Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Jehochman and David Boothroyd censorship

User:Jehochman is preventing editors from working on David Boothroyd (aka former arb Sam Blacketer) in userspace (on my user page and most recently at User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd) despite the existence of multiple reliable sources from the British press addressing the controversy. He has suggested he will block anyone who includes the material and will only allow selectively restored versions of the Boothroyd article that do not mention his Wikipedia controversy. Coverage in the British national press includes:

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html
• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-sentinel-quits-after-using-alias-to-alter-entries-1698762.html
• http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wikipedia_westminster_councillor/

Jehochman is now clearly dedicated to preventing any development or discussion in spite of reliable sources. This censorship must end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TAway (talk • contribs) 21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• This has already been through three AFDs (1, 2, 3 with 2 and 3 closed as delete), one very lengthy DRV (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 27#David Boothroyd). All have been rooted in extreme BLP concerns, which has led to its recent deletions, salting, and DRV. Please do not throw the word "censorship" around, especially when the intent is to prevent and negative unsourced information from being added to the userfied copy. MuZemike 21:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • With 2 and 3 both having been closed after almost no discussion by Jehochman. This is not about preventing unsourced information -- all the information is sources -- but protecting a former Arb and Wikipedia's credibility. The media has covered him on other issues, they are now covering his Wikipedia activities, and we even use Boothroyd's election guide as a reliable source in over 700 Wikipedia articles. The media coverage is there, and this is censorship. TAway (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The problem is that there is at least the appearance that what's being protecting isn't BLP concerns, but Wikipedia's rep. The story is out, in reliable sources, the only question is about notability, not verifiability. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 22:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes - and isn't it odd how long we had an article on David Boothroyd BEFORE this controversy broke? The article survived the first AfD, then was bought two more times in rapid succession in violation of WP:NOTAGAIN. "Censorship" isn't quite the right word - but it closely resembles a whitewash. Snarfies (talk) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
        • August 2005 to May 2009 is not most people's idea of "rapid succession". Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Jayron32 has userified the article to User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • After userification, Jehochman selectively re-deleted any versions noting the Wikipedia controversy. He also threatened that any re-creation that included the Wikipedia controversy was a "potentially a blockable action." TAway (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Correct - repeatedly re-creating deleted material is blockable, especially when it involves BLP concerns. I'm unsure what the problem is here. Black Kite 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
      • How is it restoring "deleted material" when the new sources are appearing after Jehochman's inappropriate speedy deletions? Why is it that the article was immediately speedied after Boothroyd resigned from ArbCom after years of existing, then deletion is accepted as the "status quo" when the media picks up on the scandal? He has salted an article and blacklisted an entire issue under threat of ban regardless of how it develops and continues to appear in the media. That is censorship. TAway (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
  • as the references accumulate, the material is no longer deleteable. I have respect for Sam for his work here, but neither he nor anyone is actually helped by censorship. That he was an admin here is relevant to his possible outside notability. Jehochman is operating beyond the limits of consensus here. DGG (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it true that there was an article on David Boothroyd before the controversy? If so, for how long? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. And David Boothroyd effectively wrote it.

  The article that was created in article space was a simple copy and paste, by an editor without an account, of the autobiography that User:Dbiv had had on xyr user page since 2004-03-31. M. Boothroyd didn't write xyr autobiography in article space, and nominated the copy and paste for deletion in the article's second ever edit. The only significant subsequent expansion of the article came from an IP address assigned to Westminster City Council. If that wasn't M. Boothroyd himself, it was someone who was using M. Boothroyd's autobiography as xyr source, because it gave that autobiography as an external link in the edit. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The article would be deletable with or without the Wikipedia scandal - it isn't censorship to say someone isn't notable, nor is it censorship to argue that involvement in one significant event (related to Wikipedia or not) doesn't change that essential fact. He wasn't notable at all before, and the scandal qualifies as his 1BE. I don't think it is Jehochman that is overly focused on the scandal element here; its the folks who insist on recreating this article only to focus on the scandal element of it who need to find other work to do. Nathan ^T 00:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• There shouldn't be an article on Boothroyd or any other marginally notable living person until Wikipedia implements an effective mechanism for protecting such articles from malicious editing. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • So consensus was that he was notable enough for an article until there was substantial coverage of his getting caught sock puppeteering and violating Wikipedia's integrity by engaging in conflict of interest edits? This is fascinating. I move that anyone encouraging this kind of policy violating behavior should be put up for recall. We can't have this kind of censorship and bias on Wikipedia especially not from Admins and ARbcom member. It fosters rot right at the core of our trustworthiness and undermines the integrity of Wikipedia as a quality information source. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • That of course presupposes that there isn't already rot right at the core. --WebHamster 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Actually, it pressupposes something rather different. See below. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • No, that was not the consensus. The first AFD discussion really didn't apply our primary notability criterion at all. No rationale for keeping makes any mention of reliable sources. We kept the article because it satisfied one of the other, secondary, notability criteria that we had at the time: an arbitrary number related to book readership.

      I suggested a complete rewrite from reliable sources, but that didn't happen. In retrospect, that could well have been because there weren't actually any to be had. The source of all of the content was, indirectly, M. Boothroyd documenting himself, throughout the entire life of the article, and the second AFD discussion can well be regarded as doing the right thing, in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines on reliability and independence of sources, albeit four years after the subject himself first requested the right thing to be done. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

      • That's interesting because I'm finding lots of sources that discuss his political activities before his indiscretions were covered very substantially. I'm also finding he was VERY active in working on political subject including some that are very negative in tone about Conservative politicians. Where is the accountability? Where is the investigation and clean up that needs to be done? Do we know all the sock accounts he used? Have we asked if there are more? Who knew what when? Are we to believe that Arbcom was completely in the dark about his true identity? Stop trying to sweep this under the rug and let's root the rot out. If we spend half the time trying to make things right that we do trying to cover up the impropriety, maybe we wouldn't have this problem all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • It doesn't look good to make wild and foolish accusations of sweeping things under a rug when people are doing nothing more than straightforwardly answering your questions. If we'd spent the effort to make things right, by the way, the copy of the autobiography wouldn't have stood in article space for four years, based upon nothing except what the subject claimed about himself. That is what would have been right. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• TAway appears to be a sock puppet account or somebody with an axe to grind. The matter of deletion was dealt with at WP:DRV. It is not proper to continue badgering to get one's way against consensus. I hope that TAway stops disrupting Wikipedia to make a point before somebody else blocks them. They did not notify me of this thread. Apparently. Their goal is to stir up drama, not to resolve a problem. Jehochman ^Talk 00:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not a sock puppet and I have no axe to grind. I simply stumbled upon this mess when commenting upon a different mess after finding this board recently. It appears to ME anyways that this is not about protecting a BLP, but is a CYA for Wikipedia. From what I can gather, Boothroyd's article had existed for several years before this last bit of trouble. How does it become deleteable only after it's discovered that Boothroyd had managed to somehow attain a position of trust and power on the project, and then abused that power using sock puppets? The situation -- and Boothroyd -- have been dealt with in reliable sources. Why is this even an issue? It seems obvious that the article belongs on the project. Unitanode 02:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • To be clear, the above regarding my not being a sock puppet was in regards to Jehochman's apparent ad hominem against the originator of this thread. Unitanode 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The reality is that it was deletable right from the start, had we applied our sourcing policy properly at the time of the first AFD discussion. But we didn't. We applied a notability criterion that we no longer have, and the existence of what was effectively an unsourced autobiography in article space for four years is an example of why that criterion, and others like it, were and are bad ideas. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Whatever the reality of the policy issues, this bears the distinct odor of a coverup. I'm not well-versed in the ins-and-outs of policy here, so I'm commenting simply on the appearance of things. Unitanode 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Then you are creating confusion, and are not being helpful to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia editors, at least, should be capable of getting the facts straight in this affair. Look what happens when one doesn't. TAway has created an entire house of cards in this section predicated upon false information about when M. Boothroyd nominated the article for deletion and what it was that Jenochman deleted from the userfied article. The consequence is that xyr repeated protestations and accusations here look rather silly when compared to the actual MediaWiki logs and edit histories. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You're being something of a bully with your accusations of "not being helpful to the encyclopedia." My contention is that the continued removal of any reference to Boothroyd, when he has been prominently featured in several reliable sources now, has whiffs of a CYA by those with much more power on this project. Your accusations notwithstanding, all I care about is whether or not the encyclopedia is comprehensive and accurate. Unitanode 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
          • No-one is bullying you, and that mischaracterization isn't helpful, either. The fact remains that "commenting simply on the appearance of things" is not helpful to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. Stick to the facts, to what the edit histories and logs actually say, and to the policies. Don't build and encourage fantasies based upon "appearance", such as the one that you put forward above based upon the false notion that the article "became deletable". They waste an awful lot of everyone's time. If anything, entirely the reverse of your notion is true: The article, being based upon nothing but autobiography, was deletable for almost four years, and it is only now that it is possibly, as DGG points out above, becoming not deletable. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Appearances are important, whatever you may think. And your characterizing people as being "not helpful to the encyclopedia" appears to be bullying, whatever you may intend it to be. Boothroyd is now notable, and deleting and salting the target page appears untoward, and looks like a CYA move. My saying so is not unhelpful in any way. People disagreeing with your take doesn't make them unhelpful, by the way. It just means we disagree about the importance of the appearance of things. I think that the appearance of things is quite important. Interestingly, and tangentially, the Supreme Court of the United States seems to agree with that view as well. Not that what SCOTUS thinks really matters here, I just found it interesting that they don't simply discard the appearance of impropriety. Unitanode 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Just for the sake of comparison.. the political office held by Boothroyd in the UK is on par with a US "city councilman" - Apart from the bad press for getting caught with "wiki-fingers" (pardon the bad pun).. I don't see how he qualifies for an article. The fact that it was here before just means we have a huge problem with borderline BLPs that noone bothers to read. - and we already knew that. If we had an article for every US city councilman caught in a compromising position - we'd really be screwed. --Versageek 02:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, the problem of the article existing before is that AFD didn't come to the right conclusion the first time around, because we applied a bad notability criterion. It has been partially addressed by the fact that we don't have that particular criterion any more, but constant vigilance is required to ensure that we don't slip back into applying such faulty notability criteria at AFD, and don't formulate such criteria. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• The article clearly passes the GNG guidelines based on very substantial coverage in numerous reliable sources. It was borderline before this incident, but there's no question now. There's coverage of his activities as a politician, coverage of his activities in private enterprise it look like, and there's now quite a bit of coverage of his subterfuge in editing under aliases against our policies as he sat on our highest administrative body. We are a major information source, we aren't censored, and we shouldn't pretend that he's non-notable now to hide the truth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Before this incident it was not borderline. It was an unsourced autobiography, and should really have been deleted alongside the other unsourced autobiographies that we delete all of the time here. The subject even asked us to delete it. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • As per precedent, and possibly a guideline (can't find one at the moment, but I think one does cover this issue), the wish of a subject of an article for the article to be kept or deleted is irrelevant. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That's certainly true, because an editor is not allowed to own an article. The real question is whether the article should have existed in the first place, regardless of who wrote it. What I'm seeing here among some of those pushing for keeping it, is as coatracking for criticism of wikipedia. There's already an article on criticism of wikipedia, and that's where this situation belongs, if anywhere. It's likely nothing more than a blip in the real life of the subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Without making comment as to this article, this can depend on the level of notability. We now and then do delete BLPs whose topics are at the very edge of notability if the subject asks for this to be done in a verifiable way. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Nonetheless, it was autobiography, without independent and reliable sources, and the subject asked us to do what, in accordance with our content and deletion policies, we should really have done at the time. AFD came to the wrong result, and that wrong result stood for four years. The arguments being made by two editors, that that wrong result somehow proves notability, when there was no evidence presented either at that first AFD discussion or in the intervening three and a bit years that multiple reliable and independent sources covering this subject in depth exist (because, as can be seen if one actually reads what is cited below, they did not exist), which is the definition of notability, are clearly fallacious arguments. The existence of an unsourced (in effect) autobiography for four years only demonstrates that AFD went wrong. It doesn't demonstrate notability during that time, and both that thesis, and the further thesis (also propounded) that the subject was notable and now is not notable, are predicated upon a falsehood. (As DGG points out above, if anything entirely the reverse is true.) Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • For those of us too lazy to look up what actually happened, but not lazy enough to refrain from repeating misinformation:
          • WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd "I am nominating this article about myself for deletion as I don't think I make the notability criteria (although possibly verging on them). However I reserve the right to become notable in the future. David | Talk 22:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)" KEEP
          • WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination) "Non-notable, lack of sourcing. Does not meet our present notability standards for inclusion as a WP:BLP. Last AFD was nearly four years ago. rootology/equality 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)" DELETE
          • WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (3rd nomination) "The individual does not meet our criteria for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)" DELETE
        • --Hans Adler (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Uncle G, that's not the definition of "notability" — not in any sense of the word, not off Wikipedia, and not on Wikipedia either — even if you want to pretend that Wikipedia:Notability provides a different definition (it doesn't, it defines "notable" as "worthy of notice", just like the dictionary.) And please don't act like every other notability criterion besides your "PNC" is a bad idea. --Pixelface (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrative action v. outcome

Actually there are two separate questions: whether the article was deleted correctly and whether Jehochman's post-deletion actions were appropriate. The complaint regarded Jehochman's actions, not the deletion itself. So let's break this down:

1. The poster lists three sources and calls them reliable: The Register, Daily Mail, and The Independent. Would an editor who knows British periodicals please weigh in?
2. What is our general practice on userspace recreations of courtesy deleted biographies?
3. The poster asserts He has suggested he will block anyone who includes the material and will only allow selectively restored versions of the Boothroyd article that do not mention his Wikipedia controversy. Yet no the poster provides no diff of this assertion. If Jehochman actually did suggest that blocks would be forthcoming, we need clear answers to the first two questions.
4. If at least one of those three sources is reliable, and if userspace recreations are allowable in this situation, and if Jehochman selectively deleted that news and threatened blocks--then a problem exists. Otherwise there's probably little problem, except for one thing:

This issue is developing news, and arguably a reputation management issue. Jehochman is a reputation management professional who appears to have acted boldly without requesting the review and assistance of fellow administrators at the admin boards. It wouldn't be good to see this spin out of control with claims of 'coverup', and if mud gets thrown it might possibly stick. So respectfully requesting that Jehochman seek community consensus before taking further action. Durova^Charge! 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that the Mail, the Register and the Independent qualify as reliable sources. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh? Had thought there was doubt about citing the Register. Anyway if at least one of them is then question 1 is answered. How about the userfication question? Is it permissible to develop BLPs in user space after deletion and DRV? Durova^Charge! 04:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

You make some good points, but let's be clear. This is NOT just developing news. This is a subject we've long had an article on, who has been covered in the media for years. There has recently been a major surge in coverage due to policy violating behaviors that are also unethical for a politician. So he's under fire. Not only are we subject to allegations of a cover-up, so far we are guilty of one. All of a sudden the subject was no longer notable right when lots of coverage was occuring that wasn't favorable? This is the worst kind of censorship and it puts us in a very bad light. It also comes at a time when Arbcom is already involved in coddling POV pushers, bias and NPOV violations. So we have a major problem that needs to be fixed. So instead of attacking anyone who questions those trying to sweep things under the rug, we need to take a step back, take a deep breath, restore the article, put in a few sentences about the issues involved, and see what happens. We have this rush to action any time there's a controversy, but cooler, more rational, and more reasonable heads should prevail. Let's do the right thing instead of engaging in subterfuge to cover up for those violating our policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As the person who had the article usefied, I'm currently thinking about this with both the Mail and Indepdent as reliable and the Register as a source only as a matter of last resort for uncontroversial details. The Mail and Indepdent are pretty clearly WP:RS. Regarding the matter of development in userspace, there's a variety of conflicting precedents about that. Given that the closer of the DRV made the decision that userfication in this case was ok that seems ok. He's given one week to work on it as a time limit. Given that, I see it as very hard to see a problem with working on a userfied version. I haven't seen Jehochman claim that he will delete/issue blocks for any mention of the controversy in question although I've already asked him to clarify what precisely he considers to be a BLP problem. It might help matters if Jehochman would have other arbs or admins take a look at this in more detail since a variety of users seem to be upset with his handling of the matter. In any event, it would be appreciated if users would help contribute to a draft rather than attacking Jehochman or stirring up further drama. (Oh, and the next time something in my userspace is the center of an ANI thread could someone please do me the courtesy of letting me know?) JoshuaZ (talk) 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Jehochman wrote in an edit summary to your user talk page: "(WP:BLP1E enforcement -- blocks will be issued if same old problems are reinstated.)"[1] Durova^Charge! 04:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know what he meant by that. Is the problem using The Reg as a source? Is the problem the Wikipedia matter as a whole. Is the problem some of the unsourceable details about his career that were in the earlier version? Needs clarification. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's one in the morning in Jehochman's time zone. So he probably isn't available to answer that right now. Was it only a citation to The Register that he removed? It's a long page to scour and you're more familiar with it. Durova^Charge! 04:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If the recreated page is turned into an attack page, I predict the editors who are responsible will be blocked by somebody else. It won't be me doing the blocking, but I am pretty confident that an uninvolved administrator can be found to review the evidence if a block is called for. Jehochman ^Talk 11:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is 1 AM here too... :). Anyways, I can't tell since he deleted the offending edits [2]. But I believe that was the only material in question. I do of course understand the late hour and don't have any issue waiting for his clarification. (Indeed, I sent him a note. I still see this ANI thread as unnecessary). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually this is developing news. That's not the only thing it is, but it certainly is that. Do you have an analysis of the numbered questions, please? Durova^Charge! 04:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not just developing news. Here are a few of the sources that Google News search comes up wit (the first 10 or so predating the latest controversy):

• 1) [3] Fox News
• 2) [4] The Guardian
• 3) Time/CNN [5]
• 4) [6] The Independent
• 5)The Argus [7]
• 6) Wood and Vale [8]
• 7)Westminster’s Icelandic folly - PressDisplay.com - Oct 13, 2008 has a story on him.
• 8) Westminster affordable housing row

PlanningResource - PlanningResource (subscription) - Oct 23, 2008 Labour member of the committee Cllr David Boothroyd, has branded the move as “a smash and grab raid”. He said: "So many people are waiting for transfer to a ...

• 9) Local elections good for gay Labour

PinkNews.co.uk - May 5, 2006 Gay councillors, Matt Cooke and Alan Dobbie held seats in Labour controlled Haringey and David Boothroyd held his in Westminster.

• 10) And then of course there's the very substantial coverage AFTER his latest controversy [9], [10] Daily Mail
• 11) The Register [11]

And then there are other stories that I'm not sure are related. There are several tech stories. Is he David Boothroyd, Contributing Editor to Vision Systems Design? Does he write on wireless standards?

And I understand he's also an author. So there's more notability based on his book and writings and presumably more sources available on Google Books.

And to answer your other questions, Jehochman needs to stop acting unilaterally and in haste. And other veteran editors need to stop covering this up and maintain what's left of our integrity by doing what's right. There's no need for userspace recreations, because the article should be recreated in main space and protected with a couple sentences covering the latest issues so we can all get back to editing and expanding the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Childofmidnight, those are all very interesting sources. Would you move them out of this subsection to the previous subsection please? For purposes of this subthread, all we really need to determine is that at least one of the new sources is reliable. We're already there. The second question is whether it's ok for users to recreate BLPs in user space after they've been deleted. And looking into this a little more, there's also a subquestion: if it's ok to do this in userspace, are editors prohibited from starting work before DRV? Durova^Charge! 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I can answer questions 1 and 3, Durova. Question 1, yes, the Daily Mail (second most-circulated paper in the nation) and Independent (a past top British Press Awards recipient) are both ironclad reliable sources. We use the Register as a source in the Essjay controversy article so I am assuming it is fine. TAway (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Question 3: I was incorrectly blocked by Jehochman for "WP:POINT violations" for having the article (entirely sourced) in my userspace (it was in my user space prior to his inappropriate speedy deletion, but he claimed I had restored it post-deletion), and only unblocked if "you will not restore this content anywhere on Wikipedia." When the article was userfied to JoshuaZ's userspace, Jehochman appeared and re-deleted, then selectively restored revisions without the Sam Blacketer controversy material saying, "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Deleted revisions were improperly restored" (it was not unsourced, and only "negative" in that it certainly reflects poorly) and "blocks will be issued if same old problems are reinstated." He then left a message on the userfied article's talk page making clear what he had done: "there were a bunch of WP:BLP problems in the deleted history. These were accidentally restored. I have deleted and selectively restored revisions I think may be acceptable."

Let's face it, had the evenly split post-speedy-deletion discussion at the Boothroyd deletion review been allowed to take place as a normal 7-day Article for Deletion it would have been a clear "no consensus" outcome. He has used his ability to speedy-delete and thus force DRV discussion instead of AfD discussion to claim that the book on this issue is now closed. He completely ignored administrator User:SoWhy's attempt to approach him on the matter and instead dismissively pointed to the DRV. By my count, three sysops (SoWhy, Sandstein, and now DGG) have commented with concerns about his protective and anti-consensus behavior during the developing Boothroyd situation.

Jehochman has openly stated "our website with its search-ranking-fu does not need to be made available to those who wish to amplify his (David Boothroyd's) problems" (assuming bad faith of those who hold the story with its coverage to be verifiable and notable). It is my contention that Jehochman is a search engine optimization expert who wants to keep the story out of the search engine results for the sake of Wikipedia and Boothroyd's reputations both. He is obviously about as far from a neutral broker of the Boothroyd situation as one can get right now and is in fact editing with a declared agenda: to minimize the search engine imprint of this story. His actions during AfD (speedying a deletion and denying a full AfD despite substantial new media coverage of a new development) and actions to suppress development of the issue's media coverage on-wiki via blocks and block threats are censorship. TAway (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, let's not rush to conclusions here. Or at least please excuse the ignorance of an editor who doesn't spend much time at AFD. In good faith, Jehochman might have been thinking of the editors David Boothroyd had voted to ban during his time as an arbitrator, who might add frivolous accusations to the substantial material. A portion of editors believe in being generous with courtesy deletions upon the subject's request. Regarding the block of May 27, could people who are familiar with AfD standards comment on the practice of recreating a BLP in userspace before DRV gets underway? Is that an ok thing to do? Durova^Charge! 05:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Not enough in the way of precedent. If it were an unambiguous attack page then recreation in userspace would have clearly been blockable. However, the deletion reason seems to be primarily BLP1E which is not sufficient reason generally to argue against a userspace recreation. I'm not aware of any similar block occasions for such more or less borderline situations such as BLP1E, or courtesy deletion requests. (There may have also been a GFDL violation in TAQway's actions but I'm not sure). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm leaving a whole mess of things to the side here and just offering my own view on Durova's second question. As a matter of commonsense, if we in fact do courtesy deletions of not-well-known BLPs (as has happened here) then it strikes me as the acme of foolishness to turn around and allow recreation of said BLP - even in a different form - in userspace. Leaving the specifics of this case to the side, let's think of this from the perspective of the subject of a theoretical article similar to the one we are discussing. The article subject comes to us and says, "Hey, I'm a local politician in Topeka, KS who is barely notable and I don't want a Wiki bio because I'm worried about defamation and having an article about me is not important for Wikipedia/the world, so can you delete it?" We say yes and then do so, but then we allow an editor to develop a new article in user space, presumably for the purpose of one day importing it into article space (otherwise why would would it be there?). At a basic level that strikes me as illogical, and I think the BLP subject in question would be understandably agog that we deleted it and then let it be created again in some other part of Wikipedia for it to be worked on and then maybe moved back into article space later. The particulars of this case are more complex (and I'm intentionally ignoring them to make a general point), but personally I feel "our general practice on userspace recreations of courtesy deleted biographies" has to be "we don't do that." If not then courtesy deletion is effectively meaningless. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, couldn't userspace be noindexed? The DRV closer in this instance specifically allowed userspace drafts with a time limit. So the post-DRV recreation seems ok. Not sure about the other one. Striking for now. Need to reverify: thought that was written, but having trouble finding it. Durova^Charge! 05:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
        • I suppose that helps, to the extent that average people know what "noindexed" means and/or are comforted by some techie's explanation of it (I barely know what it means, to be honest). Again I'm just thinking about this from the perspective of a the subject of the BLP who asks for deletion—presumably (most of the time) a person who is not familiar with Wikipedia or even maybe the workings of the series of tubes in which this web site lives. If we say, "Sure, we'll delete that!" and then in following up the person in question somehow sees (maybe on the talk page of the admin who did the deletion) that the article we just deleted has been recreated at some random user's user page....well let's just say it probably wouldn't be fun to respond to that OTRS ticket. The moral component of our BLP policy is (or should be) as much about perceived harm as actual harm—i.e. if a BLP subject says "I'm an unimportant person and this article has done and/or might do me harm" we probably are not going to fight with them about that but rather will largely take their word. Similarly I would not want to get in a conversation/argument with such a person about how they don't have to worry because it's in userspace which is "different," something something something "noindexing," etc. etc. And it still doesn't deal with the fact that an article in userspace is, by definition, something that is being worked on to be put in article space, otherwise we wouldn't have it there in userspace.

          Like I said there are different aspects to this particular discussion that might complicate matters, but in general I really cannot imagine a compelling argument for saying we can delete a BLP based on a real life request from an article subject and then turn around and put it in user space to work on it so we can later re-create the article we just deleted. In all seriousness I might be missing something but that strikes me as the rub of the matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

          • What you are missing: that almost immediately after Boothroyd's deletion request he became the subject of national media attention. National media attention in multiple sources completely changes the ballgame. TAway (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Like I said above, "Like I said there are different aspects to this particular discussion that might complicate matters..." This case might be slightly different for the reason you suggest (though this supposed "national media attention" seems, at a glance, to be quite minimal). My two previous comments gave my view on Durova's general question about userfying BLP articles that have been courtesy deleted rather than engaging with the specifics of this situation. I think it's obvious that userfying BLP articles that have been courtesy deleted is, as a rule, a definite bad idea. Perhaps this is an exception or perhaps not, but if it's the former I think it would be a very rare one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
            • 3 years 9 months is not "almost immediately". M. Boothroyd asked for the article to be deleted on the 8th of August 2005. This is one of the errors of fact upon which you have built your house of cards. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The content related to the recent scandal can be added to Criticism of Wikipedia, as there are reliable sources. My concern about the biography is that it was, and would be if recreated, a serious WP:BLP1E violation. We cannot write a biography based on a person being involved in one event when there is very thin coverage of the rest of their life. Unless there is enough substance to the rest of the person's life, the scandal would have undue weight. That's the problem. A public figure, like Chris Dodd can have some scandal content in their biography because there is enough substance to provide balance.

I'd very much like an answer to the question of whether it is kosher to userify a deleted WP:BLP. My initial feeling was against undeletion, but I did not outright delete the article again because I wanted more input, and did not want to generate more shrill comments about coverup. I did delete selected revisions which either 1/ I recalled having been previously deleted by other administrators before I ever set eyes on the article, or 2/ represented WP:BLP1E violations that had been discussed, and the deletion of which had been sustained at WP:DRV. Basically, I think the undeleting administrator was not fully aware of those circumstances and would not disagree with what I did. Jehochman ^Talk 10:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On a side note: Jehochman involved admin?

Another problem to ponder, which I have so far not considered, but which strikes me now is this: If Jehochman closed the second AFD as delete (very quickly without the usual 24h SNOW waiting period that admins usually apply), doesn't this mean he is now involved? Imho SNOW, unlike consensus judging, requires an admin to decide that deletion is the correct thing to do. SNOW is an interpretation of WP:IAR as we all know and IAR requires a decision by the one applying it, i.e. one should only ignore the rules if they think it's best for the project. But if SNOW/IAR requires such a decision, it means the person ignoring the rules (here the SNOWing admin) has effectively taken a stance on the issue. But if they have taken a stance on the issue by doing so, they are now to be considered an involved administrator and should not take administrator actions regarding the same subject again, especially not closing a new AFD (like the third one) or selectively deleting revisions of the userfied article) based on said close. Opinions? Regards SoWhy 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Trying to solve a difficult problem does not disqualify somebody from continuing to try to solve that problem. You can't just scream "involved!" to get rid of an administrator who disagrees with your point of view. Most of the revisions I deleted had been previously deleted (as best I can remember) before I was ever aware of the article. When the article was userified, I don't think it was the administrators intention to restore those revisions. They included some edits by the HAGGER vandal, for example. I also removed the WP:BLP1E violation that was the immediate cause of the article being deleted (which was upheld at WP:DRV). Jehochman ^Talk 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I understand that you probably do not view yourself as an involved administrator while I think in the spirit of the reasons you cited on your first close that you were from then on, now having an opinion about what should stay and what should be deleted. A deletion by an involved administrator can be upheld, so pointing at DRV is not really an argument. But my posting was a question to those not involved in the issue at all (unlike you and me) whether my interpretation of IAR/SNOW leading to a seperate decision and thus more than just being judgment of consensus is correct, so I'd like to invite those people to consider this thought/problem (regardless of the issue at hand if possible).

    From you I'd like to request that you recuse yourself from taking any further administrative action towards this article (userfied or not) and allow an administrator previously not involved in the issue at hand to decide the further fate of the article (you can tag it for speedy deletion as G4 for example and someone will make a decision). It would serve both you and the project as a whole if any rumors of whitewashing can be avoided and not having the same admin repeatedly deleting an article is imho a way to achieve this. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    • I'd be happy to have nothing else to do with this stinking mess if an uninvolved administrator would step forward and promise to keep an eye on it. Whatever leads to the smoothest operation of the project is fine with me. Jehochman ^Talk 10:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• My opinion is that this side-issue that you have created only serves to confuse, not to enlighten. The specifics of the case at hand are that the userfied edits that were deleted, as you can see for yourself, with the sole exception of TAway's contributions were all BLP vandalism making various libellous statements about the subject's sex life and sexual orientation. Abstract notions of "involvement" are irrelevant to that, and only serve to further muddy waters already muddied quite a lot above. If an abstract notion prevents someone from reversing/removing an edit where a BLP has been replaced with the word "cunt" (the one piece of vandalism here that I think to be safe to explicitly describe) then the abstract notion is directly enabling the existence of damage to the project. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Applying some simple logic here from my simple mind: (1) If this guy Boothroyd is notable, then he could qualify for a bio article. If not, then delete it. (2) If his own life and career are affected by his abuse of wikipedia, then it could merit a sentence or two. If not, then it doesn't belong in his article. That's not to say it might not belong elsewhere, such as the Criticism of Wikipedia article, as it illustrates some of the flaws in wikipedia's premise, which have been exploited by many, not just that one guy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Is Jehochman involved 'now'?

It's a simple test.

The level of involvement is simple to determine: is there consensus that Jehochman is involved now? If so, he is, and can't use the tools again without risk of the usual risks that come with that. If there isn't consensus he's involved, he's not. If it is gray or borderline, you probably are. It's fairly simple, everyone. Make your case either way with evidence, or stop alluding to it. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• My case is above. It's an irrelevant side-issue given the actual specifics here, and extra section headings don't change that. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know, I was just emphasizing that if someone thinks he's involved to just spit it out already with a valid reasoning or evidence, rather than us wasting time more on that bit. I'm actually with you on this. rootology (C)(T) 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability of the event in the context of the rest of him and BLP

This is getting pointless in particular. If he's notable, he's notable. If he's not, he's not. You either are, or you aren't. The sourcing IMHO is beginning to look like he is. I will say again what I said before: the fact Boothroyd is or isn't a Wikipedia user is 100% irrelevant in anything. The fact he screwed up here has zero value in any decisions we make. If the Wikipedia Event he caused gets coverage, there is no BLP violation at the least a one-sentence mention of it, relative to what has been reported so far. None. To totally suppress it from David Boothroyd, should it be created, is laughable and not a defense of anything under BLP, but a defense of a Wikipedia user. Given that it's a single notable event in the life of an apparently notable person's diverse biography (and yes, it looks like as a politician he is notable) a one-sentence mention is not harmful. If the news and the event is harmful as an event to the person, that's not our fault; like any other embarrassing event, he regrettably brougnt it upon himself and it's in the press already. rootology (C)(T) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the process for restoring an article after it has been to deletion review and the deletion was sustained? WP:DRVRV seems to be a redlink. Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no process, as far as I am aware. An article on Boothroyd can be recreated, but like a case involving just an AFD, it must not fall foul of the reasons why the original article was deleted, otherwise it can be speedily deleted. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Typically, someone does a noindex userpage draft, gets a working model that would 'pass' AFD trivially, and brings it back to DRV. If When DRV signs off, someone kicks it back live, and sometimes the old history is merged in (if old content is used) otherwise, new history. Since the draft in Josh's side is used, the history needs to be merged in fully I think when it goes live eventually. Given Boothroyd is a notable politician in the UK that is apparently even getting all over the news for events unrelated to Wikipedia after that mess, I think it's inevitable. rootology (C)(T) 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As rootology says. Although, if one thinks the closing admin of the DRV made a mistake in judging consensus, DRV should be the right avenue to contest this as well, although it usually is brought to AN or ANI. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Tweaked from if>when DRV, any article that would trivially pass AFD can't under policy fail DRV (politics, social reasons, sure, but we can't judge content inclusion based on such factors outside of policy). 0:) rootology (C)(T) 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yea, I don't think this was a request to overrule the DRV. Rather a comment about how BLP is being used here as a means to suppress unfavorable information. For example, this threat to block over the reintroduction of the WP controversy is completely inappropriate. This is not a BLP issue, and citing BLP where it doesn't apply does the project no favors. لennavecia 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I said, Recreation in the same form is potentially a blockable action, or perhaps the article will just be deleted again. I really hope it does not get to that point. Not sure I'm seeing a threat there as much as a statement of fact or a warning. I'm not going to block anybody or delete anything further, as this issue is now on the radar of multiple administrators. At the moment I am digging through the deleted edits and some other history where I've found multiple accounts and IPs that appear to be connected to an infamous banned editor. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether David Boothroyd should be a red or blue link, but it's odd to suggest that there are not BLP issues here. Leave all of the Wikipedia stuff to the side for a minute. The subject of the article requested deletion—once four years ago (I think before we did that kind of thing, i.e. courtesy deletions) and once more recently. Regardless of how big of a deal this recent controversy is (and I think it's not nearly as big of a deal as some suggest—as of now there are a whopping seven news articles on the issue that I can find, few of which seem to contain any original reporting), Boothroyd is most definitely "relatively unknown" in my view. I'm not sure what the current thinking on deleting BLPs at the request of such subjects is at this point, but in the past my understanding was that this was something that is acceptable and somewhat up to admin discussion per various ArbCom rulings. Maybe the consensus now on this particular case is that there is too much coverage now to not have an article on Boothroyd, but let's not lose sight of the fact that: A) the subject has repeatedly requested deletion; B) the key subject matter can easily be covered elsewhere (since the key subject matter is the Wiki controversy, not the fact that he is a local politician, of whom there are hundreds of thousand across the world); C) BLP is something we all obviously care about—even when it comes to Wikipedians who have articles. To suggest that there is no BLP issue here at all is just bizarre in my view, and I think it would be easier to see that were there not concerns about a coverup of information relating to Wikipedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I already commented in the MfD of the userspace draft, which didn't look at all like a NOINDEX draft to work on a better article, but a parking place for the article because it had been deleted at AfD against his own opinion. I already commented on the MfD about how the sources before the wikipedia "incident" only quote him to show the opinion of a member of the Westminster Council, and how he didn't take any of those controversial decisions himself, it was the council that made them. TAway can make as many claims of censorship in his user page as he wants, but those are not supported by evidence, since both the MfD and the DRV were closed by uninvolved admins. Sooo, I'd suggest that is marked as resolved and that TAway heads to WP:DRV to contest the DRV close, and that trying other noticeboards should be considered forum-shopping (and give him +1 kudos of unnecessary drama for every claim of censorship that he makes, please). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe another Essjay-type scandal

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

Resolved

 – Not going anywhere productive, no administrative actions are required here, and this is not an "incident" ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

With the already existing coverage of the Sam Blacketer controversy in the media, and on Wikipedia in the form of the relevant article and various discussions such as a large one currently going on above, the apparent news that The Times is preparing a new piece on what's happened and with ABC having caught wind of the story, I'm concerned this controversy may escalate into something, whilst probably not as grand as what happened with Essjay, rather bad. What should we do if this happens? OpenSeven (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a new and weak project anymore. It needs not shake over any possible negative mention in media.

Just do as instructed in Yes Minister, and everything will be fine. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's great if the media wants to cover sock puppetry. This sort of problem is a big issue for many websites, not just Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As a criticism of wikipedia, all it proves is that being totally open to the public can bite you, and that wikipedia might need to become more restrictive, maybe not as restrictive as citizendium, but maybe some steps in that direction. This so-called "scandal" only shames the sockpuppet, not wikipedia. But it should be a wakeup call to tighten the reins a bit, somehow. I wonder what Wales' take is on all this? Has anyone asked him? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked... shocked to hear that sockpuppets have been editing en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We could rename it "shockpuppetry". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

And every time we see it happen, it's a case of shock and 'Aw, damn...' HalfShadow 16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the politicos and mainstream media have taken a fancy to this controversy. The Daily Mail report a few breathtaking inaccuracies, but this goes a long way toward making this situation a lot more complicated. Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, they're lambasting Boothroyd (fancy the newspapers chastising Labour party members...) much, much more than they are Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 16:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As if he's the only one to have done it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Still, at least they're aiming at the right target; this is the fault of the editor, not the site. HalfShadow 16:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If he's suffering slings and arrows in real life, it's a fitting punishment, although it still doesn't make him notable enough for his own page. It could be a footnote in the Criticism article. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Fitting punishment? Gross. Who elected you, or indeed any of us, judge and jury? The user known as Sam Blacketer clearly erred here, but it was hardly the most dastardly thing we've ever seen on Wikipedia, and now the real-life person might be facing very real-life consequences based in part on some unsurprisingly sloppy reporting by a British tabloid. I hardly think that's something to celebrate, and a bit more sympathy for the actual living person affected by this - regardless of mistakes they made - would be appropriate (and I say this as someone who has never interacted with the person in question on Wikipedia or anywhere else). This isn't a goddamn video game, and this discussion is rapidly moving in an unseemly direction with little regard for real-world consequences. If there is continuing coverage then presumably Sam Blacketer controversy or something similar will stay an article and we'll talk about this situation there. All I see here right now is unhelpful, and not very thoughtful, speculation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sam is going to initiate an admin recall of himself on June 15. Do people think his adminship should go? OpenSeven (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not an 'Incident' and it doesn't require administrators' technical action. Closing, there are other venues for this, if it must go on at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

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

David Boothroyd deletion - do we have a process or not?

One of the most annoying things about the Wikipedia community is the desire to have instant outcomes when we are supposed to be deliberating thoughtfully. We can see this at Articles for Deletion, where the guideline says:

When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly.

This rarely comes into practice. The idea that we discuss whether to delete an article for a length of seven days is pretty much non-existent. Case-in-point: the recent AFD for David Boothroyd. There were three for this article as follows:

1. First AFD on August 8-August 14, 2005 - 7 days, KEEP - 10 votes total
2. Second AFD on May 23-May 23, 2009 - not even one day. DELETE - 6 votes total
3. Third AFD on May 27-May27, 2009 - not even one day. DELETE - 7 votes total

There is no way--no way--those last two deletion discussions should have been closed on the same days that they were opened. The third one was open for an hour and a half. The second one for less than that! The admins closing and deleting under these circumstances are derelict in the guidelines that this community has set up. If there were problems with the articles, they could be addressed. This is a very problematic trend for people to enact WP:SNOW, often not even citing it, to close off debate. Censorship, indeed. -->David Shankbone 17:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it should have run the full period, and yes it was, in my view at least, a mistake to cut it off after one day, and yes it is annoying when we don't deliberate thoughtfully. Jehochman could have handled this better. But crying "censorship" is a major failure to assume good faith and is not really borne out by the facts. In both AFDs Jehochman cited BLP enforcement as his rationale and I see no reason to not take him at his word on that (i.e. I think he had good intentions here), particularly as the article subject requested deletion (twice actually, counting four years ago). We do do, or at least have done, deletions of marginal BLPs when subjects request them, and I think the real issue here is whether or not that was appropriate in this case. If you want thoughtful deliberation, let's stick to that rather than making unfounded accusations of censorship.

Also, there's a very related AfD still running and I have a feeling the Boothroyd issue will be resolved over there eventually. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The article was userfied to User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. —EncMstr (talk) 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody cares that Boothroyd asked for his article to be deleted, just like we don't care that Don Murphy wants his deleted (also for BLP concerns). It's irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, this is Wikipedia self-censorship, removing articles about incidents that cause us embarrassment. The article existed for four years after a seven-day long deletion discussion. The last two AFDs are completely illegitimate. They weren't open for one day. They were open for less than two hours. There is no possible way that we gained any consensus in that time frame, especially given that there was consensus reached to KEEP when the process was done properly. Admins have to follow the guidelines we set up, and not go around deleting articles based upon their own judgment. I take extreme issue with Jehochman over how he has conducted himself with these AFDs. There is no AGF when our governing policies and guidelines are shirked so heinously. -->David Shankbone 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I concur that the two last AFDs were closed too soon. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Review is that way. I don't think getting worked up about "censorship" issues is very constructive at this point; if these closures were outside of process or otherwise erroneous, then they should be reviewed by the normal process, not at this noticeboard. Shereth 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong - this is an admin issue about not following guidelines, procedures and policies. DRV is separate. -->David Shankbone 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the larger issue of percieved malfeasance by one editor is a seperate issue from the deletions themselves, but the above statements seem to be conflating them. The closure of these discussions has already been mentioned in the deliberation about the larger issue at hand; I'm not sure what this new subsection is adding to the argument. It reads more like a request to review the closures rather than contribute to the discussion about a user's behavior. Shereth 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Like you David I don't agree with the last two AFDs, as I already said. But also bear in mind that Boothroyd asked that the article be deleted back in 2005 in the first AFD, well before any of this stuff went down. At the very least, there is a split in the community about whether we do courtesy deletions of BLPs when the subject requests it, and when the subject is of marginal notability. Don Murphy is not marginal because he produced a massively successful Hollywood film and someone wrote a book significantly about him, Boothroyd is marginal because he is a local politician who has recently achieved some (at this point) minor notoriety for one incident. We can debate about whether we should take the subject's wishes into account in the latter circumstance or not, and we can agree that Jehochman did not handle the AFDs well (though I'm less concerned by that than you are apparently), but don't pretend that "nobody cares that Boothroyd asked for his article to be deleted" because some people clearly do, and because we have done subject-requested deletions before (though I don't have an example at hand). There is a larger BLP debate here which remains unresolved, but things like WP:BLPBAN and the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom suggest that Jehochman's actions were not completely off-the-wall. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion at WP:DRV, at least a week, and the deletion was sustained. How many more discussions are needed? Why don't we just let the matter lie for a few weeks and then see if there are enough sources to write a proper article? What's the rush? Wikipedia is not news, and if you want to write news, try WikiNews. Jehochman ^Talk 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Why are WP:SNOW closures even permitted? What is the point of establishing policy if nobody is required to follow them, or even remarked on when they don't? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've tried Wikinews; an article that was around for four years after a KEEP AFD, and whose subject only became more notable recently, is a problem for you to delete in under two hours, Jehochman. I don't see how you could possibly defend your actions here. It's a slap in the face to the community that has given you trust to follow how we write how things will happen. -->David Shankbone 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that way than take this to another level of dispute resolution, but please have a bit of respect for the BLP issue, which is clearly present, and by which these actions are at least somewhat defensible. You seem to be plowing right past that (along with some others). This is a fairly complex situation (particularly as its literally still unfolding in the news and in an active AfD), and I'm skeptical of anyone who tries to make it sound simple. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Bigtime, I see no BLP issues mentioned in this thread that would excuse this behavior. If I want to discuss article content, I will do so at DRV or on the article Talk page. Yes, I think it's irrelevant that the subject wants their article deleted (or doesn't want the New York Times to write that story about them, etc.), and I always have (but I also think FlaggedRevs is long overdue). Here, the issue is with Jehochman deleting, twice, in under two hours, an article that was previously kept--strongly--by consensus. This is not the way we do things. -->David Shankbone 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That first RfD, 4 years ago, was hardly a ringing endorsement. Notability questions arose even then. After that, the article skated mostly under the radar for nearly 4 years, with only about 80 or 85 edits during that interval. Once the user got himself in trouble and that became public knowledge, then there was a revived move to delete it. You can claim wikipedia is protecting itself, but it's actually that guy who is shamed, not wikipedia, and making a big thing out of it in his article raises questions of BLP violations; undue weight; coatracking; and, frankly, wikipedian narcissim. Unfortunately, the quick closure of the RfD's looks fishy. But the DRV was open for a week, so there was ample opportunity to defend the article. It did not, and does not, belong here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several highly problematic deleted edits to that article by Grawp. The situation here is more complex than meets the eye. I've got a checkuser working on this. Jehochman ^Talk 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman has asked me to inform the community that he and I have had prior conflict. That said, questions about the above comment: were the edits to that article substantially more problematic than edits to other borderline notability BLPs that get a spurt of negative attention in the press? Durova^Charge! 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

There are edits in the history that are as problematic as edits can get. As in, worst I've seen on Wikipedia. This article is a very high risk of doing serious harm to the subject. You've seen the sloppy reporting at The Register and the Daily Mail. Do you want to pick up one of those papers tomorrow and see them repeating an unsubstantiated allegation of pedophilia or bestiality? I know for absolute certainty that Grawp has edited this article at least twice, and there are a bunch of other edits that appear to be coming from his sock puppets or friends. Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• The normal way of handling AFD vandalism is semiprotect, watchlist, and ask for assistance at ANI to deal with remaining vandalism. Isn't that true? BTW there's a question at my user talk also. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• So...you close two AFDs when they've barely been opened instead of asking for oversight? -->David Shankbone 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy is ongoing in case people want to debate whether the content should be in Wikipedia and where it should go. I don't think WP:ANI is the correct venue to resolve content disputes. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

JE, even if there were BLP problems, you could have removed those problems and allowed the AFDs to proceed. Do you or do you not see why your closing two AFDs, in the midst of recent news events, is a problem that violated your responsibilities as an admin, when you should have followed the guidelines and just removed problematic material from the article? -->David Shankbone 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the whole point of closing the third AFD according the WP:STEAM was done to force a DRV which by default deletes where an AFD keeps. On a whole this is a matter of admin conduct and not anymore about if DB should have an article or not. Agathoclea (talk) 18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agathoclea has hit the nail on the head with this comment. A 50-50 no consensus AfD defaults to keep, but the same at DRV defers to the deleting administrator. Why can we not have a normal, 7-day AfD discussion on a public figure who has and continues to be covered extensively in the press? TAway (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not about a content dispute, Jehochman. This is about your involvement in manipulating the encyclopedia via

1. speedily deleting out of process twice in a row
2. incorrectly blocking with false rationale
3. threatening editors with blocks
4. selectively restoring versions without certain reliably sourced content
5. wiki-lawyering editors out of a real AfD by throwing DRV in their faces
6. trying to change the BLP and Speedy deletion policies to accommodate and validate your actions

to (by our own admission as a search engine optimization expert) obscure search engine results. You were approached by other uninvolved editors (including another sysop) over these past several days and ignored them, so it is now here where it cannot be ignored. TAway (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this thread needs to be clarified. Expressions of concern about Hockman's conduct belong at certain forums, and debate over the articles' existence or non-existence belongs at certain other forums. As of now, this discussion is an unproductive amalgamation of the two. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they belong together. Because if there was no debate over the article's existence, there would be no debate over its allegedly too-rapid deletion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I still disagree. We have AfD for a reason. And we have <a large number of abuse forums> for allegations of administrator abuse (not that I'm asserting this has happened here, but it's the fact of the matter). To assert there should be unnecessary and encouraged cross-over is not tackling the situation properly. Of course, the problems with Jehockman's response to the content might be referenced in some discussion about Jehockman's conduct, but we should separate talk of the content itself where possible. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 15:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing with Anonymous Dissident. The opening poster raised admin conduct issues, and it was necessary to ask questions about process and policy in order to explore that. Was a bit hard to keep that on-focus. Durova^Charge! 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes feel that Durova has a longstanding grudge against me. I'd really appreciate if she stopped engaging in dispute intensification. Durova, how about you stop commenting on me. There are plenty of other editors who can provide useful feedback, when needed. Jehochman ^Talk 19:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• My initial reasons for starting this thread were 1) to express extreme dissatisfaction with Jehochman's premature closures of the AfDs; 2) to express discontent that our rules of governance were not followed with a "hot" issue; and 3) to raise the larger problem of way, way too many WP:SNOW closures on AFD. On Durova's talk page, Jehochman expressed regret over how he handled the early closures, and it's my opinion that he did so with only good, if misguided, intentions. He would not repeat these actions. That he had good intentions, and would not repeat, is good enough for me to feel that continuing the pile-on is WP:STICK. -->David Shankbone 20:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, David. To give credit where due, Durova above suggested protection as a better solution to the problem, and I think that is good advice. Jehochman ^Talk 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, David, I just discovered this thread and feel like I should pile on. This happens when admins don't follow process. I'm really annoyed with those of us, like Jehochman, who occasionally believe that they don't have to follow process because they know better. (Although I may have been guilty of this once or twice, too.) Seriously, AfDs are supposed to run for seven days. If the first or even the second one had been allowed to, or if DRV contributors had remembered that it is DRV's job to examine violations of process exclusively and restarted the AfD, we would not have this drama. What we should consider is a rule, similar to WP:DP#NAC, whereby any premature AfD closure can be undone and the AfD relisted by any other administrator.  Sandstein  18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A reminder

While it may be fun to devote time to drama about Jehochman's actions, editors who wish there to be a Boothroyd article are better served trying to work on actually improving the draft. I'm not at all convinced there should be an article but every pair of hands helps make it better. There are now roughly 6 days remaining until this is going to go to the community for some form of decision. Effort should be made into allowing the community to make that decision with the best possible version of an article on Boothroyd, not in bickering. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but I've been told by Jehochman that he will block me again if I "restore this content anywhere on Wikipedia." It is not "drama" when a user has been blocked for developing content and told they will be blocked again for continuing anywhere else on the project. Will he rescind his threat and agree to recuse himself from taking actions against editors working on the Boothroyd article? TAway (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already said that I'm not going to involve myself further in this matter. I am happy to let others deal with it. Please mind WP:BLP and other relevant policies. Before moving that article into mainspace, get some sort of community consensus to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recusal is too late. The damage is already done. The draft you thought could not possibly exist won't now get the same attention in obscure user-space for improvement as a proper AFD'd article would have, and due to the massive amounts of half-truths and smoke and mirrors already put out there over this article and its previous histories and 'precedents' at AFD/DRV, any future attempt at resurrection (presumably at DRV?), is just going to resemble nothing more than a procession, fed by ignorance. Too late. Far too late. The job is well and truly done and dusted. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Recreated article

See User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. Is that a WP:BLP violation due to WP:UNDUE weight given to the controversy? Jehochman ^Talk 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In spite of being apparently asked to review this I hadn't paid attention to it the past couple days and began gutting that section. He's plainly notable, but for whatever reason Joshua is homing in on the WMF stuff which is a tiny fraction of the work and press this guy has gotten. The event is obviously notable as an event in the context of his life and should get a due course mention, but not 1/4 of the page's real estate. rootology (C)(T) 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Not the intention. I'm simply filling out the article as I get sources. That matter has the most easily accessible sources so it is getting addressed first. Pairing it down is of course reasonable. I don't know why Jehochman thinks that a draft article can have an UNDUE weight problem (it is after all a draft). That's a matter for its talk page, not for ANI. And it presumably isn't a serious BLP violation if the separate Sam Blacketer controversy article(currently up for AfD) isn't by itself a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted so people would be aware of the issue. We seem to be having the same debate over and over again in multiple venues. Let's not do that. Let's leave pointers so everybody comes to the same place and we can generate a lasting consensus. Jehochman ^Talk 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a side comment since Joshua mentioned Sam Blacketer controversy: if that article is kept at the close of the AfD (and it's going to be one helluva an AfD close, however it turns out) I would strongly recommend that we not have an article on Boothroyd. Said controversy is likely the thing that has received the most coverage, and we'll have an article on that. We also have an article on his book which itself is probably notable. Otherwise he's a local politician, of whom there are literally hundreds of thousands, and he's asked to not have a bio article, which for figures of peripheral notability is, I think, a request we can honor. So if we end up with two articles covering notable aspects of Boothroyd's life, I would hope that JoshuaZ and others who are interested in re-creating the bio would think about whether that's really necessary for our encyclopedic coverage, and if instead we could not do what we have already done for other un-famous BLP subjects and keep the bio article deleted. I think it's a good compromise. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, a lot of the coverage about him is about his work as a politician and political analysis. His books may make him meet WP:AUTHOR by itself. Indeed, it would seem BLP problematic to me if we keep the main article on the controversy to only keep that. It would be unfair in the extreme in portraying what we all agree is only a small part of his activity. He's really quite accomplished. Such a decision would almost make a BLP problem in the other direction (if one believes that he is notable. I'm not convinced of that myself yet. We'll see). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel having an article about the person is better than the article about the event. This would address the problem of WP:UNDUE as there are far more items available about DB than just his Wikipedia life. If the book is notable so is the author who has gotten more mention than the book. Agathoclea (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are not unreasonable arguments, but the subject had previously asked that his bio be deleted, and it's also quite reasonable to consider that fact, which neither of you mention. I don't know if that request still holds in a situation where an article on the controversy exists (assuming it is not deleted) and it might be worth asking DB once the AfD closes. If he still wants the bio deleted, then JoshuaZ's comment above has the (no doubt unintended) effect of essentially telling the article subject that he's better off having a bio article, and that JoshuaZ knows more about what's fair for the article subject than the article subject himself. That would be odd, but as I said it's possible Boothroyd will feel differently about his bio if we decide to keep an article on the controversy. If he still wants it deleted, we need to address the question about how much we take the wishes of the article subject into account. This is not a trivial question, and we have done these kind of deletions before for persons of marginal notability.

It should also be admitted—and I really defy anyone to argue otherwise—that we would never, ever be going into this level of detail about this were it not something related to Wikipedia. I think that's undeniable. So we're currently going down a road where we might have as many as three articles relating to someone of marginal notability who has asked that his bio be deleted, and the only reason we have so many articles and so much detail is because Wikipedia is involved (if the controversy involved Facebook somehow, we simply are not having this conversation). Again I think it's pretty hard to honestly argue otherwise (e.g., there's no way the article ends up userfied in JoshuaZ's userspace if he wasn't who he was), and I think the BLP issues that result from that fact are pretty obvious. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide links to where the subject requested deletion of the article? I didn't see any objections when it was kept in 2005 and there has been much improved notability since then. And I don't think it sets a very good precedent if we delete articles whenever there's a controversy, especially not when we have a COI regarding the controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The subject started the first AfD. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And he recently requested deletion again. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bigtime, what you say is almost completely reasonable except that a) I don't think in any final accounting anyone is going to be in favor of having three articles on this subject. Obviously, much merging would occur if any or all of them are accepted. Also, the problem regarding this having to do with Wikipedia can be run in the other direction: We would likely have just had the article kept and not be having this discussion if it weren't for it having to do with Wikipedia. In that regard, the best thing we can do is to treat the article like it has nothing at all to do with the project and make our judgments either way independent of that. JoshuaZ (talk)05:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right (I hope) that merging would happen once this is all settled, but the fact remains that we're creating a lot more content than we normally would were this is a non-Wiki related situation. I fully agree with your last point about treating the article like it has nothing to do with the project (and that's definitely how I'm trying to think about it), but in a hypothetical situation where that was actually the case I think the article would have been deleted, not kept. If we were speaking of a similar figure (local pol, wrote a book and has been quoted in the media, we had a small bio on them for years) who received some embarrassing press about some actions she took on MySpace (nothing illegal, just embarrassing), and if said person then came to us and asked for a courtesy deletion, I think the odds are very good (though not guaranteed) that we would have done just that and that little more would have been said. I think that's quite analogous to the situation here, except the website in question is not MySpace but rather ThisPlace^TM, and that has made all the difference, to coin a phrase. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That might very well be the case. But if we had such a small time pol we'd also allow people to try to work on a draft of the article to see if they could demonstrate notability. I'm trying to see that process through. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well well, surprise surprise, Sam Blacketer controversy has been deleted, the whitewash continues. I assume that's because it would be... inconvenient to have such an article around for people to link to on Sam Blacketer's RfA reconfirmation on Monday...? Snarfies (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nassim Nicholas Taleb

Stalking and Harrassment of Nassim Taleb by Ulner

I am a connected to the Taleb family (Nassim Nicholas Taleb) whose living biography wikipedia is handling; I only act to correct distortions and harrassment and do not add new material. I would like to report userUlner as obsessed with Taleb and making every single change possible on every item and bickering, in a way that exhibits web stalking of a living person, causing much DISTRESS to Taleb's family. I would like to seek Ulner refrain from further harassment of Taleb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC) IbnAmioun (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with User:Ulner? I don't see any messages on their talk page, but I may be missing something. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered that you might have a WP:COI conflict of interest and that maybe you shouldn't be involved with the Taleb articles? Who cares about minor misrepresentations on wikipedia? They hardly matter but having someone so dedicated to observe your articles sorta raises the suspicions of users that there really might be something unwritten worth knowing regarding the matter. Anyway I'll be keeping a closer eye on Taleb related articles from now on.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

194x144, that wasn't entirely helpful. Please WP:AGF

IbnAmioun - Also, please assume good faith about other contributors. You seem to be reacting very defensively to other editors who want to help improve the article. I've reviewed a dozen or so changes and none of them seem to be abusive or vandalism. If you have specific examples that you're concerned about, either on the article or the talk pages, please provide them here.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the help. My problem with User:Ulner is that he seems obsessed (to make 50 entries in such a short span betrays obsession) and he bickers over the smallest thing as he is doing now --any small detail seems to be a stumble to him. There is no problem if you have editors going back and forth on a point but you should realize that someone FROM THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE INDUSTRY (of which Taleb is extremely critical) making 50 edits on a living person without others intervening can be extremely distorting. IbnAmioun (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This basically seems to be a content dispute at Nassim Nicholas Taleb. That article seems over-written, and might be trimmed down a bit. It is a bit laudatory; the guy tanked two hedge funds with his strategy, but that's not mentioned. (His basic concept was kind of cute - buy options on both sides that are way out of the money, on the theory that the market underprices options far from the current price. This pays off when something drastic happens, and bleeds money when markets are relatively stable. Hence his paper "Bleed or Blowup", and his "Black Swan" book.) This needs attention from someone who understands derivative strategies. Is there a laid-off quant in the house? --John Nagle (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The trading strategies are marginal to Taleb thought books and papers. While Taleb published a cherished book about options 12 years ago, his later two books (Fooled by randomness and The Black Swan) are about knowledge, science and making decisions in life. He is mostly known for his books. His sceintific works are also much about knowledge extremem events and risk, and rarely touches the hedge fund strategy. Yechezkel Zilber (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The situation is far more serious than you think. Taleb and the Taleb family has been getting threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB. These threats have been reported in the WSJ journal. <ref.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457658749086809.html?mod=rss_topics_davos#articleTabs%3Darticle</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 08:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the following text from the talk page of Taleb to be a personal attack in violation of Wikipedia policy: "The harassment situation is far more serious than you think, which is why we worry about such obsessive users as Ulner . Taleb and the Taleb family has been getting threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB. These threats have been reported in the WSJ journal.". Ulner (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

IbnAmioun seems to be making legal threats on the Nassim Nicholas Taleb talk page: "You should look at the consequences of obsessive stalking a character" [12], and "When someone like Ulner spends his ENTIRE time obsessed with a subject, this raises issues of stalking that may play a role in a COURT of LAW". [13] He's also accusing the other user of mental disorders. --Anderssl (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Discussed above somewhere.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Legal threats on talk page of Taleb" and "Stalking and Harrassment of Nassim Taleb by Ulner" are the two I see at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry, my bad. There was no notice of this at the talk page of the article, so I didn't realize this was already being discussed here. --Anderssl (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Threats from associates of Taleb are apparently a known problem. See [14], where J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., a well-known economist, describes his run-in with Taleb and his supporters. Some short-term blocks may be in order here. --John Nagle (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated unprofessional administrator conduct.

Recently I was banned for 24 hours for incorrectly posting to the wrong notice board personal attacks on me and edit warring on the Talk:Ayn Rand. At least two other high level administrators pointed out that the action of me being banned was questionable. It pissed me off enough to believe that wikipedia is corrupt. Enough to get me to retire. Now when a Professor whom I am an fan of and have no connection with in my personal life gets another set of Axe to Grind harrassing Editors on his article when I comment on the inappropriateness of their conduct. Not they, but me get a singled out of the blue with a completely erronious comment posted on my talkpage. 1.[15]

For the comment above and as a by product of my past banning, I have went and attempted to address this with the administrator on his talkpage. Rather then note their oversight and actually reign in other editors who are attacking the Taleb estate rep and are incorrectly using Wikipedia policy to do it. This administrator blamed me and has and obviously will do nothing to address the inappropriate behavior even as it appears to continue. If the administrator was concerned as they claim why no more involvement in Taleb's issue? Say on the talkpage? Why was the issue allowed to be escalated to an WP:Office? Well I think that no administrator cared to stop the behavior and would rather comment at the time on mine.
I would like an apology from the administrator in question. Do not bother to blame me or attack me with for this nonsense. I have no control over administrators here in wiki. Their short sightedness and knee jerk and incorrect reactions do not belong to me as I did not have control over them and make them screw up. I would like an apology first for being blocked arrogantly and unjustifably. Also an apology in relation to the Nassim Taleb article for being separated out from pack for direct and very public criticism, for comments that where completely restrained and appropriate. Comments in hindsight that most definitely were within reason in light of recent information posted to the article.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since I don't know how to defend myself against a statement that telling him to comment on the content, not the contributors, is a threat, I'll just sit this out for now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's just bizarre. There are serious problems at Nassim Nicholas Taleb and its talk page that might use some more Admin eyes, but no apology is required here from you. Dougweller (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• LoveMonkey, you need to provide evidence and links and diffs. I honestly can't understand the point that you are trying to make. Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why has SarekOfVulcan singled me out and make no attempt to stop the harassment on the Taleb talkpage? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Taleb has already contacted the Wikipedia office. And yet nothing is being done to stop the harassment. Look at the ANI on this page where the editor is reporting Taleb's legal representive for Wikipedia Policy violations. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Why was I singled out? Taleb has a WSJ article about potential death threats. I post a defense that inappropriate behavior is going on by other editors on the article and I am the only one getting comments posted on their talkpage. Why? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Why has SarekOfVulcan not addressed the other editors misuse of Wiki policy to frustrate and discourage Taleb representative from posting to address their percieved harassment? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • SarekOfVulcan's note to you seems quite mild and entirely appropriate to me. Even if there were other issues with the page, if it was yours that he saw, he was right to remind you of Wikipedia behavioral expectations: WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are standards which every editor is requested to follow, even if he or she feels others are not. Perhaps you did not intend it that way, but the statement that he pointed out to you seems like a very loaded one that could perhaps be paraphrased as "You must be deliberately subversive, because you can't be that stupid." Wikipedia requests that we point out the errors in somebody's reasoning, not suggest that either they have (a) deficient understanding or (b) are faking it so they can get away with something (unless we have very strong evidence, it's best to assume good faith in conversations). If Sarek had blocked you for incivility without investigating or noticing if others also needed to be addressed, that would be one thing, but a mild reminder seems well within reason. If you feel that others are harassing you, you have the same recourse to remedy as any other contributor, as set out at WP:DR. Administrators, too, are human and not all-seeing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I am requesting an explaination on how a talkpage can prompt the living breathing human being it is about to pick up the phone and call the foundation. And the only person who get commented on isn't even the target of the living persons complaint.[16] I have every right and justification to complain.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • SarekOfVulcan has done nothing to clean up the mess. Why are opposing editors allowed to misuse WP policies to attempt and silence someone's restate representative? Where is SarekOfVulcan at? Making remarks about me on my talkpage. One of the editors had already filed an ANI on here as can be seen above. Where is SarekOfVulcan's involvement. Where is his comments to them? Nowhere. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I do not know what drew SarekOfVulcan to the conversation, but unless SarekOfVulcan is the individual who received that phone call and unless he responded to an investigation only by singling out your edit specifically, I'm not sure that the two situations are related. If he has not accepted responsibility for investigating and addressing any global issues, then he is not solely responsible for addressing the BLP concerns in the article. Such concerns should be taken very seriously and investigated with due diligence, but if Sarek may be approaching your comment as a separate issue. I have read his note to you, and, again, it seems mild; it even says that your comment "is probably on the wrong side" of the proper approach in conversations instead of flatly accusing you of incivility or a personal attack. Certainly, if no other attention is paid to BLP concerns, I would see why you might be upset, but demanding it of this administrator in particular may be misguided. Perhaps if the whole situation were less emotional and you had not recently been blocked by another administrator in a way you felt unfair, Sarek's behavior here might not seem so extreme and objectionable to you? If the BLP concerns are not being addressed, they should certainly be pursued, but you might find it more productive to focus on that rather than Sarek's concerns with this one statement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • (Your repeatedly asking your question may be preventing responses. I got three consecutive edit conflicts in my attempts to answer you and would have given up if I had gotten a fourth. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
            • OK now that is exactly the reasonable and respectable response I have been seeking. I am not OK with getting called out and then having my grievences ignored or sarcastically rebuffed. THANK YOU. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I apologize about the edit conflicts I have been getting them too and they have really made me frustrated. You are an angel. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarekofvulcan seems to be the spotlight of many unsatisfied editors and complaints, Please see this for other examples of Sareks misconduct here on wikipedia. It is my honest opinion that this user should indeed not have access to any admin tools and I am going to have to file a review of conduct regarding this admin at a later time but in the meantime I'd ask you LoveMonkey Please to discontinue posting messages here for the time being and to let uninvolved administrators review your complaint in peace.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Who is this editor. Who are you to speak to the process and the policies here? Are you still keeping an eye on Taleb's representive? Are you still pursuing getting him blocked from the article or banned. For WP:Policy vios? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a little difficult to figure out from the above exactly where things are. If somebody has physically called the Wikimedia Foundation and a Wikimedia Foundation representative has indicated that they will investigate and/or deal with this, then this matter is out of the community's hands and even administrators should leave it to our legal representatives to address. Almost everyone you encounter on this page, administrator or not, is going to be a volunteer, and few of us are empowered to address concerns at that level. If, however, there has not been contact made to the Wikimedia Foundation or a Wikimedia Foundation representative has advised that the community must resolve this, it would probably be best to open a section at a forum established to address these situations, like the biographies of living persons noticeboard, if the material being introduced to the article is libelous. I have to admit that reading the notes above doesn't help me see the core issue here. If the problem is simply that a contributor is editing the article too much, I can't think of any policy we have that would forbid it, as long as (a) material meets the core policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, (b) the content is consistent with WP:BLP, and (c) the editor works within behavioral guidelines to build a consensus with other contributors consistent with those policies. If an editor is not meeting these three points, but is exhibiting ownership of an article, dispute resolution may be necessary (though unless material is poorly sourced contentious text, immediate admin intervention may not be). If there are concerns that material being added is libelous, it may be very helpful to point out a specific problem so that other contributors who do not know who the subject of this article is (like me) would better be able to see why there are concerns. Not knowing anything about him, I mean no disrespect when I say that even if material is negative, it's not a violation of policy if it is (a) verifiable and (b) not overly emphasized. I am very sorry if the subject of this article and his friends and family are feeling unsafe, and I hope that your concerns about the situation can be swiftly resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Since diffs have been requested, here are some that a quick review turns up:

• "Please stop making the unneccessary attacks on Ulner, he is not a stalker but working hard, in good faith, on a wikipedia article […] If you do want to contribute, please do so in a positive way - you are more than capable - and use reliable third party sources to bakc your arguments. Thank you."
• "Your pedantic wrangling is nothing but a ruse you are here to defame."
• "Do you agree with Ulner on all points there? Why are you defending him?"
• "You know what you are doing, you are all grown up and your motivations can not be masked by your seemingly deficient understanding. I bet your probably abit more then just someone with a passing interest. "
• "Please clarify why you are responding to my comments as such. It appears as if the very devil himself has materialized."
• "Please clarify why you are responding to my comments as such. It appears as if the very devil himself has materialized."
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&oldid=295584044#Your_comment_on_my_Talkpage
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&oldid=295584044#Wall_Street_Journals_comments_on_Death_Threats_to_Nassim_Taleb

This may shed some more light, here.

The actual dispute at hand in the article itself? Apparently it's over whether this person is a "writer" or "literary essayist", and whether he is a "scholar". SarekOfVulcan has no involvement in the dispute whatsoever that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nassim Taleb picked up the phone and called the foundation (or had legal rep do it) because of the dispute over him being a "writer" or "literary essayist". Gee could someone wonder why I might be frustrated at the handling of this? How does that address why Sarekofvulcan just addressed me? Did nothing before or after until I raised caine?

Anybody? This above appears to diminish the gravity of the situation? And also grossly mispresent it.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what your question is here. It seems to be, "Why was the issue allowed to be escalated to an (sic) WP:Office?" Which, we have no control over. If Taleb called the Office, that's beyond our control. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop

We have been allowing this to continue for some time, in the interest of giving those associated with Nassim Nicholas Taleb an open forum on issues related to our policy for biographical articles.

However...

LoveMonkey - you have made numerous threats and negative comments about other editors and about administrator SarekOfVulcan's involvement here. This must end immediately. Wikipedia policy is clear: you must edit in a civil and collegial manner, and personal attacks against other editors are unacceptable behavior. Editors should assume that others are working in good faith, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary. Comments and warnings made earlier all appear to be consistent with Wikipedia policy and in direct response to your series of threats and abusive messages.

IbnAmioun - this warning applies to you as well. You have described as threats, harrassment, or stalking edits which to others appear perfectly reasonable attempts to improve articles and follow Wikipedia policy. Attacking other editors in this manner is unacceptable behavior, and it has continued for some days.

If there are further abusive comments or personal attacks in this discussion editors will be blocked from editing briefly. This discussion cannot happen in a reasonable and constructive manner if key participants refuse to communicate in an adult manner.

Please communicate what each of your relationships are with the article subject.

LoveMonkey - you refer to being blocked earlier today or yesterday, but there is no block log record of that. Please clarify.

There has been extensive mention of real life threats. However, there is no evidence presented that anyone participating in Wikipedia is connected to those. If Taleb or a representative called the Wikimedia Foundation, please let us know if you have evidence of or asserted any such relationship between editors here and actual real life threats.

Please explain, briefly, and without any further attacks or insults to other users / editors / administrators.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are serious problems with the article, about both unreferenced puffery--and the practice of trying to balance it with negative comments about the subject. Rather, a NPOV article needs to be written. A editor who lists "Fields: Scholar, Essayist, Public Intellectual, Statistician, Risk Engineer and Trader" in the infobox is not following NPOV policy, and neither is one who selects negative quotes from reviews. I'm not that happy with Taleb distribution either, which includes the phrase "The term is therefore increasingly used" , wording that typically indicates using WP for original research. I gather from the article on the person that there is criticism to be added here for a balanced article. I would suggest that both Ulner and those who have been called here the Taleb representatives stay clear of editing these articles. Whether or not people with COI should start their own bios, once neutrality is questioned, then they need to refrain. IbnAmioun's complaints amount to a claim of OWNership. DGG (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made no threats to anyone. Please clarify.

"LoveMonkey - you have made numerous threats"

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG it would be an honor to have you edit the article. The issue is that a very busy editor (with a buddy or two defending him) is editing the article in a negative direction. Fights and questions when their edits are shown to do that. No administrator got involved and or has addressed this. They seem to like to comment on my behavior exclusively. And you know I think no one would really be that up in arms with the editwarring (enough to make the issue WP:Office) but the questionable editor is not only misrepresenting Taleb but a Nobel Peace Prizing Winning Myron Scholes. Bad bad misrepresentation of allot of important persons getting inappropriately thrown in the mix, and it really doesn't belong here. Now this in real world context with the WSJ mention of potential death threats to Taleb&family and I would imagine him abit antsy. So much for sympathy for living people, policy here is more important. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(I mentioned this above in a previous Taleb section. We probably need to consolidate Talib discussions on a subpage.) See [17], where J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., a well-known economist, describes his run-in with Taleb and his supporters. This is a must-read for anybody dealing with this matter. --John Nagle (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for the link, John. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The article from Rosser mentions no supporters at all. Why the assertion? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently got interested in this article (beginning of June) and I thought it had some NPOV problems. To try to balance the article I added a reference to a short criticism from Scholes. This citation of Scholes is a fair quote from [[18]], and is not as sometimes has been claimed, taken out of context. I tried to explain my reason for making this edit after complaints by IbnAmioun. Later this section about criticism from Scholes was rewritten by Yechezkel Zilber, and I responded that the new sentence written by him was good. This follows the usual procedure of making edits, discussing, thinking, reaching a compromise - which is characteristic of Wikipedia. In addition to the major edit above, I have made some minor edits trying to change the tone of the article to be more compatible with NPOV.

The users IbnAmioun and LoveMonkey have, instead of discussing the content of the article and trying to reach a compromise, responded with personal attacks. IbnAmioun has as well responded with legal threats. IbnAmioun have recently made a very serious personal attack which in the same section talks about "obsessive users as Ulner" and "threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB." I would like the personal attacks and legal threats to stop. Furthermore, I would kindly ask IbnAmioun to delete his comment linking me to "threats by unemployed finance people". Ulner (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

These matters seem very complicated and Ulner is correct regarding his complaint this indeed is uncalled for and a personal attack. The section needs to be removed and IbnAmioun needs to be warned regarding this type of behavior, a short length block might also be in order since there seem to be other instances of personal attacks present from this user on the talkpage. Ulners complaint regarding LoveMonkey seems to me to be mostly without merits, some of LoveMonkeys edits may not be 100% civil but they seem to be good faith edits, if Ulner has any definite proof of Lovemonkeys conduct then I ask that he provide diffs. If these matters continue to haunt the Administrators noticeboard then I suggest that the article and its talkpage be Locked for a week to allow parties to cool down.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Having read the talk page of Taleb again ([19]) I agree with 194x144 that the LoveMonkey's edits have been made in good faith. Ulner (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now in reflection I ask Ulner to go back and look at the Criticism section on the talkpage and how Ulner joined the discussion appearing to argue on behalf of Elroch. Elroch who had just gotten criticized for strongly showing a very nasty personal bias toward Taleb. Elroch's comments and conduct are, or where and could be the cause of such a stir with the Taleb estate. Ulner tacked his comments on at the end of the discussion. This gives the impression that Ulner is now a continuation of elroch.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Again could someone actually address Ulner? And please tell Ulner to address the issues here. Ulner is now making this two discussions one on my talkpage and one here which confuses the whole thing even more.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Having realized that the LoveMonkey's edits was made in good faith; [20] - I tried to respond and explain the reason for filing an ANI report against IbnAmioun on LoveMonkey's talk page - but he thinks the discussion should take place here - so I post my response here: "I would like to reply to your comments on the Taleb talk page: [21].

I added the Scholes criticism into the article, and this section was discussed and subsequently given a new formulation of Yechezkel Zilber [22]. I stated that I thought his new formulation was good.

Anyone who does not agree that this new formulation is good can continue to discuss it in the talk page: [23] - state exactly which sentence they think violates NPOV and propose a solution (for example delete the sentence). Anyone who thinks that a sentence in the article constitutes libel can according to the WP:BLP delete or change the sentence immediately.

Instead of following any of these possible routes of action, IbnAmioun has responded with personal attacks of differents kinds and legal threats. You write "...AND THEN CALLED INTO QUESTION ANOTHER EDITOR FOR ADDING BALANCE AND NPOV BACK INTO THE ARTICLE." This is not correct - I called into question the personal attacks and legal threats of IbnAmioun - I have not criticised him for trying to add balance and NPOV back into the article."

Regarding your recent comment: "This gives the impression that Ulner is now a continuation of elroch." I have no connection to Elroch - but I probably share some of his opinions about the article. However, this impression does not justify personal attacks or legal threats in any case. Ulner (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ulner notes I wrote "You write "...AND THEN CALLED INTO QUESTION ANOTHER EDITOR FOR ADDING BALANCE AND NPOV BACK INTO THE ARTICLE." This contradicts Ulner comments here[24][25]. Ulner posted at the end of a discussion where editor Elroch made claims that Taleb was patently wrong about some pretty big things [26]. Ulner's criticism appears in context to be attempting to justify what Elroch did and stated. This is the edit where Ulner is critical of User:YechezkelZilber's attempt to balance and be NPOV[27]. Ulner is in essences stating that the obvious mistakes that Elroch made (which are bad) are not mistakes and are justifiable to be included because they are in American Stat (which I believe they are not).LoveMonkey (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I really believe that this argument should be placed on mine or LoveMonkey's talk page, but following his suggestion I place it here:

I thought you were refeering to this edit [28] but I realize now that you are refeering to my edit [29].

Yes, I wrote that "But, by claiming that any statements critical of Taleb are defamatory, you are in effect keeping the number of critical statements of Taleb in the article at a minimum". I thought that IbnAmioun's use of language (example: "user beware") and immediately starting to discuss me, not the content ("By posting an ad hominem attack by Scholes you appear to be part of that wave"), suggested that he was attempting to discourage me from making further edits; see nr 3 here [30]. Ulner (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Note Elroch wrote these whoppers of comments against Taleb and by proxy his place of employment and institutes of his accreditation.
"Taleb is blind, or chooses to be blind to the absolute nature of mathematical truth. It is unlikely that he has ever put in the time (supposing he had the ability) to develop the necessary level of understanding of the theory of distributions and measure spaces, still less their natural context in functional analysis."
And
"Taleb indicates by what he writes that he does not understand either the precise meaning of the theorem or the concepts which are used in its statement, but in his naivety he feels qualified to assert its falsity."
And
"These are rather advanced topics only reached at the end of a good mathematics degree course or in a graduate course, which Taleb lacks."
And
Here Elroch takes a veiled swipe at Taled's ancestry.
"Taleb may be proud of his distant ancestry from an Middle Eastern potentate, but it is worth remembering the anecdote about Euclid who reportedly patiently explained to the first king of Egypt that "there is no royal road to geometry. These days it would be appropriate to replace the word "geometry" by mathematics". Hmmm this one implies that Taleb by being Arab is stupid and not sophisticated enough to know the difference. Go Wikipedia!

Ulner then tacked on the end of this list of very inappropriate comments that the American Statistics Journal was validating some of what Elroch was saying [31].
These comments are defamation to Taleb and the academic institutes that gave Taleb his accreditation. After this Ulner then added to the article the Scholes comments out of context and asked YechezkelZilber for sourcing the context YechezkelZilber added to the article.
LoveMonkey (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that "I guess that some ot the comments of Elroch above has been mentioned in the articles in American Stat, and hence are candidates for inclusion in this Wikipedia article". I found that Elroch's comments about Taleb's critique of the normal distribution interesting, and I thought that this issue is probably mentioned in American Statistician. This is what I meant when I wrote "some of the comments of Elroch". I never intended to support Elroch's sentences about Taleb's education. Ulner (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

YOU JUST NOW CLARIFIED THAT. After Ibn addressed you in good faith on the talkpage.[32] You never made such a distinction. You just kept editing and arguing.[33] You stated you read and understood and that how dare anyone be upset.[34] You and Editor User:AleXd[35] appear to be tag teaming for elroch. Ibn -again- in good faith pointed this out to you [36]LoveMonkey (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to misinterpret when discussing non-verbally on the Internet. Still, even when suspecting bad intention of an editor, one should avoid personal attacks, legal threats and try to keep the conversation calm. One should try to be respectful in all communication - for example, on your talk page, you recently wrote "Oh look Ulner is still arguing. No surprise." Ulner (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Still can't take responsibility. Still arguing, still.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, could you please try to make fewer edits? It makes it very difficult to follow the history like that. Do you not use Preview, or do you just not spot problems until it's too late?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And could you address the substance of this ANI? Or again are you still only interested in me and not that Wikipedia is being misused. Your comments and behavior are very frustrating and do nothing to address the substance of this. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The last edit to the article was on June 10. Since then, there have only been 8 edits to the talk page, all of which appear to be well within norms for discussion. Therefore, there is nothing to address at the moment.

You, on the other hand, have posted almost 100 times, in several venues, since you first contacted me on the 10th, all regarding this issue. So yes, yours is the behavior that I'm commenting on.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Really then you notice I have already apologized about the repeat edits before your interruption? [37] This previous diff was my second. Nice to see were your focus lies. Low edits without you ever doing anything other then harass me, interesting. The low edits are due to the spotlight now on it. Good you exploit that. As I am done arguing with you, you as a representative of Wikipedia (you are an administrator) have made it quite clear that no matter how obvious or valid the points I make, you will continue with your ridicule and chaste me. Your singling out of me, is not fixing anything and does nothing but frustrate and distract. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in this debate whatsoever but I'm dearly hoping the next section will be entitled "Hammer Time" --LiamE (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There ya go. Egg it on. After I got banned for trying to post ("to the wrong place") when someone made personal attacks (it was called shopping). And with the admins here shooting first and then never finding out. I bet me getting a second hammer is all but done. The policies work in fairly tale land but will get you the hammer when you use them in reality. Oh how dare anyone point out defamation and administrator abuse. God help me for coming to this Professor's defense, stupid stupid me.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Way to miss the joke there. As I have pointed out I have no interest in this debate and in fact I dont even know what its about. I was was just scrolling down and passed the heading and a whimsical notion came over me so I expressed it in my post above. If you want to take that as a personal dig feel free to, but as I say I neiher know nor care what has been posted in this discussion so I dont know how you could possibly think it was aimed at you. --LiamE (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But with the comments about Taleb allowed to stand and not getting addressed and with the way that administrators have harassed and accused me, forgive me for being abit "sensitive".LoveMonkey (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

When you write "But with the comments about Taleb allowed to stand and not getting addressed" I guess you mean comments on the talk page of Taleb. If you want certain parts of the talk page deleted because it constitutes libel, I suggest you open a second ANI section where you post exactly which parts you want deleted. If you mean comments about Taleb in the article itself, I suggest you make a suggestion at the talk page of Taleb. Ulner (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I put in some information about Talib's hedge funds ("Lackluster returns" - WSJ) which was immediately reverted by 83.236.135.58 (talk · contribs). Twice. That IP address edits only the Talib article. There does seem to be a defense system in place. --John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

John Nagle, you cited "lackluster returns" without explaining that the fund made 60% before that --and around 100% AFTER that. You should read the full articles before posting matters like that out of context. This is why I reversed. Also I provided gated articles. I saw a comment of yours above saying "the guy tanked two hedge funds with his strategy, but that's not mentioned." WHERE DID YOU READ THIS ? WHERE? WHERE? Do you realize the gravity of what you wrote??????83.236.135.58 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to participate in the more difficult discussions, it's helpful to register for a Wikipedia account, so that you have a unique identity on Wikipedia. It's free. --John Nagle (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You act as if Wikipedia is in a vacuum and no one has noticed any of this. As if Wikipedia isn't famous for big nasty issues with WP:BLP.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bobak's block messages

Bobak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has designed some custom-made block templates that he uses after blocking vandals, and I believe they are not constructive. Here are some examples: [38][39][40][41] These sorts of templates go against our guideline of RBI and not feeding the trolls—everyone knows that a large number of vandals do it because they like to see if they can get us Wikipedia nerds riled up, and responding to them in this fashion just encourages more disruption. Furthermore, they reflect badly on Wikipedia, giving people the impression that Wikipedia is ruled by all-powerful admins who are rude and dismissive like this.

A couple weeks ago User:GnarlyLikeWhoa raised this concern with Bobak (see the discussion here), and Bobak was not very receptive. I also chimed in just today, and Bobak responded by archiving the talk page. Is there any way the community can ask him not to use these kinds of block templates and messages? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I use the more humorous blocks in two cases: specific (not range) IP blocks and blatant vandals. I keep all my blocked pages on my watchlist, and I have not seen any uptick in post-ban problems --at least no different than when I used the sterile templates: I receive the same number of personal email insults and talk page vandals (if not a little less). GnarlyLikeWhoa was slightly different, and claimed that I was out of place to note that the IP address of a military base shouldn't be used to vandalize wikipedia (which is wasting tax payer dollars... gee I wonder how he found out the IP was blocked?), and included a veiled e-thug threat (which I tend to see in web forums, not here). It is not the responsibility of an admin to please everyone they ban --as WP:RBI notes, there are opposing views to Rjanag's. As such, there are fans of my templates (Rjanag isn't one of them, but I respect that). Honestly, an ANI like this reflects badly on how Wikipedia can be used to punish creativity and put undue pressure where it is not required. To think, this was all started because I nominated an article for DYK! :-) --Bobak (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

aside I didn't notice this before, but particularly disturbing is this block, which happened 5 days after the user had last edited and the user had never been warned. Because the user's offense was spamming, rather than vandalism, it's also possible that the user just didn't understand Wikipedia's spam and EL guidelines, and Bobak's block message may well have driven away a potentially constructive user. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at his contribution history? The ability to request an unblock is still available. I haven't seen an attempt yet. Or perhaps I could've used the also-popular method of simply not notifying him of the block or doing massive collateral damage with sloppy IP-range blocks (which I think is are much greater problems). I make a lot of blocks, so if this one is so terrible, you're an Admin, go ahead and unblock --I'm not saying I'm the ultimate authority on that. Will this negatively affect my DYK nomination? :-p --Bobak (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the user's contribution history, there's no reason for blocking him with a message like this. Yes, he's a commercial spammer who will probably never make any constructive edits, but the sarcasm is still unnecessary. That goes for your blocking templates, too...I think they're funny, but I doubt the blocked users do, and blocking and joking don't mix very well. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither does lawyering and humor, but god knows we try. I can see how the block on Matthewkbaldwin was perhaps too much, so I've lifted it (hurray? Is that a victory?). I got curious so I checked myself: I've instituted somewhere in the range of 700+ blocks, and about half were with the funny templates, and half weren't. I can say, without hesitation (and a user page history to back it) that I have seen no extra uptick in anything since I started letting vandals know that we have the ability to block now and often. Honestly, I can respect that some of you, like Rjanag, can find this stuff not to your own particular style, but that doesn't mean that those of use who are a bit WP:ROUGE are causing any serious harm to the project --especially without any serious evidence. As for the blocked users not finding the templates funny... did they before? Here's an aside: Rjanag, I noticed you've blocked 29 times since you joined the project 9 months ago. Did you know that if you block 1000 people you get a free toaster? Get cracking. --Bobak (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no fair. Non-admins can't get free toasters? The Toaster Cabal must be stopped! --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Non-admin view? This is clearly inappropriate. What is the policy basis for a block on the grounds of idiocy? Look, I fight this stuff every day too, and I think a lot of it is pretty funny - but that's an inside joke, not something a professional organisation presents as its outward face. Laughing at misguided fools should only be done behind the curtain - lord knows we could all make the exact same comments in orange boxes on quite a few admin talk pages...

Blocking is srs biznes - please keep it that way and use proper templates. Adminship is not a platform for dispensation of ridicule, it's a crappy job. Save the humour for the lunch-room. And idiotic editors need even more love than the normal ones. :) Franamax (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand the sentiment here by Bobak, but I would caution against continuing this level of sarcastic commenting at blocks. Sarcasm is a skill that is hard to pull off well when speaking; it is impossible to do so when typing. In the course of blocking users, there is no need to be rude and insulting. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the above comments. Think it if you must - most of us have - but Wikipedia is a highly public site closely watched by the press (amongst others). If you feel tempted in future, I'd recommend a spot of self-flagellation ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree that Bobak's block messages are highly inappropriate. To me they don't come across as sarcastic, but rather as simple childishness. Wikipedia already has somewhat of a reputation as a place run by kids, and if hundreds of people are being blocked with Bobak's messages, that bad reputation is just being reinforced. We need mature admins, not apparently childish ones. Deli nk (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

One thing should be beyond dispute here, I think, is that these messages should never be used on IP talk pages, where an innocent user may be on the receiving end. Personally I feel that they're also inappropriate for registered users. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The community have said plainly more than once that block log entries and user talk notifications of blocks should, except under special circumstances (which don't seem to apply here), be serious, and especially should not mock affected users. One may think that injunction to be unnecessarily rigid, but it is plain that it is one for which a consensus exists, and inasmuch as no encyclopedic purpose is served by the jocularity, there is no reason to act in a fashion inconsistent with it. Joe 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at this just a tiny bit further:

• Bobak is basically accusing GLW of "wasting taxpayer dollars", implying above that GLW is the vandal associated with usage from a US military IP address. I believe this is the reference ABF from an admin, that's great. I'm unable to find the SPI/CU case establishing the linkage.
• You know what? None of my taxpayer dollars were wasted, I live in Canada. Why are administrators of an international project pursuing their own notions of waste using the bully pulpit?
• ArbCom has previously considered this notion of "you're using an American military IP connection, I must expose you!" and arrived at a definition of good-faith concerns. I see no such good-faith in the message to the IP talk page linked above. "Stop wasting taxpayer dollars" is not a valid leadin to a block message. Discussion at the time of the cited AC case was relatively clear that US military personnel have wide latitude, despite the written regulations, to use the Internet (note the exception for "when authorised"). I don't find it acceptable for an administrator of a supposedly international project to bring their own personal view of what constitutes "waste" within their own government onto en:wiki, much less under the official guise of admin status. Besides, use of an IP connection in an idle moment, even if it's for vandalism, costs far-far-far less than a dollar. Far less, micro-pennies maybe.
• And I've just removed Bobak's year-old "VANDAL IDENTIFICATION" message from the IP talk page in question. [42] If anyone wishes to replace it with a proper template, please do so, but hopefully avoid using the term "vandalicious".

I have the uncomfortable feeling that this admin has somehow discovered the golden sword with which to smite their enemies. This is not conduct becoming of a site administrator, it looks more like having fun blasting down the next monster who shows up in the corridor. Franamax (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As an outsider looking in, these blocking templates come across to me as childish and mean-spirited. Humor may be subjective, but I don't see why anyone should be subjected to such puerility. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with what everyone else is saying here. These "funny" blocks are completely inappropriate and should not be used any more. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. –xeno^talk 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on the wrong problem

Extended content

This entire thread reflects one of the weaknesses of wikipedia - being polite to belligerent users, and being belligerent to those who try to defend wikipedia against vandals. The admin should probably tone down the sarcasm a bit, but frankly they are no more offensive than those sternly-worded boxes with the big red X's in them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Characterizing the above conversation as belligerent seems quite inaccurate to me. If anything, there is quite a bit of sympathy for Bobak despite disagreement with him over his block messages. Deli nk (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC) "...I think they're funny, but I doubt the blocked users do..." News flash: Who cares what the blocked users think? They are blocked because they damaged wikipedia in some way. Whether they get a cute comment or the standard, sternly-worded blocking box, either way they're typically not happy about it. Many times they will blank the page to get rid of those standard messages, and fill the page with rants. So a lot of good it does to "play it straight". Maybe the right thing to do, if you're wanting to take the "coddling" approach, is to re-word those sternly-worded standard messages to express deep regret that we have to do this: "This hurts us more than it does you", or some such. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Blocked users still go around and talk to their friends. They might grow up and, a few months after their block, realize that yeah, they had it coming. Or they might go tell their friends that Wikipedia is just a bunch of dicks who don't let you have any fun and are rude to you. I wonder which they'll be doing more often after getting one of Bobak's messages/ Consensus is clear that he needs to stop using them. The only question now is, as Deli nk asked, whether the templates should be replaced. Personally, I don't think that is workable, since they are not transcluded templates—it looks like Bobak copied and pasted the code of the regular block messages, because I don't see any user subpages that he could have been subst'ing. I think it should be sufficient just for him to stop using them in the future. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 13:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC) That's a bogus argument. The belligerent users out there who go running to wikipedia review and the like, have nearly all been recipients of the standard, sternly-worded message. Rather than picking on this flea, you should be picking on the elephant that the standard messages are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Too little, too late. I count 9 editors in good standing above who say they don't want Bobak using these messages anymore. It seems pretty clear to me that a decision has been reached; I don't see much more to discuss, and will just sit back and hope he has gotten the message and doesn't use them in the future (he hasn't used them since this started, so hopefully everything is already resolved). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Sure, you've won this little battle, and have accomplished nothing that will benefit wikipedia. Good for you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Hey everyone! This crap has been going on for ages and you only notice it now! Here's a message for you, courtesy of a long-time admin: Congratulations! You've won yourself a short break from editing the encyclopedia! Go down to your local shop, buy yourself a crate of Bud, and have a drink - you deserve it! He delivered this message to four IP users in 2007. Ergo, it is allowed. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC) I would think a lighthearted message like that would be much more likely to be received positively than the "Bang! You're dead!" standard notices. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Bugs, I seem to recall having briefly tangled with you before in this venue over your penchant for poking fun at those brought to administrator attention. Whether the end result is better or not, and your own opinions on what is lighthearted fun that most people will receive more positively is irrelevant. The point is that we need to deliver a professional message. When an admin makes a block, they're not entitled to deliver their opinion on the supposed idiocy of the user in question. They're "an errand boy, sent by clerks" (or whatever the fat guy said), they're not there to opine on intelligence or fitness for life in general, they are protecting the encyclopedia from damage. That's all, there's no entertainment value included, or perhaps they shouldn't be admins after all. As far as Ryan P's block notices, they were long in the past, but you know what? How 'bout I trot on over and ask for a comment? Franamax (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC) The argument made was that sarcastic messages will cause blocked users to go tell their friends how lousy wikipedia is. And I say that's a bogus argument. Nearly every indef'd vandal has gotten the standard "Bang! You're dead" message, and all indications are that they go tell their friends how lousy wikipedia is. So instead of only picking on that handful of block messages, you need to also focus on the flaws in the standard message. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Yeah, you may well have a point there, but this is not really the place to raise systemic issues. I appreciate your message but in reality I think you're just confusing up a behavioural issue by bringing up a longer-term problem. I personally don't use many of those boilerplate templates, since I have to actually hold down one key whilst typing another, twice, then figure it all out again at the end but the squiggly has to frown at the first one. It's like, totally confusing. I don't think I've ever dropped an actual {{uw}} or {{test}} or whatever the vandalism template thingy is. I prefer a quiet (and non-humour/sarcasm/acerbic) personal message to vandals, it works 99.5%. But that's a whole different issue - we're talking here about an admin choosing to use their granted powers to make personal commentary about other editors, in the ultimate power situation, the one where they revoke the other editor's privileges. That's just not on. There's a whole IRC channel for admins to let off steam, no need for it to happen on editor talk pages. Franamax (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I'll admit that some of them are a tad bit over the line. One that I would be tempted to use when indefing would be something like "you've made some good edits at times, so I'm subtracting a day from your indefinite block". It's a good fantasy, anyway. Maybe a good start would be some better illustrations. I like the one with the illustration of a block. That's better than the scary big red X. Maybe for spamming, an actual spam can would be the ticket. It's also important for the block notice to emphasize that they can appeal the block. It already says that, obviously, but maybe that could be illustrated too, with an open cell door or something. (Ain't I creative? A right brain is a terrible thing to waste, you know.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Like Franamax and others have said, regardless of what its effect on vandals themselves is, it's childish to use your admin position of power to rub everything you can in people's faces. We're supposed to be acting like adults here. I certainly don't want people I know to come in and get the impression that this site their friend/brother/son spends so much time on is run by a bunch of children. As for being creative with block messages...yes, Bobak made the same argument up above. If you really want to exercise your creative juices, I'm sure AFC could find a great outlet for your energy. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Aha, you're the one that made the silly comment about vandals telling their friends about what a terrible place wikipedia is. Yet I would guess that Grawp got the standard message. Lot of good it did. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Replace them?

There seems to be a clear consensus that these block messages are completely inappropriate. According to statements above, they have been used on hundreds of pages. Since these messages may be doing harm to the project, should they be removed or replaced with a more appropriate standard block template? Can a bot do this, perhaps (if necessary)? Deli nk (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree, both with the above that these shouldn't be used and the above suggestion to replace them. Anyone object? –xeno^talk 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I said above that I imagined cleaning them up would not be workable (since they're all copy-paste versions of regular block templates, modified by hand; there's not transcluded, subst'ed, or in any way identifiable to a bot...although I suppose a bot might be able to comb through all of Bobak's user talk contribs) and that I figured it would be enough if Bobak just agrees to stop using them. But if you know a way to replace all of them, be my guest! rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... I find the use of sarcasm in these templates disgraceful, antagonistic, and an embarrassment to the project. They do nothing to rehabilitate vandals and encourage them to return to vandalism after the block expires. I'm amending them as we speak. –xeno^talk 15:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That criticism is largely true of the standard templates also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it isn't. "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions." –xeno^talk 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some of the messages are not 100% horrible, and could perhaps be made more appropriate. The one about being blocked due to Wikipedia's policy on idiocy is atrocious, however. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're onto it. Some of them are cute and funny, some are over the line. And every one of the long-term abusers would have gotten the standard block messages, so Xeno's argument is fallacious. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

An administrators' remit is not to be "cute and funny" when blocking vandals. It certainly isn't to be snarky and condescending. We didn't give him the mop so he could moonlight as a comedian. –xeno^talk 16:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

So you prefer the "serious" way, which spawns the likes of Grawp. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree with Bugs here: some of the standard templates are not great. "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions." is patronizing. But I'm not in favor of Bobak's messages (even though I do find some of them funny). --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrap-up after replacements

I've gone and amended most or all of the templates. [43] Here are some examples of the text the was removed or replaced with more appropriate language and tone.

Examples of removed text

• "Congratulations! You have been blocked from editing with a (length) time-out :-)"
  • Congratulations to Bank of America!
  • Congratulations, a special block for "special people"!
  • Congratulations, non-UC students!
  • Congratulations, users at the online "University of Phoenix":
  • Congratulations, your spat of stupidity has landed this ramblin' wreck of an IP address into Blocksville.
  • Congratulations, you've been "pwn3d"!
  • Congratulations, you've now got the attention of the wrong person!
• "Lucky for you I give out blocks like they're going out of style"
• "If/when you continue your vandalism (if/when you return), we'll be more than happy to grant you another vacation, this time for a longer period --at no extra cost-- guaranteed!"
  • ...Now get back to "studying" at the "university"; maybe you can to to the student union or library?
  • ...*Next time, you'll probably get at least a month off.
• Welcome to Blocksville, population: You.
• Duration: ????
  • Duration: Too short? We shall see.
  • Duration: You'll figure it out (pwn3d).
• I guess it should be called Block Haven... Population: You.
  • Block Haven RETURNS!
• "Haha" blocked for three months.
• "Stay in school, kids."
• 1 whole week :-)
• 3 whole months, kids.
• 6 month time out for the kids "studying" at the University of Phoenix.
• All this over an Italian chain restaurant. LOL.
• and general stupidity
• Back to studying, LOL.
• Cinnamon Toast Block!
• earned a 2 week vacation.
• FLUSH!
• for rampant blanking, cry me a river, etc. etc..
• Have a nice vacation, LOL...
• I guess they don't raise them as smart down there.
• idiocy
  • • Corndog... You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for idiocy.
• If you're having girl problems, I feel bad for you son/You've got 99 problems and this block is one...
  • You got 99 problems and this block is one!
  • You've got 10,000 problems and this block is one!
  • You've got 2191 problems and a block is one...
• Is this the first of many? We shall see...
• LOL.
  • LOL... see you next semester.
• loooooong length
• Maybe its you who should "get a life". LOL.
• Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey-ey, Goodbye!
• Oh, and stay in school kids, you need it...
• Playtime's over, you get to go back to work! Lucky you
• See you in 1 week, kiddies. We'll be happy make the next one longer. Until then, read a book or something.
  • See you in 2014.
  • see you in three months, kiddies, where the blocks get longer.
  • See you next semester, kiddies.
• Shouldn't you guys be solving those two wars we're in?
• Since we clearly haven't been paying enough attention to your vandalism habits, I promise to keep and eye on you ;-)
• So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehen, good night/I hate to go and leave this pretty sight/So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehen, adieu/Adieu, adieu, to yieu and yieu and yieu!
• Sorry, we're allergic to crazy
• Stay in school.
• Top o'the mornin' to ya, lassie!
• with a loooong length
• You have a problem with listening, so why not take several months off, and we'll even grant the option to extend the break!
• You kids were blocked for 6 months, unfortunately I didn't get the opportunity to make the move --but have a great time in the far north.

The above protracted display of behaviour unbecoming of an administrator goes back to May 2008. Bobak was approached in October 2008 over the templates, but brushed aside the concerns. I've half a mind to ask Bobak to step down, but since he has actually received encouragements from several users over these which must have spurred him on ( User talk:Bobak/June 2008 - December 2008#Hello there, User talk:Bobak/June 2008 - December 2008#November 2025, User talk:Bobak/June 2008 - December 2008#teh block, User talk:Bobak/January 2009 - June 2009#LOVE your template! ), I'll just point him to the above consensus not to use this type of tone in his blocking endeavours and use standard blocking templates without additional colour commentary. –xeno^talk 18:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that nothing needs to be done just yet. Since this discussion started he hasn't blocked anyone and hasn't done anything unsavory, and so far I'm taking that as tacit acknowledgement that he understands the consensus here. If he starts using the block messages again I'm sure we can do something more formal about it, but I'm sure he's smart enough not to do that, and as long as he doesn't do it again I don't think there's any need for special action. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. –xeno^talk 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing something that's not a problem

Congratualations on fixing something that's not a problem. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am now under orders from Xeno to stop watching ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You're under no such orders, but it would certainly be appreciated. –xeno^talk 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec)To be honest, it's not a bad idea. Bugs, you're a good guy and I've even got one of your funny posts linked from my userpage, but as far as I can tell all you're accomplishing at ANI is stirring up or prolonging drama. Surely there is a more productive and fulfilling use of your time. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I raise questions that some people don't want to hear. They label it "drama". I've been told that the most infuriating thing about the issues I raise is that I'm usually right. That's the best kind of compliment I can imagine. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right about that. However, my experience has shown that spending too much time on WP:AN & WP:AN/I warps one's sense of what Wikipedia is about, as well as proving to be, in the long run, not all that productive. Take a break from here, Bugs, & find another part of Wikipedia to contribute to. WP:AN/I will still be here when you come back, with the same troublemakers & jerk Admins; they'll just have different user names. -- llywrch (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear that I'm not going to fight any of this ("consensus" of a half-dozen editors reigns supreme), but this ANI is obviously a group of editors with the same opinions, and I do point out that there are a lot of people who feel the way I do: that so-called "fixes" like this are ultimately pointless (storms in a teacup) that do more to harm to productive (non-bureaucratic) editors than any alleged "embarrassment" they save for those unable to have a sense of humor. But carry on... just don't forget that this is a project about compiling information, not silly little crusades. I am not going to take the time to look up the various contribution histories in this discussion, but I hope some of you have done remotely the same amount of work people like Baseball Bugs and I have done --otherwise why participate? --Bobak (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't comment on appropriateness of the blocks as I'm unfamiliar with the cases, but I don't think it's appropriate to condemn the funny messages. I don't know for sure if they're up to par for a Good Humour Barnstar, but they're certainly useful in countertroll situations. After all, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; our templates need not take the form of a triplicate form letter together with an OMB tracking number. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a time and a place for humour. And not all vandals are trolls, some might even become positive contributors with a little coaxing. It's not entirely out of the question. A sarcastic block template isn't likely to bring about that end-result, and is more likely to encourage further vandalism. –xeno^talk 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of sarcasm is absolutely and completely inappropriate in a block message. We should all act like adults (even if we may not be) and administrators especially are expected to always act in a professional manner, acting otherwise reflects badly on our encyclopedia, this project and all of us, and can be grounds for having admin privileges withdrawn. Paul August ☎ 04:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down --MZMcBride (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

MZ, I think you are reading too much into what I've written here. And perhaps I did not express myself well. I seem to have come off in your eyes as upset, but I'm not. Not that I think my internal state matters all that much, but I'd describe it as serious, placid and firm. Paul August ☎ 18:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul: Blanket bans on humorous or sarcastic ("playful") edit and log summaries really isn't effective or productive. Should administrators be professional? Yes. However, they are also allowed some degree of latitude when dealing with monotonous administrative affairs, esp. as some of these users do dozens or hundreds of actions per month. Like nearly all things, moderation is key. Bobak seems to be too far to one side, but you seem to be too far to the other. There's a healthy balance in between—with or without italics, adverbs, and threats to remove rights. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As pointed out below, humor is one thing sarcasm is another. Perhaps our definitions of sarcasm differ. Mine: statements involving scorn, contempt, ridicule, jibes, insults, cutting jests, etc. presented in a witty manner. At any rate that's what I'm talking about. That's what I'm describing as inappropriate behavior, especially for administrators. Perhaps we should talk in specifics. Which of the quotes in my reply to Unitanode just below, do you think are appropriate.? Paul August ☎ 20:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied below. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I really think I need to leave ANI for awhile. This nonsense that treating vandals with some kind of faux politesse will help them see the light and become valued contributors seems silly to me. If anything, a spot of humor might do the trick better than some form letter-style block template. Bobak is blocking vandals, so Paul August feels the need to issue a veiled threat of removal of administrator status? Who's running this place anyway? Unitanode 04:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A "spot" of humor is one thing. Taunting a blocked user is another thing entirely. Powers ^T 13:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

We hold as an ideal that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It is one of our most noble ideals. It is why many of us are here, and why we have been so successful. But unfortunately it is only an ideal — not a reality. The fact of the matter is, we sometimes find it necessary to block some from editing. But blocking is an admission of failure — our failure in being able to fully realize one of our most cherished goals. Hence blocking is a sad thing, it is a serious thing, and it should not be done lightly. Humor has its place (a sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar ...) but not when it comes to blocking. And I find little humor in: "Congratulations! You have been blocked", "Lucky for you I give out blocks like they're going out of style", "You've been put out of your spamming misery" and "You have been blocked indefinitely ... for idiocy." What I do find is sarcasm, insults and ridicule — these things have no place at all, especially not from administrators.

When delivering the last meal to a person on death row, it is simply not on to throw the food in their face.

As for my remarks being a "veiled threat", there is nothing veiled about them, and I'm not threatening anything or anyone. What I am trying to do is raise the level of administrative conduct. To remind us all that when we take administrative action we are representing the encyclopedia and this project. That we should all act professionally and with maturity. And to remind us all that everything we do, we do in public, anyone anywhere, now and in the future can view what we are doing. Please try to imagine how this might look say in a New York Times article about Wikipedia: Wikipedia's administrators routinely block people from editing for reasons like "idiocy" and with messages like "Congratulations! You have been blocked!"

Paul August ☎ 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't particularly like any of the custom block templates ("congratulations, you've been blocked," etc.). The standard ones exist for a reason and should be used primarily unless there's a specific reason not to. (You shouldn't template longtime users, for example.) My comments above mainly concern block reasons left in the logs. Personally, I usually use the tactic of making the log summaries exceptionally vague ("inappropriate behavior," etc.), however I don't have a particular problem with, for example, blocking a "poop" vandal with the reason "THE PLUMBER HAS ARRIVED!" Obviously we shouldn't feed the trolls, but a spot of humor occasionally isn't inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Now that's funny ;-) and I think we are in agreement. Paul August ☎ 20:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins often have to act as bouncers. Any club owner will tell you that the best bouncers aren't the muscle-bound types who beat people up like in the movies, but instead are those who usher troublemakers to the exit with so little fuss that the paying customers don't even notice. Unfortunately many of our admins try to act like the big burly types, and many of the rest argue with the paying customers that they should be more tolerant and supportive of the troublemakers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ice Cold Beer

Can an admin just call another editor a dunce in an edit summary here and here where they exlained and not be sanctioned all because an editor doesn't agree with the blatant POV they have shown. BigDunc^Talk 08:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not very nice for an admin or any editor to behave but nothing that requires immediate admin actions. I suggest you take it to WP:WQA. Regards SoWhy 08:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a POV tag on the article? What is the specific issue? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See here possible BLP issue. BigDunc^Talk 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. This is not a POV issue, it's a wording issue due to the fact that the sources are in conflict with each other. As regards the "BigDunc(e)" issue, yeh, that was tacky, and WQA is the right place to take it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes is the wording POV or not, I did not add the tag to begin with I reverted it's removal on spurious grounds IMO. BigDunc^Talk 08:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some users will add a POV tag just because they don't agree with the consensus in the article. I assumed it had to do with someone claiming that not enough (or too much) weight was being given to the conspiracy theorists. If it's just about whether that one guy was "alleged" or "admitted", that's not a POV issue, it's a conflict among reliable sources. And if the guy admits it (whether he's telling the truth or not), then it's not a BLP issue either. What's he going to do, sue somebody? All they have to do is say, "Well, here's where you said you did it," and that would be the end of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand user removed NPOV tag against 2 other users will. And replied kindly for a question for comment about notability of the article. If any more "wrongdoing" than that, can you possibly refer more clearly. Kasaalan (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not about the removal of the tag it is the personal attack from an admin. BigDunc^Talk 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If so might not be so cool, but I am not a native English speaker so can you possibly explain what "you're missing an 'e'" means as a personal attack. Kasaalan (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunc + e = Dunce, which is a word for a stupid person. So BigDunc + e = Big Dunce - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is spelled out by Ice Cold Beer here. Unomi (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I would say that the edit warring over removal of the npov tag warrants a bit of looking at as well. Removing an npov tag with what could be construed as a personal attack as the only ES is unbecoming of any editor, an admin who has previously brought this very sphere of articles to arbcom should be especially careful to live up to arbcoms admonitions regarding maintaining an editwar free and collegial atmosphere. In this case it seems (I haven't been following this closely) that there is a conflict between what various RS state. The correct solution, in my mind, would be to state that there is such a conflict or to choose the more careful wording available. The version that Ice Cold Beer is editwarring to keep is in conflict with text carried by BBC, Reuters, navytimes, fox news, washington post and others. This is silly in the extreme. Unomi (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't prolong the disruption instigated by the banned user. Ice Cold Beer has not been edit warring at all. They are trying to defend the article from a serial puppetmaster who has been banned from this topic, and then banned from Wikipedia. There is no bona fide content dispute here. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I took the liberty of informing User:Ice Cold Beer about this ANI topic. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what that means, thanks for the explanation. The word is not cool on the other hand their personal or page based conflict history should also be well investigated. Saying "someone not getting it" in an indirect way definately not nice, and possibly a priviledged user should care better in conflict like this, but not sure if it should result "depowering". Being nice is nice, but wikipedia is not a kindergarten either. Sometimes voicing conflicts openly is better. Kasaalan (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Excirial I had informed Ice Cold Beer in my last post on their page. BigDunc^Talk 10:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The posting of the tag was, itself, a form of POV-pushing. There is no POV issue with the article, nor any BLP issue. It's just a couple of editors trying to prove a point. And trying to get an editor blocked for making a childish play on your name is, itself, childish. "Mommy! He called me a dunce!" Gimme a break. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how you are reaching your conclusion regardin POV, feel free to explain your reasoning. Furthermore consider what you stated as the first lesson from your previous rfa Spend less time on ANI and more time on other work. Telling an editor that it is 'ok' for an admin to call someone a dunce as the sole message in an ES in the middle of an edit war is just plain wrong. Ice Cold Beer seems to be an experienced editor who is deeply involved in the 9/11 articles both now and while it was under arbitration, indeed he seemed to be one of the parties bringing it to arbcom. Arbcom explicitly stated that these articles should be free from edit warring, respect NPOV and attempt to be as non adversarial as possible. You yourself state that there seems to be a conflict in RS', so surely edit warring to keep in a particular wording which does not respect the sources and is objected to by multiple editors signifies a departure from NPOV. Best, Unomi (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The POV tag was used inappropriately, and your comments about by RfA are of no importance, since I did not seek that job in the first place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To start off: should I have used that edit summary? Of course not. Was it childish? Sure. Do I feel bad for BigDunc? Not at all. BigDunc is one of a number of users who, when unable to gain consensus for their nonsense, edit war to add a NPOV tag. This is not the first time BigDunc has done this and I'm sure it won't be the last. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What are the claims you are talking about and what is the nonsense? It appears at least 4 editors have reservation about the neutrallity of the article, so again you just appear and throw accusations around as some sort of justification for you actions. BigDunc^Talk 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no "neutrality" issue. It's a bogus claim. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not speaking for editors but it appears TheFourFreedoms , Wayne, John, Unomi and myself have some kind of concern. BigDunc^Talk 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a neutrality/POV issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's unremarkable that admins and others occasionally lose their temper with conspiracy theorists, fringers, and other purveyors of The Truth^TM. In fact the remarkable thing is that it doesn't happen more often. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the content issue, which seems relatively minor and should be easily resolved with a bit of willingness to work together (the proposed versions are not really that far apart). The edit summary in question was unfortunate, but as long as it's not an ongoing, escalating problem I see no need for urgent admin intervention here. Actually, strike that - someone should probably work out which banned user is operating TheFourFreedoms (talk · contribs), and block accordingly, but I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the behavioral quirks of 9/11 agenda accounts. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Boris who would you be talking about with your flippant remark conspiracy theorists, fringers, and other purveyors of The Truth^TM comments that make sweeping generalisations like that are far from helpful. BigDunc^Talk 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To BigDunc; with regards to ICB's edit summary, walk it off. Yes, lame joke at your expense, but what's the better reaction? Umbrage or a chuckle? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists just try to bring out info on governments' covert actions to public view, whether they are successfull or not with the theories they argued. Kasaalan (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TheFourFreedoms is "a pretty good match" with User:Tachyonbursts (indef blocked), according to a private checkuser I requested. Jehochman ^Talk 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK as well. Why not just block and be done with it? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I edit 9/11 articles, so I'm not an administrator as far as this thread or user are concerned. Jehochman ^Talk 22:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Obvious, checkuser and DUCK confirmed socks can be blocked by any admin. It falls under "blatantly, clearly obvious" actions in WP:ADMIN. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but 9/11 is such a highly contentious area that I'd rather let somebody else place the block. This is not an emergency. Jehochman ^Talk 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to ask User:TAway first. :) At your leisure, as the sock is ducking out. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So here we are, in the rabbit hole that is. We have all the usual mishaps, foremost, the failure of logic. It is not logical to call the whole mainstream fringe; it is fringe to do so. You boys and girls are discussing well accepted terminology which we avoid for the reasons unknown and you refer to this well accepted terminology with most unfortunate terminology which holds libel and defamation of ugliest kind. This sort of conduct is pitiful, to say the least. Now, user User:Ice Cold Beer will act on the related page as it is his own, he will ignore the discussion, he will not participate in building consensus, he'll revert without any valid explanation and break each and every principle stated in ArbCom decision and he will show needless incivility and this appears to be accepted behavior worth of praise and applause? Why in the world the term with thousands of references cannot be added to article, why in the world would the facts about waterboarding of alleged suspect which are topic of news reports over and over and over again be omitted (yes, that is the word) from the article and how in the world can such suggestion succumb to 'twoofer conspiracy talk' and 9/11 agenda? As you examine the 'behavioral quirks' of this post, I'll bid you farewell. Good riddance. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And no, I'm not the user who has been blocked; I'm the user who endorsed the block forced upon him by the people who are at this point in time banned from 9/11 articles themselves. I've never committed any crime but apparent 'though crime' and I've never broke any rules. And that is a rock solid fact. I felt the need to state it as it is, for those long-lasting editors and administrators to hear, and feel. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since no one stepped up, I've gone ahead and indef'd TheFourFreedoms as a sock. Shell ^babelfish 01:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know the users at all or know the case much, but what proofs you got from check user can you possibly share with the community, since the user apparently denied having double accounts. Kasaalan (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Details of checkuser analysis are not available to the general audience. That's partly for confidentiality of the user, and partly to not give other potential sockpuppets information that could help them try to beat the system. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If you are sure by check user without doubt then it is fine by me, but any editor deserves a defense before getting blocked (naturally 1 would deny claims whether they are guilty or innocent, but he may be innocent or guilty untill it certainly proved). If he has given an opportunity for his defense on block before I am fine, if he didn't have such a chance and his block is permament, can you at least ask for a defense via mail and discuss with him in private. Kasaalan (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. Another three weeks of disruption by another Truther. Next week, or the week after, we can do it all again - assume good faith, discuss, compromise, fill out requests for arb enforcement, etc. Or rather, someone else can do it all again, because I'm heartily sick of the whole business. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They're counting on that, don'cha know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just gather up the socks and when the laundry basket is full I have a friendly CU who will match them up. Jehochman ^Talk 02:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that you even need to bother him/her. It took about 12 seconds of reviewing that account's contribs to identify them as a sock with 95% confidence. Checkuser evidence increased that likelihood from 95% to 97.5%. Hypothetical: if the checkuser came back "unrelated", that would actually lower the probability from 95% to about 92.3%. In Bayesian terms, the checkuser is largely superfluous when the pre-test probability is that high. On the other hand, I can understand the desire for technical backup, given the career arc of admins whose judgment of sockpuppetry is only 95% accurate, rather than the 100% which is the baseline expectation. I guess what I'm saying is, feel free to bring these sorts of cases back here, or I'd be happy to look them over if you drop me a note on my talk page. MastCell ^Talk 03:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, I think your critical reasoning skills are in some doubt. Consider your last contribution in this area. You manage to characterize a post where Tom Harrison clearly states "I see grounds to justify it" as Tom Harrison stating he "sees no grounds to justify", as well as stating that 'ignoring discussion is 'constructive'. I do not mean this as a personal attack, but I honestly do not think that your interpretations show you as being wholly impartial. Unomi (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure I've provided ample reason for people to doubt my critical-reasoning skills over the years. In the case in point, I did make a mistake, which I thank you for catching. I'm sure it won't be the last error that I make. On the other hand, my overall judgment - that your filing was frivolous, misleading, and an improper use of dispute resolution - was rather soundly endorsed. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise with Tom Harrison and agree with Bugs. That's what they do. It wears good editors down, often involves false accusations (presumably with the hope that mud sticks), and it's making me stay away from such articles, I've got better and more productive things to be doing. Dougweller (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Which false accusations? Ice Cold Beer was clearly making a personal attack, admitted to it and made a half hearted attempt at an apology steeped in more bad faith accusations. In truth there should never have been an edit war over the NPOV tag, it should have been left in and discussed properly, but somehow this is being overlooked. Unomi (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Did it look like I was making a "half-hearted apology"? In that case, I've been unclear because I wasn't trying to apologize at all. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Above, Kasalaan expresses some doubt. How do people interpret this edit of his [44] asking for his 'original page' to be unlocked so he can start an ArbCom hearing? Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He claims he has accomplished thousands of edits "whether as account, or more often as IP", during the years. He claims, he recently has wrote a letter to the administrator who helped him when he was forced out of community, for unlocking his original page which was locked on his request, so he can initiate ArbCom hearing "which is due to begin for a very long time" however "there was no reply". So as far as I read, if he has taken an account, because his locked account on his own request didn't replied or unlocked, would be a valid argument to create a secondary account, since one cannot use his primary account. But if he tells the truth or not should be seriously investigated. He also made some historical criticism of the admins from user view which is interesting to read. Kasaalan (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hard to tell, but I do like his comment that weeding out vandals of his type is a "tremendous lose for the project". Yup, we need more users with good larnin'. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugs stop being a smart arse correcting errors made by other editors I assume your qoute above is a dig at another editor who you are far superior too with your good larnin. BigDunc^Talk 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think "smart ass" refers to donkeys, not anatomy. In any case, I humbly accept your analysis of the sitchyation. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, yes, the blocked editor indicates he has, or has had, more than one account. Checkuser could probably figure it out, but the way it works is that it's up to the vigilance of the user community to connect the dots and then submit checkuser requests. That can be frustrating (don't I know it), but there is a degree of fairness in that policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the most pointless discussions ANI has had this month.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 03:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Unomi (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackiestud

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

User has been repeatedly adding the exact same stuff about Adam and Eve on several articles related to Feminism and is at 3RR on the Feminism article itself (see contribs). MuZemike 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See user's additions to Feminist theology, Goddess movement, Christian feminism, Goddess, and more. She's adding the same thing to multiple articles, creating real undue weight issues; no attempt is being made to seek consensus, she is replacing the text even after other users have reverted her and tried to initiate discussions. It seems like POV pushing, maybe OR or original synthesis, not to mention the etiquette problems. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I tried many times to show that WP already cites Campbell and this very same chapter (see feminism_and_neopaganism), there no orginal synthesis, only etimology, pre historical goddess and teh Bible. No original research at all. Jackiestud (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And I've been trying to discuss this (including the OR issue) with her on my talk page [45]. She's added it to Women in the Bible, adding Goddess as a see also for Dolmen because she read something on the web that mentioned Dolmen and Goddess although our Goddess article won't help readers learn more about Dolmen, etc. There were problems like this in April that led to a short block. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If I may borrow a metaphor, the problem here isn't as much OR but a sort of tunnel vision. An encyclopædia is about a particularly wide field of vision -- to horizon and beyond. Your edits have concentrated on certain small issues, which you apparently consider particularly important. It is against the Tao for me to try and convince you that you should neglect these issues, but at the same time, the Tao of Wikipedia is clear about WP:UNDUE, too. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm still AGFing that jackie is working in good faith and may just be a little inexperienced, but I don't know how any of us can make things clearer than we already have. The information is ok (not prooperly cited but ok) it's just being given too much emphasis and is being placed in the wrong articles. The issue we all have with the edits is based on the core policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). I'm sure if Jackie goes through the policy they'll understand our objections --Cailil ^talk 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Callil. Thank you very much for your words. No doubt about my good faith. Iam jut trying to make it avaiblable in some of these articles because the are related to the text. So, no maybe not all of these but one or two... Adam and Eve is the correct one, as much as feminism. And I would thank if someone can help me with a better english instead of deletion. Jackiestud (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont knwo if you have Campbell´s book, but my text only cites him: Adam was born out of a red clay (and the etimology of his name is red clay, or blood (dam)); a such respected scholar like Campbell is only saying that pre historic religion( and art) worshiped the so called Mother Goddess and this goddess is still there in the Bible. Adam comes from, was born, from this Goddess myth. The Hebrew Goddess book says esaclty the same thing. Jackiestud (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Having found the Truth is all fine and dandy, but this sort of proselytism does not really go well with encyclopædia-building. Dear Jackiestud, please don't do it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• I made a statement on User talk:Awadewit about this. The individual uses a poor quality reference, has bad grammar, and insists on repeating it without discussion with others. How to handle? I don't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Perhaps some sort of block to prevent further article disruption? :O—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Iam sorry if I disappointed you. I don´t know why does WP offer a whole life abt Joseph Campbell (since this is poor quality reference (sic!), why would Adam ´s etimology (copied from WP) be also of such a poor quality...And by the way, as for my bad grammar, I coudl very easily improve the text...but anyway, since english is not my mother language, I´d love to see your grammar in portuguese, french (which is my third language)... Jackiestud (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you should be primarily editing the Wikipedia of your mother tongue instead of the English Wikipedia. I'm sure you'll be more help to the French and Portuguese projects.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You know what's interesting Jackiestud? You were blocked for similar reasons at the Portuguese Wikipedia. Edit warring at their articles for chaos theory and mother goddess only over two months ago.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Yes...see above? Maybe I was blocked for the same "REASON" (!!) I could now be blocked here (as you suggested)... You see, lots of "reasons". Feel free to block me... What kind of human being are you? Go read some Campbell...Why do ~you waste yr time with a freak like me...?? Jackiestud (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackie that isn't helpful. We've pointed you towards the policies and guidelines that govern how articles are written and what material is included in them. Please read them. And yes I have read Campbell along with many other works hence I see how little weight it deserves in the context of a global overview of the whole subject of feminism, or indeed an article on feminist theology. I've advised you a number of times taht a smaller better sourced version of the material you added would be useful in another article like Feminism and Religion. Also please redact your comment to Ryulong as it is both incivil and a personal attack which against our rules for talk page communication--Cailil ^talk 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See this? These are the many refused, deleted actions of this editor at the WP-PT (loads of admins expressing their perplexity with your "requirements": http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Ryulong. Campbell is cited in MANY feminism related articles all over WP-en (as I offered many links). End of talk for me. Bye, bye. Jackiestud (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ottava?? Are you there?? You would love to see his gramar back there on the WP-PT...All admins and denials; you can check for yr self on the oage I linked above (his "talk" page!!!!). See the last msg, the adin says: "Iam sorry, Id didn´t knwo you don´t speak potuguese" (LOL). See?? Can you imagine his grammar?? LOL. What was he doing there? editing??Jackiestud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC).

Jackiestud, stop now. My actions at the Portuguese Wikipedia are of no importance here (because I really don't do anything there unless I've found vandalism here that poured over to the other language projects, which happens every now and then). Your actions here are at question. If you continue to edit war on the English Wikipedia you will be blocked from editing the English Wikipedia. If you cannot act accordingly here, you should stay on the Portuguese Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, got nervous? Very bad and histerical words words (horrible and disuptive agressive, unethical, rude, unpolite summaries). You should be blocked for personal attacks! I have many articles here on the Wp-en. Many. As for the Wp-pt (since 2006) there are hundreds of articles and NOT A SINGLE COMPLAINT. All of yr requirements there were denied!! All of it. Jackiestud (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Warning on ANI and user talk page)

Jackiestud - you are clearly being too rude in responding to your critics here and elsewhere. This is not appropriate behavior on the english language Wikipedia. Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and edit in a more collaborative and friendly way moving forwards.

Regarding your content edits, you appear to be repeatedly reinserting material which a consensus of other editors believes is fringe material, not mainstream, and you are trying to give undue weight to it. This is against policy. You are also conducting a widespread edit war over that material. Once you were made aware that many other editors (all of them, on those pages, apparently) do not agree with you including it, you are required to stop reposting it over and over again and to discuss the issue on article talk pages. You appear instead to primarily be fighting in other venues.

This all is very disruptive, taken as a whole.

I am assuming good faith and giving you some credit for not having english as your first language. But you are pushing too hard here, and this is not ok. I or other administrators will block you if you continue this behavior. You need to calm down your edit tone and respond more politely, and discuss your edits in good faith on article talk pages.

This is an encyclopedia, and a project dedicated to building one. Please participate here in an adult and constructive manner. We expect positive collaboration from all participants.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

She has also put this [46] into a number of articles. Most of the Adam & Eve stuff, if not all, is hers, but the rest is clearly copy and paste from another article without attribution (the writing, the different forms of citation, and the fact tags point to it being from one of our articles and not written by the editor) - and this breaches our GFDL licence of course. I've asked her about it on her talk page after failing to find the source. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And her response was to blank the page. Her right, of course, but not very constructive. I hope she will reply here about the licence issue. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we remove that material as a precaution Doug or is that an over-reaction?--Cailil ^talk 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Golden0098 - Moved from AIV

• Golden0098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) deletion of content on Michael Husbands after final warning. An IP has been doing the same up to final warning. IP claims to be subject of article and deleting untrue facts. Have suggested they take to talk page or WP:BLP/N but deletions continue. Struway2 (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Do not block yet! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: User claims to be Michael Husbands (This is michael husbands and the info on here about me is not correct and I would like it changed or deleted please) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Thread above moved from WP:AIV. Cirt (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Get a lawyer. It's a complex issue, for all the nasty nuances. It's time for WMF's lawyer to earn his keep and assess the situation. This clearly is not something that can easily and safely be decided by volunteer administrators. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I protected the page and left notes for the alleged Michael Husbands on his user talk page and on Talk:Michael_Husbands. The alleged subject was the last editor of the article, so I'm not sure how much of a beef he can have with the content at this point and he's been pointed towards Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) and info-en-q@wikimedia.org. I'm not sure how much more there is to do, except unprotect the article. Note: the subject seems to have removed cited information about himself. Feel free to unprotect it if so inclined. Toddst1 (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take a look at the citation but as long as controversial information is accompanied by a reliable source, then there shouldn't be any problem. If he has a beef with the content, then perhaps he should contact the source rather than trying to whitewash his own article.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the source was the BBC. Toddst1 (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of good form, I decided to take a look at the citations. User:Golden0098 may actually be correct (at least partially). He made three distinct deletions, so I cross checked the information with the citation and discovered that at least one piece of information is not even included in the citation. It may be original research and should be removed ASAP. The second piece of information is correct and cited properly. The third is questionable and may be just a unique interpretation of the citation, but still may be correct. I would have at least fixed the poorly cited sentence, but alas the page is protected. There was a fourth sentence removed, but that sentence was never reverted back into the article. As of now, the fourth reversion is still not in. As a side note, an anonomous IP was deleting information prior to Golden0098. I can only assume that this is still the same editor, but I only looked at edits made by Golden0098.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The full page protection is a bit extreme considering Golden0098's account is only half a day old and he would not have been able to edit a semi-protected page anyway, semi-protection would have done the trick.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is no longer protected. Toddst1 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ramu50 Is Back

Resolved

 – Talk page blocked, original one month block on IP restarted. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.154.186.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ramu50 is an indefblocked user that has been using the IP account 75.154.186.241. The anon has admitted to being Ramu in this post and has said he will be editing on that IP for "1 year+". This is a clear-cut case of block evasion and I believe the IP should be blocked for that year that Ramu plans on using it. If not, some other form of block should be issued to stop the block evasion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It would not hurt for someone else to review the case, but I'll block tomorrow if nobody else reviews. Ramu50 exhausted the communities patience quite badly earlier and seems to be up to old tricks with this IP. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Block on IP 75.154.186.241 was restarted (for 1 month) and the talk page was blocked as well by User:Rootology. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho is Requesting an Unblock

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

After stating he will not copyvio any other pages (which is what got him blocked in the first place) and that his previous "retirement" is a moot point, ASE is requesting to be unblocked or would like a path to be unblocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you put in a pointer to the recently archived discussion? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure, please see here. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• The difficulty is that Allstarecho's comments after he was blocked have tended to suggest that he does not recognize that his copyright violations are wrong; for this reason, his protestations that he will not continue to disregard copyright have not been wholly credible. He could begin to restore this credibility by starting to go through his past contributions and identifying all edits which used stolen text; this, at a bare minimum, would be an essential component of any path to eventual unblocking. CIreland (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  This seems a bit pointless - he's identifying himself as "retired", so why the heck is an unblock needed? Ironholds (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Because a retired user can un-retire themselves at any time. CIreland (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Is everyone stuck on retirement? ASE has stated before and I have above that retirement is a "moot point". He wishes to come back, which would mean he isn't retired. Let's focus on the unblock and not on a retirement that the user has said is "moot". - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  Concur with NeutralHomer; retirement is not and never has been relevant to Allstarecho's blocking or unblocking; really only Allstarecho seemed ever to think it made any difference. CIreland (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• support unblock At this point, I don't think it is imperative that he is kept blocked, given that he has expressed clearly that he understands why he was blocked, and has promised to change his behavior. Blocking him again would be trivial at this point, and he should know he is being closely watched. Making him jump through some arbitrary hoops to get the unblock seems pointless given the ease with which any admin could block him again if he screws up the copyright thing any further. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

  User:Akhilleus has unblocked ASE. He left a lengthy post on ASE's talk page as well. Shall we call this resolved? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I've unblocked him. The declines seemed excessively wiki-lawyerish to me; Allstarecho wants to edit and promised not to violate copyright anymore. I trust that his contributions will be closely watched, and if anything even smells like a copyright violation, he will be indef blocked again. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm. I still think he has an ethical obligation to assist in cleaning up the mess, simply because it's far easier for him than anyone else to identify which edits amongst his very many otherwise excellent contributions were theft. I don't think that's at all an "arbitrary hoop" since someone else is going to have to jump through it if ASE is unwilling. CIreland (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I agree that he has an ethical obligation to assist in cleaning up the mess. I also note that ethical obligations are often unmet on Wikipedia. Since I unblocked him, I'll ask him on his talkpage to help us clean up the copyvios. Since I unblocked him, it's only fair that I help in doing so also. Please give me some pointers--is there an organized effort towards fixing the problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys has some details. CIreland (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Based upon the massive disruption he made to Wikipedia (knowingly adding copyright violations for years because he disagrees with copyright laws), and especially with his completely unapologetic tone after his block, he needs to stay blocked for a good long while to realize that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. A couple of months minimum is reasonable, or at the very least until all the damage he caused is undone. Akhiklleus should have waited for more input before unblocking, because jumping ahead to do it before there was real discussion or any way to gauge consensus just puts everyone in a bad spot. People have been permanently banned for less than what ASE did. DreamGuy (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If what you are suggesting is done, that would be punishment and that is not what blocks are meant to do. They are preventive not punishment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy: maybe you're right. If so, discussion here should establish a consensus against my unblock, and I won't stand in its way. Until then, I hope that community scrutiny will stop further copyvios by Allstarecho, or lead to his block. I don't really care if he apologizes, expresses remorse, or so forth--forced apologies don't strike me as useful. The important thing is that he stops the objectionable behavior. If he doesn't, then he gets blocked again. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that Akhilleus should have waited for more community input and especially for the opinion of the blocking admin, Moonriddengirl. I find unilateral unblocks of this sort rather uncollegial, I am sorry to say.  Sandstein  05:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have notified Moonriddengirl of this post. I apologize, I should have done that first, as she was the blocking admin...that is my mistake. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• This unblock was a bad call - there was no need to rush and I'm not certain Akhilleus is actually familiar with the situation and how these matters are typically handled. I think that Allstarecho has been the one splitting hairs and wikilawyering since this problem was noticed - quite a few editors have tried to get a straight answer and his responses have been petulant and unhelpful. This issue was so widespread that it required not the usual one, but three pages at the copyvio project for tracking. While I agree that forced apologies are useless, if a contributor shows no remorse and has to be forced to admit they were wrong, isn't that just a useless? I have zero confidence in this unblock and I resent the fact that the unblocking admin's solution is that someone (other than themselves of course) should closely babysit Allstarecho. Shell ^babelfish 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I have already said, I will be happy (even as a non-admin) to mentor ASE as necessary and to make sure that his edits are within the letter of the rule and that no copyvio edits are brought in, but I think we need to give ASE a chance to edit first. It is 3:29AM EST, so he isn't online, probably asleep. Let's let him edit first before going all "bad block" "let's reblock him" on the whole thing. Remember, AGF. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm going to guess you're not aware that I assume good faith, usually till my eyes bleed :) Even so, there's a point where it stops being an assumption of good faith and instead becomes turning a blind eye to a problem; that's where I have to get off the bus. If you're aware of this case, surely you're aware that this wasn't just limited to article space, included difficult to detect copying of just sentences or phrases and that the only response has been "yeah, so what?" until an indef block was in place? I don't see anything in ASE's response that would make me comfortable that he won't continue the same behavior, maybe not at first, maybe not while he's being watched but I'm confident he would have no qualms repeating the behavior if he thought he could get away with it. I don't even see anything about him being interested in contributing further, only that he'd rather not be blocked. I would consider this an excellent example of a block intended to prevent further damage and disruption to the project and the unblock before allowing some semblance of discussion here was unwise. Shell ^babelfish 08:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • WP:AGF says, "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." The cleanup of this offers plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just yesterday I came upon this edit from April of 2009 while evaluating contributions, pasting several paragraphs of material by Dr. Carl Edwin Lindgren (material which archives to 2004). There can be no question that much of the language was the same; origin seems clear. Keep in mind that Allstarecho was notified of copyright policy several years ago and one of his responses on noting these concerns was to indicate that "Most of these g'damn articles were done in my wiki-infancy. Any newer ones which may be in question, I don't agree that statistical facts (dates, percentages, times and related words to explain such facts) is copyrightable"[47]. His primary interest during the whole of this clean-up is arguing about whether the copyright infringements removed from articles were actually placed by him. While he's very vocal when he thinks somebody has removed something in error, I've yet to see him say, "Oh, yes, that one was mine. My bad." Does he still believe that material like this and this, also from April of this year, are not copyrightable? Copyright infringement is a grave misuse of the project, one which can put it in legal jeopardy, and whoever is watching him, Neutralhomer, needs to do so not so much with an assumption of good faith, but from a position of objective scrutiny. Akhilleus, I hope you plan to keep an eye on the situation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock, bad call, particularly without bringing the initial blocking admin into it. I support a reblock - he's never made any statement to indicate what he did was wrong, and has been particularly offensive to those users like Moonriddengirl who take the time and effort to chase people like him. An offensive, disruptive serial copyright violator who now expects us to trust him? By this point good faith has been thrown out the window, and I see no reason to believe he's truly changed - rather I see his apology as not "sorry I violated copyright" but more "sorry I was blocked for violating copyright". Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unblock. Three pages of copyvio's? What's next, unblock User:Primetime? For me this block is not punitive, this block is to protect the encyclopedia. From reading his talk page I am not convinced he will not eventually continue the same behaviour as before. Garion96 (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Glow in the dark bad unblock. This user causes major harm to the project. He doesn't grasp the concept of Intellectual property, nor Copyright, thus demonstrating no respect for authors nor the law. What makes anyone think he gives a damn about this project? He wants back in for his own addictive needs, and for the ego buff he gets from publishing stuff. Unless and until such time as he provides fro us a clear, lengthy essay about his 'awakening' to the rights of authors to have their works protected, and the value of copyright laws in protecting the creative impulse for the larger betterment of society, I see no value in AGF'ing. He's made clear his commitment to actively refuting and ignoring Copyright laws and Wikipedia's policies on the same, and his desperate 'i won't do it again, I swear' is simply insufficient. ThuranX (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Spectacularly wrong unblock, per Moonriddengirl. In April this year he copied literally from one source while citing another. [48][49] And then he claimed that all copyvios were in the distant past, and that anything more recent is just numbers? Wow. I don't think we need this type of user. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• While the unblock may or may not have been ill-judged, it has been done. The result is that Allstarecho is under severe scrutiny for copyright (and likely any other) violations in his editing - his last chance has been and gone, and the next time he puts principle in these matters before WP policy he is gone permanently. I doubt that Allstarecho would have been allowed to return to editing under any more stringent conditions so, despite it being perhaps a little premature, I think we can close this matter as resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this assessment. It's his duty to clean up the mess he created and it's not formally part of his conditions that he does so. Instead, he can edit away and keep responsible editors occupied trying to spot his new copyvios. That's a denial of service attack on Wikipedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but I completely disagree that the matter is resolved. One doesn't set loose the wolf in the hen house and then throw up your hands because its already been done. Shell ^babelfish 13:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I've AGFed until my eyes not only bled but fell out of my head, and I have to agree that this isn't a good idea at this time. As a very involved admin, I either am biased or appear biased, so I won't argue the point strongly. Since I know where many of the proverbial bodies are buried, I will make a few points that should be considered (and I wish had been considered before an unblock):

• Let's keep in mind that at least two blatant copyvios remain: Old Mississippi State Capitol and Ole Miss Rebels football. There may be more.  Frank  |  talk  13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Further, keep in mind that many more copyvios were found and removed during the course of this investigation, including, for example, Frank Frost and Pearl, Mississippi, and some were even deleted, such as Alamo Theater (Mississippi) and the article that put us on this path when I found it at Template talk:DYK, Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company.
• It should be noted that User:Neutralhomer is an unapologetic cheerleader for ASE, given this sarcastic comment shortly after the initial block. I have no problem with liking and supporting a contributor; what I disapproved of in that comment was that either there was no attempt to look at the facts of the matter, or the facts were ignored. To his credit, NH did actually look a bit later and allowed as how he must agree with the community on this one. Now he's back on the other side of the fence. (Sorry if this seems like I'm commenting on the contributor rather than the content; I'm merely pointing out that this is a highly-involved user and providing some context.) Also, it should be revealed that we subsequently discovered a content disagreement we have, but again - I'm confining this to ASE, nothing more. I just think that if it is agreed that mentoring is the right way to go, perhaps a better choice would be someone other than a cheerleader.
• I think it would be wise to consider the length and severity of these violations, which would require an RfC to fully document, but a short summary can be found in this comment I made at User talk:Moonriddengirl.
• It's been pointed out that ASE doesn't display what most of us would call a solid understanding of copyright, or what we'd call a desire to comply with policy. Here are just a few diffs in support of that: You can't copyright facts, as usual, facts can't be copyrighted but whatever, you can't copyright fact..., and this one from 2007: While I don't feel text about a public educational institution, especially one my tax dollars help pay for, is copyrighted, I made changes..

So, having said all that, if we are allowing the unblock to stand, a whole bunch of editors need to keep careful watch. ASE has repeatedly and forcefully resisted comments that characterize his edits as copyvios, instead choosing to point out that the text is elsewhere also, that someone else put it there, or that it isn't copyrightable. He has not participated even one edit's worth in cleaning up copyright violations since he was blocked, despite requests to do so, and has hampered others' efforts to do so because some of us have been willing to AGF and pay attention.  Frank  |  talk  13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. Well, as I said, it's entirely possible I made a mistake, and if there is consensus to reverse my unblock (as it appears there might be), I won't stand in its way. I'd just like to note, though, that the discussion on Allstarecho's talk page involved apparent technicalities such as whether he was retired or not, and also whether he was adopting the proper abject attitute of contrition. If the discussion had clearly communicated "your copyvios are so bad there's no way I'll unblock you" then of course I wouldn't have unblocked. I'm glad to see that people are taking copyvios seriously, though--when I've reported blatant plagiarism from copyrighted sources before, I've gotten no response or a shrug. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• It might have been appropriate, as a condition of unblocking, and in light of his promise not to violate copyright again, to explain whether he still agrees with these sentiments that he had posted on his talk page shortly after being blocked: [50][51] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I'll say it's never been said by me that copyvios were perfectly ok. What I have said is that apparently statistical facts, close paraphrasing and quoting is considered as copyvios, unbeknownst to me. I guess that is my fault for not finding out. However, I have seen many a "copyvio" removed from articles that have been attributed to me when in fact they weren't. Numerous copyvios that have been attributed to me, were nothing more than copyvio content that was already present in an article or in an article that I split to another (see Ole Miss Rebels and Ole Miss Rebels football as an excellent example). I had no idea that I had to go through each and every article I ever came across to make sure it didn't contain copyvio content. Do you do that on every article you've ever come across? I'm sure one or 2 of you do but I'd bet my house that most of you do not. Additionally, during vandalism patrol, yes, I may have reverted vandalism that also included reverting an article back to a "copyvio included" state, but how am I to know that? Seriously? Regardless, any continued block is nothing but punishment, which is whole-heartedly not in line with WP:BLOCK. As I have promised not to add copyvio content anymore, and as I know many an eye is on my edits, continued blocking can be viewed as nothing but punishment from this point. I'm not asking for your respect or your approval of me as a person as that really means nothing to me. I'm just asking that people be fair here. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. more waffling. now it's 'i didn't know', when he clearly did, and 'I didn't meant to', even though he was repeating old mistakes. He's not sorry, and clearly will do it again. He simply doesn't understand the concept of copyright. ThuranX (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you figure I will do it again when I've said probably 20 times: I PROMISE NOT TO ADD COPYVIO CONTENT ANYMORE. I mean, how much more plainer can one be? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Speaking of keeping a close watch, may I direct your attention to a thead on the Commons AN from last year. It would be prudent to review his image contributions again to see if there's been any relapse there. I am at work now or I would. HiDrNick! 14:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Wow, they do come out of the woodwork. Haven't seen you since you started that mess a year ago. That was last year and on a different project which has no baring here. Thanks for your contribution though. Also, see here. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho, with all due respect, I think your final response in that discussion (claiming that other people stole your work) is plenty relevant here. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• • I started that mess? You were the one who uploaded those pictures in violation of our policies in the first place, and then lied over and over again about them, attempting to smear the character of those who worked to bring your transgressions to light. I offered you an explicit opportunity to clean up your own mess; when you declined to do so, I had to spend my own free time scouring the whole damn internet to find enough copyvio sources to convince the Commons admins to delete most of the non-free pictures you uploaded and lied about. I had to watch videos of Chris Crocker, for crying out loud, because of your flippant attitude toward our copyright policies. Even now, other editors are slogging though your “contributions”, trying to clean up your mess, and your attitude is not one of contrition, but arrogance. You have given no indication that you will not continue to be a net negative to the project. I am astounded that the unblocking administrator has not yet reversed himself. HiDrNick! 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a Biedermann und die Brandstifter scenario

Apparently the English name for this play by Max Frisch is The Fire Raisers.

(It's also been produced as The Firebugs Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

When someone uploads a large number of photos and many of them are found to be copyvios, then of course the rest needs to be deleted as well unless there is strong evidence that they are not copyvios. When someone is caught adding large amounts of copyrighted text to Wikipedia, then of course every substantial addition of text by that editor needs to be deleted unless there is strong evidence it's not a copyvio. After all, there are still books and magazines that are not available online.

What I have not seen, and what is absolutely necessary for this unblock to be at all reasonable is:

• An unequivocal demonstration (as opposed to a mere affirmation) by ASE that he now understands how copyright works.
• A binding commitment to help clean up his copyvios.
• A prohibition of any substantial article space edits other than his clean-up work for the time being.

Before he can be allowed to add more than, say, half a sentence per month to any article:

• The clean-up work must have been finished.
• He must demonstrate (rather than just assert) that he can add text to articles through methods other than plagiarism. One way to demonstrate this would be a series of assignments in which he has to develop an article on a prescribed obscure topic using a prescribed set of sources, in a short amount of time.

Anything less would be in contradiction to the core principle that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Seeing that it can take several man-hours to properly identify and clean up the damage done in ten minutes by some quick copy-paste operation, and that this thankless work must be done by qualified volunteers – many of whom would prefer to write content for articles of their own choosing – this kind of generous unblock on the whim of an administrator is simply not acceptable. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've begun to help on the cleanup as can be seen by my contribs - and that's enough as far as "binding". Actions, not words - which has been asked of me and which I am doing.

A prohibition from article space edits is unacceptable. What's the point of being on Wikipedia if you can't edit articles. I'm not to be treated like some toddler confined to his playpen.

Again, as I had promised not to engage in the activity anymore, which in itself acknowledges the copyvios and that there was a problem, continued blocking only serves as punishment. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

AllStar, you have earned the perspective that you are a toddler to be supervised everywhere. You got caught breaking a major, bedrock policy built to match the laws of most nations on the planet. Instead of immediately apologizing, you continued for over a year doing it. When you were finally caught again and blocked, you threw a tanrum, took your ball and left. Then you came back, 'unretiring' after the heat was off, a tactic you knew would reduce the actions against you, and then, when confronted, you've done nothing but make empty promises and blame others.

You have yet to explain, in your own words, what you did wrong, why it was wrong, why you won't do it again. An Open apology letter to the community would go a long way; taking responsibility for reversing every single copyvio addition you ever made would help too. However, all we get are condescending dismissals of our concerns 'I already SAID i wouldn't do it anymore' is meaningless. It's meaningless because you've made clear that you do not accept the idea of copyright - that the very principles of it aren't valid, they don't apply to you. This can easily be seen in your attitude that 'facts cannot have copyright'. However, they can and do. It's up to you to explain to us why, as part of that open apology.

I continue to oppose any unblocking of your account until such time as you give us that, and then commit to making no edits which are not repair, until the entire repair task is completed. ThuranX (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't someone reblock him first? Consensus that the unblock was a bad idea seems quite clear. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

that would be good ,we've got a clear disapproval of the unblock. However, if he gets all the reading he really ought to indulge in about copyright done and the essay up before an admin gets around to it, then it may not be needed. ThuranX (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Since people can't seem to accept my promise not to add copyvio content to articles anymore, and since people can't seem to understand that my promise is also acknowledgement that copyvios are unacceptable, and since people can't seem to understand that my promise is also acknowledgment that I understand copyvios will not be tolerated, I hereby once again, promise not to add copyvios to any article. I also hereby promise to help work on said articles even though I've already said once that I'm already doing that as can be seen by my contribs history. I also apologize to anyone that feels I must go to greater links than a promise: I don't know what else to do to make it right with you but you have my promise. Continued "off with his head" calls are, however, unproductive. Tell me what you want instead of degrading me. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you'd take your fingers out of yoru ears, and stop shouting 'LalalalaIcanthearyoulalalala', you'd see I was absolutely clear about what I want; it's quite similar to what a few others have asked for. You again make clear that you won't do what's needed to satisfy the community, so I call for an immediate reinstatement of a bad unblock where community consensus supports reinstituting it. ThuranX (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As to "actions, not words", I must say I am not too thrilled by this: [52][53][54]. I would really like to hear the opinion of an expert whether a gradual process from literal copying to excessively close rephrasing makes the copyvio go away. In any case it's still plagiarism. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That last diff isn't mine. And also, related to that, see here where it's obvious I have sought input from an involved administrator on the issue. I mean geez, at least ask me. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My point was that you made a slight rephrasing, someone else made a further slight rephrasing, and it's still blatant plagiarism. My understanding of US copyright law is that this kind of rephrasing is not enough, and basically these are merely typical steps to cover up a copyvio. The only thing I am not sure about is whether lifting two sentences literally is OK. It might be below some threshold. As to your post on Frank's talk page – that one puzzled me, and I am still puzzled that it came before your rephrasing. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It came before my rephrasing because I wanted him to look at it before my rephrasing. Then after asking him about it, I realized even in the state it was in it could be considered as close paraphrasing so I went on and made changes to it. He apparently looked at it after my change or the 2 changes and feels its acceptable via his reply to me. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's look at a proper diff. I am not even sure that "rephrasing" is an appropriate word for this:

Source [55]	ASE version 1 [56]	ASE version 2 [57]	Gavia immer version [58]
The FBI report
, which measures major crimes in cities with populations of 100,000 or more around the nation,
showed violent crime increased
in the city	by	by	by
9.3 percent and property crime
rose	increased by	increased by	increased by
4.6 percent.
The city rates buck a trend of lowering crime rates nationwide where	In contrast,	In contrast,	In contrast,
violent crime fell 2.5 percent
	nationwide	nationwide	nationwide
and	as did	as did	and
property crime
dropped			fell
by 1.6 percent.
The city's	Jackson's	Jackson's	Jackson's
rate of 36 murders per 100,000 residents
		caused the city to be
ranked
			the city
fourth in the nation behind
		the cities of	only
New Orleans,
		Louisiana,	Louisiana,
St. Louis
		Missouri	Missouri
and Baltimore
.	.	, Maryland.	, Maryland.
Jackson's
		[sic!] also has a
burglary rate of 248 per 100,000 residents
ranked	ranked	which ranks it	ranks it
second only to Flint,
Mich.	Michigan.	Michigan.	Michigan.

I have no idea how anybody can think this is acceptable. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In fairness to ASE, he specifically asked me about that rewrite and I responded that it looked OK to me. I would rather he work on the two copyvios that remain blanked (listed above), but I felt the rewrite was better than what it replaced. I might have been wrong, but let's give ASE a little room on this one since I'm one of the protagonisists here.  Frank  |  talk  21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Which 2 blanked Frank? I don't see them link above. I've just been working off of Wikipedia:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 21:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the admin who originally blocked Allstarecho for copyright problems. I didn't know about this thread until just now. I approve of the unblock.

On the one hand, ASE has handled this whole situation quite badly, being defensive and sarcastic and unacceptably rude in at least one case. He hasn't said anything like "I know this was wrong, and I'm sorry." But he has clearly and repeatedly said that he won't do anything else that might violate copyright, and I believe him. (And if I'm wrong, it's not hard to reblock.) Should he own up and apologize? Yeah, I think so, but it's really none of my business. Would it have been easier on everyone if he had? Absolutely. Would I get some satisfaction on seeing him forced to apologize? Perhaps, I mean I'm only human, but that's not a valid use of a block. The preventative block is no longer needed; So long as he isn't copying and pasting questionable content -- and he's not -- he's welcome to contribute constructively. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

72.231.253.33 / 74.78.20.70

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

---

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 3 months by VirtualSteve

김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 10:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• 74.78.20.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) began to vandalise articles like Guns N' Roses in March, mostly by changing dates. They got blocked two times for doing so.
• 72.231.253.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) followed in April, making the very same type of edits and got blocked four times since. They continue to vandalise articles like Tracii Guns and Iron Maiden up to this day. They do not talk and do not make any edit summaries. Any ideas? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• IP is still trolling around. Why is Wikipedia's admins not doing anything against the vandal??? See 72.231.253.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Consider choosing a username (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Has this been reported to WP:AIV?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• As you might see, they have been blocked five times before, but no admin seems to be willing to block them for more than a few days. How could WP:AIV help then? 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 07:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• With more blocks, they escalate in length. The last block on the IP that this user has issues with was blocked for a month at the end of April.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Just stop talking and start blocking. 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 07:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I cannot block any IP or user. If you post this IP on WP:AIV and state that it is a returning vandal, it will be answered by an administrator much faster than anything happening on this page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• btw: the longest block has been 7 days. Why are you even answering if you're not an admin? 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am giving advice as a former administrator. There is nothing on this page that says I cannot act in such a way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

User:Consider choosing a username

I'm a little worried about what this user has said. User talk:Consider choosing a username.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is clearly related to above problem. 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But read what they wrote on the talk page. A concern!--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are angry about nothing been done against that IP vandal for months. 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be concerned over the user's comments. I'm a bit suspicious of the username as well as this' user's actions. Consider choosing a username (talk · contribs) has been here for a little over two weeks, and this is his third edit (citing "MoS"). A similar user would be Underscores will be converted to spaces (talk · contribs), who also performed these reverts and in his first edit refers to the edits as reverts and vandalism. This terminology I was not even sure of when I first joined Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The user "retires" saying "I can't stand those lazy Wikipedia admins anymore. Let people destroy the project!". Does this not concern you?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 07:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He left having a little hissy fit. He'll be back, or not if I figure out if the account belongs to a previously blocked user.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I will be attempting to contact one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more useful to do something against the IP vandal? 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally cannot do anything in either situation. Post the IP at WP:AIV. I'm not going to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time... 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like it, remove your involvement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any CheckUser's around?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I know a few, but they must be asleep at the moment. But this isn't urgent. Post the IP he's complaining about on AIV and things will resolve themselves in the other thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A new account has just appeared and signed an unsigned comment by Consider Choosing A Username. [[59]]--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The username "Acedia Accidia Pigritia" is apparently three Latin synonyms for Sloth (deadly sin). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Which is clearly a reference to "lazy admins", and the user has now added a welcome to Underscores will be converted to spaces (talk · contribs). Seems a pretty clear case of same user, but... the user hasn't really done anything disruptive ...yet. Mfield (Oi!) 08:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has now added the welcome templates to some user talk pages including User talk:Underscores will be converted to spaces.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, regardless of not doing anything on articles being disruptive, the user is instead being disruptive by making so many useless accounts. I have a feeling all three of these users are one in the same. I am just waiting on a message being returned.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that a message returned from a CheckUser Ryulong?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 08:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted that message one minute before you did. Nothing's happened. Be patient and go edit an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:HexaChord and his/her sockpuppets

It turns out User:Consider choosing a username, User:Underscores will be converted to spaces, User:Kim's Broken Down Rocket, and User:Acedia Accidia Pigritia are all in fact User:Juvenile Deletionist, as are a few other user names. These accounts have been indentified by Dominic. Someone should block them so the tags I put on all of their user pages are correct.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that the accounts Ryulong mentions are all the same. They are also the same as Jungfrau'n Töter, Vördschin killa, and Schweinchen Fick, all blocked already. In fact, having checked the range, I can say with a high degree of certainty that these accounts are all were all created by HexaChord, along with his other accounts Hexacord, Hexachord, and Ashba 6. Dominic·t 11:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the listed accounts.. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Now the issue is how to deal with HexaChord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Earlier we declined the csd nominations she placed on many pages she edited on 30 May. But some may have slipped past and been deleted. Anyway there are no recent edits from that account. HexaChord was upset by FFDs on her "fair use" pictures. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be the case, but she has come back under multiple accounts more than one at a time. She may have retired under one name, but we should not allow her to say that she can edit under any name she wants to and however many she wants to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by this discussion about how to handle this formerly constructive but now disruptive user. Block, be vigilant for more puppets and move on. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Indef and consider a ban – the actions here are equivalent to jerking the community around by the you-know-what (cf. the ItsLassieTime fiasco). Surely this cannot and should not be tolerated here. MuZemike 16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the account HexaChord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on the information from Dom above. I don't have any objection to the block being tweaked, however, if consensus starts going in that direction so other admins should feel free to do so without worrying about contacting me. Sarah 17:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Narnbread

User talk:Narnbread. This user has already been blocked, but Mentifisto suggested that I bring them to ANI to discuss some of their edits that may be of interest to the New Zealand Police. Mentifisto blocked this user and deleted most of their edits but what remains is an exmaple [[60]] of not only strong damage to various Wikipedia articles, but also the posting of somebody's personal details, racist comments and personal abuse, threats of violence amongst other things. This is a very serious issue and I don't think it should be ignored.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 10:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have suppressed that edit. In the future, please do not draw attention to posts with personal information in them, especially disparaging ones like this, by publicizing them in a very public place like this. You should make a request for oversight. Dominic·t 12:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Legal threat on Talk:Supermarine Spitfire operational history

User:Kurfürst, as part of an ongoing contact dispute, made this comment on Talk:Supermarine Spitfire operational history, which appears to threaten legal action if alledgedly copyright violating info that is referenced is not removed from an external website. Is this a breach of WP:LEGAL?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like they say they will report the copyright violation here (Wikipedia:Copyright problems for example), rather than taking legal action. Anyway, if it is certain there is an actual copyright violation, it should be removed immediately. There's no need to wait (in fact, it cannot wait) 24 hours. Chamal ^talk 10:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat? No, an editor, probably in good faith, linked a picture from a website which has been branded with the name of the website's ownerer as copyright holder - I assume the editor believed that the website owners also hold the copyright, and I have made that clear to be wrong: "The documents you have linked are from the National Archieves, Kew, and are protected by copyright. The webpage you have linked them from also shows this in the references, giving the AIR referneces in the NA at the end of the page. All of these images are from the National Archieve, Kew. These images are copyrighted, and cannot be published or used with the consent of the National Archieves. Remove them immidiately. That some digitial brand these documents "Archives of M Williams" or "Courtesy of Neil Stirling" may have some unfortunate legal repercussions to these persons, but in no way generate a copyright for documents that were copied via a digital camera in the archieve, and published without consent of the archieve." Its quite clearly referenced to the website owners, and not the editor.

I am familiar with the material and I know also that it comes from the National Archives, Kew, UK, and also familiar with their policy on copyrights - also cited it for the editor - I have ordered many documents from there myself, there's clear (c) notice on each copy. I have absolutely no intentions for a legal action against the editor (how, BTW, I dont even know his name etc.) but warned him to remove the report which I have already removed because of copy vio; he restored it, and if I would remove it would lead to an edit war. But given the copyrighted nature of the image, if he not removes it, I will have to report it through proper wikipedia channels, see: [61] Kurfürst (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

From the Terms and conditions for the supply of copies of records

Terms and conditions for the supply of copies of records

• 1.Copies of Public Records in Crown Copyright
• Most public records in The National Archives are in Crown Copyright.
• There are no restrictions on the use of copies for non-commercial research or private study. Copies, and copies of those copies, may be made and used for education purposes. This covers both teaching and preparation for teaching and/or examination by either teacher or student.

Applications for permission to use copies for publication (including website publication), exhibition or broadcast or any other purpose must be addressed to: The National Archives Image Library The National Archives Kew, Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU

• 2.Copies of Public Records in privately owned (ie not Crown) Copyright

There are no restrictions on the use of copies for non-commercial research, private study or education (as defined above) within the limits set in UK Copyright Law. Copies of non-public records and of published Copyright works held in The National Archives These are supplied subject to the customer completing a declaration form and observing the conditions it contains. Any infringement of these conditions may result in legal action. Any use other than for non-commercial research, private study or education, if approved by the copyright owner, may also require the permission of the image library. The National Archives Copyright Officer will provide further information on request.

This legal threat is a blatant and shameful attempt at intimidation by Kurfürst and is part of a consistent campaign by Kurfürst to discredit a rival website to his own http://kurfurst.org/. His attempts at using Wikipedia policy as leverage in his attempts to discredit a rival website are equally shameful. He has no idea of the arrangements made between Messers Williams and Stirling and the National Archives and, given his propensity for attacking the websites run by Messers Williams and Stirling (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ -http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html) and for attacking them personally at every opportunity he has has a clear vested interest in this matter, which should preclude him from any further participation in this "discussion". Minorhistorian (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an awful lot of hot air being vented here. What happens to 2 'opposing' websites is irrelevant here. Either the image meets WP standards for copyright, or it doesn't. If it does, fine. If it doesn't, delete it. Leave your website rants somewhere else, both of you. --WebHamster 11:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I got things a bit arse about face, but if there are any reservations whatsoever about a link on WP pointing at an external site that may contain copyright infringements then simply remove the link. It's better to be safe than sorry and if there's one link to the subject matter then there will be more. Also if there's CoI associated with the said links then all the more reason for nuking them. --WebHamster 11:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The images you have added to the article are simply copyrighted as Kew's policy clearly shows, moreover, the images are branded with the name of the copyright violator, while giving no credit to the actual coypright hold of the collection (the NA) which is pretty clearly requested by NA and copyright laws all over the world. What they do on their site is their responsibility, but Wiki's regulations for copyrighted images are quite clear - even if there would be doubt, as there is none, it is still you who have to prove that the images are permissable for free use and distribution (nb - something profoundly different from making copies for personal use), but it is absolutely certain that an image containing no clear credit to the (known) copyright holder is not possible to use. Your attitude to portray this violation as some sort of personal feud is simply shocking, but understandable, considering your close association with the said website owners. Kurfürst (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's no legal threat here at all. The use of references such as the one removed here is not appropriate; the reference should point to the original document in the archive, not to a photograph of unclear provenence on some random amateur website. CIreland (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Don't forget that Wikimedia considers verbatim/exact copies of PD documents and photographs to be PD also. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for the use of blatant and shameful attempt at intimidation'. However it should be noted that the editor has shown a consistent pattern of prejudice in this matter starting back in July 2008;

14:23, 13 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Supermarine Spitfire ‎ (Removed claims based on revisionist website; added comments of Supermarine test pilots on Spitfire development)

this is the first time he has raised copyright on archival material as an issue, in spite of his claims that he is very familiar with Kew's copyright rules. For the record I have no "close association"" with Messers Williams and Stirling and their websites; Mr Williams has contacted me once with his concerns over provocative comments being made about his websites by Kurfürst in various discussion pages and edit comments. If the information is deemed to be unusable on Wikipedia I have no huge worries about removing the offending material. My main concern is that an editor who has shown a great deal of prejudice on the issue has the right to arbitrate. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bert Schlossberg

Bert Schlossberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a single-purpose account, of a self-styled expert on the Korean Airlines shootdown from a few decades ago; the purpose being to find every possible venue here, to either directly or indirectly promote his book and his website. Is this appropriate? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you expecting anyone to say, "Yes", Bugs? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been known to happen. Maybe I should instead ask, "What is the appropriate course of action, if any, to address this situation?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Devil's advocate) Well, he certainly does seem to have a very narrow focus, and his userpage does link to his website (and he's raised an OTRS ticket apparently in order to use his website's material here). However, his recent edits at least do seem to be useful (wikignomery, though within the narrow area Bugs' mentions). I've not gone back beyond the last 3-4 edits, though.

Moonriddengirl has had some interaction with respect to the OTRS ticket; I'd be interested in her views here. I don't have a strong opinion yet, beyond tending to respect Bugs' judgement.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see my name. :) On June 6th, a communication was sent to OTRS; further information was requested. The contributor did not reply. On June 11, I pointed out that a response was still needed and offered assistance. The contributor has subsequently edited but not replied to my note; a search of OTRS shows no signs that he supplied the further information requested. Accordingly, the article tagged has been deleted, and I left him another note explaining how to proceed if he wishes to donate this text. I don't have any familiarity with the material; my involvement has been purely with respect to the copyright question. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the copyright discussion farther up the page, I'm trying to get some clarity on the matter - not about theoretical policy, but about practical application. A year or two ago I raised a similar issue here, about a user who was blatantly promoting his own work. I was shouted down for it, and he was allowed to get away with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I usually don't mix copyright work with other matters, but on occasion will list an article for review at WP:COIN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you show some examples of where he is self-promoting? I believe that WP:COIN is the normal place to sort out if interested parties are behaving in violation of wikipedia policy. Unomi (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This subject first came up on ANI a week or two ago, related to copyright violation - specifically, posting his own information in blatantly self-promotional articles. As MRG notes above, he has yet to back up his promise to release the copyright on them (hence her deletion of those articles), but failure to follow up raises questions as to whether he is the real author or not. Supposing he is the real author, his website [62] now appears in some 15 articles, and his edits are designed to lead back to the KAL007 incident (and hence to his website), some way or another. He said at some point, when I questioned him about relinquishing his own copyright, that he was willing to do so in order to get the truth out there. [63] Honk! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

unfounded claims of vandalism

My good faith edits to Paroxetine are consistently reverted on this article and I am accused of vandalism. Harsh warnings, which wrongly accuse me of vandalism, are placed on my talk page. The page is baised against the drug and the FDA source is misinterpretted to suggest the drug should not be taken, while the FDA source leaves that decision to the physician. My source is the most up to date and is neutral. Ddave2425 (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)ddave2425

This appears to be a content dispute, so you should be posting this to the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is a sockpuppet of Mwalla who is deceiving you.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive They are just doing this (intentionally deleting FDA statements and inserting inaccuracies and reporting to admin noticeboard eetc) to annoy me because they got blocked for 3 months.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You should be seeking dispute resolution. ANI is not a drama host. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking dispute resolution with a stalker and multiple sockpuppets who intentionally vandalise articles is not a good idea. I believe checkuser is best option as this user is meant to still be banned but is evading a wikipedia ban. I recommend reading this Do not feed the trolls which is what you are recommending that I do. Your suggestion only encourages drama. I do not believe that you read the archives of the sockpuppet investigation to Mwalla.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a STUPID edit war based knee-deep in POV for both sides, one only wants government reports warning danger, the other, only reports cautioning against use. I've left a comment there about NPOV, and a solution. As to the socking, it doesn't look thoroughly unprovoked on this article, given the loggerheads they've come to. If this article's the only point of conflict for the socking report, I suggest that the user be warned, sent to the talk page, and then blocked entirely if he does anything else again. Persecuting the editor for socking will not solve the content issue, solving the content issue may solve the socking. ThuranX (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong, you are not familar with Mwalla and his following me around wikipedia on sockpuppets and you have TOTALLY fallen for his tricks in causing an argument for me which is his ONLY motive. You have no desire to hear the background. I am amazed at how the admin noticeboard works and how easily manipulated it is by sockpuppeteers and other malicious editors. You even say sockpuppeteering is justified!!! What policy is sockpuppeteering and stalking justified? And I am persecuting the sockpuppet! Are you serious? Unbelievable! I prefer the more investigative formats such as arbcom or checkuser. As this person has already been banned after a checkuser, I believe that I will just reopen another sockpuppet investigation as this is hopeless. I am feeding the troll myself by actually responding here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the tricks is to misrepresent refs, use inappropriate refs or even make refs say the opposite of what they say. So it is NOT POV but is simply fakee data versus not fake data. It is a matter of vandalism versus fighting vandalism but from what I am gathering here at ANI sockpuppeteering and ban evading is justified in certain circumstances such as this and vandalising articles just to annoy other editors who got them banned is not vandalism but just a "differing POV" which should be solved through "dispute resolution". Telling the truth of the situation is persecuting the sockpuppet. The vandalising ban evading sockpuppet is a persecuted victim and those who defend themself against the sockpuppet's allegations are the persecuters! I really give up on wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first off, I left plenty of caveats in my comment, in case I'd misunderstood part. Second, its' not fake data, unless you're paranoid about the NIH. This makes it clear to me you've got ownership issues with the article, outside of his socking actions. I did not say that he was justified, merely that it appears provoked. So kindly take your hand out of my ass and stop trying to make me say things i haven't said. Finally, I am just ONE opinion. If you want to have a tantrum about one dissenting opinion when you ask for outside opinions, I suggest you find a different hobby, because this is a hobby wherein working with different opinions is a must. I don't see vandalism, I see legitimate citations with a different conclusion than your preferred one, and I see you screaming bloody murder at that assessment, which is not a common reaction among people who are sure they're right. Those people would simply link to a quote which supports their side and say 'he's misrepresenting this source for XYZ reasons.' please do that, or learn to work with others. ThuranX (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The ref was actually on antidepressants in general and had a very small number of paroxetine users. I don't think you edit medicine related articles much but if you read this WP:MEDRS you will see that primary sources should not be used to delete secondary sources. So ownership is nothing to do with it, I was just following wiki guidelines. It was you who called my behaviour stupid when I was innocent so that is why I lost my cool with you and did not reply in a civil tone. However, twoo wrongs don't make a right and I offer my apology for my response. Prior to that I stated the user was a sockpuppet and that was dismissed as just drama not for ANi. I actually reported this as vandalism and was told by vandal noticeboard that this should be directed to ANI. Mwalla is just laughing at the fact that he got me into an argument and laughing at you because you got manipulated into fighting with me. It isn't just my opinion, read the lengthy sockpuppet investigation which lead to the ban. Actually Mwalla started harassing me with sockpuppets after I reverted talk page vandalism to user comments. I wasn't even to do with article content but altering peoples talk page comments to say something different to make people argue. He has done it again here using a different tactic and has succeeded. Oh well.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you provoked this with an uncivil "STUPID" remark, and ought to apologize. Moreover, you shouldn't be trying to justify socking by blocked editors. LG, ThuranX is not an admin (and neither am I); you should avoid getting so excited about random comments on ANI. Also, although I believe your case that Ddave2425 is a sock is pretty strong, you ought not to be making accusations all over the place without filing an SPI or requesting some sort of investigation. Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP issue and edit warring at Douglas Schoen

Child of Midnight and the Douglas Schoen article

Child of Midnight has made edits that delete[64][65] uncontentious material in Doug Schoen that is well-sourced or remove an appropriate stub tag, I suspect purely because I added it. Sadly this appears to be revenge for me proposing an article he created be deleted. Another editor Orderinchaos has done the same[66][67][68], half-heartedly questioning two not seriously questioned sources and deleting a whole bunch of material where s/he hasn't questioned the sources at all. I would like an administrator to keep an eye on the page to ensure that what appears to me be vandalistic style near-blanking of the article doesn't continue. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Johnnyturk has been stalking my edits since being called out by me and other editors for his BLP violating edits on Irfan Yusuf. He was blocked indefinitely for his actions in regard to that article. He was later unblocked on the condition he not edit that article ever again. Since then he has been stalking my article contributions and made most of his edits on various articles I've worked on including: Douglas Schoen, Ham and eggs, Miniature pig, Estella Payton, and Virginia Greer in an apparent attempt to cause disruption. There are lots of articles on Wikipedia and there's no reason he needs to be vindictive and come looking for trouble on mine. I repeat my request that he move on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious at this stage that Johnnyturk888, previously blocked for introducing negative material to the BLP Irfan Yusuf which led to OTRS intervention, and unblocked only on the proviso that he not edit that article again (which he has complied with), has however edit-warred and persistently introduced negative content on a wide range of BLPs, using often dodgy sources to back up his claims. The particular edits involved relied on, in part, contributions to "Fox Forum" which openly brags that it is "Home to the most opinionated contributors on FOX News Channel". I do not see how this can be in any way, shape or form compatible with WP:V or WP:RS. Some troubling edits to other articles have introduced original research on BLPs through misuse of sources and use of weasel terms (see for example the edits to David Clarke (Australian politician)), and there is a consistent pattern of bolstering the hard right faction of the Liberal Party of Australia and denigrating its internal and external opponents, often with trivial or lightweight information. Additionally, the user exhibits a persistent pattern of edit warring and wikilawyering, and does not engage constructively in dialogue. His behaviour towards Child of Midnight, described above and something I'd actually noticed as a "blip" in the pattern of the factional warring, possibly constitutes a case of harassment. One would, in fact, be hard pressed to find any suitable or productive contributions from this user. I personally think that in light of their edit history, unblocking was a grave mistake and we should be looking at a permanent block on the basis of egregious WP:BLP, WP:EDITWAR and WP:NPOV violations. Orderinchaos 16:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well worth noting that while the two editors guilty of deleting most of the Schoen article are eloquent here, they are silent on that article's Talk page[69]. An examination of ChildofMidnight and Orderinchaos's histories reveal they are guilty of the same things of which they accuse others. Anyway, I thank the administrator for taking action to protect the page and we'll see if the two can substantiate their mass deletion of what is on any fair examination uncontentious material. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Both editors are not guilty. By calling ChildofMidnight's edits vandalism[70] is not assuming good faith and is disruptive! And I see the comment left on Orderinchaos' talkpage isn't much better[71]. Bidgee (talk) 16:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnnyturk is making problem edits on multiple articles, and edit warring. Rather than full protection wouldn't it make more sense to block the editor that is causing the problem? Full protection should be used when multiple established users are edit warring all with one another, not when the block of a single editor would remedy the problem. That's my opinion anyways. Landon1980 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, User:Johnnyturk888 seems to be editing tendentiously again. Is there consensus for a reblock, or am I missing something? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(after multiple ecs)I've reblocked Johnnyturk for a month and as far as I'm concerned this is his last chance and if he returns from this block to resume tendentious editing of BLPs I think he needs to be banned.

I was actually reviewing this situation myself when he posted this ANI section having noticed some edit warring on my watchlist and recognising Johnnyturk's name from some serious WP:BLP complaints that were forwarded to WP:OTRS, resulting in his indefinite block and subsequent article ban from the Irfan Yusuf article. He's a tendentious edit warrior who pushes WP:3RR and seems to have little to no regard for BLP and WP:NPOV, edit warring over things like describing a journalist in passing and without explanation in a biography about another person as a "Communist journalist" [72]. He seems to think that as long as he whacks in a link he can basically write anything about people. I'm rather concerned that someone who was indefinitely blocked for serious BLP violations and unblocked under very strict conditions doesn't seem to have got the message and has simply moved onto other biographies, taking the same problematic editing style with him. He has also either violated or pushed 3RR on Douglas Schoen. I think he is clearly not getting the message that we take BLPs seriously and needs to drastically change his approach if he plans on sticking around. Sarah 16:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Johnnyturk888 gets blocked

Johnnyturk888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User is now requesting unblock, see User_talk:Johnnyturk888#June_2009. Sarah 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I took a liberty of amending the header of the complaint a bit since the issue is more related to "BLP violation and edit warring by the complainer", Johnnyturk888.--Caspian blue 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The user was originally blocked indef for BLP violations on some article. Now that they've been unblocked, their first move it to follow someone they were bothering before into further BLP vios on other articles. I don't see why we should let him continue this behavior after a month's time, as he's already shown he can't change.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with this assessment. Orderinchaos 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As the unblocking admin on the previous case, I made it clear to him not just about touching one particular article, but the point of BLP of general. If the user still can't get that, keep blocked. Keegan (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Article writers' noticeboard

Per a dicsussion at User_talk:Peter_Damian/Established_Editors#WP:Article_writers.27_noticeboard, I'm working on a draft noticeboard at User:Juliancolton/AWN. Feel free to help out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks, bizarre coatrack

Resolved

 – Deleted page and recreated as protected. Horologium (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Recently, User:24.7.96.89 decided to respond to a discussion that, for all intents and purposes, ended nearly a year ago at User talk:Young Trigg. Unfortunately, his comment was laced with personal attacks. I removed it, and he reinserted and explained: "Thank you. I don't give a shit. If he gets to WP:ABF others, I get to insult him. Insults are more useful than politeness when you want to give someone a reality check." The editor has a tad shy of fifty edits, but appears to be familiar with Wikipedia, at least enough to know that personal attacks are unacceptable. Also, because of the publicity once received by the (retired) User:Young Trigg, their talk page has since [73] become a sort of coatrack for various opinions, allegations, and commentary long removed from their actual edits, usually with not apparent benefit to the project. Semi protection, at least, might make sense at User talk:Young Trigg, (which should, of course, be removed should User: Young Trigg ever return to editing). In the meantime, though, I hope someone can address the personal attacks by User:24.7.96.89. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Routine block of IP for 24 hours due to personal attacks and general disruption. IP advised not to insult others when he/she returns. Chillum 17:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I thought "having multiple aliases" is sockpuppetry (cf. [74]), or am I missing something? MuZemike 19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if they are used to support the arguments of the others I understand. --LiamE (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only if they are used "for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes." user:J aka justen (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I put a stop to it, once and for all. I deleted the talk page, and recreated it as an indefinitely semi-protected page. This editor is retired; there is no reason at all to use his talk page. Horologium (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Catherine_Crier

How come this page is fully protected? I was browsing around court tv and found this. Just Curious. M.H.^{True Romance iS Dead} 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and noticed some oversighted edits, is this uhh some Grawp/Hagger related thing? since the joker is included. M.H.^{True Romance iS Dead} 20:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542#Catherine Crier and the edit summary used by Deskana when protecting it [75] --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversighters don't have any special ability to restrict unprotection, I don't particularly like the protection summary. A better one might read: "Repeated insertion of private information". Strictly speaking it isn't that, but I think I've made my point. Prodego ^talk 05:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the massive and horrendous amounts of BLP violations lobbed at this article, to the point that people are being aggressively litigated in real life for having done bad things to this article, I strongly encourage no one to unprotect it. rootology (C)(T) 05:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd recommend consulting the protecting admin before doing anything. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And I would strongly suggest, in the strongest terms, that such consultation be in public, on-wiki. rootology (C)(T) 05:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree, based on the problems there (and elsewhere). But there is no need for such a melodramatic protection summary. Prodego ^talk 05:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

76.16.176.166 talk

The aforementioned anonymous editor has been disruptively editing a number of articles, namely

• Multiregional origin of modern humans where the ip inserted whole paragraphs of gibberish here
• Recent African origin of modern humans

There is a discussion about the IPs disruptive edits here and other users have expressed concern about the state of the articles at the human genetics project. Subsequent to reverting one of the user's edits, the user has since started reverting my edits from other articles which the user had never edited before and posting more gibberish on talk pages. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Basic vandalism, such as the insertion of gibberish, can be reported after appropriate warnings to WP:AIV for blocking. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They're not a vandal as such, they're pushing a POV - the multiregional hypothesis - in a disruptive manner and making personal attacks. Fences and windows (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "resolved" tag (sorry if I'm not supposed to do that) because the issue is not suitable for WP:AIV (it was correctly removed 30 minutes after notification with edit summary "content dispute"). I don't know what can be expected on this page, but what 76.16.176.166 needs is a firm and somewhat pointy administrative notification that whatever the merits of the edits being performed, the frequency, style of edit summaries, and communication on talk pages are inappropriate for Wikipedia. I'm not very optimistic because the editing is not nearly as bad as occurs on some topics, but it is particularly irritating in a serious scientific topic where other editors are contributing from interest (not some POV passion). However I ask that an admin advise what might be done to restore suitable decorum. Examples of inappropriate edits (article is about a modern scienctific topic; references to religious texts are used to ridicule other editors): pointy and unintelligible edit summary and debate in an edit summary and removal of my not-overly pointy comment and mysterious and out-of-place rant. Johnuniq (talk) 04:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Hantzen

Resolved

 – User blocked indef. -download ׀ sign! 00:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please stop this user. His every edit ruins the pages, and those are escalating. Materialscientist (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User blocked indef. -download ׀ sign! 00:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible hijacking of an account?

An IP editor proposed User:Andy mci for deletion after blanking the page,[76] which I thought was odd when checking out prods, so I rolled it back. I now see that the page reads as an attack page, and that edits to bring it to this current state started in January:[77] after the page had been stable for over a year. Two edits apparently by the owner of the account are included:[78], which makes me suspect it has been hacked. The last edit of this account before then was in April 2008:[79]. What to do? Courtesy blanking of history and blocking of the account? Fences and windows (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a compromised account to me. Have blocked indef for now. Perhaps one of the checkusers could take a look at this? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is almost certainly too old for a checkuser to indicate anything. Prodego ^talk 01:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the IP who blanked the page is the original owner of the account, if that helps. Checkuser would show what IP was using the account when it was compromised, yes? Fences and windows (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to explain, checkuser data isn't maintained forever. If it is too long ago, the checkuser people no longer have the data on which to conduct a check. Orderinchaos 02:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Harassment?

I started contributing to wikipedia's comic project recently, and I believe I am being harassed or at least wikihounded by J Greb. He has commented on every single comics-related change I have suggested, usually quite rudely, on multiple pages. It started on Talk:Dick_Grayson. I tried to break off the conversation and start a new conversation, but he continued to come after me in the new conversation even after I asked him to leave me alone.

I then started a conversation on the general principles involved on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines and he started there too. I made some edits and he reverted them, twice.

Then, he appeared on my talk page and started asking about my sources for my pictures (I used the template provided by the project - in fact, by a bot that told me how to do it). This is completely unrelated to any previous conversation. Adding pictures to the comics project is the main thing I like to do. I had just posted that this is what I like to do on wikipedia at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Participants and within 12 hours, he showed up on my talk page to challenge all of my photos.

I thought this was a simple dispute, but when he refused to stop bothering me when I asked, I started to be concerned, and now that he's come to my talk page to contest the majority of my contributions, I feel like I can't do anything on the wikiproject comics, because he's decided to make my life as uncomfortable as possible, following me from page to page.

I'm pretty new to wikipedia, and I was startled to find someone simply following me around, challenging everything I do and ultimately, trying to push all my work comics-related off of wikipedia entirely.

I believe his behaviour covers both:

"Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely."

and

"The term "wiki-hounding" has been coined to describe singling out one or more specific editor(s), and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit (often unrelated), or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor."

I honestly don't know what to do. I've tried fighting back, being nice, compromising, asking him to leave me alone, and nothing works. I hate how bullies run absolutely everything.

(Smallvillefanatic (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

Max Mux

This user has been being increasingly disruptive over the past few days, using Wikipedia as a battleground (just after being blocked for edit-warring, he said, "What else can I do against Tryde?"), reverting perfectly valid edits [80] and is generally bickering and being unconstructive. I have warned him repeatedly for POINTY behaviour. In addition, though a much lesser issue, he persists in adding self-published sources to borderline-notability articles [81] (and revert-warring to restore them [82]), adding unhelpful content to AfDs [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] and generally being a nuisance. I think that a block of 3-5 days is warranted. Thoughts? ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 20:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There has also been numerous conflicts with User:Jakezing on Max's part. While I don't think Jakezing has done enough to warrant intervention at this time, I do strongly suggest keeping an eye on him. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 20:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Also this in response to my notification. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 07:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a user, because I want to troll. Instead I'm here to work with others. In the case of Jazeking he is baiting me for weeks now and when I try to talk to him to solve the problem I'm the one who gets warnings.Max Mux (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User PasswordUsername and Crime in Estonia

PasswordUsername (talk · contribs) is on a spree at Crime in Estonia. He is mass-inserting random sub-sections and unrelated sentences to Varia section (which by itself is completely unneeded), perhaps most telling of these is "Molestation" with a single sentence Children are often molested. and no source: [88]

• [89] Source has no claim that prostitution is widespread; also prostitution is not illegal (intermediation and child prostitution are, naturally) and source is from ten years ago, yet represented as current.
• [90] highly controversial claim is from unknown "Finnish newspapers", quoted through third-party source and Web Archive. Again, source from 2003 is presented as current.
• [91] Illegal alcohol: straight copy-paste from BBC (note ..began killing people early last month), BBC has no claim about "deaths of enormous proportions" (ie. unsourced POV). Afterwards PasswordUsername added "in an unprecedented pandemic" [92]
• [93] - war criminals are completely unrelated to Crime in Estonia; also extremely one-sided view (see the end of the [94], for example)

-- Sander Säde 08:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am trying to write an article about crime in Estonia that discusses the history of the phenomenon and gives an overview of the situation now. I have discussed this at Talk: in Estonia. I myself have not reverted, as my task right now is to find the pertinent data, statements, and statistics adequate to accomplish this. WP:AGF is, I think, a clear part of Wikipedia. This should be saved for the Talk discussion.

As for the diffs:

• [95] Source has no claim that prostitution is widespread; also prostitution is not illegal (intermediation and child prostitution are, naturally) and source is from ten years ago, yet represented as current.

1. Sander Sade is wrong. The source does claim that prostitution is widespread.

• [96] highly controversial claim is from unknown "Finnish newspapers", quoted through third-party source and Web Archive. Again, source from 2003 is presented as current.

1. I presented the Estonian government's response to these charges. Note also that the Finnish newspapers are not the primary source I cited.

• [97] Illegal alcohol: straight copy-paste from BBC (note ..began killing people early last month), BBC has no claim about "deaths of enormous proportions" (ie. unsourced POV). Afterwards PasswordUsername added "in an unprecedented pandemic" [98]

1. I meant to include "began killing people in early October 2001." Being tired, I instinctively repeated "early this month." (This was from the article.) A correction would have been in order.

• [99] - war criminals are completely unrelated to Crime in Estonia; also extremely one-sided view (see the end of the [100], for example)

1. My edit summary notes that this is a beginning of the criticism of the judicial system. Please read it. Also read the edit summaries and my comments on Talk. And any administrators willing to look into this should take a glance at the changes made to the edit history of the article–the organized deletionism campaign there speaks for itself. Pretty hard to even begin building a well-referenced article under conditions in which references are being deleted for one undiscussed "I don't like it" or trivial reason or other. Perhaps assuming good faith rather than deleting everything you don't like being said might go a longer way? I certainly cannot believe that content disputes are to be handled like this.

PasswordUsername (talk) 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The main point is that an article like Crime in Estonia should cover general crime trends, law enforcement issues, judicial procedures and the like - see Crime in the United States and Crime in Canada for a good example of what this sort of article should look like. Instead PasswordUsername wants to use this article as a coat rack for everything that s/he thinks is wrong with Estonia and basically present a biased, inaccurate picture of Estonia as a crime ridden country for ... well, for some purposes of her/his own (can't speak to the motivations here). It's as if the article on Crime in the United States included every sensationalist story from every single small city newspaper in the US. The main issues here are POV but also UNDUE weight as, for example, the fact that some people somewhere in Estonia made some moonshine is not notable (this kind of thing happens in Alabamy where I'm from all the time). Likewise edits like "Children are often molested." [101](no sources, no context, no nothing) are pretty much vandalism and illustrate very well the bad faith and lack of seriousness that PasswordUsername is approaching this article with.radek (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sander Spade, be very, very careful in using this forum to accuse others of misdeeds, for you and other Estonian editors have been on your own spree of censorship on the Kaitsepolitsei article, as this diff (and others) can prove. And after having looked at the diffs shown by PasswordUsername, it is yourself who is editing articles and removing materials that you don't like, and as far as I am concerned, that is much, much worse than the ridiculous accusations that you are flinging at an obvious content opponent. So perhaps admins should be looking at your edits instead. --Russavia ^Dialogue 08:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What does the article on Kaitsepolitsei have to do with anything, even ignoring the false accusations? Why exactly are you even bringing this up? This is completely unrelated.radek (talk) 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it means that something is clearly up. Note how many separate times (being mostly one edit after the other, so as not to go up higher on the RR meter) a few editors (including you know who) simply deleted material they did not like. Including false claims and the removal of the entire prostitution and narcotics sections on the grounds that these were WP:UNDE in an article about crime in Estonia. The two sections had five sentences total. Who is accusing whom, Radek? PasswordUsername (talk) 08:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)