Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.122.209.126 (talk) at 11:04, 29 June 2009 (→‎Personal attacks in article mainspace). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
    Shortcuts

    This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

    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


    Death of Michael Jackson part 2

    Foregoing archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive549#Michael Jackson cardiac arrest / reported death

    A contributor created the article Death of Michael Jackson, under the basis that they're expecting future information about a current event. In the talk page, I've already explained about the WP:NOTCRYSTAL policy, as well as using other high-profile deaths as examples of precedence. We're recommending that the content is merged with the main Michael Jackson article, rather than building this article up, and then end up merging later on if the death was indeed natural with no foul play involved. groink 02:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See Death of Michael Jackson (stub) above. This isn't really an admin issue, but one of content, and should be worked out on the talk page. --auburnpilot talk 02:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Umm, Death of Michael Jackson was deleted and salted. Now it's an article, especially after being used as a fork example in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson? Was there a discussion to un-salt? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That's what I'm getting at here. The admin who unsalted the namespace is sympathetic of the MJ situation. But the reason I think this is an admin-related issue is that, whenever Wikipedia policy is bypassed under an assumed special circumstance like this, it should've been discussed somehow. Especially when another admin is the one who is circumventing the policy. Groink (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is the link to the delete. [1] Groink (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just want to add here for the record that I created the article, but I did not unprotect it. I posted a request on AN/I. And there clearly is a need for such a sub-article, given the length of Michael Jackson, and given that we should follow WP:SUMMARY STYLE. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There appears to have been no discussion other than that tiny bit above. Guess that passes for consensus these days, multiple deletion discussions aside. There's a vigorous merge discussion on the talk page of the unsalted and recreated article; see how that goes, I guess. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There does not even appear to be a Death of Elvis Presley article, and that story was certainly a media sensation - for awhile, at least. I doubt very much there's enough info on the death of MJ to fill an article, even if it turns out he was taking 100 different pills and had 100 different illnesses and that the FBI and CIA and Oliver Stone were somehow involved. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to use examples that occurred during Wikipedia's lifetime. –xenotalk 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't dispute your hint that wikipedia suffers from recentism. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Most sources do. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as it's not recant-ism, it's probably ok. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Those who cant, do. Those who can't, recant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How about Death of David Carradine? That was totally out of the blue. The death of MJ shouldn't have been such a surprise. Meanwhile, there is nothing officially known about MJ's death yet beyond the fact that it occurred. Maybe Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson would be more appropriate, since it's everyone's reaction that makes it special - as with Elvis. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Being a modest 32k, David Carradine's article can accomodate for this. Michael's was ~95k pre-death. –xenotalk 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, it's the coroner's job to split Carradine :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Xeno. Also, MJ is a FA. There is likely to be reisistance to putting as much in the article about the death as some people will want. I think that having a Death article is a good safety valve.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    /me runs off to create Death of Farrah Fawcett and Death of Ed McMahon - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 15:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We have Death of John Lennon (but I suppose that was an interesting and unusual death, as assassinations usually are). Dendodge T\C 15:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And it was obviously also out of the blue. Curiously, the article fails to mention the dotted line connecting that assassination to the attempt on Reagan. Supposedly the guy who shot Reagan was devastated by Lennon's death, and that helped to put him over the edge. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh, and people wondered what my motivation in locking down the MJ article when the first unconfirmed reports started coming in about a heart attack was - 29 years later and there are still people trying to portray Lennon's murder as "assissination". LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Would Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan be comparable (death by natural causes, major figure, relatively recent w/in WP's lifetime?) Based on that, this would mean that there would need to be a lot of coverage of his funeral and memorial services, since the actual cause was not significantly noteworthy (assassination is one thing ala JKF or Lennon). As this stuff is yet unknown, and in the case of Reagan given the fellow being a President and all that, it's CRYSTAL to assume there's enough for an article at this point. The only thing that I've seen noteworth on his death includes: false scarcity of his music, the Internet being hit hard when news broke, and people jumping on fake death sites to try to complete the death trifecta (see Jeff Goldblum), and only one of these really deserves a mention. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As Wehwalt suggests, the presence of that article, which is really a violation of wikipedia guidelines, serves a practical purpose, and after the furor dies down it can be trimmed back and re-merged. It wouldn't be the first time. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which guidelines? The only one anybody has mentioned, is NOT#NEWS, which they are quite literally interpreting as 'Wikipedia does not create articles based on events in the news, period', which is beyond ridiculous. I cannot fathom, when we we so much non-notable dross and crap created on the pedia every day which can never simply be deleted at Afd under NOT#NEWS due to the 'reliable sources - notable' defence, that this global event is the one thing people choose to wake up and enforce a brittannica type standard on. Wikipedia has really screwed up this whole episode, from locking the article, from making his bio unreadable due to its woefull lede and 'NPOV' but unreadable chronological format of his article, and now, by inisting on being second best to all credible and non-credible information sources for properly covering the notable events relating to his death. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. This is where the pie-in-sky ideal of "anyone can edit" starts to break down. The fact of so much hemming and hawing over protection levels, while funny to observe, really makes wikipedia look stupid. Above all else, we should try not to make wikipedia look stupid. It only further undermines wikipedia's credibility. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We might as well archive this section. It's obvious that the consensus has been decided on by the folks who are editing the new article, so further discussion is probably moot. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wish I understood why this was not allowed to go through the AfD process. A lot of people want to see the "death of" article merged or deleted. --Susan118 talk 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The contributor who was behind un-salting the namespace is an administrator. User:Gwen Gale is a fan of Michael Jackson, and took it upon herself, with no AfD or any other discussion. I see it as a total conflict of interest, and abuse of her admin privileges. I didn't want to state this out in my opening statement, but I'm left with no other choice. We can't undo the damage and delete the article now. I would highly recommend that a higher authority look into this issue, and explore to see if the right procedures were followed. In the end, all I want to see is a warning sent to the people involved Groink (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You may get more traction if you appeared to know what you are talking about; there was a request by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) further up on this page to unsalt the title, and Gwen Gale was the admin who responded. The article was salted at the time of the MJ announcement so editors could not circumvent the protection of the main article to prevent the use of unreliable sources, and had no content - therefore there was no need for discussion to unsalt; reliable sources are now available. If you wish to warn SlimVirgin, you go to it (but it may help if you could give the appearance of knowing what it is you are talking about.) An apology to Gwen Gale may also help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Warn me about what, LessHeard? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still wondering why it did not go through AfD discussion. There was much discussion on the talk page about the possibility of merging the article, someone archived it as "no consensus", but I would have liked to see that discussion on AfD, where it would have had visibility to others who might not even know the article exists. The article has been expanded, with sources, but it is heavily dependent on quotes and media speculation, and has no real substance. --Susan118 talk 14:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There was no need to go through an AfD. Article clearly warranted by any standard. In fact, I'm quite certain it's going to end up being split up even more: investigation into death, reaction to death, funeral, probate, custody battle, etc. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 01:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go ahead and list it. I've wanted a week-long drama fest for so long, and none of the new admins are obliging by deleting the main page or blocking Jimbo. More seriously, I think in this case, the community has spoken. And if being a fan is a disqualification, well, we better find some admins who live in monasteries. Monasteries with wi-fi, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey I'm a fan, too, and I still don't think we need an article that devotes several paragraphs to statements by his family, and even less relevant people like Jesse Jackson. But not having nominated anything for deletion before, I'm not starting with this one. --Susan118 talk 15:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is going to exist. The community has IAR and ignored all procedures and decided that one, for better or worse. You can yell at the tide to turn back, but it just ain't gonna. Suggest we close this and move on. There is no need for administrator intervention in this matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no consensus to invoke WP:IAR as a lot of people here are opposed to it. This rush to create new articles to document current events is getting crazy around here. Death of Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson's health and appearance...where is the Birth of Michael Jackson article? I see absolutely no need for this to be forked off the main Michael Jackson article. He collapsed, then he died. Who cares what Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson says? This rush to create forks has to stop. Corpx (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice...now I went to archive my talk page and my cut/paste archive got tagged as "possible Michael Jackson vandalism". I should note there is no discussion related to any of the Michael Jackson articles on my talk page; this leads me to believe that I've been labelled a vandal. Guess I disagreed with the wrong person/people? I am highly offended as I have spent a lot of time fighting vandalism on Wikipedia. I wish I knew (for certain) who did this, as I'd like to open up a separate incident. I would also like to request this removed from the edit history of my archive.--Susan118 talk 04:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not you, Susan, that's just the Abuse Filter picking something up it doesn't like. That's an automated thing, not a person - don't worry about it. The filter can be cranky sometimes. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Thanks. Pyrrhus16 08:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can an admin see to this please? Pyrrhus16 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Time to split

    This entire section has more subsections than ANI does now. It's time to split off this section into it's own sub-page.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I've archived the first part of the thread, I don't think we need a subpage for an issue that should quiet down fairly quickly. –xenotalk 02:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Longterm abuser User:Nangparbat

    Resolved

    A long term Islamist banned abuser, called Nangparbat (see User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat) uses dynamic ip addresses to evade his block, and has been vandalizing numerous South Asia-related articles with Indophobic and anti-Semitic bias. Several articles have been sprotected because of his actions (for background, consult User:Thegreyanomaly). His recent attack has consisted of egregigious holocaust denial and pro-Nazi POV in Dalit Voice (see contribs, and [2], and [3]). Simply blocking the ip does not help, as he merely switches over to another dynamic ip in a matter of minutes. I appeal to editors to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia and prevent this abuse to continue.Todaymiddle (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    While you are likely a sock of Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the opposing banned editor in conflict with the above individual. Blocks all round, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fine. A "ban" means nothing anyways. However, Nangparbat has a large gang of sympathizers among the far-left and Islamist edit gangs on wikipedia, particularly abusive are pro-nangparbat admins like User:Nishkid64. If the antisemitic version of Dalit Voice is enforced by technical means due to the intervention of the pro-nangparbat camp, I will proceed to notify editors who are more intimately familiar with the dynamics of such things as antisemitism. This time, the bastards have bitten off more than they can chew. Besides, blocking will not help, as all users concerned have dynamic ip addresses. The only solution is indefinite semi-protection of targeted articles. Todaymiddle (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. Nangparbat accuses me of being pro-Hkelkar and Hkelkar accuses me of being pro-Nangparbat. Oh, how will I ever obtain the approval of two banned nationalist edit warriors? WP:RBI. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Nishkid64: Prejudiced Against All Races! ~ mazca talk 20:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Go play yur dramuz someplace else, please.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they are all equally worthless :) MuZemike 01:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What a joke this is! Nishkid blocks Nagparbat and slocks the Nangparbat articles everyday YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Darko Trifunović

    Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a BLP, is yet again being repeatedly vandalised by a series of anonymous IP editors - this article has been discussed several times before on AN/I and the BLP noticeboard [4]. The IPs repeatedly post angry rants [5], blank the article [6] and replace the article with a canned resumé / curriculum vitae [7]. The individual responsible is almost certainly the subject himself, Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked for periods of up to two weeks, has edited from IP addresses and socks, and has been warned numerous times for posting copyright violations, soapboxing, disruption etc. The article has been semi-protected several times but IP vandalism and disruption has resumed as soon as protection has lapsed. This situation has been going on for at least 18 months. Some kind of resolution is long overdue, frankly.

    In the light of this continued disruption, I suggest that the discretionary sanctions in force on Balkans-related articles should be invoked. Specifically, I suggest:

    I should add that I would not object at all to Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) being given an indefinite block. He is plainly not interested in contributing productively and has done almost no editing apart from disrupting "his" biography. Given the very lengthy catalogue of disruption that he has caused over a long period of time, I can't see him becoming a useful editor any time soon (or ever, for that matter). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see some edits by him of "himself", but they are a week old. Is there evidence the IPs are this guy, such as a checkuser? I dislike community bans on gut feeling.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been peripherally involved, in that I have blocked some socks and also suggested that the editor/subject contact the Office regarding allegations about the editing of "their" article (which either they have not done, or it was not sustained), and would back ChrisO's call for some resolution. I would, however, hesitate in locking up the article and throwing away the key - I have seen some serious allegations linked to sources that do not necessarily support the comments regarding the subject. I support linking the article to the ARBMAC provisions to ensure that the neutrality (derived from reliable sources, properly ascribed) is not compromised by any party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) It's not a community ban - it's a request for the enforcement of discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. The IPs all trace to the same ISP, Serbia Broadband in Belgrade, where Trifunovic is based [8] [9] [10] [11] [12], and they all do the same sort of thing - replacing the article with Trifunovic's CV and posting rants in broken English. As I said, this has been going on for a long time - 18 months at least. In response to LessHeard's comments, semi-protection is needed to ensure that the article can be edited without being continually vandalised. It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that semi-protection would be "locking up the article and throwing away the key" - it would just mean that the endless vandalism from IPs would cease, which can only be a good thing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (3x e/c) In response to ChrisO's prompting on my talk page, here are my thoughts:
    • The Darko Trifunovic article is in an inefinite state right now. Various editors trimmed and RS'ed the article into a state just above stub, but only into a state where it is verifiable, not IMO to where it is notable.
    • Darko (presumably) is mildly disruptive, but nothing that the multiple eyeballs already watching can't handle (as I just did). However the mild disruption does not violate BLP, in that it does not inject negative information. Thus I would be opposed to semi-protection or indefblocking of the Darko user themself.
    • User:Bosniak could possibly use a topic ban, since their contributions are rarely productive. Also, Darko's presumed lawyer and the supporting academic possibly located in NY State have been unhelpful.
    • The answer here, to me, is to finish the job and construct a proper article that deals properly with the subject. As it is, we have a single event where the subject is not necessarily a prime mover. Maybe so, but also maybe not. No matter how vile the viewpoints expressed, we need to obey BLP. We should either fix the article up properly (and I can't help much since I don't have access to EE sources) - or we should delete it. Franamax (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the incomplete task of rewriting the article needs to be finished - it seems to have stalled. With regard to the disruptive editor, WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions specifically provided for the sanctioning of editors who "fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process." I think it would be hard to argue that Trifunovic has adhered to any of those things. He has contributed absolutely nothing of value to Wikipedia and his continued involvement is not helping to improve the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that some evidence that the IPs are this guy are needed. Yes, I know, quack quack, but there are several peopele in Belgrade, at least ten or twelve, and no doubt a few of them write broken English.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (e/c) Well, on the Purpose clause, the purpose is NPOV, which is not necessarily being satisfied here; the Decorum clause doesn't really apply, since Darko and all the sock/meat-puppets are quite polite; and Editorial process - well, when it's your own name, you find an injustice, nobody listens - wouldn't you walk around to every internet cafe in the city too? I'm not saying it's right, just that it's a reminder that we need to fix the article.
    Even if you get an SPI that nails down a connection between DT and the IP editors, we generally block the puppets, not the master. I'd think that a final warning to the Darko user entity not to edit their named article page under any guise would suffice, with a reminder to raise specific concerns on the talk page of the article. If the resume is anonymously posted after the warning, sprot would be indicated, with around one month duration (it's not a high-traffic article). Same goes for the user and user-talk page.
    Note that Trifunovic is not noticeably pushing the POV of "they raped and tortured people so it's OK that we raped and tortured people" here on the en:wiki. The issue from what I can see is to just clear up the BLP article. Franamax (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds reasonable, Franamax, though I'd be cautious about the final warning thing. Perhaps more along the lines of "Please work with us on the article talk page. If this is you, please cut it out, you aren't helping matters any."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I must say I'm surprised to see this individual still treated with this much mildness by some people here. As someone who has followed the issue from a distance for some time, I have to agree completely with ChrisO: the amount of long-term disruption the article has seen is mind-boggling. This guy is not here to correct BLP problems about his own article; his presence has been disruption-only for months. He should have been indef-banned long ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It's called assuming good faith, not mildness, and demanding evidence before banning an editor. I still haven't seen any evidence these IPs are this editor except for being allegedly in the same city and language troubles. I suggest this thread be closed, this isn't going anywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there's any real doubt that the IPs are the editor. I'll request a checkuser run on the IPs - in the meantime please keep the thread open so that I can update it as necessary. In the meantime, can we at least semi-protect the article so that the current run of disruption can be stopped? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the identity is plain obvious. Just compare the following edits:
    • posting CV instead of bio article
    • copy-pasting non-wikified article text from earlier versions:
    • posting complaint rants in article space:
    Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated - the checkuser request is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darko Trifunovic. The pattern is indeed extremely obvious. The IPs are doing exactly the same thing that the Darko account and a previous sockpuppet have been doing for some time. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I too have watched the Trifunović article and its Talk for some time. As I reverted one of the countless instances of vandalism by the the article's subject, I was notified of this discussion by ChrisO.

    ChrisO and Fut.Perf are well up to speed with Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs)'s persistent disruption. There have been numerous warnings. The fellow never complies. When his changes are reverted and his self-promotional propaganda removed, he switches to accusations of apartheidism and terrorism etc. It's clear from his repeated outbursts that if the article does not serve his personal agenda he will not hesitate to disrupt it and use it as a propaganda vehicle.

    I tend towards liberal treatment of Wikimiscreants, but it was tried ad nauseam with Trifunović and it failed. ChrisO, in particular, has been patient and courteous in the extreme. It looks as thought the time has come for firm action such as he has suggested.

    And it seems that Wehwalt may not be fully conversant with the article's history. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Writegeist (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism has resumed, this time from an apparent open proxy in Israel which is being used to repeatedly blank the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Checkuser has confirmed that Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) is responsible for the IP edits. In view of the lack of any interest here in dealing with an obvious case of disruptive sockpuppetry, I'm taking this issue over to WP:AE. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Article spamming Generation Jones wikilinks

    There are a couple of apparent SPAs article spamming wikilinks to the above article, using either very poor sourcing (opinion pieces, mainly), or no sourcing at all. I first noticed this at Michael Jackson, when they tried to force it into there. I then checked this page, and found that the same SPAs had been inserting the wikilink into other articles with similarly poor -- or non-existent -- sourcing. I began culling through the articles, pruning the non-supported wikilinks. One of the SPAs is now mass-reverting my work, and isn't (per Talk:Michael Jackson) willing to discuss it. Would someone with a bit more oomph than me discuss it with him/her? Or, if I'm out of line here, just let me know. I'm not going to edit war about it (I may remove them one more time, if that's deemed acceptable here), but I thought it might be important enough for administrator attention. Unitanode 02:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm trying to understand what you are saying here, Unitanode, but I'm genuinely confused. What do you mean this is "article spamming"? On what possible basis can you say these are poor sources? Generation Jones is a term and concept which has received significant mainstream acceptance, and is discussed in many major media outlets (Newsweek, NBC, Wshington Post, New York Times, etc., etc.). It certainly should be included in relevant articles in Wikipedia, like other bona fide generations. There are many, many unequivocally reliable sources in various articles referencing Generation Jones. Article spamming?! I urge you to please do some research on this topic. A good starting point may be this page which has an overview of recent stuff: http://generationjones.com/2009latest.html. You can find tons more on Google. And if an administrator wants to discuss this, I'm certainly more than happy to.TreadingWater (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a reason I haven't AFDed the article. However, the fact that the neologism has achieved a modicum of notability doesn't mean it needs to be spammed into every article it could even tangentially be related to. You have been mass reverting the removals I made, without even attempting to discuss, and made it clear you weren't interested in discussing it at the MJ talkpage. That's why I brought it here: to find out if my take on this is correct, and -- if so -- what my next step should be. Unitanode 02:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec 2) You might have informed the SPA (at the moment, I only see one). If you see others, please add them, and it might be worth checking whether they've conspired to violate 3RR. I agree that he spams Generation Jones, but there is some justification for his spamming them accross articles on generations, if the term really is actually used. I quite agree that Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett should not have generation names.
    I don't see any administrative action required. Yet.
    I'll reply to TreadingWater later. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I spotted this as well, and think that we can WP:AGF on this one. I had never heard the term myself before, but upon reviewing the Generation Jones article, it seems legit. However, if the name of the generation seems relevent, in most cases one should probably substitute Baby Boom Generation in place of it; since that term is much more widely used; and it would not be inaccurate to use that name instead. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • In short, the people who are trying to shoehorn it in won't allow "Baby Boomers", instead demanding that it be included as a separate generation, of the same standing as the Boomers, Gen-Xers, et al. Unitanode 03:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that THAT level of acceptance is unreasonable, as the term is clearly not in common English usage, and at Wikipedia we have a long-standing policy of using the most common terms when feasible. I will concede that the term has gained a small level of acceptance among certain academics, but to claim that that sort of acceptance is enough to claim the term should be used on equal footing with, say, Generation X or Baby Boomers is unreasonable. It is patently clear that the world does not hold it on equal footing, and Wikipedia should not as well... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just reviewed the last AfD, and there were several "new users" and Anon IPs that mysteriously showed up to recommend keeping that article. In many cases, the edit to the AfD was wither their only edit, or one of only a few that they have made. It seems very suspicious to me. Unitanode 03:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, that AFD was a bit sketchy. If we throw out the obvious SPAs, there does not actually seem to be as wide-spread support as the article creator wants everyone to believe. Still, I am not complaining about the existance of the article, but there are some serious WP:COI problems with it and with the way it is being used around Wikipedia... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is out of control. He won't discuss it at Talk:Generation Jones, and keeps reverting. I'm done trying to clean up these articles until I get some clear administrative direction here. Unitanode 03:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is just one example at Generation Y. He insists on elevatinng a pop culture neologism to the level of scholarly, accepted Generational splits. I'm on the edge of 3RR now, so without direct admin intervention, I'm done here. I have to say, this is my first full-on run in with an SPA, and it does take the fun out of editing this wiki, that's for sure. Unitanode 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got to take a break from this, as it's starting to really beat me down. I'd also encourage an admin and a checkuser to take a look at the AfD on Generation Jones, as looking at the contribs of many of those voting "keep" are iffy to say the least. Unitanode 04:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say, considering the block and edit histories of the user and other related users, either block away or consider an RFC/U against all of them. Such warring without discussion is unacceptable here, and I would personally support the former. MuZemike 07:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which users are you referring to? I hope not me, since blocking me would be completely unfair and unwarranted. I'm a big fan and believer in Wikipedia and I have been very careful to play by Wikipedia rules. The one time I was blocked before was by mistake; the blocking administrator apologized for his honest mistake. I have spent a huge amount of time discussing these topics on talk pages, so your claim of "warring without discussion" certainly doesn't apply to me. And my edits are done carefully and thoughtfully and in good faith.TreadingWater (talk) 15:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not an administrator. The reason I brought it here was so that someone who IS could deal with this stuff. Unitanode 14:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm an involved admin, so I can't help you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators: please carefully review these claims made by user Unitanode before considering taking any action. With all respect to this user and assuming good faith on his part, I strongly believe he is way out of line in his behavior about this in the last 24 hours. He discovered Generation Jones yesterday and immediately began removing references to it in a bunch of articles in which it is clearly relevant. When I returned GenJones to these articles, he became very upset and quickly posted here trying to get an administrator to intervene. I believe it would have been more appropriate for him to do some research on this topic, both in and out of Wikipedia, so that he would have more of a basis to make informed edits. I have politely encouraged him repeatedly to please do that research, so that he could see for himself that his claims are incorrrect, yet he apparently continues to resist this suggestion. If he were to do this research within Wikipedia, he'd find that there have been many many editors who have weighed in on this topic, and the articles he so quickly changed were the result of an evolution of collaboration over time. He appears to believe that his view must be right, and he seems to be indignant that I dare to disagree with him. But he is just one editor, with his one opinion, and it would be more appropriate for him to consider the long history of other editors' opinions on this topic, and through discussion and compromise and a collaborative spirit, have his views factored in to these articles, rather than immediately trying to innapropriately take up the time of administrators with a situation that can, and should, be resolved through the normal collaborative Wikipedia process. I, and others have, and continue to, discuss these issues in detail on the relevant talk pages, and I encourage Unitanode to join us.TreadingWater (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have no problem with the article Generation Jones (though there was some really chintzy stuff happening at the 3rd AFD from the keeps). Rather, I have a big problem with your attempts to equate the neologism of one social commentator, which was picked up by some pundits and marketing firms, with established, scholarly categorizations like Generation X and the Baby Boomers. Your article spamming (and that of a few other SPAs as well) is out of line, and your edit warring to enforce it is equally out of line. Civil POV-pushing is still POV-pushing. Unitanode 16:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    TreadingWater: My take on this as an uninvolved non-administrator: Unitanode's major complaint is that you are refusing to discuss your edits on the relevant talk pages. If someone in good faith objects to your edits, you need to discuss the problem. It is your responsibility to defend any additions you make to any article, especially any addition that doesn't have reliable sourcing. Auntie E (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Aunt Entropy, for your observation. I completely agree that it is important to discuss these issues on the relevant talk pages, which is why I have spent so much time doing exactly that. I don't know why Unitanode keeps pretending that I don't when it is easily provable that I do. If you'd like to confirm this, I invite you to please look through my contributions, and you'll find that I spend an absolutely huge amount of time discussing these issues on talk pages, and have for a long time. Not only does Unitanode keep pretending that I won't discuss, but now he has begun erasing my discussions! (see below)TreadingWater (talk) 17:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now he's claiming he has consensus to add it based on talkpage discussions that have either never happened, or that developed no consensus. He's also hounding me at a userpage I created, and leaving odd warnings on my talkpage. This is very discouraging, and needs to stop now. Unitanode 16:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    TreadingWater: having looked over your contributions, I see you editwarring with many editors (and yes, it takes two to edit war) with minimal talk page discussion by you, none of it productive: gaining consensus does not consist of saying "I'm right, do some research." You've yet to show why your sources should be considered reliable, and you've failed to gain consensus for your promotion of this concept. This diff of yours where you mention the money sunk into promoting this concept and consider that a viable reason for doing so as well I find troubling as well. Auntie E (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Aunt Entropy, these comments by you are so strange that I can't help thinking you are a sock puppet of Unitanode, but I will assume good faith and assume that you just didn't look at very many of my contributions. "Minimal talk page discussion" by me?! Are you joking? Look at the talk pages of these relevant pages, and you will find extremely long discussions by me throughout these pages. Some of these talk pages are filled with dozens of paragraphs of my thoughts. I think it's fair to say that there is more discussion by me on these relevant pages than any other editor. You cannot possibly have really looked through a significant number of my contributions and conclude that I only "minimally discuss" on these pages. Why don't you just scroll through the relevant talk pages and look for my name--you'll see more discussion by me than anyone else. And just by judging by this section on this page, is it really plausible to make the argument that I'm not willing to discuss these issues? Is there anyone who has contributed more discussion in this section than me? Further, I, and many other editors, have provided a long list of reliable sources. A clear consensus of editors have repeatedly agreed that there are more than enough reliable sources which have been provided. And lastly, I don't understand why you are troubled by my pointing out that various companies and pollsters have spent a lot of money on researching Generation Jones. That feels relevant both in terms of credbility (ie. would people spend a lot of money unless they thought it was a credible concept?) and in terms of showing that there is serious research being done on GenJones.TreadingWater (talk) 19:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators: User Unitanode, who created this section, is now blatantly breaking Wikipedia rules, and I urge you to please carefully review his edits and block him from further editing. He is aware of the 3RR rule; he acknowledged such in this section yesterday when he wrote "I'm on the edge of 3RR now...", yet today he made a fourth edit within 24 hours on this page: List of United States Presidents by date of birth. I placed a 3RR warning on his talk page, asking him to please self-revert his fourth edit. Not only did he not self-revert, he erased my warning from his talk page! I do not want to revert his fourth edit because I've already done three edits in the last 24 hours and I believe it's important to follow Wikipedia rules. He also is trying to prevent discussion on these issues from happening. He created a page in which he tried to make the case that a few editors in a past AFD discussion were somehow problematic. I posted a thoughtful constructive response to this, which he keeps erasing from that page. He has repeatedly insisted that I'm not willing to discuss these issues even though I have, and continue to, discuss these issues at great length. Now he erases my discussions! He apparently only wants readers to see his views and is trying to prevent readers from seeing alternative opinions. Will an administartor please intervene and stop this user from making these blatantly bad edits. Thank you.TreadingWater (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, I forgot to put in the link to this page where Unitanode keeps reverting my attempt to have a constructive discussion, here's the link: [[20]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TreadingWater (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hopefully this wikilawyering will be seen for what it is. TW's tendentious editing has consisted of simple reversion of my changes. My last one there was a switch (per discussion at the talk) to the correct "X" designation. I had previously -- and mistakenly -- changed it to "Boom." TW is revealing himself here, not only as an SPA, but also as a (somewhat) civil POV-pusher. Unitanode 17:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing your opinion doesn't allow you to break 3RR with a fourth edit within 24 hours! It is your responsibility as an editor to know and obey Wikipedia rules. This page clearly spells out 3RR rules: [[21]]. Please respect Wikipedia's rules and self-revert that fourth edit immediately.TreadingWater (talk) 17:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all your wikilawyering, POV-pusing, and the badgering you've done to me this last 24 hours or so, you should probably refrain from giving me orders, and let some administrators weigh in here. Unitanode 17:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unitanode, your edits over the last 24 hours are frankly the worst I’ve seen on Wikipedia. I’d like to offer a few more thoughts here, in a constructive spirit, with the hope that you can be open minded and stop making bad edits which are against the interests of Wikipedia readers. Please be aware that I’m not personally attacking you, but rather focusing on your edits. Since you have begun the practice of erasing my discussion contributions, I will place these thoughts in a few relevant places.

    You edit in a way that suggests that you have difficulty accepting that your opinion isn’t the only opinion. You apparently have an extremely narrow definition of the word “scholarly”, and believe anything that doesn’t fit your definition should be ignored. But that’s not the way Wikipedia works.

    The truth is that Generation Jones has gained much widespread acceptance by very reliable sources. You dismiss the opinion of “pundits” as not being of value. But there are many pundits who are supportive of GenJones who are very credible and scholarly, like Jonathan Alter (Newsweek), David Brooks (New York Times), Clarence Page (Chicago Tribune) and Karen Tumulty (Time Magazine). They are widely viewed as deep thinkers, and their analysis is respected at the highest levels. Huge market research companies have invested many resources into researching GenJones, firms like Saatchi & Saatchi and Carat and Scarborough Research. Several of the largest political polling firms now regularly break out their voting data to include GenJones voters separately from Boomers and Xers. Big polling firms like Mason Dixon, and Rasmussen have spent time and money doing special research studies about GenJones. Many of these references can be found in the Wiki GenJones article, and other related Wiki pages. Many more of these can be found through Google.

    Yet you somehow dismiss all this, and keep insisting that if experts don’t fit into Unitanode’s definition of “scholarly”, their opinions don’t count. On what possible basis did you arrive at the notion that you are the arbiter of what is considered credible on Wikipedia?

    Further, you seem to think that if GenJones is mentioned in an article, that that must mean it is being equated at the same level as Boomers or Xer. Obviously, the terms Boomers and Xers have been around much longer and are much better known than GenJones. Saying, for example, that GenYers are the offspring of Boomers and Jonesers doesn’t imply that the GenJones term is as established as the Boomer term. But if accurate and relevant, the Jones reference should still be included.TreadingWater (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unitanode, perhaps you'd find it helpful to read comments carefully. I did not accuse him of being a sockpuppet, I said I would assume, despite the strangeness of his comment, that he is not a sock puppet and assume good faith on his part. And I'M badgering YOU?! I ws minding my own business when you initiated an assault on GenJones with a series of uninformed and innapropriate edits and tactics. I have been strictly on defense to your offense. If you don't want to be doing this, then stop it. I'm happy to walk away. You are the one who keeps pushing this.TreadingWater (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, this is really it for me in this thread. Make all the accusations (even with your little "I'll assume good faith" caveats, that's what they were) you want. AuntieE is an uninvolved admin, and hopefully someone (anyone!) will step in and put a stop to this. (BTW, how is "Unitanode, your edits over the last 24 hours are frankly the worst I’ve seen on Wikipedia" acceptable in any way?) Unitanode 20:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Unitanode, I didn't accuse him of being a sock puppet and I don't appreciate you trying to twist my words into meaning what you want them to mean. I clearly said that I would assume good faith on his part. Are we to take your interpretation of my words over my words' literal meaning? I choose my words carefully, and if I said I'm assuming good faith on his part, that's what I meant. And my comment about your edits being the worst I've seen is sincere. It was said in the spirit of trying to show you that your edits are hurtful to the mission of Wikipedia. I was careful to point out that I was not personally attacking you, but rather discussing your edits themselves. As far as I understand, it is acceptable to frankly discuss problematic edits, but not to be critical of editors themselves. I really do feel like your edits have been deeply problematic, and as someone who cares a lot about the integrity of Wikipedia, I think it's fine for me to point out those problems. I did so without any of the angry insulting words that editors sometimes use in these situations. I simply civily pointed out what I saw as problematic in a constructive spirit. Anyway, if you really mean it that "this is really it" for you, that's good news. I sincerely hope in the future you will choose to make edits that involve research and discussion and collaboration. I'd be happy to be collaborative with you if our paths cross.TreadingWater (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly had never heard of the term until this thread, and frankly most people in the subject group (myself included) consider ourselves as “Boomers” and are comfortable with that. “Keeping up with the Joneses” was an attribution made more to our parents’ generation during that time; our generation was seen as rebelling against that, not yearning to imitate it. Frankly, the description of the term provided in the article’s lede seems to make it sound like a pejorative neologism, so I can’t see recommending that it be broadly applied to other articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 21:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting observation, Askari. I'll take a good look at the lede of the article to see if it's representing the term accurately, since the term is certainly not meant to be pejorative. Here's an op-ed in USA TODAY written by the person who coined the term, which fills out the meaning of the term, which again is meant to be positive: http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090127/column27_st.art.htm TreadingWater (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Disruptive SPA?

    I bet you'd like to know (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I do not see this as permitted under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Moreover, the last thing we need is more of these advocates for absolute free speech, especially ones that aren't even willing to do it under their main account. I almost blocked indefinitely myself, but I thought I'd solicit more views. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that the user seems to be American, they don't have the excuse that they're contributing from some politically sensitive region of the world and need additional protection. So far the "illegal" thing they've posted using this account is the name of a juvenile offender. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Which is in fact illegal to publish in Canada (the location of the crime), just so we're clear. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh for God's sake. We on about this again? When will people understand that just because we can (legally) publish something it doesn't mean we should (morally and ethically)? And more to the point, when will Americans learn to understand how their free speech guarantee actually works? Ugh. → ROUX ₪ 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Constitutional free speech and press largely has to do with the right to criticize the government. Unfortunately, some think free speech and press mean "no limitations". That ain't it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What I'm taking from the above is that my first instinct to indef block was the correct one. I shall make it so momentarily. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was drawn to this discussion in reviewing this user's request for unblock. I find this block preposterous. This user has not posted the real name of the minor defendant that is being discussed and has no apparent intention of doing so, despite what their user page states. But they have stated that they live in Canada, and that their main account is under their real name. They have done nothing but make two comments in the discussion. There are reasonable editors (admins, even) on both sides of the dispute, and if the user has had a bit of confusion between the principle of free speech in the US and Wikipedia's own version, I think that's forgivable. This is clearly an appropriate use of alternate accounts under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, as an alternate account for a controversial area. Mangojuicetalk 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The user has posted the real name of the young offender, in his second edit. Besides that, by the account's own admission it is an alternate account devoted to the single purpose of taking an extreme stance on freedom of speech; if somebody wants to push such a stance, they should not receive the benefit of WP:SOCK#LEGIT to do so. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant in the article. Two edits is not an extreme stance: I would like you to justify that these two edits constitute actual disruption rather than discussion. Mangojuicetalk 21:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of things: first, the account's gratuitous use of the young offender's name on the talk page, especially in conjunction with the posts on his user page, strongly suggest that he's here to make a WP:POINT. Second, I don't think it's helpful for Wikipedia to facilitate Canadians' violation of Canadian law (we're not responsible for enforcing it, obviously, but it strikes me as dubious to allow accounts whose sole purpose is to violate it). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have unblocked the account with the condition that it limit its activities to participating in this thread until the question is resolved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Steve. I'd like the opportunity to speak on my own behalf. The question here is not whether the killer's name should be mentioned, or what the limits are to free speech. (For the record, I know free speech is not absolute, and that Wikipedia policy may differ from what's allowed in the outside world.) The question is whether I was being disruptive or violating any Wikipedia policies. WP:SOCK only bans secondary accounts used for "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." In fact, WP:SOCK also says it is acceptable to use a secondary account to avoid "real-world consequences from their involvement" in a controversial topic. In order to determine whether the block is appropriate, you have to divorce yourself from all of your thoughts and opinions about the Richardson family murders article and look at it strictly as a matter of Wikipedia policy. If you have a strong opinion about whether or not to mention the killer's name, you should address that on Talk:Richardson family murders, not in a blocking discussion.
    As regards WP:POINT, the policy is "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." I did not mean to disrupt Wikipedia; I merely posted two comments on the talk page.
    For my part, I promise not to mention the girl's first name on the talk page again until the issue of whether to mention her name in the article is decided. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Your very username is WP:POINTy. → ROUX ₪ 22:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) To add to that, everything about this account - from the user name to the quote on its user page (including the quotation marks around "illegal") to its unnecessary disclosure of young offenders' names on article talk pages suggests that it is a single purpose POV-pushing account. Single purpose POV-pushing accounts are made no more acceptable by the POV in question being about Wikipedia policy rather than about a real world subject. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused. WP:POV deals with bias in articles. It has nothing to do with pressing a point of view about an article's contents on a talk page. That's the responsible thing to do -- to press one's case on a talk page rather than unilaterally editing an article. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POV isn't applicable here, which is why I didn't link to it. You're here to push for a change to how Wikipedia deals with voluntary self-censorship; that is your account's single purpose (and don't try arguing that you're not trying to change Wikipedia's policy so much as to change the content of individual Wikipedia articles; the descriptive nature of Wikipedia policy means that this is the same thing). Per WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, "In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates." Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So you're saying that the "internal project-related discussions" mentioned in WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY applies to all discussions on Wikipedia, even localized discussions on individual talk pages? That leads to a conclusion that secondary accounts cannot be involved in any disputes on Wikipedia. I don't think many people would come to that conclusion after reading WP:SOCK. Anyway, the point of the account is to contribute information that may get me in trouble in the real world, not to get into policy arguments. But being a responsible Wikipedia editor, I decided to have a discussion on the talk page rather than to unilaterally change the article. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all localized disputes are about Wikipedia's broader policy. Localized disputes about Wikipedia's approach to information that is illegal to publish in some jurisdictions, especially when pushed by an account who acknowledges that liberalizing Wikipedia's rules on such matters is its sole purpose, are de facto Wikipedia policy discussions. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The account was not created to "liberalize Wikipedia's rules on such matters." It was created to contribute information to the encyclopedia, like all constructive accounts. It so happens that was a dispute regarding the article, so I made my opinions known on the talk page first per WP:EP, like I should have done. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I will request a change in username. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User reinserting copyvio at Strikeforce

    I've told Sea888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) multiple times on his talkpage that his copy-pasting of material from press-releases and other website to the Strikeforce article is not OK.

    The current text in the article:

    The agreement reunites Showtime and Strikeforce following their successful "Shamrock vs. Baroni" telecast in 2007. In the main event, Frank Shamrock submitted Phil Baroni in the second round giving Shamrock the Strikeforce Middleweight championship title. The event was followed live on Showtime by one of the sport’s most anticipated fights, Strikeforce: Shamrock vs. Le featured Frank Shamrock versus the undefeated world kickboxing champion Cung Le on March 29, 2008. In a fight that has since been proclaimed “Fight Of The Year” by industry experts and the like, Le won the Strikeforce middleweight championship title by putting on a relentless offensive and fending off Shamrock’s counter attacks before breaking the defending champion’s arm with a hard roundhouse kick late in the third round. The kick forced Shamrock to retire from the fight in between rounds three and four

    ... and the text in Strikeforce's press release:

    The agreement reunites SHOWTIME and Strikeforce following their successful “Shamrock vs. Baroni” event, presented by SHOWTIME PPV® in 2007. In the main event, former UFC middleweight champion and MMA legend, Frank Shamrock, submitted knockout artist, Phil “The New York Badass” Baroni, in the second round of action whereby Shamrock became the first-ever Strikeforce World Middleweight Champion.

    The historic event was followed up with a live SHOWTIME telecast of one of the sport’s most anticipated showdowns of all-time—Shamrock versus undefeated world kickboxing champion Cung Le—on March 29, 2008. In a battle that has since been proclaimed “Fight Of The Year” by industry experts and critics, Le seized the Strikeforce middleweight crown by pouring on a relentless offensive and fending off Shamrock’s counter attacks before breaking the defending champion’s arm with a hard roundhouse kick and forcing Shamrock to retire from the bout between rounds three and four.

    Diffs: him adding itrestoring itand again. He has also introduced other copyvios, such as this and this.

    I'm obviosly not getting through here, so some assistance would be appreciated. --aktsu (t / c) 04:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This example is completely exaggerated and taken out of proportion. Please read the current content on the page to the alledged copyrighted material. The example above was corrected to remove WK:PEACOCK words and is no longer in question. Please see the current article. Cheers.Sea888 (talk) 04:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits since I pasted the above is: "industry experts and the like" -> "MMA critic", "relentless offensive" -> "relentless arsenal of kicks", "fending off" -> "avoiding", "he defending champion’s" -> "Shamrocks'" and "retire" -> "quit". --aktsu (t / c) 04:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why did you add it to the article at all? ⟳ausa کui × 04:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The material is to highlight the history of the company. Here is the current version in its entirety.

    Strikeforce partnered with Showtime to televise an all new series of MMA events that will air live on Showtime.[12] The agreement is to have a three- year broadcast deal in which will see mixed martial arts return to the premium pay channel. The much-coveted deal, which has been quietly negotiated since December of 2008, proposes up to 16 live events per year.

    The agreement reunites Showtime and Strikeforce following their successful "Shamrock vs. Baroni" telecast in 2007. In the main event, Frank Shamrock submitted Phil Baroni in the second round giving Shamrock the Strikeforce Middleweight championship title.[13] The event was followed live on Showtime by one of the sport’s most anticipated fights, Strikeforce: Shamrock vs. Le featured Frank Shamrock versus the undefeated world kickboxing champion Cung Le on March 29, 2008. In a fight that has since been proclaimed “Fight Of The Year”[14][15] On June 6th 2009 with the purchase of ProElite assets finalized, “Ruthless” Robbie Lawler collided with fellow superstar Jake Shields in a 182 lb. catch weight battle at the Scottrade Center in St. Louis, Missouri that aired live on Showtime.

    Where is the violation? Is this fine? Please look at the timeline of my edits, clearly I am still in the process of editing. See my discussion with Aktsu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sea888 (talk) 04:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am beginning to look into the above. I see that you seem to have added text here from Encyclopedia Britannica. Though you cited a source, that material is under copyright protection and cannot be pasted into the project. It seems it may be necessary to look into this more deeply. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have left a note at user talk and will be evaluating contributions for other concerns. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have found text copied from at least four sources and have restored to the last version of the article that is identifiably clean. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not marking this resolved, as conversation is (hopefully) ongoing at his or her talk page, but I have evaluated the contributions and found evidence of some substantial confusion about what we can and cannot use (including, of most concern, this article established on 31 March entirely from an essay (?) by John Walsh). I think this contributor is operating in good faith and hope he will take on board information about how to utilize sources within our copyright and non-free content policies. He has been advised that persistent infringement may lead to an account being blocked. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks like a patent copyvio to me. You cannot simply copy-paste content and then paraphrase it. That is a derivative work and it is in contravention of US copyright law. ⟳ausa کui × 20:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Be On The Lookout

    Resolved
     – Indef'd by an admin

    Admins might want to watch out for this user, User:WlKlPEDlAADMlN68, the user is obviously trying (poorly) to pass themselves off as an admin. Some of the newer users might fall for it. They have already vandalized the Nine Inch Nails article, so they it doesn't look like they are here for encyclopedic reasons. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In an obvious case like this, you can get quick results by turning them in to WP:AIV, which I did, except they had already indef'd that character. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A more appropriate place is WP:UAA as their username obviously violated WP:U. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michelangelo24

    May I suggest a banning of one week? Please see: [22]. Created many pages (some multiple times) over a period of several months that get constantly deleted. I am no music expert so I wont comment on his edits to already created articles, but I do note a COI in his edits (i.e. adding his own music/creation in places like 2009 in music etc.). Cheers.Calaka (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In theory, he warned to stop back in February, for what that's work. Alternative could be to just blacklist his website or really someone should just talk to him first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I seem to notice a pattern (since working over at the new articles created page for the past few days) that if these users talk after writing them a message on their talk page (e.g. please add refs), they talk/do as you requested straight away. However, others no matter how much you litter their wall with speedys or warnings, they seem to be completely non responsive and just continue doing what they were doing (basically ignoring the talk page/not bothering to read the messages). I agree that communication is key to solving a lot of these problems, but I am unable to suggest a way of better improving this barrier between the regular wikipedians and the newbies. Some sort of chat feature might need to be implemented/enabled (unless there is already such a thing somehwhere)??!? I know there is IRC chat but are newbies given notice of that being available? Furthermore IRC is not something everyone uses (since you need to download a client to get onto it first) etc. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a human thing, not an interface problem. One problem is that a lot of the newest users love getting Huggle and the like, doing vandalism fighting. Those are precisely the type of people who need to interact one-on-one, not use automated tools. At the same time, most admins (the most experienced users) like myself tend to deal with so many users who are completely a wreck that a simple conversation just seems like a waste of time. Besides, <sarcasm>it's just a name on the talk page anyways. It's not like it's a real person.</sarcasm> -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it is never black&white. With newbies that make new articles (that lack cats, refs, etc.) I usually do an automated welcome and then write a little note underneath to tell them to add a reff or to fix up the article or to add more sources etc, and I try to do the same for users that make speedy worthy cruft (that is not vandalism). Stuff that is pure vandalism though, I feel that there is no point in even communicating with them. They either get over it and might one day contribute (after growing up?) or will go at it for a while, get banned multiple times and eventually stop bothering. Anyway, if there are no further disruptive edits by the above user, then maybe we can leave it be? Hopefully he sees this. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Open WP:Wikihounding by User:Viriditas

    Resolved

    I apologize in advance for the long posting, but understand that it's actually a tiny fraction of what's been going on, making it virtually impossible to edit on Wikipedia. I and other editors need admin help regarding some openly brazen WP:Wikihounding that literally takes up now several hours a day over numerous articles and boards. In fact, it has just caused one excellent editor (Wildhartlivie) to declare that he is "Done" attempting to edit an article, wondering "I keep wondering why an administrator hasn't intervened with what is being said and the attacks upon me and the two of you." This Wikihounding campaign intensified after Viriditas was blocked from editing for 48 hours six days ago for WP:Edit Warring on Human rights in the United States, including falsely accusing at least two editors of "NPOV" and "plagarism", the Wikihounding, which had existed before, was increased.

    Spread to Jonestown - After his/her block time ran out, Viriditas then began a series of tagging and openly combative Talk page sections at the Jonestown article, which I had previously edited mostly a year or more ago and Viriditas had never before edited, with three editors. When another editor raised his suspicions that this was part of Viriditas' continuing attempted dispute with me, Viriditas actually admitted "yes, my attention was drawn to this article due to the actions of another user who has been active here, referring to me. Viriditas' most sizable campaign there involved the inclusion of a POV tag over the entire article because the article did not do more than discuss for one sentence and link to the article Jonestown conspiracy theory, a fringe CIA conspiracy theory first espoused by cult leader Jim Jones himself to hs followers.

    Spread to Noticeboards - Unfortunately, it has now spread even further, to a baseless Neutral Point of View complaint lodged by Viriditas on the same conspiracy theory, wherein it was again explained to this user -- over more combative commentary -- by a yet another univolved editor "I see no real NPOV issue here" along with the same statements by the other three editors. The uninvolved editor, now the FOURTH editor to say this, stated "the (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article".

    Talk Page Comment Deletions of multiple editors - The WP:Wikihounding includes repeatedly deleting my comments on Article Talk pages -- along with those of other editors -- in gross violation of WP:TPO, so much so that Viriditas was seperately made to stop such Talk Page comment deletions by an administrator at ANI-3RR here in a separate instance.

    Combative, Uncivil Accusations and Charges to nearly every editor - Unfortunately, in the Jonestown article, which has now suffered from this new part of the WP:Wikihounding campaign, the Talk page alone has ballooned in size by over 1,100% in three days -- from 10K to over 115K -- by the now highly combative many-hours/day Talk page campaign that Viriditas is waging with me and other editors. Just one click on the page reveals the now nightmare state is has become. This includes violating WP:Assume Good Faith and further WP:Disruptive editing on that page and other talk pages:

    Understand that this is just a TINY SAMPLE of the combative bloat that the Talk:Jonestown has assumed since Viriditas brought the Wikihounding campaign there three days ago.

    Disruptive Editing and Baiting - The WP:Wikihounding also involves WP:Disruptive editing that was open outright WP:Harrassment, including several false accsations repeated, ignoring all statements made, just to attempt to bait some aggressive responsve, such as the following (just one of many examples) regarding the potential citation of an article by Dr. Rebcca Moore, which I never opposed:

    Viriditas - "Why isn't this source allowed to be used in the article? . . . What is your objection to using this particular source?"
    Me -"No editor, including me, has disallowed this (Rebecca Moore) article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown"
    Viriditas - "Why will you not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article"
    Me - *Please stop making false statements such as "Why will you not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore " , each continued falsity is a further indication of WP:Disruptive editing. The brazen falseness of this charge is especially telling for future ANI action where I directly stated above, ""No editor, including me, has disallowed this article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown."
    Viriditas - "Please explain why you will not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article"
    Me - Third time now, please stop making false statements such as "Please explain why you will not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article "
    Viriditas - "What is it that you find objectionable about citing this academic paper"
    Me - Fourth time now, please stop making false statements, each continued falsity is a further indication of WP:Disruptive editing. The brazen falseness of this charge is especially telling for future ANI action where I directly stated above, ""No editor, including me, has disallowed this article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown." . There is ZERO issue with citing this article.

    Again, this is merely one example of combative disruptive editing and baiting via false statements that occurs throughout the Talk page.

    Threats - The campaign also includes numerous threats, such as "Please stop ignoring my questions per talk page guidelines. Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble."

    HUSH practices - The campaign also involves engaging in WP:HUSH, leaving numerous warnings on both my talk page, as well as user:Yachtsman1 here, here, and here

    False Plagarism Assertions/Forum Shopping - The campaign further includes makinge false "plagarism" accusations, at times as an attempted pretext to delete text, including at WP:Content_noticeboard, where he/she was told "If it's paraphrased sufficiently, it isn't plagiarism. It is paraphrased sufficiently." For the record, as Viriditas was told by others, it is plainly obvious that it was not plagarism, yet Viriditas repeatedly deleted the text based on this false basis, such as here, here, here, here and here. Note, he/she continued the false accusations of "plagarism", here, with [As for your continued plagiarism of content, that is a fact that is not in dispute. In fact, she did so an another board not just about one editor, but about two here: Both the content noticeboard and the copyright cleanup board agreed that you (another editor) and Mosedchurte are engaging in plagiarism.

    Openly admits to POV in editing - Viriditas also overtly admits POV in editing, such as with regard to the tendency to include violations over advances in Human rights in the United States, where he/she admitted "Mosedschurte, do you understand that the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents?"

    Attempts to Resolve before coming to ANI - Please understand, and I cannot stress this enough, that I have hestitated to bring this to the attention of ANI for days, fearing that it will just draw even more aggressive WP:Wikihounding from this editor. Two days ago, I placed the following "Sincere Request" on this user's Talk page stating "Honestly, this is not some attempt at snarky sarcasm by me, but a sincere request. just a consideration that we not let any dispute (between us, content or otherwise) spill over into other articles? . . . I truly believe -- all B.S. aside, and no blame on either party in this particular statement -- that we would both be happier and more productive both on and off of Wikipedia without spending time and energy continuing disputes across multiple articles." This was ignored. I then yesterday again renewed my request with "Please, I wanted to renew the original request, a consideration that we not let any dispute (between us, content or otherwise) in Human rights in the United States spill over into other articles. We would both be happier and more productive both on and off of Wikipedia without spending time and energy continuing disputes across multiple articles." This was again ignored.

    I simply have no other avenue in which to turn other than this board. I can no longer edit on Wikipedia without facing literally many hours a day of WP:Wikihounding including overtly combative talk page comments and reverts, much less do so enjoyably. In fact, I didn't even go into the rest of them, simply scan the now massively bloated Talk:Jonestown for many more examples, because I felt that this complaint was already too long. I am not sure what the proper remedy for such harrassment is -- whether it be an outright block, or just an order to not particiapte in articles in which I (and perhaps Yachtsman1) edit, or something of the like. Honestly, whatever remedy will make it go away is preferrable. Mosedschurte (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    When the complaint is this long, perhaps it should have involved an WP:RFC/U instead? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I could have shortened it to just the talk page deletions/abusive commentary/etc., but I thought that an administrator would want more info to work with. Again, this is just a tiny fraction of the problematic WP:Wikihounding. We really have no where else to turn at this point.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - I have notified Viriditas about this thread. ANI reports about users require notification to them. Exxolon (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Exxolon. Since I never even glance at Mosedchurtre's contribution list, I would never have known about this report. To address this allegation of "hounding": Mosedchurte was not actively editing Jonestown when I arrived on 25 June. In fact, before I arrived, his last edit to the main Jonestown article was on 30 March 2009[23], and his last edit to the talk page was on 5 January 2009[24] My first edit was on the talk page on 25 June 2009.[25] Mosedchurtre didn't even show up until a day later. However, I did come to the article because he had recently plagiarized material on Human rights in the United States. After trying to address the issue of plagiarism with Mosedchurtre on the talk page unsuccessfully for days, I began to look at his contributions using Soxred93's tools. Looking further, I found that issues related to problems with sources, cherry picking and NPOV were previously discussed on the noticeboards concerning his edits to Jim Jones/People's temple topics: [26], [27], [28], [29]. I then decided to check up on his contributions and look for copyvio. Shortly thereafter, I requested an analysis by WikiProject Copyright Cleanup of one of Mosedchurtre's edits I found problematic (I'm looking at many more right now). The project reported back that "this passage is a problem under Wikipedia's policies as it takes creative elements (both language and structure) from a non-free source in a manner inconsistent with the non-free content policy & guideline. From a legal standpoint, close paraphrase of a single passage is unlikely to clear the de minimis threshold, whether or not the material is defensible as fair use. But Wikipedia's own policies do require that non-free content be plainly marked." I have recently submitted Jonestown for peer review and hope to help improve it. I would appreciate more eyes on the article, especially the talk page, where the tag team of Yachtsman1/Mosedchurtre has followed me over from Human rights in the United States. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll let most of the falsehoods stand (anyone can simply clink the links above to reveal their wackiness) but:

    My issues regarding this user came about as the discussion on Talk:Jonestown progressed. When I looked at the contributions history and realized that Viriditas had been in some lengthy and what appeared to be contentious disputes with Mosedschurte, I immediately voiced concern that it was not being carried over to previously uninvolved article [30]. Despite assurances to the contrary, [31] [32] it became apparent from statements Viriditas made early on that the intent was not necessarily a neutral one, but based on preconceived notions that were not later supported by dispute pages diffs that the editor posted. At least the resolutions did not reflect the outcomes Viriditas claimed that they did. Dispute itself isn't an issue, miscontruing the results is, however this post more concerns the behavior that Viriditas displayed against me specifically and statements that misrepresented previous comments, incivility and flat out rudeness. As discussion went on, Viriditas's responses became more aggressive, confrontational and incivil. When I addressed the manner in which he/she was posting and that he/she had repeatedly expressed doubts about the editor reviewing the article neutrally [33], he/she responded incivilly, dismissing my statement, making a personal attack in stating that I was "still chewing on sour grapes" and claimed that his/her "neutrality here has never been in question" [34], despite my having asked at least three times for an outside reviewer or dispute resolution be sought instead [35] [36] [37]. I responded [38], posting diffs to 5 previous posts I'd made questioning his/her neutrality on the article to that time [39] [40] [41] [42] [43], and once again expressed my concerns with his mission on the page.

    Viriditas made made increasingly incivil posts and personal attacks to and about me. "You're not following the discussion. To refresh your memory... My next post objected to tone and requested that it stop, and explained that the editor's posts were bereft of diffs to check what was being posted [44]. The response was to finally repost the diff that had been posted some 150 posts earlier and suggested I "try to read the discussion". I protested the tone and incivility and again requested that the "contentious and attacking" posts stop. That post provoked a response that included "You must be kidding. Please do yourself a favor and actually read what you wrote above, at 03:27, 28 June 2009. Your entire comment was one long demeaning commentary, contentious, and attacking ... Seriously, take a break or something because you aren't making any sense at all." Later, when I again challenged the editor's ability to conduct a neutral assessment of content involving Mosedshurte, the editor denied issues with neutrality and claimed that I would have to show "a non-neutral concern or edit" and referred to my repeated expressed concerns as "a neat trick, but it's painfully transparent". The editor claimed "there is a mandate to discuss the conspiracy theories here, per Wikipedia:NPOV#POV_forks", I responded with a somewhat thorough examination of that here, which Viriditas dismissed in a demeaning and patronizing manner, saying "My concerns were directly addressed by a neutral third-party from the NPOV noticeboard, so I have no idea what you are going on about now." The attacks and incivility actually worsened at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where I made this initial statement. My involvement on Talk:Jonestown was dismissed and characterized as stemming from my being "very upset at [Viriditas because I pointed out that your chosen referencing format was unwieldy and inefficient and I recommended the use of shortened footnotes in its place. You then threatened to leave the article if I changed anything"], both of which were factually untrue. The editor then posted this, which effectively minimized my overriding concern with the actual involvement of the editor him/herself constituting an issue with POV, trying to direct the discussion back to only what points he/she wanted to cover, frankly ignoring that larger issue. Viriditas then mischaracterized my statements and POV concerns with his/her involvement on the article at the noticeboard as "an angry response from Wildhartlivie" and dismissed all the other editors' posts as "more POV crud". At that time, an uninvolved editor reviewed the page and claims being made and concluded "I see no real NPOV issue here" in response to Veriditas charge of NPOV violations. Even after that, Veriditas continued contentiousness, stating "The burying of comments under repeated "crud" without actually addressing the topic or saying anything is a common tactic of POV pushers." I again posted a protest regarding the personal attacks, mischaracterizations, and contentiousness [45], to which Viriditas replied "I have no idea what you are talking about, but that's an interesting fantasy world you live in."

    Viriditas attacked a source linked to a caption on a photo essay on the Time magazine website [46], claiming it could have been plagiarized from Wikipedia, that the Time content was "backward sourcing" and attacked the reliability by demanding an author's name and dating from the site, although the photo essay was clearly titled "Mass Suicide at Jonestown: 30 Years Later". I stated that "the event happened in November 1978 - when then would 30 years later be?" The response was patronizing and quite odd and ignored the clear evidence of the date of the essay [47]. A different source was then found, and Viriditas refused to support or discuss her/his rather odd claim that Time magazine was plagiarizing content from Wikipedia by copying from here and publishing it without proper terms of use attribution, despite being repeatedly asked.

    Based on the gross incivility, personal attacks, bad faith assumptions and contentiousness shown by Viriditas, I would request that he/she be admonished for this gross violation of Wikipedia behavioral principles and suggest that he/she be banned from conducting "POV, cherry-picking sources and plagiarism" reviews on pages in relationship to editing by Mosedschurte and topic banned from articles concerning Jim Jones, Jonestown and Peoples Temple related subjects. This is simply outrageous and unacceptable and editors should not be required to endure personal attacks, incivility, contentiousness or confrontation of this scope. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would invite anyone interested in the facts to take a look at all of my edits to Talk:Jonestown beginning with the thread Talk:Jonestown#Cherry_picking_of_primary_sources. It is clear from that first discussion and until the end, that as a primary contributor with 95 edits to Jonestown, Wildhartlivie has ownership issues, and instead of directly addressing my concerns, chose to assume bad faith about me, treated me with incivility, made many personal attacks against my character, and for the most part, avoided addressing the discussion. All of the links above are responses to incivility and fails to show the initial comments. This would be like me saying "Look, Wildhartlivie is rude, he told me to eat my shorts" while omitting the fact that I told him his mother wears army boots and snake skins. It's not honest to show only one side of the dispute. I have made a total of 11 edits to the article, all of which were maintenance-related and connected directly to discussion on the talk page. I have made no additions or deletions of content, nor did I intend to do so as I stated on the talk page. For example, when Wildhartlivie became upset when I questioned his referencing format, I assured him, "I have not said that I'm going to implement the referencing proposal without your support, I've merely tried to discuss it with you to find out why you oppose it." A NPOV incident report was filed when consensus could not be reached, and User:Jaymax, a neutral editor, successfully carried out the changes I requested. This is exactly how I intend to continue working: 1) Use the talk page to raise the problem 2) Engage in discussion 3) Reach a consensus for a change. 4) If consensus cannot be reached, contact a neutral third-party on a related noticeboard and request the changes. Anyone who is interested is welcome to examine my edits on both the talk page and the main article. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Final conclusion about Google hits

    In the recent AFD discussions, the problem of Google hits was really intriguing. In some discussions 80 google hits were considered as proofs of notability, in others, 300 google hits were judged meaningful; what about this.?,Rirunmot (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That is interesting. My understanding is that Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Notability dismisses the entire idea of establishing notability with hits, so I don't know why these arguments are still being used. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Google hits are rightly listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.  Skomorokh  13:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's because many who make such arguments do not care about or otherwise outright dismiss the notability guidelines. MuZemike 17:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Skomorokh, how can anyone remember all of these arguments to avoid? Can anyone come up with a mnemonic? Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Spammer

    User talk:WinsonYeung is creating spam pages and has conflicts of interests with articles. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam deleted, user warned. Seems to have heeded the warnings and stopped. CIreland (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User::Stakingsin‎

    Resolved
     – Newbie editor; HellinaBucket has posted them a Template:Welcome and is giving them sound advice on editing. This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Four attempts at vandalising my page. Says will persistently recreate article with no sources and promising to disrupt process. See Talk:Todd Friel and history for hellinabucket.Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This should be reported just down the hall at WP:AIV. Chamal talk 14:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    issue has been resolved, ok to remove f needed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    File:CP24 Breaking News vehicle.jpg

    User:AlexRampaul continues to upload copyrighted images after dozens of repeat warnings. The message is not getting across, and I am not sure how to handle it.--Svgalbertian (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User Off2riorob, Disruptive Edits

    There has been a dispute, posted on the BLP noticeboard which the user Off2riorob has now dubiously closed as 'resolved'. I'll post the info here, as I'm not sure if that was the correct page to air my complaint against the editor. Whilst I no longer intend to edit, I still wish to ensure the complaints against the user Off2riorob are heard. This is what was posted, with my complaint about the user underneath. If an admin could take a look at some point, that would be great. 2writer (talk) 16:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    regarding: Tony Blair / war crimes [From the BLP noticeboard, minus the 'resolved' tab]

    Hi, There has been a debate at Talk:Tony_Blair#Regarding_the_war_crimes_accusation over the value of keeping the exact details of a speech in the article or to remove it as contentious and that the details of the speech add nothing of value to the article. Would an uninvolved admin evaluate the debate and make a decision on the result. Thank you.User:Off2riorob|Off2riorob User talk:Off2riorob|talk 13:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC))

    The above editor Off2riorob has again deleted the quote being discussed. This is the forth time. Three without any discussion. It took several attempts (on my talk page) to persuade him to take it to the subjects talk page in the first place. He has also arbitrarily removed, without discussion, a whole host of 'negative' yet fully cited info on the subject. I tried to revert two of them (there were several dozen at least) but he reverted my reverts. He then followed me to another article and did the same, arbitrary removal, trick. We were supposed to be waiting for an admin regarding this one, but he seems to just do what he likes. I'm sick of this edit bully. He can keep wiki, but I thought I’d make my complaint clear. Having never needed to complain about a fellow editor before I'm not sure if this is the right place but hope an admin can at least take a look. User:2writer|2writer (User talk:2writer|talk) 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not taking a position either way, but I see that the talk page section dealing with this "issue" was closed/collapsed/hatted/whateveryoucallit. Was that the right thing to do? I was going to give my 2 cents but couldn't? Anyways, --User:Threeafterthree|Tom User talk:Threeafterthree|(talk) 23:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
    That was Off2riorob doing. The continual blanket edits by Off2riorob are disruptive in my view, not least because he steamrollers on regardless. Even trying to get the guy to the talk page in the first place is a huge battle. He's a disruptive bully. See WP:DIS. In any case, he can force his edits on others from now on, I'll find something else to do outside Wikipedia. I don't need the grief. And next time someone else in the pub mentions the nonsense of Wikipedia, I'll nod, along with everyone else. User:2writer|2writer User talk:2writer|talk 13:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

    I have informed User:Off2riorob of this report, in case he wishes to respond. Abecedare (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    After lengthy discussions on the talk page I felt there was consensus and changed the comment in question

    from this ...

    On 1 August 2008, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad issued a statement calling Blair a war criminal for his role in initiating the war in Iraq. Mahathir said, 'I am disgusted that Tony Blair has been invited to Malaysia. This man, to me, is a war criminal. Through instigating the war in Iraq, he has killed more than (former Bosnian Serb leader) Radovan Karadzic and (former Iraqi President) Saddam Hussein.'[9]

    to this....

    On 1 August 2008, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad issued a statement calling Blair a war criminal for his role in initiating the war in Iraq.[9]

    Removing the mass murder claims but leaving the comment and a link to the speech. I hatted the discussion to preserve the discussion as 2writer commented he was going to complain and the next day 2writer added retired to his page and as he was the other editor in the disputed change I then added a resolved tag to the request for comment that I had opened. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    As far as I can see there is nothing to answer here. 2writer can not just come along and dump his complaint and go, he either is here to give some detailed explanations and cites to his accusations or this thread should be closed as no complaint to answer(Off2riorob (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]


    This is addressed to any Admin looking into this. First, it may be worth noting that there has been further talk on the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding this. I should note that I'm not familiar with all Wikipedia guidelines and initially complained because I feel edit bullied and generally hassled by the editor in question. I have taken a look at some WP guidelines and WP:DIS seems the most appropriate here, though there may be other examples.

    Re WP:DIS and Signs of disruptive editing These points include:

    1. Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.

    This has happened numerous times. Any reverts (two) I made to his arbitary changes were reverted by him. trying to persuede the editor to take just one of his edits to Blairs talk page took some doing. This exchange can be seen on my own talk page.

    1. Does not engage in consensus building:

    repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits.

    He initially denied there was any previous consensous, as seen on my talk page, yet implied the consenous had changed in his favour later, as seen on the Tony Blair talk page. His reasons for continual arbitary removal of cited 'negative' info appear to be picked from a hat. POV, COATRACK, UNDUE or some none specific reason, of which many are dubious claims. His reasons for objection can change from the edit statement on the history page, to the talk page. It's as if the reason for objection is less imprtant than him getting his way.

    1. Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors.

    I'd suggested artbitration to resolve this dispute (as seen on the Blair talk page). We were then waiting for an impartial admin. The editor in question then deleted the quote being disputed, archived the relevant talk section, then claimed on the BLP Notice board the dispute had been 'resolved'.

    1. Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.

    The editor followed me to another article James Purnell and engaged in the same 'arbitary removal' trick. He has engaged in wholsale 'negative' yet fully cited edits on the Tony Blair page and has generally acted like an edit steamroller. Getting him to discuss just one of his edits on the Blair page was a battle. The last straw was after agreeing to wait for an admin to take a look, the editors decision to just delete it again anyway and archive the relevant discussion. He engages in low level intimidation. Previously suggesting I hadn't read his edits before reverting them (as seen on the James Purnell page). Implied I am the only person who is not following the discussion properly, as seen on the Tony Blair page and generally doing all he can to intimidate me whilst skirting the civility rules. 2writer (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see my high levels of contributions as regards to talk page edits to demonstrate my commitment to talk page discussion [[48]] (Off2riorob (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    There are a lot of broad accusations here, but nothing specific, please provide exact cites to your accusations. And please stop cut and copying material from other pages, it's enough to provide a link. (Off2riorob (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    Admin eyes would probably be a good idea

    It's already semi'd, but Billy Mays just died, and according to a friend of mine who frequents the place (seriously, an actual friend) /b/ is having a minor paroxysm. The article has apparently previously been a target for move-vandals. → ROUX ₪ 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It was protected here but I don't see any actual vandalism. Of course, admins seems to enjoy doing that now so what difference does it make. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know it was protected. My guess is that the first recent protection (March) was while he was alive, thus a BLP, and the revs have probably been removed from public view. The second one seems to me to be a very smart move in the case of deaths of high-profile people. There is no rush, so a short bout of protection while the furor dies down is probably a good thing. However, none of that is why I posted this, I just wanted to make sure admins were watching for sleeper socks, given /b/'s attention to the issue. Also, given that the original protection was by NawlinWiki, I'd be willing to bet that /b/ and/or he who must not be named were involved. → ROUX ₪ 19:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I just have to disagree with protection "while the furor dies down" when there hasn't been any vandalism out there. I know Jackson's article regularly is protected but seeing that something like 2009 Iranian election protests has lasted pretty well without any protection at all, I guess I'd rather we wait until someone actually happens rather than keeping new users locked out under fears of potential abuse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Greek love

    Things are becoming distinctly unWP:Cool at this article and its talk page. There was a recent afd where the consensus was to keep. I was aware of some heat at the time and wanted to keep half an eye on what was happening to the content but the proliferation of silly section titles in the talk page: Talk:Greek love#Absurd, Talk:Greek love#21:07, Talk:Greek love#21:09 Talk:Greek love#questionable" and Talk:Greek love#Editor admits original research, point of view, and referencing personal letter. etc. and the deletion of large chunks of text in ther article followed by reversion means that I've lost the will to keep up. Could a kind admin be so good as to consider protecting whatever the wrong version happens to be at the time they get there and encourage more constructive use of the talk page, please?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Max Mux

    User:Max Mux has requested a more public review of his block and ban - in the interests of sorting this all out, I'm willing to comply. In a discussion here (under the heading Abuse of Wikipedia:Guidelines) Max was put under a set of restrictions to do with creating articles. This was because of a continued and consistent failure to understand the reliable sources policy, far beyond the point where language problems (Max is a german speaker) could be used as an excuse. After repeated failure to use Reliable Sources, Max was indefinitely blocked and community banned as per the original agreement. This is slightly problematic, since the original agreement prohibited the creation of new pages (even though that wasn't the main problem) but said nothing about the use of Reliable Sources. I expressed slight misgivings at the time, and max has now requested a more public review. The question, then, is twofold: firstly, whether you agree that max's behaviour on top of that expressed in the last thread is such that he deserves an indefinite block, and secondly whether you think this block fell under the community agreement in the last thread. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I remember the discussion, as well as--if memory serves--evidence of shenanigans on de.wiki. To answer your questions: yes and yes. → ROUX ₪ 19:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason I went ahead and instated the community ban was because I believed that the spirit of the last discussion was about the inability to understand and follow policy. Yes, he stopped creating articles at a break-neck speed, but then started up again in his userspace. When told to stop creating them willy-nilly, listen to his mentor and fix the ones he already created instead, he dropped them completely and blithely went back to adding unsourced information to various biographies. I think it is clear that at best, Max absolutely cannot understand what's expected of him; at worst, given his participation at de.wiki, he simply has no interest in following policy. Either way, stopping someone from running amok in biographies is prevention at its best. Shell babelfish 19:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    BET Awards

    I saw an announcement today that the BET awards tonight had been changed to a Michael Jackson tribute with added performers and some awards presented along the way. I removed some unsourced info on Friday, and there's been some increased IP activity in the last few hours -- adding performers, some blanking etc. The article could probably use some more eyes, but I'm not sure if this is the correct place to ask. Flowanda | Talk 21:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Battle of Warsaw 1920

    This requires rapid administrator investigation and response, possibly oversighting or office actions also. Exxolon (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Oversighting and office actions? For what purpose? As I said here, the person in question doesn't seem to be correctly understanding the discussion he is complaining about. There's nothing we should do, as his claims are baseless. --auburnpilot talk 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really; the most significant part of the complaint follows from a misunderstanding (the complainant construed an assertion at FAR that an article too closely paraphrased his work [i.e., that we had plagiarized him] as an assertion that he had plagiarized, a misreading that is not easily made). Courtesy blanking suffices. 68.76.156.73 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Returning vandal

    Judging from their contributions Capetown Jones (talk · contribs) would appear to be a returning vandal (and rather a nasty piece of work). Does anyone recognise them? Could someone familiar with persistent vandals follow-up with checkuser/WP:LTA if appropriate? Any help appreciated,  Skomorokh  22:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Their modus operandi bears similarity to that of King of Sing Sing (talk · contribs).  Skomorokh  22:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Capetown Jones (talk · contribs) has been blocked by another admin, and I have blocked King of Sing Sing (talk · contribs). You may want to file a quick case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Quick CheckUser requests. Tiptoety talk 22:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the assistance Tiptoety (and thanks also to User:Kurt Shaped Box). I've filed the sock case as you have advised, though I'm not au fait with the process. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  22:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also blocked The Lion Bear (talk · contribs) and the underlying IP. I thought this was Fclass (talk · contribs), but it appears to be someone else. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 23:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    James P. Barker unresolved

    This has been here a few days ago clearly not an article for speedy deletion and is still unresolved. I have asked user Manning to restore the page, disscussion and full history but he has not gotten back to me. The speedy deletion was obviously wrong so that the article and history should be fully restored. I am asking you to do it now because it is a mess and people even use the deletion that violates normal procedure as an example in another ongoing afd. There would be also no harm to reopen the Afd for James P. Barker as it was wrongly cut off and let the community have their say on an 3 year old article. I think it would be more harm and wrong if it would be simply redirected without giving the wider community the chance to have their say. Iqinn (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you think the AfD was closed incorrectly, the place to discuss this is at deletion review. A number of editors might agree with you on that, and if so the AfD could be relisted. Incidentally, I was the person who mentioned it in the Steven Dale Green AfD, and I was not mentioning it "as an example," but rather making the point that if WP:BLP1E applied to Barker, it should probably apply to Green as well. In any case, deletion review is the place to make your case on this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the deletion review i need access to the article and it's history. So i can make my case that it has been wrongly speedy deleted under A7. Only administrators have access to it now. If you think deletion review is the best way that's ok but i and people need access to the article to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 00:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If you feel you need access to the article, email me or another administrator and we can send you the most recent revision by email. Once the deletion review is started, the history may be temporarily restored for that purpose. We usually don't restore prior to the DRV being filed. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alex contributing

    Alex contributing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
    User is coming off a recent block for "Personal attacks or harassment: obscenities in edit summaries, disruptive editing" and this is apparently their way of moving on. I understand the idea of letting users blow off some steam on their own talk page, but this seems to be a bit much after a week.
    I don't have time to dig out diffs of the original trouble tonight, but will later if necessary. From what I remember, they're upset over a category being deleted. --Onorem♠Dil 00:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • good lord no, "I can only hope he will listen to that admonishment: not to be a faggot." as the capstone to the rest of the homophobic filth--and the day after the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, no less! Pride day for me--is completely unacceptable. Ban. → ROUX ₪ 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would also suggest talk page protection, no reason to let the user have a soapbox to spread homophobia. -- Darth Mike (talk) 04:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...along with deleting the talk page per deny recognition. MuZemike 06:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Personal attacks in article mainspace

    I'm having a bit of a dispute with User:Russellfl5, in the article John Russell (Florida politician) and outside. I listed the article for deletion, and actually filed a sock puppet report, thinking that they were the same as User:Baxterword, and I'm still not convinced that they are not the same (the report is at [[49]]). Now, after cleaning up a coding error by Russellfl5 in that SPI, I saw some nasty, nasty things, and to my surprise they had repeated accusations of terrorism (yes, indeed) in the article mainspace, here. I can't rightly tell if I'm being "outed" here or not--I guess not, since the user doesn't seem to understand UTC, but I'm certainly being insulted as an Israel-hating terrorist. Do I need to explain here that my interest, as you'll see from the article history, was to remove trivia? Your attention is appreciated. Russell is aggravating me a little. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems that Russellf15 is claiming to be John Russell (Florida politician). I removed his rant from the article and left a standard COI warning on his talk page. If it continues, he'll likely be blocked. --auburnpilot talk 05:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    After making this edit, one minute after the COI warning, I've indef-blocked the user. It's a bit faster than usual, but this type of harassment isn't indicative of someone who wants to edit constructively. I trust that's not overly controversial. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No arguments here. Somebody might also want to keep an eye on PuddyKat (talk · contribs). The account has the distinct trademarks of a sock/meat puppet. --auburnpilot talk 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Good block on Mr. Russell; [50] is deserving of an automatic indefinite disruption block. MuZemike 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also requested CheckUser in that SPI per the likelihood and evidence of further abuse via sockpuppetry. MuZemike 05:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=299289710"