misbehaved can be granted review and rollback rights, and they provide no authority whatsoever. N419BH has no authority and has not "finalised" anything. But even if N419BH was an admin, they would still have no authority to make content decisions - the community, through discussion and consensus, makes content decisions, and that's exactly what's happening here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward is there anything that can be done to mitigate the effects of the obvious COI of Jamiemichelle?. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You have expressed your own views on the Omega Point cosmology. And I have offered counter-points to what you expressed. Thus, it is improper to say that I have some sort of "conflict of interest" when you have expressed the same sort of interest, but in an opposite way.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that the user spends most of his time spamming internet forums with ideological pro-Tipler diatribes entitled "God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics" I think expecting him to behave differently here on Wikipedia might be unrealistic. I support a topic ban to include the articles Frank J. Tipler, Omega Point, and Cosmology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your post here violates Wikipedia policy, as despite who you think I am you are not allowed to connect my Wikipedia presence to whoever you think I am on any matters outside of Wikipedia. I will report this.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not and administrator, and I have never claimed to be one. Rest assured that if I was and administrator I would have blocked you for violation of WP:3RR, a red-line offense. and if you look at my post the article's talk page I told you that one citation per sentence would suffice and that you would need a reliable source to claim the theory in question was mainstream science. Furthermore, I told you that each citation should be relevant the information contained in the sentence. Your response was to revert, for the fifth time that day, to your preferred version of the article, claiming in the edit summary that as an administrator I had endorsed your version, when in fact I had not. You have continued to make this claim while continuing to edit-war over the article's content. N419BH 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Likewise support a topic ban. I'll take Jamie at there word that they wish to be a productive editor, but that clearly cant happen while they're tied up pushing crank theories a simple Google search shows they're rather obsessed with. -- ۩ Mask 02:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a history of tendentious editing in non-Tipler topic as well (in 2006, alleges that the FBI was involved in the 1993 WTC bombing,[149]). I loved this two-hour, 108 edit revert war on the Tipler biography between Jamie Michelle and Headbomb in 2009. Didn't we used to have a 50-revert rule (j/k)? The bulk (but not all) of Jamie Michelle's editing seems related to Tipler and the Omega Point, including attempting inserting it into Existence of God,[150] but I do see some ok edits to computer-related articles and other topics[151]. The 1994 Nature review of Tipler's "Physics of Immortality" is brutal, by the way. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

An 108 edit revert war? Wow. It appears that Jamie Michelle has been a cyclical disruption problem for 2 years now, and a lot of editors including myself have been kept busy cleaning up the mess. A recent statement indicates they feel persecuted for bringing "truth" to Wikipedia that "God and the resurrection can be proven by standard physics". Please admins, this is a case where you can do this user and the community some good by using your tools. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My experience with Headbomb has shown he has a high tendency toward edit warring; I know because he has permanently turned me off bringing any additional physics articles up to FA. I don't think you can lay the blame entirely on Jamie Mitchelle's doorstep here.—RJH (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about that. But I might add that Headbomb wasn't involved in the last couple of Tipler article disruptions. They originated from behavior by Jamie Michelle. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

The blame lies entirely at Jamie Michelle's doorstep. I repeatedly tried to engage him/her on the talk page, where I was met with nothing but scorn, insults, etc...

As for RJH refusing to bring articles to FA status because he didn't get his way at Supernova over a style issue as stupid as presenting citations in a consistent style, that says a lot more about him than it does about me (WP:OWN). Which is a real shame because RJH produces great content. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

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.

Community consensus here is relatively straightforward, and results in the sanctions being applied as written. Jamiemichelle may appeal these sanctions either to the community after a reasonable period of productive editing (none was specified, generally speaking this is considered at least three months of trouble-free editing), or as always, may appeal to the Arbitration Committee, or to Jimbo Wales. I will make the appropriate notifications to the banned editor's talk page and to WP:BU. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

---

In light of continued POV-pushing against consensus, I propose the following:

Jamiemichelle (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and corresponding talk pages related to Frank J. Tipler and Omega Point Theory, broadly construed. This topic ban applies to discussing the above on unrelated pages. Failure to comply will result in the removal of editing privileges for an appropriate length of time as determined by the blocking administrator.

Commentary

• Support as nom. N419BH 03:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support as previously noted. A mandated break from the Tipler crusade is a smart idea, and enables him to contribute productively to other areas of the encyclopedia if he wishes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• As noted earlier, support. -- ۩ Mask 04:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support JM, please try to edit some totally unrelated topics for a while. The ban can be reviewed and maybe lifted once you've gotten some more experience and built up a good record. You currently have 432 edits of which the bulk are related to Tipler or dispute resolution. It takes a good while longer than that to understand how this place works. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support This gives time to see whether or not edits by this user JamieMichelle will turn out more productive results on other pages than any of the recently disruptive contributions made on pages related to Tipler and the Omega Point Theory. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 3rr is a brightline policy and it's been violated on more than one occasion, both today (which got a block) and Monday [152][153][154][155]. An enforced change of topic to one where the user doesn't have a strong opinion might help the him understand better how to edit in a collaborative environment. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support We'll then see if this editor is really here to help the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - topic bans should not be drafted with phrases such as "broadly construed." Try limiting it to just the two specific articles and see how it works out. Racepacket (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "Broadly construed" is standard wording, so that the restricted editor cannot wikilawyer regarding their edits to a "related" topic, deprecating those in conflict with the subject or their topic ban for instance, are not covered by the terms. The uninvolved admins are usually adept at determining whether contested edits are related to the topic. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• The whole idea is to avoid further misunderstandings and disputes, so it would make more sense to develop something precise that would avoid future "wikilawyering" and return trips to ANI. The question is not whether there are admins "adept at determining" what they think we meant here, the question is whether the proposal can be clearly understood by JM. He can push other theories, just not the Omega Point Theory. Racepacket (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with LHvU's explanation: wikilawyering can work both ways. If JM were to edit pasta & be sanctioned because "obviously Frank J. Tipler eats pasta", that reasoning won't fly. On the other hand, if JM edits pasta to add the fact Frank J. Tipler eats pasta & BTW here's some facts you need to know about his ideas, then I'd be surprised, were the clause "broadly construed" not included, if JM didn't wikilawyer over being sanctioned. The point here is to see if can make contributions which improve Wikipedia, not to find innovative ways JM can advocate for this Tipler guy. -- llywrch (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support looks like enough of a pattern of disruption to justify a topic ban... — Scientizzle 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, let's see if they're actually interested in helping the encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment; leaning towards oppose in favor of alternative wording; in my opinion, this doesn't go far enough because the extent of the problem justifies going beyond the article and article talk space alone. Some individual interpretations of appropriate lengths of time are absurd to the point I'd remove that mention altogether, but due to the nature of this issue, why force an admin to use a presumably definite period of time if they are up to scratch with the nuances of policy and such rulings? I'd be willing to support "Jamiemichelle is indefinitely banned from editing on the topic of Frank J. Tipler and Omega Point Theory, broadly construed, including talk pages. This topic ban also applies to discussing these topics on unrelated pages. Any uninvolved administrator may enforce this topic ban." Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, I wonder if there is standardized wording from arb decisions for topic bans. If there is (finding out would require comparing a bunch), I'd say go with that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support; it would be a net positive for article content and for the community. I'd be happy with indef too. bobrayner (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe tweak the wording to be more standard, if there is such a thing. But obsessive fringe theorists rarely listen to reason, and we have plenty of evidence that this one isn't. So for the good of the project, this has to be stopped, whatever the precise wording. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support the proposal, but if possible I'd like to see the topics of science, religion, and pseudoscience (broadly construed) added to the topic ban. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as an editor involved is a previous situation with this editor. Ncmvocalist may have a better phrasing, but "broadly construed" has been used to support Ncmvocalist's preferred wording, as JM's edit adding Tipler to an article makes that article "related to ... Tipler ..., broadly construed." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps an administrator should make close this thread and make a note of it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Regrettably, Support and close thread. Sigh, it's such a shame whenever intelligent editors with so much potential turn out to be single-purpose POV pushers. Let's just hope this one will turn out to be different. -- œ^™ 22:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

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

What the heck is going on here?

Uelen#Weather what the hell is going on with the temperatures chart here? It very obviously a hoax! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.121.183.89 (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just some bad editing. I have restored a previous version of the page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he's done that on several articles. I've reverted him. Dayewalker (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I have put a level 1 template on their talk. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Someone did the same thing on article Yakutsk look at the history with the minuses maybe is there a way to stop this? 91.121.183.89 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Plainly it is vandalism, which we do our best to keep up with, but the task is large and difficult. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 04:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This user appears to be "hounding me."

Note: It appears that User:Gharr posted a comment to this thread just as it was being archived, which resulted in the comment being inappropirately appended to another thread. I've restored the thread from the archive, as Gharr apparently doesn't think the issue is resolved, but I do so being fundamentally unaware of anything about the situation and circumstances of the complaint, just as a matter of tidying up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This section of my talk page describes the situation: User_talk:Gharr#3rr.

I have seen nothing but bad behaviour from aministrators (I include reviewers in that group) I'm far from impressed and I am not happy to see biographies defaced and the reviewers and administrators just ignoring it for far to long--Jacque Fresco article.

I have not contacted this user called User:Sloane and my user page explains why: User_talk:Gharr#3rr. I'm not going to pretend to be nice to a user that is obviously abusive (the defacing of Jacque Fresco article and everyone pretending everying was fine for far too told me enough about this person and the way things are adminstered here) and hounding people is also not acceptable.

(Gharr (talk) 05:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC))--I await to be banned by one of these fine abusive reviewers and adminstrators one day...

See WP:BOOMERANG; you may not have to wait all that long. Damned, Gold Hat (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack, the talk page was too long, could you please summarise it? Jammed, --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I didn't read it all. I've no idea what the anon post on the user page means, and the Venus page is passing-strange. Damned, Gold Hatthis user is a sock puppet^{off-the-reservation
sockpuppet}06:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm the user Gharr is talking about. First of all, I was not notified by Gharr of this, which seems blatantly against the guidelines of ANI (thanks to user:Gold Hat for informing me). Secondly, pretty much the only contact that I've had with Gharr, is me warning him of the 3rr rule [156][157], as I noticed a small edit war going on at The Venus Project page. This seems hardly like hounding a user. Methinks User:Gharr should learn assume some good faith. --Sloane (talk) 06:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • And methinks this is just another user that fails to understand the difference between "Excuse me, you're violating our policies, here's what you did wrong and how to avoid this mistake in the future" and "Good day. I am Staler Moriarty. I see you're trying to enrich Wikipedia with Truthful content, which I can't allow because I'm evil! See these vicious and spiteful warning messages, they're what expresses my personal hatred towards all your efforts and my desire to see your purely constructive work being undone byte by byte while the administrator cabal laughs at your misery." No, it's not personal, it's a matter of competence from time to time. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm the person Gharr was involved in an edit war with. User:Sloane is not hounding you, and the links you've provided on your talk page don't even show any evidence of that (and two of the edits don't even point to edits made by User:Sloane, that should be grounds for a ban based on false claims). It seems User:Gharr is the one here with the POV issue. Gharr's personal blog has him as an obvious fan of the Zeitgeist/Venus milieu, and he's become a watchdog of those pages, and lashes out at anyone who dares make edits he's not pleased with (see the case with Sloane for instance, or the case of myself providing a scholarly take on Millennarian movements from Cambridge press, to which Gharr deleted).--Evud (talk) 12:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Also see this on Gharr's talk page where he believes there is a conspiracy afoot as to people editing The Venus Project.--Evud (talk) 12:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Section Missing From This Article

I made a complaint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#This_user_appears_to_be_.22hounding_me..22

And nothing has been resoved from what I can so far see on your page...the document simply goes into the archives. Perhaps this page is simply a page for my opponents to attack me...

I'm not even sure if I have the access level to see a archived page? Where is it? What happens if the issue is not resolved? Is this how you greet all new editors here?

I've tried to do what I can, now perhaps you might do your part in informing me on what is going on...

My complaints are still listed on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gharr#3rr they have not gone away.

(Gharr (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

   As noted in the header, any topic without comment for 48 hours is automatically archived. While in a few cases this may be premature, most of the time it means there has been sufficient comment (some times no comment may be sufficient) so it's not worth pursuing the matter further, or at least not at ANI. The archives are near the top of the page right next to the table of contents (on the right). There is also a search box clearly shown at the top of the page although because our search algorithm can sometimes be a bit slow you may not always find what you want if it's only recently been archived (it didn't work for me). If you don't find it in the searchbox or you otherwise know it's recently been archived then checking out the most recent archive or in a few case the one before will do. In this specific case the most recent archive does indeed work, it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#This user appears to be "hounding me.".
   I would note there were several problems with your original post. Do remember if you want people to help you, you yourself should make an effort to ask for help in a way which doesn't cause unnecessary work for others. 1) You did not notify the person you were complaining about. The header clearly says you should. (While this was rectified by someone else, they should not have needed to do so.) There are few good reasons for not doing so, the only one I can think of of the top of my head is if you've been banned from a user's talk page by the community or have voluntarily agreed not to post there after being asked (or otherwise to resolve a dispute). But even in that case you should clearly specify you didn't follow the requirements explaining why and asking someone to do it for you. 2) Several people already mentioned this directly or indirectly and I myself encountered when I first saw your original thread a while back. No one can really tell what your complaint is because you're directing us to your very, very, very long talk page and none of us want to try and work it out. It's possible if you summarise your complaint you may get better help. But I should warn you as others have already said from what we have seen there's a strong risk this is going to WP:BOOMERANG. So I would personally just drop it taking the advice people have already given on board.
   Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

       Agreed. Good advice, Nil Einne. I started to try to figger the problem, full of good will, but it was just too much work and TLDR, and I couldn't work it out from the user talkpage. Sorry, Gharr, but there's competition for admin attention on this board. You need to present your complaint in a more accessible and less time-consuming way. Bishonen | talk 23:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

--(Gharr (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Thankyou for pointing out the archives, it has been most helpful. It shows that there has been not decision made—it has been left to drift into the disposal bin that you call the archives. Obviously the work load must be way too much for you administrators.

Please let me make it easy for you, this short but sweet passage might also be too long for you to read: say it rambles on, boomerangs will return, and you did not really read it before going on to do other more important things…

My long complaint did not only include User:Sloane it also happens to include you: Gharr3rr “User:Sloane has shown no reaction to the state of Jacque Fresco talk page that bordered on slander. The time frames of this archived document shows that the awful state of this document has been allowed to remained in Wikipedia for far too long.

I'm not only looking at User:Sloane or User:OpenFuture here. I wondering why the upper levels of administration allows this sort of thing to go unchecked for so long???

--(13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)) “

Perhaps the overloaded in work load for administrators explains why a page that clearly is slander against Jacque Fresco (on his talk page) was left unattended for so long. I understand that document might also be too long for you—so let me clue you in: try and search the document for KKK and see if you have time to go through it all…I am not impressed by a whole lot of stuff and that includes the administration here.

As for a boomerang, I believe it’s returning towards you (your own summary of the picture that Wikipedia wants to paint for all editors—one of adversarial contests and weapons. No doubt User:Sloane is a good student of your lessons with a straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me and yes he even appears unconcerned by the slander against Jacque Fresco (and yes the article was one piece when he put his 20 cents worth of comment in)).

Oh by the way, I’m sorry, did I not mention that I missed out on police training on how to track down abusive administrators and make short, accurate, and snappy reports on the evidence at hand.

From the side of the table I sit on I see abusive administrators and what I see as abusive and threatening tags sanctioned by the administrators—that you by the way. It is also my opinion, User:Sloane tagged this article on a Resource_based_economy for speedy deletion (just before he handed out a 3rr notice to me) much too quickly showing little regard for the person who made the article. --(Gharr (talk) 06:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC))

OK, so let me get this straight: Sloane's only direct interaction with you is a single 3RR warning? Stickee (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dude, us admins are volunteers. And, since we're not really obligated to do anything, we end up having this funny tendency not to help out people that go around bashing admins. If you want help from people, I really suggest you don't refer to them as "abusive." It's not productive. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said last time, (and re: Lifebaka's point) we also don't tend to help people who can't explain what they're actually complaining about brief enough that we don't fall asleep reading it, particularly when what we do read suggests there's nothing worth reading. Also are you trying to complain to us about problems you've had with other editors or carry on a conversation with the other editors? If it's the later, take it to the other editors talk page. If it's the former, avoiding 'you' so much may help. Finally, if you have problems with abusive admins it would be helpful if you would specify who you're referring to. I appreciate you think all admins are bad for not dealing with your complaint but I presume you've problems with abusive admins goes beyond that and of the people you appear to have issues with (Sloane, Evud, OpenFuture) none of them are admins. Nor am I or Stickee or Demiurge1000 or Gold Hat or Beyond My Ken. LifeBaka appears to be the only admin here (and Bishonen who replied above). One more thing, I'm sure some here can tell you I'm a master of long posts myself. Yet even I couldn't be bothered making sense of what you were saying in your talk page. Most people are far more succinct then me. And none of us went to some special school. Take from that what you will) Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

so you checked the Jacque Fresco talk page for this ==> "KKK" <== and feel that the state of this slanderous page is okay. That the presence of User:Sloane(established history between me and User:Sloane) in this "Jacque Fresco talk page" counts for nothing:"A merge seems an excellent idea, although it might be best to merge Jaque Fresco and the Venus Project into Zeitgeist: The Movie which seems the only article that's properly sourced. Sloane (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)." --(Gharr (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

• Gharr makes reference to an article having been tagged for speedy deletion by Sloane. It is presumably this one, now a redirect to The Venus Project. That was speedy deleted by administrator 2over0 under CSD G12 as an unambiguous copyright infringement. That being the case, if it was Sloane who tagged it for speedy deletion, it was the proper thing to do. I hope that clears up and disposes of part of Gharr's complaint. 86.146.23.51 (talk) 00:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I and another user contributed to the talk page about he resource based economy and I felt the speedy deletion tag might have given the user some time to respond. A tag blanking <--! like this one --> might have sufficed if there was also copyright issues. Such a speedy-deletion tag is agressive in nature as was the straight out, no warnings vague 3rr notice to me. --(Gharr (talk) 05:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

User:Anber Advertising

Anber's user page contains an advertisement for his law firm. It goes against the "Promotional and advocacy material and links" section of Wikipedia:User_pages#Excessive_unrelated_content. As I expected, he completely ignored my notice on his talk page. CTJF83 11:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Plus, at least the first external link, if not the second CTJF83 12:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a statement of what the business does; and we welcome declarations of possible COI &c. It's helpful to know what background editors are coming from. The brief text is a little enthusiastic but doesn't look excessively promotional to me, although it's very hard to describe any business' activities without at least one wikipedian thinking it spam. The text about university/political background seems even more positive to me - but folk don't complain about that. bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

How much more advertising can you get then, "I can be reached, 24hrs/day at 1-888-989-3946, or from jail at 613-755-4008"? CTJF83 12:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that last is a little egregious. I've removed the contact numbers per WP:NOTDIR item 3 (also WP:NOTWEBHOST item 1 and WP:NOTADVERTISING item 5). I don't see any real problem with the rest though. EyeSerene^talk 12:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok....the link to his law firm is borderline advertising...but I was mostly concerned with the phone numbers. CTJF83 12:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

We traditionally allow a link or two to personal websites and the like. As long as it's not too promotional (ie it's not in a section that says "For all your legal needs visit www.suegrabbitandrun.com"), I think it's not worth bothering about. EyeSerene^talk 12:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. CTJF83 12:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Those links are still a little too ad-like for my tastes. I think they should be toned down further. It might be less of an issue for a very active editor or if the page was noindexed, but this isn't an SEO platform. I notice davidanber.com does use keyword-stuffed urls[158] and I think the high search placement of wikipedia pages (despite nofollow) creates a COI for anyone desiring web visibility. Anyway it would look less spammy if the formatting and wording was made a bit more understated. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Just to let you know I disagree that my phone numbers violates spirit or letter of wiki policy and I will be reverting back my space. Until/unless there is clear consensus to change it, or unless there is some kind of ruling, I would ask that you please not disturb my user page. Also, as a final point you guys should consider the bad faith motives of Ctjf83 in raising this. He and I have been major contributors disagreeing over a content issue (see our edit histories). It appears to be clearly bad fait to start nitpicking someone's talk page after such a contentious debate and this should reduce the weight of his contribution. Anber (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Including the IP, let me be number four in favor of removing the contact information, against your one. Is that consensus enough for you? Any ill regard Ctjf83 you think has for you, doesn't at all change the fact that this clear advertising should be removed.--Atlan (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Advertising is advertising, whether I have a dispute with the user, am good friends with them, or they are an IP or an admin. Also you don't need a consensus when you clearly violate policy, of which I linked you to 1 and EyeSerene linked you to 3. You just need to be blocked like your 2 cohorts on AVGN episodes, due to your continued disruption of Wikipedia. CTJF83 22:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

After that last statement, I think you should not be the one removing the information from his user page. There's no real urgency to the matter and whether we resolve it now or in a few hours doesn't matter.--Atlan (talk) 22:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's even close to borderline - it's advertising, plain and simple. Wikipedia does not exist for anyone's advertising benefit. The numbers should be removed. (Also, I know that the WMF is located in Florida, but if this advertising happens to contravene the rules of the Law Society of Upper Canada, is there any chance we could get in trouble? Law societies in Canada often have strict rules about where and how lawyers can advertise.) --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough consensus for you? Take a look at WP:VAND, me removing advertisement is hardly vandalism. CTJF83 22:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"Contact information such as phone numbers, fax numbers and email addresses are not encyclopedic." Doc talk 22:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Doc9871. I believe a link to your website and saying you're a lawyer is probably as far as it should go. Adding phone numbers, what law you practice, addresses, etc, etc. is plain and simple advertising and shouldn't be around. Just my .02 Dachknanddarice (T‖C) 22:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I have once again removed the contact information, citing the consensus that has developed here that it was indeed unacceptable. I hope that will be the end of it, although let's leave this thread open for Anber to respond if he so wishes.--Atlan (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• I do not believe there is consensus. My user page is not optimized to make it an effective advertisement at all. Anybody arriving at this page likely looked for me by name and therefore the phone numbers are relevant information. Just because it is not to some people's taste doesn't mean it violates the spirit or letter of wikipedia policy. Secondly, there is a guideline, I believe that gives deference to user pages. Thirdly, this was started by Ctjf83. I have pointed out obvious bad faith in him doing this and I think this should be taken into consideration. I would like more input from the wikipedia community before my page is modified and I will ask you to respect this before arbitrarily deciding that's the decision. Anber (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia." [159] Doc#1 is correct. One does not find phone numbers in an encyclopedia. — DocOfSoc • Talk • 23:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

EyeSerene had it right the first time: I was really just reiterating one of his main reasons listed above for deleting the numbers. There's simply no purpose to have those numbers except to advertise: why else on earth would they be there? WP:What Wikipedia is not is policy, Anber, and I for one cannot see consensus to remove the numbers changing no matter how much time passes (unless there are some changes to the policy). WP:NOTADVERTISING applies to "articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages." So it actually does "violate the spirit or letter of wikipedia policy". With this revert you have technically violated another policy It applies to any page, including user pages. WP:UP#PROMO would mean that the second exemption of 3RR would not apply. Jus' sayin'. Doc talk 02:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You are getting community input, and the stuff on your page is outside community norms as you can probably find by comparing it with contact info on other user pages. If there's a link to your own site and your site has your phone number, there's no reason to put your phone number on wikipedia. There's also no reason for your advocacy blurb; it should be enough to say something like "I work as a criminal lawyer in Ottawa, Canada, and my web site is here" with your site instead of Wikipedia's. Anyway, why do you say anyone arriving at the page likely looked for you by name? That does seem to indicate an expectation that people are going to find your Wikipedia user page with off-wiki search engines, which creates reasons to want to optimize the page. The usual reason anyone should find your Wikipedia user page is because they're editing Wikipedia and they view the page for some reason related to your editing, rather than looking for you by name. People shouldn't care about off-wiki visibility of Wikipedia user pages at all, as I see it. And, I don't understand why you're so worked up about this if there is really no COI involved. I think Doc9871's points are well taken. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Warning template abuse

I would like to request an admin issue a caution to user Mo ainm for warning template abuse. I would myself however i already issued them one for warning template abuse, however they have since abused a warning template again with no jusitification for it. This user and i do not see eye-to-eye, however i feel this is a case of harassment.

Firstly they issued me a warning as can be seen here, for allegedly editing an article talk page comment, when in reality all i did was alter an articles talk page section heading to a more relevant and content related title according to the Section headings part of the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments policy.

What i changed it from and too can be seen here. Justification for this change can be seen here. Other than Mo ainm's revert of it citing "refactoring", to which i restored it per the quoted policy, no-one has complained about the renaming with even the initiator of the topic allegedly "copy-editing" it by removing the question mark from it as can be seen here. So it would appear they don't object, so we can assume its not controversial - though how could the talk topic and the article section under disucssion being used as the title be controversial. Thus i issued Mo ainm a caution for warning template abuse for issuing a warning when it was clearly not called for.

Rather than apologise, they decide to for no apparent justifiable reason at all issue a warning template abuse caution back at me. They didn't elaborate on how exactly i merited the warning either.

I feel an admin should step in to caution Mo ainm as any further justified cautions/warnings from me in regards to warning template abuse i feel will no doubt be ignored and i'll probably be the subject of more petty tit-for-tat. I would also like to have an admin step in now to nip anything here in the bud. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mo and Mabuska, I think it's best to avoid using user-talk templates at all. They are like walking up to someone, pulling an electronic device out of your pocket, and playing a bureaucratically worded recorded message at them through a speaker instead of talking to them like a human. The other person doesn't pay any attention to what the message says, and they just get annoyed with you. If you have to criticize someone's editing on their talk page, just edit the page and describe your issue in normal english instead of using those templates. We have a essay don't template the regulars but it should really be "don't template anyone". 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Are they really "bureaucratically worded" ? I'm sure they could be improved, but personally I think they are written rather well, especially the "lower level" ones. Someone I know was indulging in some petty vandalism just after they first created their account, and they actually felt quite welcomed by the template that begins something like "Thanks for your attempts to lighten up Wikipedia, but..." --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Gross incivility, threats of off-wiki harassment, and personal attacks by Tony1

Tony1 (talk · contribs)'s persistent mean spirited behavior towards my friends and repeated threats to harass my friends and I was the main incident that motivated me to want to leave Wikipedia. However since making the decision to leave, I have seen his behavior continue to get worse, and I firmly believe that his actions are hurting the project.

While I will not repeat the details of stories that I cannot independently verify, I have been told by at least two people that I am not the first editor he has chased away from the project, and by many, many people that I am not the only one that finds him impossible to approach.

This conversation, specifically the comments here and here demonstrate that Tony1 is paranoid about 'his' idea being stolen and willing to threaten me to keep me from moving forward with my own plans, which as I detailed at the beginning of that conversation, are nothing like his. He makes frequent mention of confidential information, and uses that as a defense, however in my conversations with him the most I was ever told was a broad outline of his plans. Everything I remember from those conversations I posted in the on his talk page in order to try to draw contrast between his and my ideas.

Secondly, Tony1's treatment of other contributors is also less than ideal. His over the top criticisms of featured sounds candidates, mind you almost exclusively those submitted by other Wikipedians, prompted this response by La Pianista.

Finally, this comment and this comment were utterly inappropriate and were what promoted me to file the ANI.

Tony1 is out of line, and his actions are hurting the featured sounds process and driving away users. It needs to stop.

Sven Manguard Wha? 15:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The thing I don't get is, from what I can tell, Tony1's supposed Intellectual Property is... cooperating wth producers of music, such as schools. Durova, before she left, talked about doing that all the time, and, indeed, did set up such cooperations with organisations such as the Tropenmuseum, and was working on others, including a phonograph cylinder library, and a music school.

So I don't understand Tony's very vicious attack on Sven, which directly derailed an attempt to get things for Wikipedia, because... only he's allowed to cooperate with others? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Looking over what I can see of the convo, it looks to me like Tony's got some ownership issues at the very least, and may be slanting toward legal threats with his not-so-subtle hinting. I fail to see how either helps the Wikipedia project as a whole. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Tony is getting close to making legal threats (talking about "intellectual property" certainly has that connotation). It's not quite over the line yet but if it gets worse it would be problematical. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you want, Sven? That Tony be blocked? Banned? Both of you are arguing over some petty nonsense that could be resolved by one or both of you shutting up and forgetting about featured sounds for a month. I don't know what an admin is supposed to do here. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 15:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Honestly I don't know. Certainly the community wouldn't support a block, let alone a ban. I suppose what I want is three things.

1) I want an acknowledgment by uninvolved third parties that there is indeed an issue here, and that it isn't just me that's causing it.

2) I want the threats made by Tony1 either voluntarily redacted or I want the community to tell him rather clearly that if went through with such a thing that it would not be tolerated.

3) I want him to agree to leave me alone, period. If I do return, I will return to Featured Sounds in a severely diminished capacity, so there will be no excuse for us to cross paths. I don't want a repeat of this type of thing, and at this point I don't believe that we will ever be able to communicate with each other effectively, so I'd much rather us no communicate at all.

I've already gotten the first of those, as well as an outpouring of support (and one user giving me a proper friendly wringing out) but I'm not going to come back with these issues hanging over my head, whether coming back is something that I or others want or not. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any issue of "intellectual property" here – we're talking, apparently, abut soliciting people to create featured sounds. It would be absurd for Tony to email people to tell them not to donate to Wikipedia simply because he didn't personally solicit them to do so; at the same time, I suppose nobody can stop him from doing so, just like I could email people to tell them not to edit articles if I wanted to. But if I did that it would be a quite selfish reaction to not being the person who had invited them. So I think both editors need to simply leave each other alone; there's no reason they cannot both solicit featured sounds. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree—there's obviously a dispute here, to which both involved parties have responded less-than-satisfactorily, but if both leave it alone, the matter is largely resolved. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, no, I do believe I have reacted in an entirely appropriate way. This thread seems to be full of lies and misapprehensions. Who has made legal threats? There has been theft of intellectual propertly after confidentiality was assured in writing, and a breach of that confidentiality to more than one other person. I repeat here that if I believe the theft is acted on, I will inform those who are participating of the theft. Now Carl, who is talking of emailing people and asking them to stop donating to WP? Where did that come from, or did you make it up? Where did the "harass my friends" come from? Fetchcomm, how can you judge whether the IP matter is "petty"?

"I agree that Tony is getting close to making legal threats (talking about "intellectual property" certainly has that connotation)". In what way are they legal theats? They're promises that I will inform others if he steals my IP. It's not on-wiki, it concerns the property of a WMF chapter, actually, which has resulted in an unusual meeting of the board to discuss the matter. And what rubbish is that that Sven M was retiring yesterday? Stay retired and that will be fine. Until your latest tirade and personal attacks on me, I was willing to turn the other cheek; now I am not. Tony (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What IP matter? Sven's not affiliated with your university and his proposal is completely unrelated to yours. It's the same as me asking my friend, "Do you want to record this song for me?" Tony, you said very clearly, "I will be emailing everyone who participates in your scheme to inform them of such". So please don't play the "I never said that" card. Because you sure said you would email people. Lastly, Tony, "Your patent disregard for confidentiality here has now changed my mind. Please, do not return. You are not yet mature enough to be an editor." [160] is inappropriate. And that is what I meant when I said your reaction was not the best. Will you stop pushing this issue, now, and let WMAU or whoever handle the whole partnership whatnot, and stay away from Sven? And Sven, will you do the same? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And will someone from Wikimedia Australia please explain this whole "confidentiality" thing? Did Sven sign a legally binding confidentiality clause (if there's such a thing) and then violate it? Is it still valid even if the alleged partnership fell through? I don't exactly buy this legal situation and I'd like clarification from someone official and uninvolved. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(With my president of Wikimedia Australia hat on) Sven has not signed any confidentiality clause with Wikimedia Australia. As I understand it, there was an agreement between Tony and Sven. I am not privy to that agreement; all I can say is that I hope Sven abides by any agreement he has made with Tony, irrespective of whether it was legally binding or merely rooted in good-faith, and irrespective of any personal conflicts they may have.
I am not going to say anything in regards to the partnership other that Sven's statements about it are inappropriate in a public forum, especially as they are factually incorrect, and I think he should redact them. I hope that Tony and Sven can go back to their separate corners (and/or take it offwiki) so Tony and the chapter can continue building the partnership without this public mess which threatens to turn our partner off completely. IMO Sven is free to undertake any project provided it does not break good-faith agreements he has made with Tony. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(EC) If confidentiality (whether implied or a formal agreement) was broken that's disappointing to say the least. If it was formal then there may even be legals issues. However as with others, I have strong doubts from what I've read that there is anything that even the most enthusiastic lawyer will call IP involved. Can any evidence be provided for some IP? If not (even if it's because you still want to keep confidentiality) I'm not sure whether continually repeating the claim helps anything. In any case, this whole case reminds me of why people should take great care when sharing their confidential ideas with people who could be considering the same thing and people who have such ideas should take great care when before they read such ideas. However I also agree what's been done here doesn't really seem to be a legal thread. This doesn't mean it's okay, it could potentially have the same chilling effect. Nil Einne (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I've tried to make it clear, (although I've not linked to it directly from this ANI,) that everything that Tony1 told me was very general information. If he told me any details, such as which university he planned to partner with, I've forgotten them. I don't log IRC conversations, and Tony1 hasn't made his logs available if he keeps them, so I'm not entirely sure what exactly he claims I agreed to. I might well have said that I agreed not to copy his idea, and it is worth noting that I have neither the resources nor the desire to do so. I want to get my friends to submit my recordings, and the extent of the involvement with my or another local university would be them letting my friends use a university owned recording studio (mostly to save us a formidable sum of money). As to me saying that I would not share his idea, the closest I can imaging coming to 'confidentiality', I might have agreed not to talk about it on Wikipedia out of courtesy, but I'm smart enough not to agree to anything remotely coming close to a legally binding agreement, and the moment he accused me of stealing his idea, I feel like I had every right to present an overview of what he told me in order to contrast it with my, clearly different, plan. I honestly don't think that any half qualified legal expert would agree that that 'partnering with a university to produce free music' comes close to the threshold for a protectable idea anyways. I suspect that the reason Tony1 is so protective here is that he wants credit and recognition if and when the proposal goes through, which he believes means that he has to be 'first' to seal a collaboration deal. I honestly couldn't give a crap about recognition, and I'm not out to try to steal glory from him, but he feels threatened none the less. Either way, I suppose he has succeeded at whatever he has tried to do, because one of my friends has pulled out because of the fight, and at this point I don't feel that getting new original content is worth facing the nearly inevitable fight with Tony1 that doing so would lead to. Sven Manguard Wha? 21:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Why the hell is there "confidential" "IP" as part of a wikipedia project? This isn't a business network. It's a FREE encyclopedia built around FOSS software and free content in significant part to distance itself from the stinky world of "confidential IP". Sheesh. It sounds at minimum like somebody has a COI or at least a problem with the open culture that's supposedly one of our core values. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Point-blank question: Tony, is this about the idea of soliciting others to make sounds for Wikipedia? Because, from everything I've read, I see nothing but that idea. If you're accusing Sven of more than that, please state, in general terms, how it extends beyond that. If it is thatr, and given that Durova has very publicly talked about plans to bring in, for example, Juliard to Featured Sounds, then this is clearly harassment, and I Support a block of Tony.

Tony brought the matter up on wiki first, by accusing Sven of a claimed violation of IP, and threatening to destroy any attempts by Sven to seek out potential Featured Sounds from others. If there's nothing more than the idea of claimign sounds for Wikipedia that Tony's getting upset about, Tony needs blocked. We cannot have a user intentionally sabotaging all efforts to get material for Wikipedia which are not started by him.

There are clear legal threats, and the people attacking Sven seem to be presuming that Tony has a case. I have seen no evidence in the least that Tony has one, and the idea that someone can claim blanket rights to seeking out material for Wikipedia is appalling.

I expect to see a robust defense of his position by Tony, explaining what sort of things beyond the idea of contacting people and organizations to work with Wikipedia he feels is being violated. If he feels he has control over the idea of contacting organizatons or people, and has the right to harass anyone else attempting that, he must be blocked: Whatever good he might do would be counteracted by the dozens of people he would be throwing up a blanket prevention of any activity intended to help Wikipedia, with threats of harassment on the side.

The ball is in Tony's court. Perhaps there's something more to it, but if there is, he needs to give some vague clue. As I said, Durova has contacted organisations to provide content for Wikipedia before, including the Tropenmuseum partnership, and an attempt to contact universities, recording archives, and other such locations. Her ideas were widespread public knowledge at the time - which was also a period when Tony was very active in Featured sounds. So if Tony is claiming Durova's ideas as his own, he is a complete and total hypocrite.

This is why I think we need and must expect an exact statement of what IP Tony feels Sven violated, either explicit, or at least a very general description of the type of IP. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Adam, I very much doubt that the partnership that Tony is working on is similar to any of Durova's ideas. However that is besides the point; the partnership that Tony is working on is not just ideas; it has a lot of meat on the bones. I don't know what Tony has shared with Sven, however if it is some of the documents that I am across, they are undeniably Tony's "intellectual property" (for want of a better word). The simple fact is that this should never have been brought onto Wikipedia. It would be foolish for Tony to describe the partnership publicly on Wikipedia in order to prove anything to you or anyone else, as that would spell the end of the partnership. As you may be aware, this wouldn't be the first time that a partnership has failed because conflicts between Wikipedians have trumped the good of project, and the partner has backed away from the lack of professionalism on display. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have read the conversations, and it appears Sven merely wanted to set up an informal arrangement that would get his friends access to a recording studio at a university. I am sure Tony has a complicated plan, however, the question is, what aspect of Tony's plan does he think that Sven violated? Because I've tried to get an answer from him several times, and he has so far never said anything to contradict my view that he apparently considers any cooperation with an organisation for Wikipedia purposes to violate his IP. Again, unless some element of Sven's plan is not found in the Durova plans, and is found in Tony's, then there's a major problem, and it doesn't matter how complex parts of the plan which Sven apparently does not know about is. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree it would probably be a bad idea for Tony to describe the partnership publicly here if confidentiality matters, to prove something to us. I think many of us would be happy to let Tony get back to his? work in private and respect his confidentiality. The problem I and I'm pretty sure others have is that whatever Sven may or may not have done wrong, Tony is the one making claims of Sven having broken agreements and stealing his IP and then making threats to tell others of this. As I've said I don't personally regard this as a legal threat but it still has a chilling effect and I think it's only fair for us to tell Tony to put up or shut up. Either he explains to the community in sufficient detail so we can determine if his claims have any merit or he withdraws his claims and doesn't make them on wikipedia again. Now if he does that but continues to make the claims and threats elsewhere or even carries them out, that would be unfortunate but given the minimal involvement of wikipedia in this, I don't think it's something we should get involved in. As for Sven, he? obviously should drop this once Tony has and I would also suggest he withdraw/remove any statements others feel are unhelpful or misleading but I haven't actually publicly seen anything that comes close to what Tony has done. Without looking in to all the details including those which remain private or confidential, none of us can really know how much fault each party has so as I said in my earlier reply none of this means Tony is totally in the wrong and Sven is in the right. Nil Einne (talk) 01:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

On face value, this appears to be an editor attempting to prevent something from happening by arguing that he holds the intellectual property rights to it. Regardless of whether this claim has any merit, I would have said it was a fairly clear legal threat, and Tony1 should be blocked unless he agrees to withdraw it. Wikipedia does not recognise IP rights (certainly not in the way being presented here) - if he wants to pursue that, he needs to take it offwiki. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is getting way out of hand. I'd like to see a succinct two or three-sentence summary of what's actually happening here, because I can't make head nor tail of it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In a nutshell, Tony allegedly disclosed sensitive information to Sven, allegedly accused Sven of disseminating said information, and made half-legal threats to him. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 22:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
    • But there are lots more points and claims involved in that, of which I'm not entirely sure and won't even try to articulate at the moment. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 22:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
      • The blockable offence here appears to be "legal threats", yet you call them "half-legal threats". Can you explain what you mean by that? Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

        • I wonder what a "half-legal" threat is. I get a mental picture of a guy getting both a court order and a blackjack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

        • Tony says that he will inform Sven's friends that Sven is breaching IP rights. Sven disputes said IP rights, and fears damage done to contributors' willingness to donate their time and talents. Jujutacular ^talk 22:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Well, there's nothing even remotely "legal threat" about that, whatever we may think about it morally or ethically. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
            • (edit conflict) @Malleus: "Half-legal" in that he accuses Sven of "[stealing] intellectual property," which only has connotations of legal action.
            • Regarding concerns about Tony's approach to assessing featured material and his interactions with other users: it's frankly off-topic. He has made several questionable comments, but discussing those further only causes needless drama. Let's stick to what the admins can deal with. — La Pianista ^{♫ ♪} 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
              • An accusation of stealing carries no implication of legal action to follow. But frankly I'm no wiser about what's triggered this brouhahah now than I was before, because much of it seems to have brewed up on IRC. Malleus Fatuorum 23:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
        • I think that another aspect of this discussion ought to focus on Sven Manguard's questionable history, possibly a sockpuppet. See his earliest edits, especially his use of "userspace", removal of welcome template, and a warning to an IP. Asalamalakum^Talk 23:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
          • Sven isn't a sock. See here. —GFOLEY FOUR— 23:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
            • Just for purposes of discussion, the above edit is Asalamalakum (talk · contribs)'s third edit, after de-redlinking his own user and talk pages. Dayewalker (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Smells like foot odor to me. No one who knows html enough to use text shadows in their sig would still use the long-deprecated font tag as well, I'm thinking.  Checkuser needed? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm with Adam and Ellen on this one. From where I am sitting, "There has been theft of intellectual propertly after confidentiality was assured in writing, and a breach of that confidentiality to more than one other person. I repeat here that if I believe the theft is acted on, I will inform those who are participating of the theft" is very clearly a threat in the spirit of WP:NLT, as Tony is leveling a threat intended to chill Sven's participation as well as to harrass other potential contributors. I would like to see a very good explanation as to why he should not be blocked until the threat is revoked. Resolute 23:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, as John Vandenberg says, this should not have been brought onwiki because, as the IP editor says, this isn't a business network. Tony needs seriously to strike these threats. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have, in the interim, attempted an unofficial solution as the Featured Sound director,: [161]. It is my hope that Tony will accept that this is the only way to stop the current haemorrhage of most of the major featured sound contributors over Tony's behaviour. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of resolving it somewhere other than this. I hope that John Vandenberg and Adam Cuerden can find some resolution with the involved editors. We can give them some time to work on it; they can always come back here if they are unsuccessful. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I categorically deny seeing any of the documents that John Vandenburg says were prepared. Everything I've said is from my memory of conversations, and I've said everything I know, as best as I can remember. If they are incorrect, it is not deliberate, the conversation took place months ago. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Attention grabbing edit on World Down Syndrome Day page

User Pardk has used the above page to pass a message onto a named individual.[162] He's made no constructive edit, just the insertion of a blank line and then the edit summary to leave a message. Could somebody revdel it please? User informed. a_man_alone (talk) 15:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

WTF ... is this CSI or a joke? The user's talk page is even more messed up. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Revdeled. Dunno about the talkpage -- is this block evasion? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

They've just done it again here, using a couple of spelling corrections as a means to try to contact someone via the edit summary. I've issued another warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No message this time (but their talk page message is still there) but there is a name [163] Nil Einne (talk) 17:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted the edit summary and left a final warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that "Sarah Irwin" is in one of the articles that got edited, added 15 January.[164] Is this some weird prank? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, "Sarah (Irwin) Ferguson", how curious -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty run-of-the-mill vandalism technique - vandal A posts messages on article A, vandal B replies on Article B, A replies on A, and so on. I don't know why they do it, but if you do recent changes patrol you'll see it often. They were probably sitting right next to each other in lab. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the top of their Talk page, which makes personal attacks against another person. Corvus cornix_talk 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Suspicions of blocking a user based on unfounded allegations

A few days ago I came across an interesting claim (to say at least). An IP editor was complaining about the fact that Iaaasi has managed to block both of his accounts by (obviously falsely) claiming at least in one occasion that this users' accounts are in fact sockpuppets of Stubes99. His first account was OliverTwist88. After he was blocked based on accusations fabricated by Iaaasi, he obviously created a sockpuppet account GrandMariner. The SPI link quoted above indicates that his first account was NEVER blocked for socking, but obviously for disagreements between him and some other users on the grounds of the content of the Magical Magyars article (where I found his rant as well). The SPI block (linked above) also reveals a few additional facts: HelloAnnyong has admitted himself that OliverTwist88 was incorrectly banned by him and is willing to unblock one of his accounts (either this one or GrandMariner). Despite that Iaaasi has continued to assert that this user in fact is Stubes99. As if to provide an additional evidence of the contrary (though this probably wasn't the editor's intention, supported by the fact that he didn't even sign his note), presumably the very same editor has added the note above using his IP address (24.25.218.135). This IP address seems to point to San Diego, CA, so unless the user in question is using a proxy, he simply cannot be Stubes99. Therefore I suggest a proxy investigation of the IP address. If it turns out not to be a proxy, then this whole issue will be a fine example of the "work methods" of Iaaasi. Obviously he never assumed good faith in case of this user and the way he was accused makes one think that the editor's only fault was the fact that he had a different opinion than Iaaasi. This would be the second notable example of Iaaasi disregarding anything and anyone with an opinion differing from his own, and goes as far as removing academic sources if it doesn't fit his agenda. EDIT: interestingly enough this whole process was done well after Iaaasi has been granted his second chance to be a constructive member of he WP community. Unfortunately I don't think that this is what constructive attitude looks like.

What I suggest is restoring this editor's unrestricted access to Wikipedia for one of his accounts (he might choose which one) and clearing him all of the accusations that he has anything to do with Stubes99. Also, in the real world in such situations it would be a defamation issue of Iaaasi against OliverTwist88/GrandMariner. Do you happen to have a process that corresponds with this (maybe issuing a warning or something)? I think that nobody should get away with making one's life miserable using false accusations. CoolKoon (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no reliable way to tell whether a given address is proxying remote traffic. Some proxies label themselves as such, others not. All kinds of spy-vs-spy crap might be going on. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When you edited this page to start this thread, a bright orange bar told you that you must notify any user you mention. I have notified Iaaasi. JohnCD (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought that since it's mostly about the falsely blocked user, only he has to be notified, which I did. CoolKoon (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I know, but WP admins have nevertheless managed to block a cornucopia of open proxies in the past few years. Therefore they MIGHT know something in regards these proxies that we don't..... CoolKoon (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some users on Wikipedia who know how to detect proxies. I am not one of them, but a Google check shows the IP 24.25.218.135 is blacklisted on five different blacklists see this chart, so it could very well be a proxy IP or zombified in some way. User OliverTwist88/GrandMariner was offered the opportunity by HelloAnnyong back in February to unblock one of their two accounts but so far they have not responded. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, they probably know some advanced URL trickery/traceroute magic that we mortals don't. There's something about this IP which makes me think it isn't an "open relay" though: OliverTwist88/GrandMariner seems to have been using this IP address for quite a while (several months I think) which probably means that he's editing from his workplace, which is a bigger corporation (smaller ones usually rarely have fixed IPs). His IP resolves to cpe-24-25-218-135.san.res.rr.com, which seems to be part of the internal systems of Time Warners (probably part of an internal SAN as the domain name leads us to believe). It could also be a fixed IP of a Time Warner Cable subscriber too. All in all I don't think that it looks like a proxy location (those have usually much more shady places an nonsensical or nonexistent DNS entries). He could still be using a VPN connection, but there's no way one could reliably detect that remotely. Traceroute didn't reveal anything suspicious either. The blacklists could be pretty much due to a badly configured SMTP server (there are servers that randomly probe IP addresses all over the internet for such weaknesses and exploit them almost immediately). Anyway, this is my 2 cents worth, if someone knows more about this, please try to shed some light into it. CoolKoon (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• FYI 24.25.218.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is Not an open proxy as far as I can tell and there is no evidence supporting that claim. Being in a few blacklists is normal for most IPs. In the future, proxy checks should be requested at WP:OP. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Legal block notification

For transparency's sake, I'm notifying this board of my indefinite block of User talk:TheOriginalSkunk for making legal threats. The block followed two e-mails to my Wikipedia e-mail address threatening legal action. Following my reply and warning concerning the content of the first e-mail, this edit was made to my talk page. Because of the quality of the e-mails and deleted The Skunk article, this is a blatant troll account to me -- but I will forward the e-mail text to an arb if anyone wants. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 17:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Based on the on-wiki evidence, that certainly seems reasonable. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What an idiot. I have no pity for such people (especially the ones that in addition try to blackmail others with a lawsuit). Serves him well. CoolKoon (talk) 17:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You should forward the e-mails to the arbcom-l mailing list if there is an unblock request that someone needs to evaluate. If there isn't, and if you don't think the threats are real, then I'm not sure there's a need to do anything else. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the clarifications. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be tempting, though probably against the rules, to retort that, "Wikipedia is very unhappy with Original Records and are considring legal action." Make sure to keep the typos, of course. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:43, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Hlm87 20

User:Hlm87 20 has repeatedly been recreating the article for Joe Rogalski (ice hockey) which was deleted following an AfD[[165], and has since been Speedy Deleted after Hlm87 20 reposted it, but he just creates it again. His User talk:Hlm87 20 page is filled with deletion notifications. What can be done to prevent his continued disruptive behavior? Onthegogo (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Salted for a week. In the future, requests like this can go to WP:RFPP. TNXMan 18:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

...and user warned and referred to WP:NHOCKEY. JohnCD (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:3.178.243.7

Resolved

 – Blocked for 3 months. Next time please report at WP:AIV —GFOLEY FOUR— 22:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help dealing with abusive IP User:193.178.243.7 User talk:193.178.243.7 (reverts with abusive comments; was warned before). Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

This probably should go to WP:AIV. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Mysterious glitch (cont.)

This is a continuation of a previous section which began, "There was a mysterious addition of the phrase ' Bold text '...". (See Mysterious glitch.)

I discovered how the problem occurs. It’s the same as the scenario that Rich Farmbrough mentioned except It occurs on the CAPTCHA page that comes up when an IP tries to submit an edit with an external link. The toolbar loads after the CAPTCHA box opens, moving the toolbar up to where the CAPTCHA box was. Depending on timing, sometimes the click designed to get focus on the CAPTCHA box hits the toolbar instead. From my experience, the inadvertent addition to the edit is not obvious. It probably causes sufficient wasted effort and trouble on Wikipedia with "rvv" etc. to justify spending the effort to fix it. 75.47.154.175 (talk) 19:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• You can leave a post at the technical village pump and someone with some experience or knowledge can figure out what exactly is going on and put a bug in the tracker. Protonk (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• There's an edit filter in the works for this also, but I haven't enabled it yet. 28bytes (talk) 20:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • While I welcome anything that would get rid of these erroneous additions that I see dozens of during any vandalism patrol, it seems that giving new users an edit filter rejection is only going to totally confuse them since they didn't deliberately add the text. It also makes me rethink the value of ever leaving a test edit warning on a user talk page. If our own software is effectively causing these things, we've been chastising users needlessly for a long time. Who knows how many other test edits are caused by similar things? —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Need help with speedied deletion on Fistgate article

I tried to add a speedied delete template but I got a not allowed message.

The fistgate article serves only to accuse President Obama's openly gay Kevin Jennings of being associated with a sexual practice using unreliable sources or sources that don't support the statements at all; also "fistgate" is almost solely used by conservative activist bloggers. The short version is that in 2000 an activist from Mass Resistance illegally taped a health/sex education conference workshop that was co-sponsored by Jennings' group GLSEN (they did not approve information that was not age-appropriate and had nothing to do with the session which was run by State health educators). Despite a court injunction against releasing the recording the activists did so, held a press conference and a talk show aired parts of the tape including someone (who may have been a plant) asking about fisting. This was re-dug up a decade later after the President announced he was appointing Kevin Jennings to the US Department of Education in 2009 and rebranded as fistgate by those opposed to Obama, Jennings or both.

[166] Media Matters, who have debunked a lot of similar claims, saidThe latest charges, which highlighted the creepy right-wing fascination with gay sex, were rolled over days and presented as the ultimate take-down of Jennings. But alas, the serious press has been singularly uninterested in the story. A check of Nexis shows not one serious national news outlet picked up the story this week, despite the fact that right-wingers, led by Andrew Breitbart, hailed it as a sensational blockbuster.

I'm surprised that what is essentially a tranparent and slanderous smear is being legitimized by Wikipedia. I started to fix the article but there is very little to support it existing at all. I know people are free to criticized government officials but this feels over the line. Is there anything that can be done or a better page to ask? Also the "Massachusetts News" and "MassResistance" articles basically repeat the same versions. Haley- Haley 23:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Based on the age of the article and how many editors have worked in it, I doubt you'd get a speedy deletion under any of the WP:CSD criteria, and a WP:PROD would likely be removed in short order. You'd be better off nominating it at WP:AFD and seeing if consensus can be gained for deletion. Note that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your points; I don't know enough about it to do so. I'm just pointing out what looks like the viable option. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that worked! Haley 01:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Irregular restoration of deleted article

This article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Argentine, was deleted 11 January 2011. After that, was written on Metapedia (search White Argentine on Metapedia). Some one has restored it [167], using the same Metapedia's text, with a new name: Argentines of European descent, but is the same article. The problem is, on one hand, they are copy the text from Metapedia to Wikipedia, without permission. On the other, is a mockery of the decision taken by the community. They don't ask the Deletion review, just acted on the basis of facts, disrespecting the community. It is possible to do some thing? Regards.--GiovBag (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) You could put a speedy-deletion tag on it for G4 (recreation of a page deleted after discussion), but you would have to make sure to put a supporting argument on the Talk page. Or you could tag it under WP:COPYVIO, if Metapedia doesn't follow the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license (I don't know if they do or don't off the top of my head). --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no. It wasn't done that way. The 'White Argentine' article was userfied, edited to remove the most glaringly-obvious problems, and then renamed as 'Argentines of European descent'. Though I don't agree with the way this was done, it was approved by several admins. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's the case, WP:CONSENSUS must prevail, end of story, IMO. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Averaver

User:Averaver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This user, who has a block notice on their talk page, appears to be making small edits to a variety of pages - no serious damage done, but examination of contribution history shows a consistent pattern of adding foreign categories and brackets to categories. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to them? I don't see any such attempt on their talk page; is the conversation somewhere else? What, exactly, do you feel the problem is with this user? "Adding foreign categories and brackets to categories" can be useful, if done correctly; are you saying they're doing it incorrectly? Block notice also appears to be a non-issue. I don't understand why this is on ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because a user was once blocked once doesn't mean that he can never edit again. Many editors are blocked temporarily. His block seems to be related to his ISP, not because he wasn't editing in good faith. In fact, his edits appear completely innocuous and might be helpful to Italophones. --NellieBly (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the ANI notice on their talk page, and asked what their edits 'mean', with two examples. I can't see what adding a '|' pipe does for a category, e.g. "Category:Janet Morris" -> "Category:Janet Morris|*", so I asked a "so edjoomakate me" question. Shenme (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

IP harassment

• Special:Contributions/166.205.137.189
• Special:Contributions/166.205.136.91
• Special:Contributions/166.205.138.250

User:LeftCoastMan was recently blocked for personal attacks, above IPs are harassing Moreschi and myself about it, please block. Swarm ^X 06:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, they seem to have stopped. Action may not be necessary. Swarm ^X 06:14, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You are a whiny little fuck aren't you?166.205.139.132 (talk) 06:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)