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

Saatchi Gallery complaints and legal threat

Infoart (talk · contribs) has made complaints and also passed on complaints from the Saatchi Gallery about the article Saatchi Gallery. See his text at Reply from InfoArt. He is complaining that the article is biased negatively against the gallery, which "would like their Wiki entry to be very current and concise. The gallery has asked me to pass on the message that unless this page is cleaned up and edited they will remove all Saatchi related content from Wiki and possibly instigate legal action." Infoart says that I have "a malicious agenda when it comes to Saatchi" and that the Saatchi Gallery have asked that I should be barred "from making edits on any Saatchi related pages".

Infoart has written a considerable amount of editorial material for the Saatchi Gallery web site, and in early 2007 created around 150 articles on wiki about artists in the Saatchi collection, mainly by copying and pasting material (totally unsuitable in style and content for wiki) from the gallery site, each article having an external link to the Saatchi Gallery. See discussions on User talk:Infoart. At that point LessHeard vanU was close to blocking.[1] These articles could all have been speedy deleted as G11 advertising, but I felt they could be an asset to the project, and I organised a clean-up task force to salvage most of them, so I do not, as Infoart alleges have "a malicious agenda when it comes to Saatchi." At that time I received positive emails from the gallery and from Charles Saatchi.

More recently Infoart has made substantial edits to Saatchi Gallery removing negative (and solidly referenced) material and inserting content in a promotional tone about the new Saatchi Gallery, which has just opened.[2][3] My analysis of this is at Recent edits by User:Infoart.

The history of the gallery is one of controversy and contention, covered extensively in national and international media. Infoart's edits create a sanitised, revisionist history, leaving out major events, and present what seems to be the gallery's current PR stance.

Ty 23:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The IP that posted the legal threat, 81.159.113.122 (talk · contribs), has been indef-blocked (AO, ACB) by User:Orangemike. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 00:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've switched that to a 31-hour, for obvious reasons. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Endorse Ty's version, having watched the events on this & many other articles edited by Infoart, mostly from a distance. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

←The IP address is requesting an unblock, claiming that they were unfairly blocked. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst not having unblocked, I have attempted to explain our position re independence of editing. It seems clear that although maybe not directly representing Saatchi's themselves, aligning with their position, and promulgating it, puts this IP in the (legal) situation of an authorised agent, and therefore WP:NLT applies equally. That's the situation in UK law, anyhow, until Saatchi's themselves resile from that situation. --Rodhullandemu 02:03, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You've blocked his IP, but the offending IP edit was headed as a "Reply from InfoArt" (link above), and pretty clearly was - should you not block the username too? Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Having observed and participated in the help project Ty initiated last year to revise, and keep dozens of otherwise deletable Saatchi related articles I back and endorse Ty's version of events as does Johnbod (talk · contribs) above....Modernist (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Having dealt with Infoart extensively, although not as closely as Tyrenius, in the past past matter I have to admit to some confusion in respect of Infoarts latest editing; it does not seem to be the same character who both acknowledged and worked with the various editors to address the issues with the various artist bio's. That Infoart seemed to understand WP's position and desire to create appropriate articles. While I understand that the account is now editing the Saatchi Gallery article and is therefore likely more involved in its editing (and the wishes of the subject itself) it still seems to be a previously undisclosed aspect of this editors character. It is so different that I wonder if it is the same person editing from that account, or if the account (which was based within the Gallery, as far as can be ascertained) has been "passed onto" another individual with the same relationship to the Gallery. While this opens another can of worms (is it a Role Account?) I think an enquiry should be made to this account if they are indeed the same person who was involved in editing WP previously.

I also endorse Tyrenius' account of the prior situation, and also wonder if their previous access to Mr Saatchi might be of benefit in resolving this issue? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted an extensive rationale for the NLT block on the IP and also at Infoart. I have not blocked Infoart per se yet, and have no opinion on whether the account should be blocked along with the IP, but he has retracted the threat somewhat, and seems to be interested in pursueing the matter through the proper means (MGodwin) and not via talk page threats. Again, I have no opinion on any pending block on Infoart, but he seems to understand and wishes to abide by the letter and spirit of the NLT policy. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have also noticed the discrepancy between the IP and Infoart, as pointed out by LessHeard vanU, and have concluded that the IP and Infoart are two different people. This explains the difference in tone. It also explains why the IP didn't sign in as Infoart, when requested: he couldn't. Now the IP has claimed to be Infoart, Infoart has to cover up for him and pretend he was the IP. There's no evidence at the moment that User:Infoart as such is a role account (or there would have been no need for someone else to edit as an IP).

Infoart has worked for the Saatchi Gallery and provided them with numerous artist write-ups, which are on their web site. This is presumably not out of charity, nor is the creation of around 150 articles on Saatchi artists, a considerable amount of work, done in a very methodical fashion. It has to be assumed he is editing here for the gallery. He is a SPA and does not edit non Saatchi-related articles.

There is an agenda to use the article for the gallery's current PR stance, and ludicrous arguments are presented to try to justify this, such as "Hirst is only one artist of the several thousand who have been featured in the collection over the years", when Hirst is one of the most famous living artists in the world and has had a huge part to play in the Saatchi Gallery's history. Countering this sort of speciousness is a waste of other editors' time.

This has been happening since 2006, as can be seen on Talk:Saatchi Gallery. At that time 195.224.156.170 (talk · contribs) added to the article "we are closing the Gallery at County Hall and concentrating our efforts in preparing our new building."[4] Ktm10 (talk · contribs) admitted to being the gallery's web master.[5]

A number of other accounts display similar behaviour of edits to Saatchi Gallery and related (sometimes very few edits and then not editing again):

• 195.224.156.170 (talk · contribs)
• Angel vonrudolf (talk · contribs)
• Barkalama (talk · contribs)
• Paulx555 (talk · contribs)
• Johnpcarter (talk · contribs)
• 80.168.165.2 (talk · contribs)
• Jmdc (talk · contribs)
• 80.168.164.26 (talk · contribs)
• Bananaleaf0709 (talk · contribs)
• Nederhoed (talk · contribs).

Some of these edits have needed instant reversion. There is a consistent agenda, which is in the gallery's interest, but not in wikipedia's.

It would be preferable to work with the gallery, as we have done very successfully with User:VAwebteam from the Victoria and Albert Museum. This is dependant on whether the gallery is prepared to respect wikipedia policies, which to date they have not. As things stand, they should be restricted in the first instance to only posting on the talk pages of Saatchi Gallery and related articles. This limit should also be extended to any new user that displays the same behaviour.

Ty 04:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

New account Saatchi ben (talk · contribs) has been blanking the article or just leaving the beginning of it and adding a link to the saatchi gallery site, continuing after warnings. I have indef blocked. Ty 09:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A new IP editor chopped a large bit of text with no explanation. I reverted to the version before, was requested to semi-protect, but as this is a content dispute and semi-protection isn't recommended in such cases, I've protected the article for 72 hours. I've said on the article talk page that if any Admin wants to change this they may. Doug Weller (talk) 12:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

IP is 87.224.35.130 (talk · contribs), who has previously identified as the Director of the Saatchi Gallery.[6] Ty 13:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

A whois on that address does show that it's from the Saatchi Gallery. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ty, I am aware that you have previously corresponded with Mr C. Saatchi; do you think it would be appropriate to tentatively enquire whether these representations do indeed come from the Gallery, and if so to request that these concerns be addressed to Mike Godwin? LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)The Saatchi Gallery IP that posted a "libel" message[7] removed it three hours later.[8] Infoart has disassociated himself from the original threat, saying his role was just a responsible heads up, and that he has forwarded Mike Godwin's details to the gallery.[9] In my emails with the gallery in the past, the gallery have not had any quibble about Infoart's part in the process, so I think we can take it that they have received the information. As things stand, then, there is no legal threat being made on this site. Maybe the gallery should be contacted by someone, just so it is all done by the book. It might be better if you did this. What is of concern is the COI SPAs that undermine the article, amongst whom Infoart must be counted. That needs to be addressed. Ty 01:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I shall mail the Gallery tomorrow (Sunday) to the address previously provided to you plus the one that appears on their website. I will request that any general WP requests should be addressed to either of us (anyone else willing to correspond with the gallery should note that here, and I will include links to userpages), minor complaints addressed to this page and major ones to Mike Godwin. I think I will need to be a bit firm about using the ip address to unilaterally remove content from articles which they disagree with, and explain that blocking is an appropriate response to disrupting the encyclopedia. If there are any salient points that you feel I should be aware of, please don't assume I will include them and note them here or on my talkpage. Other advice or comment on this matter is appreciated, by any reader. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The gallery needs to understand the basis of editing is WP:NPOV based on WP:VERIFY using WP:RS, and the resulting material is not a wiki editorial comment nor necessarily the view of the editor(s) of the article, which they seem at the moment to think it is. Nor will the article be tailored to suit the gallery's PR stance: it is about them, not by them. Ty 03:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Email sent. Let us see what transpires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic or community ban needed

Middim13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I bring this here as a last resort before I go rogue and indef-block this user. Middim has long been a problem for the editors of WP:SHIPS. His SPA POV pushing, disruption, sock-puppetry and block evasion have been a chronic problem for over a year off-and-on. While his edits do have some merit, he refuses to discuss them in a calm matter and properly cite them at the time he makes them other than to assure us that they are true. He instead posts long diatribes on his talk page and the talk pages of the editors who question his edits calling those editors "misguided and biased". Based on his constant POV pushing of a certain American shipbuilder the editors of WP:SHIPS have long thought that he/she may be related to the historical figure and thus would prevent an extreme conflict of interest as well.

For more information related to these incidents, there are plenty of evidence to be seen:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Middim13
• User_talk:TomTheHand#From_Middim13:_Abusing_multiple_accounts_and_evasion.
• User talk:Middim13
• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Royal_Navy_edits
• User_talk:Middim13#ONLY_WARNING
• User_talk:MBK004#Middim13_is_wondering_if_this_editor_is_biased_or_simply_.22misguided.22.
• I know there is plenty more to be found, but I'm not prepared to dig up over a year of talk page archives.

These users have dealt with the editor in some fashion:

• TomTheHand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Parsecboy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• BillCJ (talk · contribs)
• Benea (talk · contribs)
• Bellhalla (talk · contribs)
• Maralia (talk · contribs)
• B.S. Lawrence (talk · contribs)
• And others I have forgotten to mention

I contend, and I believe that I won't be the only one to say that the patience of the community (WP:SHIPS) has been exhausted because of this editor (his edits require extensive clean-up and/or complete reverts because of the POV pushing and that time cuts into our article building and other activities). Several of the project members (some who are no longer editing) have tried to help Middim through his time here to get his edits to comply with our policies, but those efforts have had no visible effect. Unfortunately I must propose that at the very least a topic ban be imposed on Middim which would restrict him from editing any article related to a ship, shipbuilding company, ship operator (including navies), biographies of people related to the maritime industry, etc. and at the most an indefinite community ban. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• No comment about the behavior exactly, but can someone take a gander at Submarine? That is on my watchlist mostly for vandalism reasons, but he did add a lot of GD/EB stuff with some pretty odd edit summaries. I don't feel comfortable wading in and reverting to a version from months ago, but I will if the consensus is that what he added is bunkum. Protonk (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Socking, disruptive and POV editing, uncited personal opinion in articles, and a horrible block log - why is this person still here? That last post on their talk page, entitled "Reasons why what is true will win out in the end", displays absolutely no indication that the editor understands the problems they've caused (or even believes that fighting for the truth is a problem). They've been given more than enough warnings, and been shown a remarkable amount of good faith, but this mustn't go on for ever. I've indefblocked the account as I don't think we need to jump through all the hoops on this one, though if you do want to go all the way to discuss a community ban and unblock so they can participate here, no problems ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• I think Middim13 should be topic banned. He is guilty of POV pushing on a certain American shipbuilder, but I analyzed his other contributions and found them to be useful. He is a troubled user but he can still help this project, so I'll not a support community ban. I would say let's give him one final chance. AdjustShift (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • My initial thoughts too, until I saw this undertaking not to edit 'ship' articles, followed by another addition of unsourced material to a ship article (for which a final final warning was issued). I wonder if the editor will be able to abide by a topic ban? EyeSerene^talk 14:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Let's give him one last chance. He has a POV on this issue. I've analyzed the edits of many banned users and POV pushing is often the reason for banning. Many banned editors have made some useful contributions. Maybe someone should try to make him understand the consequences of POV pushing. One of the reasons why I'm not supporting a full site ban is because he can help the project on other topics. He is not a vandal and he seems to be intelligent. AdjustShift (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
      • (ec)It doesn't sound like you've really dug through his edits—I don't believe he has any 'other contributions', and many editors have explained NPOV, RS, Fringe, and numerous other policies to him. He edits only articles related to his great-grandfather Arthur Leopold Busch, who he feels has not received sufficient credit for designing and building the first US Navy submarines for Electric Boat (a venture which he credits as being largely responsible for the success of the successor company, General Dynamics). All attempts at addressing these issues seem to fall on determinedly deaf ears; his response to any type of correction is to joyfully leap to the editor's talk page to repost some version of his screed, which includes such gems as "I must admit (however) that I am passionate about "setting the records straight" as never done before. Over the years I have made a considerable amount of progress in this quest of mine to bring the facts to the surface" and "It is time (that) somebody rewrite this slanted history in a corporate book (about General Dynamics/Electric Boat) and set these records straight for the good of doing what is right here in America." As EyeSerene mentioned, he indicated 2 days ago that he was "done with ships!", yet yesterday he joined WP:SHIPS with the comment "Going to try to contribute in an honest and sincere way"—and followed up an hour later with another unsourced edit. He is not going to edit in other areas, he is not going to use sources, and he is not going to drop his agenda. I've wasted enough time on him. I do not feel a topic ban would accomplish anything; as he doesn't edit outside this topic at all, it would effectively be a ban, which regretfully seems appropriate here. Maralia (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
        • I have to agree with Maralia. Middim13 has only ever edited to one purpose, to rewrite the history of General Dynamics/Electric Boat and the role of his relative to fit his version of the 'truth'. At many stages this has been explained to him why this unsourced POV pushing without any attempt to attribute reliable sources (indeed in his 'conspiracy theory' style edit summaries he often indicates that this is because they don't exist owing to some sort of sinister cover-up) is not acceptable. He has then begun to spread his net wider after being frustrated on some of his favourite topics, and has been adding his unsourced theories and claims of corruption/cover ups/shady deals to the detriment of his great-grandfather's place in history to an ever more diverse pool of articles, including the submarine article, pages related to the Royal Navy, the Imperial Japanese Navy, etc. The damage this is causing to the project is therefore increasing the longer he has been editing. Attempts to apply policies or requesting sources have resulted in accusations that the editors in question are misguided, ignorant or otherwise part of this conspiracy to suppress the 'truth'. He has also openly announced his intention to edit war until his version is accepted across wikipedia. He has treated the project as an opportunity to rewrite his ancestor's history, and has shown no indication that he understands his actions are unacceptable, nor has he made any attempt to move beyond this single purpose quest. Benea (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
          • Maralia, you are familiar with Middim13. I'm not familiar with Middim13. I analyzed his edits for about 20 minutes, and it is difficult to understand the whole thing in about 20 minutes. So please don't say that "you have not really dug through his edits". I did what I could in about 20 minutes. My conclusion was "let's give him one final chance". After looking at the evidence of Maralia and Benea, it seems that Middim13 has caused some serious trouble. Editors who are familiar with Middim13 should decide whether he should be topic banned or community banned. AdjustShift (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
          • After doing more research, I feel the user has lost all his chances. He has exhausted the patience of fellow editors. AdjustShift (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
            • I don't understand your objection to my wording above. You first two comments were that you found his "other contributions" useful, and that "maybe someone should try to make him understand the consequences of POV pushing". From your analysis of the situation, it appeared that you hadn't yet gotten deep enough to see that he doesn't have any other contributions, and repeated attempts have been made at explaining the consequences of POV pushing. I never said, or meant to imply, that you hadn't tried, or that you should have known more already—essentially what I meant is what you later said yourself: "it is difficult to understand the whole thing in about 20 minutes". Peace? Maralia (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
              • Ok! :-) AdjustShift (talk) 09:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
                • I've got to agree with Maralia and Benea here. Over the past year and a half that he's had a registered account, he's demonstrated that his only intention on Wikipedia is to correct the perceived wrongs history has made against his great-grandfather. Despite a scores of warnings and a series of blocks, he has shown no inclination to modify his behavior. Enough is enough. Parsecboy (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Community ban?

←Is it safe to consider that Middim13 has been community banned and it is time to add {{Banned user}} to his userpage and his name to Wikipedia:List of banned users? -MBK₀₀₄ 17:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

An actual ban is a separate process. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'd think we should initiate such a process since Middim is known to evade blocks through sock-puppetry and IP evasion. -MBK₀₀₄ 21:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• A community ban exists where no admin is willing to unblock, and that seems to be the way things are heading so far. I'd leave the thread open for a few more days, just to give any other interested parties time to comment. Just to be clear though, I see no reason to undo my block at this time, and endorse a community ban. EyeSerene^talk 09:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My topic??

So the bot just archived my discussion and only one person made a general statement on it? What should I do? Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If you are absolutely convinced that it is critical to get action, please repeat the reason briefly. One short paragraph, no more -- people can read the archive if necessary. Usually when a topic gets no response, it's because no admin feels that a response is necessary. But sometimes it's because the complaint is so long and confusing that nobody wants to read it. (As I recall, your complaint was one of the hundreds of Balkan disputes that come here.) Looie496 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it was actually a civility complaint, but I'm tired of writing the same thing over and over again. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But, errrr...doesn't civility go to WP:WQA first? BMW(drive) 23:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Summary

I'll summarize. Basically User:Imbris has brought personal attacks against User:Grk1011 and I into a discussion since August that were totally un-needed. They included comments on our religion, ethnicity, and stuff like that. (Greek, American, Orthodox Christian -- all of the cases are in the archive) We complained to him about it, but he used some attacks again just the other day which was the "last straw". He said something like since we are American and he was born in Yugoslavia, that we don't have the right information to comment on articles about that. And even after we commented on this notice board, he said something like "Our Greek friend missed..." on a talk page, which again was totally un-needed (mentioning Greek I mean), and which I take offense to. (The way it was written, as well as having nothing to do with the discussion at hand) Anyway, long story short, this has been very disruptive to our editing, and has made editing articles related to Yugoslavia very stressful, which is why we decided to jointly bring it up on the notice board. Greekboy (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you might have to explain more. I, for one, don't understand the conflicts between Balkan ethnicities. Are you saying it's offensive for another user to describe you as "Greek" even though it's in your username?

When I look at recent user-talk discussions between Grk1011 and Imbris, I don't see anything particularly hurtful being said. I was also looking for such discussions between you and Imbris, but there aren't any. I don't see anything so far that requires the involvement of admins, I just see a content dispute. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 17:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

There were some diffs, but no one responded fast enough so it was archived. It may be a little more descriptive there. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 21:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC

As User:Grk1011 stated, there were some "history diffs" showing the conflict in the archived topic. One of them was User:Imbris bringing into a discussion that User:Grk1011 and I are both Greek-American, Orthodox Christians, and possibly could not be interested in the Eurovision Song Contest. To me, that is a personal attack. It had nothing to do about the discussion at hand, but yet User:Imbris felt that it was necessary to mention religion and ethnicity (in a negative way at that). Again, there is a better explanation with diffs in the archived section. Greekboy (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

• Answer
• First of all the concerns about my editing as portrayed by Grk1011 and Greekboy are false represented. I have never said those things they obviously misquoted. I am sad to see that those two editors are so impressionable by their own logic and not by the logic behind the sentences I wrote.
• In a similar way Grk1011 has been offended by [10] and I apologized even if there was no offence made.
• Grk1011 used Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive484#Disruptive editing as a way of pressure to finalize (thou politely) the debate on Talk:Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest by this last sentence ("Like I said, I applaud Imbris for his intent, but it is irrelevant in terms of Eurovision and he just needs to stop.") at that Disruptive editing title.
• I have no where written that non-former-Yugoslav editors should abstain from editing. I merely pointed out that acknowledgement of the facts about Yugoslavia should be greater than those portrayed by Grk1011 and Greekboy.
• Dzole expressed similar concerns about editing done by Grk1011 and Greekboy in Talk:Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest#Important (first sentence).
• Grk1011 has started even an AN Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive163#Yugoslavia in the Eurovision Song Contest before even requesting a RfC. Then Grk1011 commented that the question was resolved with "We reached a compromise" to play down that compromise a day or two latter.
• I have explained myself duly and completely on the ANI complaint and just have to add that the complete story was not productive and needed. Grk1011 and Greekboy will still disregard Zvonko, Dzole and me and our sources and editing.
• I must say that collaborating with Grk1011 is difficult and not rewarding because always outside help is wanted when the discussion gets longer than a couple of days.

Imbris (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Imbris is bringing in a dispute about a page into this, when the complaint at hand is a civility complaint about certain things being said by him, that were considered personal attacks. Even though this happened during that dispute, the dispute plays no role what so ever in the complaint at hand. Greekboy (talk) 02:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Coal Mining, Incivility and Invasion of Privacy

Resolved

 – No further administrative actions is needed. Users should discuss differences of opinion at talk pages, or offline. Jehochman ^Talk 11:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The following material has been moved from my talk page. Material I placed in the Coal Mining article has been deleted, so I have removed all my other contributions to Wikipedia as well. See my user page for the reasons why. Apparently we have mathematicians serving in the role of copyright attorneys at Wikipedia. Mistake.

Thank you Elonka and Todd for trying. I'm not sure you can fix this. Farewell.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Copy and paste of talk page removed. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

previous comments viewable here.[11][12] --Elonka 20:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Um... What is the incident to report here, exactly? 207.80.142.5 (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Apparently somebody removed it. I'll see if I can find it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mervyn Emrys (talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[13]

I am removing a copy and paste of content from User talk:Mervyn Emrys. Interested parties can review that page's history. Charles Matthews (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just blocked Mathsci (talk · contribs) for one week for attempted outing. To me, this looks like finished business. ANI is not for drama making; it is for requesting specific administrative action. I don't see what further administrative action is required here, as the IP above correctly notes. If you are sincerely concerned about an invasion of privacy, reposting the offensive content is a rather counter-productive thing to do. Jehochman ^Talk 18:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh... you can't "delete" your contributions. Attempts to do so have been reverted. seicer | talk | contribs 19:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, curiouser and curiouser. Apparently anyone can delete anything I contribute, but I cannot delete what I contribute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mervyn Emrys (talk • contribs) 19:09, October 17, 2008 (UTC)[14][15]

I think this situation is resolved at this point. There was a conflict between Mathsci (talk · contribs) and new editor Mervyn Emrys (talk · contribs), some of which evidently involved a violation of WP:OUTING. Mathsci has since been blocked by arbitrator Charles Matthews (talk · contribs), citing the Tobias Conradi case. As for the edits at Coal mining and Environmental effects of coal, I think there was just a miscommunication here, and I've been working with Mervyn Emrys on this at our talkpages, and I think the confusion has been cleared up. I don't think there's any need for any further administrator action, so we can probably tag this thread as resolved. Any further questions from Mervyn Emrys can probably be handled via his own talkpage. --Elonka 21:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I was mistaken about Mathsci deleting a contribution to Coal Mining article. It was someone else, and apparently happened simultaneously with my discovery of it, so there was no explanation provided until after my message was posted.

However, Mathsci made outrageous accusations on a previous incident thread that is now archived, preventing me from responding to them. In that thread he attempted to “out” me. Subsequently he attempted again on my “talk” page to out me. There WAS a pattern. I'm disgusted.

It seems Mathsci does not understand copyright law as applied to U.S. Government documents. Nobody can acquire a copyright on any material published in a U.S. government document simply by quoting or paraphrasing it in a book published by a commercial publisher. The material remains in the public domain as public property. No publisher is going to come after anyone for reprinting material that is in the public domain, and nobody else has legal standing to do so.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn, on your user page you wrote, "This is my first online venture, so consider myself a bit of a neophyte here. I've discovered the more I learn in life, the less I know. Fortunately, there is always lots to learn." It is nice to see such an open and welcoming attitude towards advice and suggestions. Allow me to make a few. First, an important priinciple here is Assume good faith on the part of other editors. it seems to me that Mathsci assumed that you were adding relevant content in good faith, but were violating a wikipedia policy. I hope you can assume that matchsci was acting in good faith in removing material she believed violated policy ... above you make a remark that this has something to do with pleasing anti-coal-mining interests. Can't you instead see this as a question over Wikipedia policy, and interpreting and applying policy? What do we do if both of you have good intentions? We play it safe by removing content that may be copyrighted, that is just prudence. Since none of us are "authors" in the sense that wikipedia content is public and common and does not belong to any one of us, I am sure you won't take it personally. I do not see any harm in inviting people who understand copyright law thoroughly to review this and reach a consensus. We can easily restore anything deleted, so there would be no harm done. Many of us like you are academics and have published, and there are more complex issues when it comes to adding material to Wikipedia that we ourselves have copyright to. This may be salient if copyright is an obstruction to adding material to Wikipedia. IT seems to me that MathSci was trying to find ways to help you add the content you want to add. All of us have to make compromises to suit Wikipedia policies and also of course informal ways of working together at Wikipedia. But of course, you know that, you wrote, "This is my first online venture, so consider myself a bit of a neophyte here. I've discovered the more I learn in life, the less I know. Fortunately, there is always lots to learn." So I sincerely apologize if anything I wrote seemed out of turn. I just want to encourage you to stay and keep editing! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Slrub, I do assume good faith until I see evidence to the contrary, which in this case seems pretty clear. Repeated efforts to "out" somebody or bait them into outing themselves are not at all ambiguous.Mervyn Emrys (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Mervyn, I appreciate that. As I stated on the message i left at your talk page, there are ways to permantnely delete material you believe compromises your privacy. Personally, I think when Hans Adler raised the issue of a conflict of interest you could have pointed out (as other academics here do) that the source is verifiable and reliable and relevant to the article. This is the real issue and you do not have to apologize for introducing such sources, if they are used to support content added to the article. That you are knowledgable in your field indeed makes you a valuable contributor. Nevertheless, at Wikipedia we are all equals, and after the infamous Essjay case, no one has any reason to believe any claims an editor makes about himself or herself. But it doesn't matter! If the content you added was good, and the source reliable (which seems to be the case) that is sufficient, your identity or claims about yor identity are unnecessary. As for the problem with MathSci, I really think there was a serious and regrettable misunderstanding and I hope we can move forward. MathScie is right that it is highly unusual to add unedited a seven page quote from another source to an encyclopedia article. This does not mean that the contents of the quoted material cannot be added. But it is reasonable for an editor to raise copyright issues. MathSci's intention as he stated it was not to prevent you from adding content, only to ensure it is added in a way that complies with our policies. Other editors besides mathSci have shared these concerns and I repeat they are not about the value of the material or its relevance to the article. the question is, how to ad it in a way where there is NO doubt about compliance with our policies. This is why as Elonka and others have shared with you Wikipedia editors are not "authors" in the sense that any contribution is "ours." We work collaboratively, askine one another to edit one another's contributions and one's own contributions, until we have a text thatis supported by several editors. I really hope you will stay and join us in this collaborative and collective process. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Prod reverts

Resolved

 – No administrative actions is required here. Try articles for deletion if a proposed deletion is contested. Jehochman ^Talk 11:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has removed most of the Prods I added to BLP's that didn't have a single reference or external link. He has done so using rollback, which as far as I'm aware should only be used on vandalism edits. Is prodding unsourced BLP's now classed as vandalism? RMHED (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I'll grant that RMHED believed he was doing the right thing. However, what he was doing was not actually the right thing; these are perfectly valid articles with no contentious or objectionable content. I've rolled myself back on occasions when I've made a mistaken edit, simply because it's quicker. Under the circumstances, I feel that there was nothing inappropriate about this use of rollback. Furthermore, after asking RMHED to please stop what he was doing, I checked each article individually before rolling it back; I left one prod in place because the article made no assertion of notability. DS (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can contest a PROD simply by removing the tag. However, rollback is reserved for vandalism or otherwise "unworthy" edits. I find it hard to believe that restoring a tag that is perfectly removable counts as "unworthy"; although in the absence of a definition for such, it's moot, but I would consider it should apply to, say, pointless formatting edits rather than issues of process. The PRODs appear to have been good faith nominations, so I wouldn't regard their application as "unworthy". Certainly, you can ask RMHED to stop, but he's under no obligation to do so unless acting against good faith. I see no evidence of that here. --Rodhullandemu 00:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Might the better solution be to stick at least one reference in? This goes for both PRODing and reverting it without fixing the underlying problem. It is just as easy as doing either and helps move things on a step. I have left instructions on how to use {{gcdb}} on the talk page - all you need do is add the person's name to the template. (Emperor (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

I tend to agree that using rollback here was a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the rollback policy, but I think we also need to note that it's possible to use semi-automated tools to PROD at great speed (not sure if this is what RMHED was doing), so I'm not sure if it's fair to say that PROD tags need to be removed by hand, unless we're prepared to make the same assertion about their addition. On the prods themselves, I agree with RMHED here on the interpretation of WP:BLP - everything needs to be sourced, and anybody can remove unsourced material at any time. But I think he's completely misguided on what the source of the BLP problem is: the problem isn't that there aren't enough footnotes in BLPs: the problem is that anybody with an axe to grind or a sick sense of humour can come along and write anything they want in a BLP, and in a great many BLPs this will remain unnoticed long enough to get cached by Google and scraped by mirrors. Citations are important and valuable in cleaning up BLPs, but they don't really have anything to do with the root of the problem. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to note that all Prods and prod notices were added manually, no tools were used. RMHED (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree with the claim that RHMED was not basically in the right. Why is the BLP policy interpreted as "all BLP claims must be sourced" except when there are zero sources? How is proposing deletion of those articles not proper? sure, RHMED could have diligently researched each and every one and then added references for all uncited claims, but that isn't the mandatory route for unsourced BLP's. As I see it, the firm instruction is: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space. Protonk (talk) 00:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Precisely. BLP admits some laxity, the keyword being "contentious", and the "negative, positive, or just questionable" doesn't really add to that. It's foolish to say that "contentious" means anything much more than "open to argument", and it's simple enough to apply common sense and say that the principle of "Do No Harm" requires that negative unsourced assertions be removed immediately, whereas there is little to be lost by retaining "X is the best-selling Bhangra artist in Heckmondwike". Some perspective needs to be retained here, I feel. --Rodhullandemu 01:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

But the rub is... "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material..." The mass PROD seems to hing on the lack of a source being the point of contention. If that were the case, then you'd think the BLP proviso would be to remove 1) all contentious sourced information and 2) all unsourced information. - J Greb (talk) 01:11, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always read that sentence with parentheses in different places than you apparently do: "(unsourced) or (poorly sourced contentious) material", i.e. all unsourced material, and poorly sourced material only if it is contentious.—Kww(talk) 02:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I've never thought it meant "all unsourced material", because that would be nonsense ("Jon Doe is a man"); but "Jon Doe is a gay actor<ref>yourblog.com</ref>" wouldn't cut it, whereas "Jon Doe is a gay actor<ref>jondoe.com/biog</ref>" would. That's how I see the policy intended to work. --Rodhullandemu 02:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important to note that regardless of whether RHMED was correct in prodding the articles, DF67's use of rollback was inappropriate. I'm going to go drop a short note on his talk page about that. — Coren ^(talk) 01:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, RMHED is complaining about someone else removing their prods from articles? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I know we shouldn't encourage mass reversions, but it's possible to use custom edit summaries when rollbacking. For example in this case, it would be possible to use "contested prod" in edit summaries. It is unclear in the rollback guideline if this use is allowed for non-vandalism edits. Though using it for good faith edits seems inadvisable. It's the problem of semi-automatic tools: lack of review, real or apparent (since a user may still review pages manually beforehand). But in this case, we don't know if rollback is used or not, edits can be quickly reverted without rollback using tabs (with a tedious preparation), even faster than non-admin rollback since theirs is throttled. Cenarium ^Talk 03:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Whether rollback or a manually written (and belittlingly tautological) edit summary is used, the effect is the same, plus current procedure is that anybody can remove a "prod" tag for any reason, or for no reason at all. Recommend closing this thread. — CharlotteWebb 13:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's important that the edit summaries be informative though, the "reverted edits by .. to last version by .." is too connoted and disrespectful. Cenarium ^Talk 15:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Help needed with sock investigation

Resolved

 – Checkuser case revealed numerous additional socks. 200.88.94.* rangeblocked for 3 months, clerks have been instructed to block all identified socks—Kww(talk) 17:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to piece together a socking investigation, but I need help seeing some of that stuff that only people with an admin bit (alas, not me for a while) can see. Can someone tell me the user ids that created Beverly Hills Kids and Teens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Talk:Beverly Hills Kids and Teens (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)? From the deletion logs, it looks like the talk page has been created independently of the article page multiple times.

Thanks.—Kww(talk) 12:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Alicia.Payan (talk · contribs) and FanRachel2 (talk · contribs) (it was created twice), and for the talk page, 200.88.94.136 (talk · contribs). The second account has several deleted contributions relating to Camp Rock 2 (film), if it helps. Orderinchaos 13:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Knowing that it is always the same IP creating the talk page confirms my major suspicion. Here's how it lays out:

• Alis.Payan identifies herself as a 10-year-old Dominican.
• Alicia.Payan identifies herself as a 10-year-old Dominican.
• 200.88.94.136 is a Dominican IP address.
• The only editors that have created any article called Beverly Hills Kids and Teens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)are Alicia.Payan and FanRachel2.
• 200.88.94.136 has created Talk:Beverly Hills Kids and Teens (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) multiple times.
• FanRachel2 has recreated Camp Rock 2 (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), while the very similarly named RachelFan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long series of edits to Camp Rock 2.
• There is a very similar buzz of activity around The Clique.
• Alis.Payan has been blocked for disruption, Alicia.Payan has been blocked for disruption, FanRachel2 has been indef blocked for disruption.
• I think it's time for a nice long block against 200.88.94.136 and all the user accounts. I'm tired of playing Whack-A-Mole with these.

I'll take it to WP:SSP if I must, but I'm getting pretty soured about the response time over there.—Kww(talk) 13:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that SSP or Checkuser would be needed to deal with these, as the situation is so obvious. In past situations like this Checkusers have declined the case per WP:DUCK. If however we're likely to be dealing with other accounts that need to be checked against these it may not be a bad step to initiate an RFCU, but we can still block all of them as sockpuppets tentatively until that's confirmed one way or another. (Note I am not a checkuser and can't speak for them, so am merely commenting on past outcomes I've seen.) Orderinchaos 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You're not the only one who hears quacking, Orderinchaos. A quick perusal of the edit history of Camp Rock led me to another obvious sock, Mikayla12 (talk · contribs). And based on the user creation logs, Alis.Payan is the sockmaster. I'm going to indef them all and be merry--that's an awful lot of disruption coming from a 10-year-old girl. Blueboy96 14:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Alis.Payan to request a sweep on the IP.—Kww(talk) 14:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The Mikayla12 account ALSO has a claimed user page with the Alis Payan name on it and very similar edits. Also the IP 24.16.116.14 that vandalised Kww's talk page a couple of days ago edited the "Camp Rock 2" non-article on 20 August, at the time at which the Alis.Payan account was active. Orderinchaos 14:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Another one: Rachel.Lynn (talk · contribs). IP 200.88.94.194 has some interleaving edits with this user as well, interesting given its similarity with the above. Also ReginaRing12 (talk · contribs) (an older one) Orderinchaos 14:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

ReginaRing12 originally self-identified as a 10-year-old Dominican girl.—Kww(talk) 15:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear: Blueboy96 did not block the underlying IP, 200.88.94.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or Rachelfan2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Kww(talk) 14:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And a rampage last night from 200.88.94.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) emphasises the need for a rangeblock.—Kww(talk) 12:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

31-hour timeout ... Blueboy96 12:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

QBobBilly and History of basketball

User:QBobBilly (aka User:QBillyBob) thinks he's in a playground: you can just verify it by checking his contributions. I don't know exactly en.wiki's policies, but I think it's a problematic behaviour. Moreover, the history of... History of basketball is full of vandalisms, someone should do something... Thanks in advance. --2diPikke 13:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2diPikke (talk • contribs)

I think it's duck-testable and I've reported him to WP:AIV. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't vandalised since the final warning, but feel free to report him again at WP:AIV if he does. Stifle (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

He's now indef-blocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just turned in another sock of his called QiBobBill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He gone too. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiMiniAtlas

I was just looking through Alabama, because it was the first page linked from the Coordinates template, and clicked on the WikiMiniAtlas icon. The only 'non-geographic article' on the map, Nigger, was linked at the bottom left. I don't know how something comes to be included in the atlas, so I don't know how remove it. Given the random way I found it, I suspect there is a much wider problem. cygnis insignis 16:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t know what you mean by WikiMiniAtlas icon. —Travis^talk 17:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same thing. I don't know much about this stuff, but I did a bit of looking and at m:WikiMiniAtlas it says that the map data is courtesy of GSHHS. So maybe there was vandalism to that database, inserting the word nigger in place of a town? Maybe posting at m:Talk:WikiMiniAtlas would help, or maybe the Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). To TravisTX: you see the coordinates displayed at the top of the Alabama article? Click on the little globe icon, and you get a map display; that's what's referred to.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody seems to know much about it. I will post this at the WikiProject Geographical coordinates. cygnis insignis 17:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Fughettaboutit, I sort of thought that is what they were talking about, but I didn’t see the link until I zoomed in the map. —Travis^talk 17:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "Nigger" seems to be located just across the river about 2 miles northwest from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a little north of Port Allen. The settings suggest it is VMAP0's English layer, but I'm not sure where that is coming from. Orderinchaos 20:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It is coming from the sentence (now deleted) about Wilkinson Point – "The geographic coordinates are 30.5126893°N 91.2126084°W / 30.5126893; -91.2126084" in an earlier version of Nigger. (It's also marked Nigger on Google maps - follow the links.) Changes to coords in Wikipedia take a while to filter through to external services. Occuli (talk) 23:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Just beat me to it. See Nigger#Names of places and GNIS entry on this place. It seems this was a genuine former name of Wilkinson's point, but I have a sneaking suspicion that its inclusion in the atlases in question is a case of fucking with the system. The place is hardly notable enough to include on a map of that detail. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:48, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed the template from Alabama, can it be replaced without the atlas link? cygnis insignis 04:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted that - the name comes from an old version of the Nigger article, as explained twice in different places, and removing 1 template and/or one globe from Alabama is an entirely futile gesture. Occuli (talk) 13:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not seeing this in the map any more. Perhaps the problem has been corrected in the database. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's still there (from my POV) - see e.g. Wetumpka, Alabama. Occuli (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just reverted you, then myself. Is it 3rr if I revert myself? Joking aside, I think it should be removed until this is resolved. cygnis insignis 14:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The map (and google earth) are independent of Wikipedia and we cannot 'fix' it apart from removing the coords from Nigger (which was done on 30 Sept) and waiting for external services to update their databases. Removing coords from Alabama will have no effect whatever. I don't myself care whether Alabama has coords or not. I also very much doubt if there was any malicious intent in this case (although I can see there is scope for gradual vandalism). Occuli (talk) 14:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

... and no way of removing that vandalism. cygnis insignis 15:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a futile gesture to remove the link to the atlas from Alabama, it can restored when the external database is corrected. Any objections to me doing that? cygnis insignis 08:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely futile (sorry). The Alabama article has nothing to do with it, the mapper has picked it up from the vandalism in the article noted above. You could try contacting the mapping service to ask for a purge, otherwise just hang tight for a week or two and their crawler will re-index. Franamax (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

And I've taken the liberty of refactoring and adding to your post at Meta. [16] Franamax (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I wouldn't know where to begin in contacting the mapping service, or doing more than I have to fix a major problem. I contribute to wikipedia, not an atlas. Removing the external link doesn't fix the atlas, but it stops the problem occurring in a prominent wikipedia article. Sorry to disagree, it is not futile to remove the error. cygnis insignis 10:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Outing

Could somebody uninvolved with ScienceApologist please look at this? Thanks. What are we going to do to help editors understand that possible COI is not grounds for talking about editors' real life identities? There seems to be a lot of confusion in the community. Jehochman ^Talk 17:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The "outed" user - Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) - gave his own name on a previous version of his user page. His user name is extremely similar to his real name anyway and presumably someone familiar with that industry would readily recognize him and he is making no effort to conceal his identity. This isn't outing. --B (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

His username is a shortened version of his real life name, and he gave his real life name on an old version of his userpage. Outing? Hardly... Raul654 (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pointing out his name isn't outing considering the above; he'd already released this info on-wiki. As to whether going and digging up a COI based on the user's personal life constitutes outing, I'm not for sure. I don't really see the connection between PC's off-wiki editorializing and the later claims SA makes in that thread... though I'm willing to bet they aren't difficult to find. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How could it ever be possible to expose any sort of conflict of interest without some sort of "outing"? Looie496 (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be a fair questioning of an agenda based on a user's on-Wiki behaviour and claims offline made by the editor which would seem to indicate he is using his editing account at Wikipedia to further a point of view not currently held by a concurrence of reliable sources. Orderinchaos 20:01, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Have we checked with this editor to understand whether they NOW want their full name associated? That it was so associated in the past is not sufficient to prove they want it now... there's precedent for that in that we have gone along with the wishes of those who changed their mind about their name and ID being associated. In fact ScienceApologist himself is one such person. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ya, that's the problem. At the same time, I think this issue is subtle enough that we should not be blocking people right off the bat if they get it wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 22:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Get your policies in order and get back to me. In any case, as long as we have a conflict of interest noticeboard and I know of a conflict of interest, I'm going to report it. It is up to you to come up with a better way of handling this (either off-line, privately, etc.) ScienceApologist (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You can reference the nature of the edits and say that the user appears to be closely connected to the subject, or that they appear to be using so much promotional language that they are effectively acting as if they had a conflict. There is no need to talk about real life identities. If real life identity is the only evidence of COI, there really isn't a case to be made. Jehochman ^Talk 11:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That answer from SA is thoroughly unsatisfactory and unhelpful. I've broached this matter at his talk page as well and received no answer whatever. I think we need to resolve the COI issue but we also need to not lose site of the fact that SA is outing someone here. That is a double standard. Saying policy is inconsistent is not an excuse for outing. Not if one wants others to care about one's own traumas, at any rate. The name should be removed from his input at COIN pending a satisfactory resolution, and further, if SA is not willing to undertake to not do it again, I suggest a block for disruption is in order. ++Lar: t/c 15:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think given the background, we could have expected ScienceApologist to be more careful. And I don't think his response above is appropriate. On the other hand, as a posting by someone else, or by ScienceApologist a month ago, I think ScienceApologist's COIN post would not have been remarkable in any way.

I would prefer to keep these two aspects separate, because it would be unfortunate for any decisions that are based on very special and unusual circumstances to become general precedents. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Rather than COI or outing what I see is personal attacks from both sides. PC attacks SA in the off-wiki article. SA brings the article to COIN on two separate occasions three months apart implying that editing the cold fusion article somehow is a way for PC to generate lots of business for himself. --Peter cohen (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If the user "Pierre" already "outed" himself, then there is no "outing" issue. That's not to say that ScienceApologist couldn't have handled it better - such as raising the issue to an admin via e-mail, rather than bringing it here and risking the possibility of red-herring distractions - such as the technically untrue accusation of "outing". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I agree with that analysis. SA previously outed himself. But he subsequently retracted that outing, and made it clear he did not want his previously available information revealed, instead seeking to have it removed wherever practical, and we have honored that. Thus, to reveal information now is to out him, even though he himself revealed it previously. That seems widely accepted, does it not?

So in a perfectly analogous way, unless it is clear that the user being referenced in the COIN report is OK with his or her name being revealed (and the default assumption needs to be NO, they are not, since that information was removed from that user's userpage by the user), it is not acceptable to do so. If we do not treat all cases the same then we expose ourselves to charges of favouritism. I don't think that's a good idea. So it is technically untrue to say that it is a technically untrue accusation of "outing". It is more correct to say that this is a a possible outing situation that has not yet been satisfactorily disambiguated.

And THAT complicated and tortuous logic chain is why I favour allowing real names only, starting at some point in the future, at which time all users who are not willing to reveal their real identity no longer contribute. I realise that's not likely to happen in our current environment where it is impossible to effect much smaller policy changes, but it is nevertheless what I favour. It resolves a lot of issues cleanly (and introduces others, to be sure). But while we have a policy allowing pseudonymity, we must apply it consistently. ScienceApologist in my view is quick to ask for protection for himself, and laggard in scrupulously ensuring it is afforded to others. That needs to be pointed out and rectified, at every opportunity. ++Lar: t/c 17:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I wasn't aware of that double standard. I've now changed how I've refered to the second user. But I haven't noticed his complaining about being outed, as opposed to the repeated accusation of COI.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He could hardly complain about it, since his user ID is merely an abbreviation of his presumably real name. The idea of requiring real names also implies that all users must register, which would wipe out the myriad of problems caused by IP addresses. But that would cross swords with the policy of "anyone can edit" (including from an IP address), so such a radical change in approach is not likely to occur in the near future. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The user has apparently associated their real name with their ID, voluntarily, on the COIN board. I suggested they make the association on their user page again to avoid confusion. By default in ambiguous cases we should assume the more privacy protecting choice. As for requiring real names being easy to implement, or even ever likely to happen, never said it was. Just that it should be the way things are done, IMHO. ++Lar: t/c 10:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Since it would rub out IP address edits here, in that sense it would be a plus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 11:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Hehheygimmemore

Heyheygimmemore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked once for repeatedly adding unsourced material and rumors to albums and single articles. I put him back at level 3 warning for [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ashlee_Simpson&diff=245984977&oldid=245538794 adding a rumored single to Ashlee Simpson] yesterday. This morning, Ericorbit dropped another final warning on his talk page, perhaps for adding a fake album cover into Her Name is Nicole, but I'm not 100% sure that that is the offense being warned for. This afternoon, I see that he has added yet another completely unsourced rumor section to Identified.—Kww(talk) 19:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for another 2 weeks, with a warning that the next one's likely to be indef. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You gotta love a self-prophesying user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Nihonjoe's bad faith behaviors

Resolved

 – Time to move on. Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

---

• see User talk:Caspian blue#User:Nihonjoe's abuse of the admin tools: False charge for "3RR on The Sea of Japan naming dispute"
• IncidentArchive350#Concerns of admin abuse by Nihonjoe
• User_talk:Nihonjoe/Archive_34#Need your help
• Talk:Liancourt Rocks#Infobox

I was blocked and unblocked by admin, Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) with a false charge for violating 3RR and gaming a system on The Sea of Japan naming dispute. When he unblocked me, he very briefly stated he apologized to me for his mistake.[17] Somebody may say that I'm now unblocked by the blocking admin as admitting his fault, so what is a big deal? My block log is unnecessarily added for the fiasco, and he does not get anything for his conduct, so this is like a record on Nihonjoe in a public place. I considered to visit his talk page after unblocked, to prevent from happening similar incidents, but he forbidden me as saying "bugger off" from his talk page and poured a similar degree of extremely uncivil insults several times in the past when his assumption on other ediotrs turned out to be wrong.[18][19][20][21] I have been mainly editing Korean related articles, and he is almost in charge of Japanese Project. Even though many of Japanese 2channel related people who have harassed me for a long time, he coldly rejected my requests for help, and condoned them active until later they're indef. blocked for sockpupetry reported by me. Therefore, I have considered him biased admin with his double standards and he has been angry at me for my evaluation on him.

On the other hand, I have really tried to have a good faith on him. When I was attacked by Nihonjoe on his talk page, I did not report him to ANI, and even at that time of him blocking me, I was even indirectly helping him for clearing copyrighted images uploaded by some newbie. According to his blocking log, he barely blocks editors and has never blocked editor without warning or advice in advance unless they're sock of somebody or vandal. So the block was obviously a retaliation against his nemesis, me. After Nihonjoe blocked me even without any warning, he gave a 3RR warning to a disputed editor to thinly justify his block.[22] The disputed editor, Kusunose (talk · contribs) actually had been wiki-stalking me for a while and is associated with 2channel. I was discussing a dispute with another Japanese editor (whom I consider a fair editor) civilly but he just blocked me as tracing my contribution history. The problem is that Nihonjoe would repeat such mistake to me or Korean editors since he resumes to take interest in old tendentious Japan-Korean disputed articles in spite of his own labeling the articles as "retarded subjects". I don't think he deserves to take controls of such sensitive articles and editors, unlike Future.Perfect or Spartaz. Since he does not welcome my visit unlike his unpleasant visits to my talk page, somebody can inform him it instead. Thanks.--Caspian blue 22:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I already apologized to you and admitted that I had made a mistake in this case. You were unblocked within 3 hours (2 hours and 38 minutes to be exact). I've already expressed my opinion regarding your accusations of "bad faith" on my part, and I see no reason to further explain my opinion of you. You are the only editor I've worked with who refuses to assume any sort of good faith on my part no matter what I do. Instead of continuing to beat a fossilized horse, please instead work to improve the encyclopedia. Please also understand that it's likely our paths will cross since you and I have some overlap of interest. I will do my best to avoid stepping on your toes, but if you keep shoving them under my feet it may not be avoidable. Just drop the wounded puppy act already. And, just to make you happy, I'll make sure all future blocks (I'm sure there will be some, based on your past history) will be by someone else so your accusations of bad faith can be spread among more administrators. No sense in hogging all your "bad faith" to myself, eh? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you're very quick to catch the report on you. I know you're carefully checking me within the two days. You did not lift my autoblock, so actually your false block did not expire on me. I just did not want to reveal my IP to you as asking unblocking the autoblock. You have not apologized for your extremely incivility before. Well, I'm saying that you're an unqualified admin given your history as a defender of WikiProject Japan and even disruptive sockpuppeters. I'm not beating a dead horse, but bring a legitimate issue about your admins tool abuse. So if there is any concern raised upon you, please take it seriously and reflect your behaviors. You admit that you're involved admin with bad hand. I'll make sure all future blocks (I'm sure there will be some, based on your past history] will be by someone else so your accusations of bad faith can be spread among more administrators. Oh, you just can't stop your verbal attacks based on your maliciousness like these. Well, who knows, before your foresight would be right, you can leave Wikipedia since you loathe to edit Wikipedia because of editors like me. Of you're continuing to abuse admin tools as such, you could be forced to take off the admin tool. Good luck.--Caspian blue 23:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Only because I regularly scan this page and noticed my name here. This is the last comment I will make here on this topic. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as soon as I left a copyvio warning to 서울 (talk · contribs), you deleted the image that I tagged and you followed me then. I don't also think your visit to some user for featured contents is not a coincedence. I don't expect much from this ANI, but just report your wrongdings for future caution. --Caspian blue 23:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read the header of this page: This is not the complaints department. If you have an issue with Nihonjoe, go to WP:RFC. —kurykh 23:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Kurykh is right. This is also not the place for arguments. Take them to your talk pages if you must. Otherwise, Caspian blue, if you have issues with Nihonjoe, follow Kurykh's advice. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm reporting the above incident from his abuse of admin tools. Besides, his personal attack here is also a very good reason why I report this. Besides, I'm informally forbidden to his talk page, so I would not dare since his verbal attacks are so dreadful as much as his curse above.--Caspian blue 23:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's some advice: stay away from each other. About admin abuse, it's not abuse if there isn't a recurring pattern, and we don't act solely on isolated cases. —kurykh 23:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I clearly included his incivility which is of course, against WP:CIVIL policy. He rather resorts to personal attacks again here.--Caspian blue 23:55, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Talking in bold. for when you really really mean it. HalfShadow 23:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I really really really really meant it when I offered my advice. —kurykh 23:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to stay away from each other when you have similar interests (as Nihonjoe points out above). Caspian, if you're really bothered by this, please use the appropriate place (WP:RFC), where his actions can be discussed. Otherwise, please don't bring it here. Bolding also doesn't help. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 23:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

(At least they aren't talking in caps yet...) HalfShadow 23:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

O RLY? Seriously though, "stay away from each other" need not mean "must edit in different areas". It can mean "avoid unnecessary interaction". —kurykh 23:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that I'm a mere editor, and he has the fancy admin tool to abuse. I have been avoiding Nihonjoe for a while Nihonjoe revenged me in this case. I don't want to edit Wikipedia in his harassment. Since RFC has been failing for its purpose, ANI seems to be a first place for this matter.--Caspian blue 23:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything succeeding here. You could try a request for comments. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I said, RFC is useless given this.--Caspian blue 00:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to provide proof of ongoing harassment. Again, we don't act on isolated cases, even if this case can be considered "admin abuse". —kurykh 23:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, Kurykh. I really do. I can dig up his improper AFD closure as well. However, I said above, this report is to prevent him for abusing his power to me and to other editors. When he poured verbal attacks, I foolishly tried to put up all insults, but well, with the unfortunate incident caused by him, at least the report is not vain at all. I'm trying to resolve our long-term "friendship" here. Since I could not stop him making personal attacks to me, other editors nicely can warn him or give a valuable lesson. :) --Caspian blue 00:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Concerns of admin abuse by Nihonjoe I found the not-so-surprising report on Nihonjoe's abuse of admin tools from past ANI. Maybe this editor's comment may summarizes well how even Japanese editors view his poor ability as admin. I know nothing about this incident. However, I have noticed many times were Nihonjoe has been a poor admin/editor, particularly when it comes to references written in Japanese. Thats one outsiders point of view. 220.253.5.116 (talk) 03:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Ahem, I've had to come to ANI for help, but my report on an admin is the first time because he is the worst admin as far as I've known, so this record would be some help for editors to acknowledge and to face his wrong conducts in future. --Caspian blue 05:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of bad-faith?  Done. Wounded-puppy act?  Done. The fact that the the other party is Japanese reported?  Done. Past history of every minor transgression made known?  Done. Caspian trying to create drama?  Done. Just another typical Caspian blue AN(I) thread then I see. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 05:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Ameliorate! (talk · contribs) I don't wonder your usual bad-faith badgering and totally unhelpful attack. Nihonjoe is not Japanese, so you're even wrong. Admin, Kurykh asked me if I could provide evidences, so I provided the similar report on him, so your accusation is totally baseless. I know you've some grudge for my firm belief that you should be not become an admin on your recent RFA[23] (you're the first candidate whom I strongly opposed), but you're proving my belief even more. You already did it to me on some AFD before. Why don't you refrain from abusing the crappy symbol of  Done? Your comment is another typical behavior that I've seen. Since I'm not your horse, please take your stick away and eat carrot for your health.[24] :) --Caspian blue 06:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. What is the purpose of this thread? Is the problem incivility, or admin abuse, or bad faith? From the diffs I've seen, the only demonstrated issue is incivility, which might be better discussed at WP:Wikiquette alerts. Unless more diffs are provided demonstrating admin abuse or bad faith, I can't imagine any administrative action being an appropriate solution to this issue. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I did not know the place.--Caspian blue 22:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny. All I saw was Caspian digging himself a hole... HalfShadow 18:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Because all you see is what you want to see (your own imperfect shadow). Nobody encouraged you to become the hasty white rabbit falling down into the hole. You must be busy. :)--Caspian blue 22:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue, I don't mean to be rude as I can see that you are struggling with English and this might be rooted in cross-cultural misunderstandings. But I looked at the diffs you've presented and I feel that the problems you are having with Nihonjoe are the direct result of you assuming that Nihonjoe is operating in bad faith and you repeatedly and constantly violating the Assume Good Faith policy by accusing him of editing in "bad faith". I think things would improve immeasurably if you would stop assuming he is acting in bad faith (heck, even your section heading violates policy and accuses him of editing in bad faith!) and instead tried to operate from a foundation that assumes different opinions, perhaps, but certainly good faith motives. It is possible for good faith editors to disagree strongly without assuming and accusing the other party of being here in bad faith. I feel that you will find little support from the administrator community while you continue to violate WP:AGF by accusing Nihonjoe of editing in bad faith without substantial evidence to prove this is the case (which IMO has not been presented by you and which simply does not exist because whether he is right or wrong about different issues and whether he has handled certain incidents correctly or not, Nihonjoe is in fact editing in good faith). Sarah 01:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I want to appreciate your opinion, Sarah, however, Nihonjoe blocked me for his grudge with the false charge which is clearly a not a good faith. As I said above, he had never blocked anyone without several waring or advice in advance. As tracking my contributions, he mistook my edits and thought he seized the opportunity to block me. Therefore, I don't need to waste more good faith policy to him. This report is my long-time frustration on him due to his continued attacks. When I try to talk him, all I get from his is "bugger off" or "get the hell out of here", or "narrow minded editor", or "sock" with no ground. I don't see any good faith from his opinion, but just viciousness. So please don't tell me that he is editing in good faith which I've never had with him. Could tell me all verbal attacks of him are good faith comments, including the curse that I would surely be blocked in the future? If everybody think such insults are just "good faith comment but I falsely accuse him of commiting bad faith, I really should believe that Wikipedia is screwed. He should blame his failure of his communication skill for himself, not me. (in fact, I've seen he has been struggling to communicate with even Japanese editors and then he just simply blamed them, that is very amusing).--Caspian blue 03:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

See, this is precisely what I am talking about. I think his snarky replies are a direct result of your constant accusations of bad faith. I would encourage you to make a deliberate and conscious decision to start treating him like a respected colleague you know is motivated by good faith and see if he begins responding to you differently. If you begin to take care to always treat him well and with respect and he continues responding poorly then I might come around to your way of thinking about this, but as things stand, and from my own review of this situation, I truly believe that he is simply reacting to your constant accusations of bad faith. Sarah 03:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. He began to treat me like dirt first with an absurd frame: my former screen name resembles to some blocked user and Japanese sockpuppeters accused me of being the user and Nihonjoe believes so and condoned the puppers active for a while. He still refuse to retract his false accusation and even spreads his belief to others. So I protested him, and he just could not stop his verbal attacks. In the situation, I could not respect such individual. Besides, his blocking log is a lie about my edits on the Sea of Japan naming dispute. His unblocking log is also an attempt to minimize his obvious mistake. My block log is contaminated with his errors. If he reflects himself and then treats me fairly, I would comply to his conduct accordingly. I have not expected to get supports from ANI, but well, his act should be recorded here to notify to other editors who deal with his behaviors in future. I'm sure that he would repeat the same behaviors and blamed them for his failure of communication. If I were the only person who thinks so, why Nihonjoe was reported here for the same issue before?; abuse of admin tools.--Caspian blue 03:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that Caspian blue has been subjected to repeated abuse by sock puppets? Perhaps this background information needs to be taken into account. Jehochman ^Talk 03:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

He has apologised and admitted his mistake and he noted in the block log that the block was entirely his mistake so that no one would hold the block against you in future, so I'm not sure that what you're saying there is actually correct. Also, I'm not suggesting that you have to actually respect Nihonjoe; I'm just suggesting if you stop your repeated and constant accusations of bad faith and treat him as though he is someone you respect, he may start responding better. I lloked at your diffs and others I found on my own and every time I see you interact with him you accuse him of bad faith. I know how exasperating and upsetting it is to edit entirely in good faith only to have another user constantly accuse you of editing in bad faith, so I understand when I look at your diffs and see Nihonjoe upset and frustrated. If you cannot assume good faith of this user then I can only suggest that you stay out of his way and avoid interacting with him at all. It's not a very satisfactory solution for either of you but I don't see any other way for you to resolve this if you continue to refuse to follow WP:AGF when interacting with other editors. Sarah 04:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah, the only practical suggestion from your opinion is to avoid interacting with him. I did but he interrupted me with the absurdity even though I helped him. I will ignore him for sure because I could not get along with extremely rude and biased person. (I don't even understand how come he became an admin) However, a problem is he resumed to control Japan-Korea disputed articles, and well, I fear that many Korean editors are unfairly treated by him. He is not qualified admin for the matters. Sockpuppeters would tend to be eventually blocked for their behaviors, but unfortunately, admins are an almost untouchable power group of Wikipedia. Please do not continue to bring the unfit WP:AGF card to me. That policy only deserves for qualified people. Thank you for your comment so far. Perhaps, a good way to tide down the issue is that you give a warning to him for WP:CIVILITY and WP:AGF, not try to persuade me.--Caspian blue 04:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer your request, no, I'm not going to give Nihonjoe warnings. As I said above, I totally understand why he is responding to you in such a poor manner when you repeatedly and constantly violate our behavioural policies with your repeated accusations. As I also said before, if you refuse to follow policy in the way you interact with Nihonjoe and others, then you will simply have to go out of your way to avoid interacting with them. Nihonjoe has apologised for his error and made a note in the block log so I don't see any reason to do anything further regarding this matter. I do, however, feel that you desperately need to reconsider the way you interact with other users on Wikipedia because your own behaviour is completely out-of-step with the policies of this site. Sarah 05:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I knew you would not do that because you're just defending Nihonjoe's out-of-step behaviors. You simply and falsely accuse me of having a bad faith against Nihonjoe. He is the one doing so and I provided the evidences. Since you're pushing implausible point of view to me, I don't consider your comments here valuable. I just needed a practical and neutral point of view. I'm not only speaking the block incident and you just don't get it. Since the page is archived, I request you to stop commenting here. By the way, it is so amusing that Nihonjoe has been lurking ANI unlike his usual activities here (he barely visits and leaves comments here for months).--Caspian blue 05:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is best to let this go to the archives now as obviously nothing is going to be achieved here and everyone who has commented seems to agree that there is nothing that needs to be done, so I'm going to withdraw from this discussion now. However, let me note that I am not at all surprised to see you assuming bad faith of myself now. You are simply proving that I was correct with my previous comments. You assume bad faith of anyone who disagree with you and dismiss as "not valuable" any comments that present opinions that contradict your own. This is not conducive to collaborative editing and I think it is the root of your problems on Wikipedia. I don't see it being resolved unless you decide to rethink the way you interact with other users or until such time as the community decides it's had enough. Thanks for the chat and best of luck, Sarah 05:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I requested you just one favor, but you could not. Still, you're wrong with the analysis. I regard your suggestion is not helpful for anyone. Your suggestion is basically, "you should change yourself and respect him first if you want to be treated fairly regardless he is rude to you". That's why your suggestion and analysis are implausible. I tried to talk with you however, your demand is like a beaten puppy (that is his labeling) respects the beater. That is totally nonsense. I don't assume bad faith who disagree with me. I only respect respectable people with logical speaking. I don't see it being resolved unless you decide to rethink the way you interact with other users or until such time as the community decides it's had enough. Do I have to assume good faith from your comment? Just unhelpful rebuke. So no thanks and good bye.--Caspian blue 06:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not my suggestion at all. In fact, I have said explicitly that I am not asking you to do that. Please consider the real possibility that there are language difficulties and cross-cultural issues that are causing misunderstandings (note how I am not assuming bad faith of you and attributing your misunderstanding and misquoting of me to maliciousness or bad faith and consider doing likewise with other editors you interact with). Thank you. Sarah 09:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(undent) just as a peace-making suggestion, would it be possible to have the block removed from Caspian's block log? since Nihon admits it was a mistake, that only seems reasonable. --Ludwigs2 04:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think admins with oversight would delete the block log because those are not privacy concerns. I'm not just mad at the block log, but his mal treatment of me for 10 months. I don't expect much from here, but reply to comments left here. I thought this tread would be gone soon per the cynical and totally unhelpful responses like Ameliato! and HalfShadow.--Caspian blue 04:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question, admins can't remove entries from the block log. I think only devs can and they basically never do. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually, a one-second block will be issued after the original block, with a comment such as "Erroneous error placed." There isn't much we can (or will) do with this, and at this point, it's like beating a dead horse down even more. A mistake was made, he apologized, it's time to move on. seicer | talk | contribs 04:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, a dead horse could provide eatery to some culture. This report would be a general reference for editors in future how to deal with Nihonjoe's behaviors. --Caspian blue 05:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

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

User:EntertainU

EntertainU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been using Wikipedia for about a year[25] and has had a Wikipedia account since June 2008[26]. Since October 5, 2008, user has (i) Threaten to report a user if they do not agree to change their user name.[27]; (ii) Spammed more than 50 user talk pages between 7 October 2008 and 12 October 2008 to watch his video[28][29] and more than 50 more[30]; (iii) Made a significant number of inappropriate level 3 warnings between October 5, 2008 and October 9, 2008[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] (iv) Posting 50+ welcoming message to users with no contributions at the time the welcoming message was posted, where the welcoming message thank them for their contributions[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57], etc.[58] (v) Made a level 3 vandalism warning for a post that was 2 months old; (vi) Requesting others to remove their notice from a talk page of a now blocked sockpuppet[59], where EntertainU subsequently posted his own notices to that talk page[60] even though the user had not made any edits that would justify EntertainU's warnings; and (vii) Made a 02:42, 7 October 2008 dubious assertion of unconstructive edit to a 02:41, 7 October 2008 post to Wikipedia:Sandbox[61]. I can't help but think that these actions are driving away new users. Since I am unsure how this can be best addressed, I am posting it here. -- Suntag ☼ 00:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is has already been addressed, [62], his actions stated above, while misguided, are clearly in good faith, its quite obvious that he is trying to help out and simply unaware of how to do so correctly. Since he is now in the process of being adopted, User talk:Addshore#Adopt Request, and there has been none of the behaviour stated above in a week, i can't see that there is any action that requires taking--Jac16888 (talk) 00:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What prompted my actions was Petebutt's 16 October 2008 reaction to the user name change request from EntertainU. EntertainU was blocked on 14 September 2008 for "using Wikipedia as a chat service". The events noted above occured on or after the 14 September 2008 block. I didn't realize that EntertainU's actions were discussed on 13 October 2008 at AN. From his post on my talk page after I notified him of this ANI post, he seems contrite. -- Suntag ☼ 16:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Marc Spector

Could an uninvolved admin have a look at Marc Spector (talk · contribs)? He apparently thinks it's okay to smear various U.S. politicians' articles with his ridiculously slanted view about some Morocco-related legislation. Of course if folks think I'm crazy and that it's relevant to report that a Hawaiian congressman signed a letter in 2007 regarding Morocco and thereby "opposing self-determination and independence for a territory considered by the United Nations to be pending decolonization", let me know that as well. Seems hard to believe. Warnings have been given and he's been informed. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that the fact that a member of the U.S. Congress signed a letter which was signed by approximately 170 members of Congress is generally something that needs to be mentioned in the article about each of those representatives, or even just the few that this editor has been putting that information into. (The legal status of Western Sahara is not one of the major issues in U.S. politics; I doubt it's even one of the minor issues in U.S. politics.) And that information should certainly not be expressed in a biased way. The place to discuss the Morocco autonomy plan for Western Sahara and which members of Congress have endorsed it is in one of the Western Sahara-related articles, with a link to a web site showing the list of representatives who signed the letter. We do not need a list of all of them on Wikipedia; we can refer readers who are interested to an external site for that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I've added a report at WP:AN3. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Talk about undue weight. All the average American probably knows about Morocco is that it was the setting for Casablanca and Road to Morocco. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you're confused here, Mr. Bugs - Casablanca was set in Casablanca, duh. Moroccos are those things you played in 1st grade music class. Badger Drink (talk) 05:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's "maraca", Badger. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

We saw, we saw. That's called "Witnessing the Badger". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, ok so it's your raca, who cares?--Alf ^melmac 10:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Everybody knows Morocco is a jumbo-sized Sicilian hard candy. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's the bunk -- "Morocco" is what audiences call out at the end of Little Caesar ... Oh, wait, that's "More Rico!" ... Never mind. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 11:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not to be confused with Moe Rocco, a rejected Sicilian replacement for one of the Three Stooges. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Mo Rocca that whiney guy that shows up on Wait Wait… Don't Tell Me! and all those VH1 nostaligia shows? What does the U.S. Government have against him?!? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You do what you can with a limited budget. If you're Comedy Central, you get Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. If you're NPR, you get Mo Rocca. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No no no. That's what they shout at concerts when they want AC/DC to keep playing.

Oh wait; that's 'More rock'. HalfShadow 18:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"More rock." Oh??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I like Moloko. That is all. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, like in A Clockwork Orange! Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 03:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh you people. In 2004, following the "success" of the "Rock'n'Bowl" concept, where bowling alleys would crank the rock music and include techno light shows for late-night bowling, a prestigious lawn care company in Butte, Montana came up with an idea: as a community event (and sales tool) why not have all residents in a neighbourhood cut their grass at the same time, whilst pumping loud rock music, and serving a variety of beverages. They changed the name of their company, and began offerring the service including music, drinks, etc. They are now known as the Mow-Rock Co. of Butte, Montana. Please, if nothing else, know your history :-) BMW(drive) 11:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Including the history of the Moroccan shaggy dog. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

user:43.244.132.168

43.244.132.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has bothered me for quite some time. It's the IP address of Dr90s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who got blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry. He has now returned and is removing content without discussing beforehand [63], [64], [65]. He refused to start a discussion before reverting me multiple times. Guyinblack25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has also been involved with this person on Super Mario 64, and you can see from the page's history that he made the same disruptive edits there. Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked Dr90s for sockpuppetry, but since he can still edit with his IP address, he has returned and continued the same disruptive edits that got him blocked in the first place. On Super Mario Sunshine's talk page I proved that one of the sources was reliable, but he refused to accept it [66]. Now he has begun accusing me of attacking him [67], [68]. If someone could please tell this user to stop and leave me and Guyinblack25 alone, I would appreciate it. Thanks. The Prince (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but you need to learn to write shorter explanations. I'm being really nice by trying to figure out what's going on. My first question is, what other log-ins was User:Dr90s using that got him block for sockpuppetry? There was no checkuser I see and I do see User:Handsome elite blocked as a sock, but I can't piece it together. It seems strange. For the IP address, fine he went WP:BOLD and removed the text and then went to discuss it on the talk page. I don't really seem much actually discussion. For two of his points, you said you would review it later and ignored him. For Gamecritics.com, you said that User:David Fuchs talked to them (which really doesn't qualify for WP:RS, and I don't see that being discussed at all on the talk page in the past) and then responded to his question of what exactly was this third-hand conservation with "you think it's not reliable, I said that another user talked to them and think it is, so it's on you to deal with it" which is not the appropriate path. What in the world did User:David Fuchs find from them? Just that they "fact check." That doesn't mean anything. From there, you began removing his comments and have now come to ANI to get him blocked. Am I missing something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sorry if I've been stepping on peoples toes here. I'll try to explain better now:

1. As far as I'm concerned, he also used 133.2.9.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) in the sockpuppet thing.
2. I thought this was enough to prove that GameCritics is reliable. If not I can ask David Fuchs if he can help out. And about the other two sources: N-Philes is probably not reliable so I let that out, but Gaming Age is reliable [69]. So I added back the ones that were reliable and left N-Philes out. What I don't understand though is that he removed Allgame from the article [70]. He said it wasn't notable (which is is) and that the reviews box was "too big". I don't think that's a good reason unless the site's not important.
3. I didn't come here to get him blocked. In fact I agree with him that N-Philes isn't reliable and that Game Revolution wasn't indeed unreliable ([71]) and I can't see that I've used the word "blocked" in my comment. All I wanted was for someone to talk some sense into him, explaining how Wikipedia works. I know he's acting in good faith, but removing chunks of information without discussing or without a consensus is not right. I think we both can agree on that. The Prince (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Just forget it. I can't be bothered dealing with this anymore. IP address, you win. The Prince (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Prince, I will say this: remove his comments one more time and I'm blocking you. His request isn't unreasonable. Vague claims that anyone user has received an email from the site's author without any further details are just strange to me. Quit asking that he prove that it isn't reliable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've posted information regarding the editorial policies of one of the sites in question on the talk page of the contested article. Either way, it's an editorial issue, and I don't think involves ANI any more. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent redirection of this page and death threat

I don't guess there is any way we can find out who User:98.228.71.142 (and presumably the other vandal) really is? I note the edit summary was a deaththreat (or a prediction, but somehow I doubt that) against User:Cometstyles. Doug Weller (talk) 08:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother. You'll have better luck finding Osama bin Laden. -Jéské Couriano ^{(v^_^v)} 10:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I think I saw him in Pioneer Courthouse Square just last week. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Threats to "rip open" articles by User:Umbrello

I previously reported here some problems with a single purpose account editing articles on The Syn and Steve Nardelli (lead singer of The Syn), subsequent to calls on the Syn fan e-mail list (14Hour) to correct Wikipedia. The main user account is Umbrello, but s/he also edits under the IP address 24.47.192.90 and RexerX appears to be a sock or meatpuppet (makes same sort of edits, had identical user pages for a while). I was concerned about a possible COI (Umbrello is the name of Nardelli's record label; and Umbrello's and RexerX's user pages were copies of the Steve Nardelli article), but Umbrello said otherwise, so I assumed good faith on that.

Some of Umbrello's edits have been useful, but many have been highly biased: see Talk:The Syn for details. (Some examples: unsupported claims praising the band (see diff), misrepresented what citations say (see this) and repeatedly sought to cut critical material, even when supported by citations (see here).) A flame war also broke out on 14Hour between me and the list owner (the list owner isn't user Umbrello and is generally a good guy but doesn't seem to understand Wikipedia; however, user Umbrello does also seem to be on 14Hour). Things seemed to have mostly died down, although I felt user Umbrello was gaming the system, with complaints about lack of balance in the face of anything less than glowing about The Syn. Then came THIS EDIT. (To explain some context, The Syn has connections with Yes and there was a recent falling-out between Nardelli and Yes/ex-Syn bassist Chris Squire; I have a website that covers Yes and, to some extent, The Syn.) As I've said, I have some history off Wikipedia, good and bad, with Nardelli and The Syn, so I would rather someone else patrolled this situation. Can anyone review behaviour? Bondegezou (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The prior discussion is archived here. I've also notified Umbrello and RexerX of this discussion. And to echo my previous sentiment about Umbrello, I still suspect he is or is strongly related to Umbrello Records- note Image:Steve Nardelli.jpg which is marked as {{pd-author}}, but is watermarked as copyright Martyn Adelman (a member of The Syn), and is taken directly from The Syn's website, which according to this, makes it copyright of The Syn. I haven't opened a PUI case for the image since I still suspect Umbrello is the original copyright holder, which might make that a valid PD release. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This edit worries me lots. I recommend we softblock Umbrello (talk · contribs) for violating the username policy, and warn both Umbrello and his IP address that any 'cleaning' of articles in the manner he suggests will result in a block. Very biased editing here, probably from a member of Umbrello Records. I'm not a fan. Perhaps we can use WP:DUCK? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I've softblocked Umbrello's account. He can request a new username, but we can't have him editing under that username. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If he's engaged in conflict of interest, how will getting a new user ID help that situation? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It won't, but in the meantime it's a violation of the username policy. If you think it's a good idea, I can unblock him for the time being, until we've got this all sorted? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a violation of the username policy. But no, he should not be unblocked if he's violating conflict of interest rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a violation of the username policy because 'Umbrello' is linked to 'Umbrello Records', the record company who are linked with the band. The username policy basically states that you can't have a name that implies you're from an organisation. I'd like to make it a hard block, but in order to do that, I'd like to know another admins opinion on what would be best here. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

But if he actually is from that organization, then it shouldn't be considered a violation. If he's not, then it is a violation. Also, he could be from that organization and also edit within the guidelines, in which case it's not necessarily a conflict of interest. However, that does not appear to be the case. So you've "got him" either way - and if he comes back under a different ID he'll probably give himself away and put him right back in the same boat, as it's hard for a leopard to change its stripes. The endpoint being, I don't see how his coming back under a different name is likely to make things any better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that User:Umbrello isn't Martyn Adelman, who no longer has anything to do with The Syn as far as I know. Whether Umbrello is linked to Nardelli/Umbrello Records or not (and I'm willing to accept his/her word that s/he isn't), I think the bigger problem is behaviour like this edit and a general lack of NPOV and gaming. That is, it doesn't seem to me to be principally a COI or username problem so much as a basic failure to abide by Wikipedia standards. By the way, any block of Umbrello should also cover the IP address 24.47.192.90 and RexerX. Thanks to everyone for their help. Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

IP vandal

The following report was made at WP:AIV, but is really too complex to be dealt with there. Does anyone have prior knowledge of this case? Any suggestions? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• 122.163.194.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - account is evidently a spambot or a compromised account. This is a user who was first banned as User:Vyaghradhataki. He then came back in many avatars and has vandalised Wiki time and again. Probably this user uses a dynamic IP provided by Airtel Broadband, so he does not have to worry about an IP block. I would like to request for a range block and reporting this IP for racist edits to the service provider to the admins.. Shovon (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked one month for vandalism and tagged as suspected sock of Vyaghradhataki. Can you provide diffs of the racist comments? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User Causteau and The Jerusalem Post

User:Causteau is currently edit-warring in the lede of The Jerusalem Post, for the inclusion of some lame claims that this Israeli newspaper is "Zionist" and "pro-Israel". The conflict started at Press TV before moving there. These edits – [72] [73] [74] [75] – suggest that the editor needs a lecture about WP:3RR on their talk page. But I don't think I am the right person to do this, given that I have just been told: "Don't ever bother contacting me again in any capacity unless its to discuss matters as two fully mature adults the way Wikipedia actually instructs." I think it should come from an admin.

For the background see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive172#Synthesis, editorializing, and abuse of primary sources, Talk:Press TV, WP:NPOVN#Press TV, WT:V#What is an extremist source?, User talk:Causteau/Archive 2, User talk:Hans Adler. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I join in Hans Adler's complaint and wish to add that Causteau has been edit-warring several contributors (like User:LeContexte and myself) for the last four days without being warned at least once. What we face here is a case of extremely stubborn, and completely unpunished, POV-pushing. --RCS (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just realised that this is not Causteau's first edit war. He got no less than three 3RR warnings from Elonka for edit warring on Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) (23 August and 18 May) and Al-Azhar University (2 June). Sometimes an empty block log is a bit misleading… Talk:Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) (plus archives) gives me the impression that he engaged in pretty much the same disruptive behaviour there as on Press TV and The Jerusalem Post, but that it was much more extensive (involving RFCs and mediation) and perhaps less obvious because it's such a technical article. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Zionism and mitochondrial DNA? Sounds like a sock of User:Adnanmuf (suspected in turn as a sock of User:Wikzilla. <eleland/talkedits> 19:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Only superficially, I think. Adnanmuf seems to be Palestinian and Causteau Iranian. I believe their editing styles and timezones are also quite different. I guess these are just two particularly interesting topics for nationalists from that part of the world. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not true. First of all, every last one of my edits over at the Jerusalem Post article was an attempt to either insert reliable sources (1, 2) or restore reliable sources that were removed for no legitimate reason whatsoever (1, 2, 3, 4). If you follow up on the sources in each of my edits on that page, you'll quickly see that they support everything I actually included in the article proper. And WP:3RR does not apply to re-inserting material from reliable sources -- that is how Wikipedia functions: on verifiability! My edits were done in good faith and according to Wiki policies, which makes this ANI post all the more absurd. On the other hand, I find it precisely the opposite of assuming good faith when user Hans Adler, for one, refers other editors to my long-resolved and moderated discussions at the E1b1b and Al-Azhar University pages, which he doesn't know the first thing about since he never took part in them and therefore is not and cannot be privy to the facts regarding them. For starters, those discussions Hans alludes to are from my very first few months as an editor on Wikipedia, back when I wasn't even fully aware of Wikipedia's policies. Those edits were also indeed moderated by one administrator, Elonka, who, incidentally, not only fully agreed with my edits over at the Press TV page -- as did two other editors (1, 2) as well as another administrator, the latter of whom thought the situation serious enough to warrant that the Press TV page be protected (which it currently is) -- she also specifically asked me to have a look at the related Michele Renouf page, which also had problems with poor sourcing. In all of my encounters with users Hans Adler and RCS over the past few days, I've had numerous opportunities to personally report them over some of the questionable sources they've championed (please the Press TV talk page for a discussion on this) or to dig into their contributions and find whatever other past conflicts they may have been involved in and report that as well without having all the facts, but not once did I do any of that because my gripes have always been with their edits and not with them personally. Instead, I've attempted to discuss matters over with them. However, things have turned personal for some reason, though I have repeatedly directed them to Wikipedia's civility policy to get things back on track. I'd like to think that this issue can be resolved amicably, but I doubt this is possible if I'm the only one that wants such a solution. Causteau (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Thinkandsee

Resolved

 – Technoethics reverted to version prior to contested material being added. —Travis^talk 02:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thinkandsee (talk · contribs) (also editing as 81.208.71.250 (talk · contribs) before he created the account) has been inserting material about an artistic term, technoetic, into the Technoethics article. I tried to explain on the article's talk page that separate topics need separate articles—that we don't throw the material into one article merely because the topics have similar names—but he doesn't seem to be getting it. I've already reverted him thrice and don't want to violate 3RR; could someone try to explain the matter to him better than I seem to have done? Deor (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the added material probably doesn’t belong in the article, so I reverted to the last version before the IP started editing. If the other term is indeed notable, it needs a separate article with a {{dablink}} to it from this article. —Travis^talk 15:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

User seems to have relented and has created the article Technoetic. —Travis^talk 02:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Molobo targeting and discrediting Skäpperöd

(not sure if this needs to be moved to wikiquette or Ethnic/Cultural conflicts board)

Molobo is continously accusing me of misquoting sources and makes remarks, both actions directed at discrediting my edits as well as me as a person, and to push his personal POV.

Here is one allegation of Sept 21. Here is another one within a debate of Sept 27, if you look at comment (7) (they are numbered) you find the "nationalist-like and incorrect statement" allegation directed at me. Here is an allegation of Sept 28 directed at me where he accuses me of "removal" of sourced material and "misquoting" a source. After these discrediting incidents, I (pretty much fed up) asked Moreschi what I should do about it (read the link for some more detail; I chose Moreschi because he had unblocked previously permabanned Molobo under certain conditions) and dropped Molobo a note. Moreschi however was busy, and I decided to not take further action until I checked my watchlist this morning. Here Molobo again accuses me of misquoting (Oct 18), and in this deletion discussion I initiated, he advised me to “reach for a history book” (I moved this to the respective talk page).

I am certain you won’t find anything wrong with the way I presented my sources. I am also convinced the way Molobo adressed his doubts are incivil and an assumption of bad faith. If he really had trouble with how I quoted my sources there would have been other ways to talk about this in a productive and civil manner. Yet I fear that it is more about WP:IDONTLIKEIT of what the sources said, because Molobo did not hesitate to twist and spin sourced material I brought up to look the way he likes it even if contradicting the source (e.g. this and this diff (last paragraph)). I am not sure if this is even POV-pushing, because what he proclaimes at various occasions (eg here or here) is not a scholary, but his personal POV. Note that the disputes are not about my sources vs his sources, but my sources vs no sources but a strong opinion of him. After this, I think Molobo needs an advise in conduct. I do not want to be discredited at various talk pages or in edit summaries, I do not want to be target of a mud slinging campaign with the mud left in place without a comment. I am always open for constructive discussion, but not this way. Skäpperöd (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you attempted to seek outside input into the situation via either a Wikiquette Alert or request for comment or mediation of some sort? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above, I have sought a comment of Moreschi, an admin who knows Molobo. Also, as noted on top, I am uncertain if I am in the right place here - I fortunately do not have any AN/I experience and Molobo is the only editor I repeatedly get in trouble with. Do you suggest to rather take this to the wikiquette board? Skäpperöd (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am only saying that in general, sanctions tend to "stick" better if you have exhausted all other options. Sometimes other users are unaware of the effects of their actions; having other editors comment on situations can bring new perspective. If its shown that one party behaves unreasonable DESPITE multiple attempts at dispute resolution, then there is more of a reason for sanctions. Admins should not be the first place that one goes to solve a conflict, they should be the last. I'm not saying you haven't exhausted all other methods of solving the conflict, I am only saying that if you haven't, you may get some successful results if you do. Or you may not, but you never know if you don't try. Also, if someone hasn't mentioned it, its pretty much a good idea if you notify people who are being talked about that they are, you know, being talked about... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I informed Molobo on his talk as soon as I posted here, and before when I asked for an opinion of Moreschi. Again, I will immediately move this to the wikiquette board if you tell me to do so, it really does not matter to me where I get some outside opinion if I just get one. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war and false information war going in Somaliland article

Hi People

It is very hard to deny facts on ground that Somaliland is not an autonom part of Somalia its an independent de facto republic. Mogadishu has no power or influence in Hargeisa. I recommended to change introduction in Somaliland topic and remove the biased political commercial secton about " maakhir " and " northland " both non existing entities solely created here on Wikipedia by a user called Ingoman.

Wikipedia will lose its integrity on this issue. Many readers are probably wondering about how user Ingoman can get away with this nonsense. He is solely responsible for the misconception of "maakhir" and "northland" the latter being completely non Somalia subject for a region name.

Further to use south somalia private websites as sources when some of them clearly are advocating their own agenda in these very talkpages against Somaliland I find it a bad idea. Somaliland has many enemies.. the worst being South Somalis in here masquerading under objective agendas trying to ' remove ' Somaliland identity. From Las Gaal caves and other cultural aspects certain wikipedia users here are fronting an edit war trying to remove Somaliland, which is very silly. Middayexpress being one.. just use the history lists and you will see the same names again and again in different Somali articles.

A proof of the edit war , the UNESCO worthy found of 5000 years old cave paintings in Somaliland has been hijacked by a user Middayexpress. This users is currently very active in other Somaliland articles carefully re editing any changes on ' his ' contribution.

By the way Las Gaal is south somali dialect in Somaliland where its found the pronunciation is Las Geel

regards Igor akb80 (talk)

What should we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor akb80 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly an edit war; there's only a dozen or so edits in the past fortnight. Have you considered dispute resolution? Stifle (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It's an ongoing content dispute and the user has found no one that will agree with him. I think the edit war has more to do with Northland State and Maakhir, both of which he has tried to prod more than once. It's been explained to him that there is only one per article and after that it needs an AfD. The claim about Middayexpress (talk · contribs) is new. I've notifed Middaayexpress, Ingoman (talk · contribs) and Gyrofrog (talk · contribs), one of the more active and probably the most level headed on the various Somali articles. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I would take Igor akb80's complaints with a grain of salt. The reason why he takes such exception to Ingoman's creation of the Northland State and Maakhir articles is because Igor is a so-called 'Somaliland' nationalist and believes his non-existent, non-internationally or even locally recognized, single clan (not even tribe; all so-called 'Somalilanders' are ethnic Somalis from the Isaaq clan that literally woke up one day and decided they were no longer Somalis but Somalilanders) secessionist region is, in fact, a 'country' of its own and that Northland State and Maakhir are a part of it. Unlike Ingoman, CambridgeBayWeather, Gyrofrog, and myself (all of whom Igor has at some point or another come into conflict with over his POV edits), Igor hasn't contributed and doesn't contribute in any appreciable way to the betterment of any Wikipedia articles other than to push his Somaliland nationalist claims, which, let's not forget, are not recognized by so much as one single country or international organization. What he has actually done is already gotten himself blocked for disruptive edits. I therefore suggest Igor actually learn something from this experience and take a good, long, hard look at Wikipedia's civility and especially its conflict of interest policies and see if he recognizes himself in them before he starts up again baselessly attacking other editors and administrators (notice how he threatens to 'report' the administrator CambridgeBayWeather for 'vandalism'! lol). Middayexpress (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:IslamForEver4

I blocked User:IslamForEver4 for edit warring/3RR. Then along came User talk:IslamForEver5, same edit, blocked indefinitely for attempted block evasion. I've just found this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/IslamForEver2 (I can't find a version 3). First I guess, have I done it right so far? Shall I block version 4 indefinitely also? Can we do anything to stop version6? Should we? Add anything to this category? Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_IslamForEver1 I'm off to bed, if I've acted incorrectly in anyway, or haven't done something I should have done, feel free to take appropriate action. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 21:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Mah, block the lot. Username is a no no if nothing else. At least if Hinduims4ever kept reincarnating it would be understandable.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So far, so good. There are at least 6 of them, by the way. —Travis^talk 21:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Scott MacDonald) In what way is the username a problem? It obviously passed scrutiny first time around. Good joke about the Hindu version, though... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

LHvU, I don’t know for sure what Scott meant, but my first though was that it was a username vio as too close to an indef-blocked user. In any case, I indef-blocked the rest as SSPs of User:IslamForEver1. —Travis^talk 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It could be said that a username that actively promotes a certain religion could be disruptive as it could create impressions of the user that don't exist. Anyways, the block is good. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 02:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Grand roi des Citrouilles

Resolved

 – Seicer changed the userpage to a protected redirect.--chaser - t 22:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is in keeping with what the editor promised or agreed to. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

What did he promise to do? and where did he promise it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of ever-changing things. I lost track after he asked for RTV. Input'll come. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

One thing: Since he's accepted the renaming, why isn't he creating a user page at the new account, rather than restoring the user page of the indef-blocked old account? The redirect to the new account name might have been useful; I don't see any use in replacing it with this. Deor (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Em.. if he's indef-blocked, why is he editing to start with? --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If you don't know the story here, perhaps you should refrain from commenting. Deor (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I know the story here, and I'm still perplexed as to why he's permitted to edit.—Kww(talk) 22:45, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep with one account people... reverted the changes, protected it from editing. We all know the history of the prior account(s) and the trouble they caused, there is no reason to keep the old page up. seicer | talk | contribs 22:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that closes it for me. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Underage user showing too much information?

I know there's a policy on this, but I don't have a link handy at the moment. I came across User:ObsessiveJoBroDisorder. He appears to be 16 years old, and therefore, underage. He lists his full name, where he goes to school, his city, state, where he was raised, his birthdate, etc.

I'm 99% sure this is against Wikipedia policy for protecting minors. Hell, I'm underage (17) and I wouldn't do this sort of thing even if I was over 18. While I don't feel a ban, even a small one, is needed here, is there any course of action that should be taken? --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 22:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Current guidance is here and reiterated as an essay at WP:KID. It's not a blocking issue, but one for advice. Have you had a word with him? --Rodhullandemu 23:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

He may be knowledgeable about film, but he's not too knowledgeable about the ways of the world. Although it's possible his "autobiography" is fictional, I wouldn't count on it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Reading his page I wouldn't doubt he is playing some kind of elaborate prank on a classmate. — CharlotteWebb 23:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Played it safe and deleted the pages containing the personal information, and recreated it without the violations. Should be clean now. seicer | talk | contribs 23:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The user ID itself could be read as having homosexual overtones. I don't know if that matters or if anyone cares. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok now that was offensive. Even if that were the case, could you be so kind as to explain why that'd be a problem? — Coren ^(talk) 23:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's not a problem. Not my call to make. Only pawn, in game of life, and wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And if CharlotteWebb is correct that the user is playing a prank on a classmate, it definitely could be a problem, i.e. if the alleged real name of the user is actually someone else's real name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Following Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Protecting_children's_privacy#Proposed_remedies, if a "provocative personna" is given off by a self-identifying minor who is in truth an adult, the user can be banned. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

But, of course, we have no way of knowing whether this is the case. --Rodhullandemu 23:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not straight off but it means there could be even more to be wary about. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't had a word with the user because I was unsure how to approach it, which is why I came here. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)-- 23:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If my yearbook is correct, the person that fits all the deleted information does not exist. —kurykh 23:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You go to his school? Probably a hoax, just another kid treating Wikipedia as a game. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

If so, that might not have been the best thing to reveal. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 00:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

What is not the best thing to reveal? The potentially false information, or that I went to his school? —kurykh 00:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I was under the impression from your post that you were saying that you go to his school now. Never mind. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where anybody has approached him to explain the situation, nor to let him know about this discussion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:AZT2008

Resolved

 – User blocked, article moved back and protected.

Page-move vandal at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 needs taken care of. Thanks, Grsz^Review! 01:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The vandal appears to have been slain. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Huzzah!! Grsz^Review! 02:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio, WP:CIVIL violation, you name it

I've already had this image deleted once. I give up. Would someone please take care of the image found on Wjmummert's talk page? He claims that it's not a copyright violation, and the lingerie models involved are his girlfriends. Right.—Kww(talk) 02:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(User notified of this discussion.) I do, however, agree that the text in the image is quite devoid of civility and is a probable copyvio as a work derived from copyrighted images. —Travis^talk 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The model images appear to be professionally done (based on the lighting, which would require a decently expensive setup to achieve). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My previous interactions can be seen here.—Kww(talk) 03:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

According to Google,"Go Fuck Your Hand" is a porno (lending more credence to the copyvio idea). John Reaves 03:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"According to Google", he says. :) Protonk (talk) 05:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh "ex-girlfriends". :) Anyway, the image has been deleted again. Sarah 05:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I actually didn't have "According to Google" at first but then I realized I was dealing with Wikipedians and their dirty minds <_< John Reaves 05:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

We can't be stopped. Next thing you know, Go Fuck Your Hand will be a featured article. Protonk (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

"According to Google", or IMDB actually, that porn video of the same name has a different cover. Mummert's illustration looks like a cut-and-paste from Victoria's Secret or some such. You might want to check out the list of babes on his user page for some further "insight". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Microchip08

• Microchip08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Microchip80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The account Microchip80 appears to have been compromised as of 26 September 2008.[76] This was noted on Microchip08's talk page.[77] Microchip08 created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/header, now at MfD. On using the email features from Microchip08's page yesterday to notify Microchip08 about the MfD, Microchip08's reply was to assert that he was canvassed.[78] The person validly entitled to use the Microchip08 account would have know that they created the template in May 2008 and saw my email as a notice rather than a canvass. The Microchip08 account appears to be compromised and, per the Microchip80 user pages, connected to Microchip80. I have a copy of the email sent and confirm that it was sent to Microchip08: "This e-mail was sent by user "Suntag" on the English Wikipedia to user "Microchip08". It has been automatically delivered and the Wikimedia Foundation cannot be held responsible for its contents." The email feature of the Microchip08 account should be disable and other action considered to address this. -- Suntag ☼ 06:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if these are related, but see Friendofmicrochips (noted on talk page as sharing same email address as User:BlueJayLover123 with assertion of being sisters. User:BlueJayLover123 appears to have awarded herself a 50 DYK medal.[79]) and Microchips (blocked). -- Suntag ☼ 06:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I was left a note about this thread on my talk page, but I'm at a loss on what this has to do with the obvious vandalism-only account Microchips (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking into this further, I'm not sure what you are trying to point out here. Microchip08 notes in the MfD that he was emailed by you. If you emailed them and he picked up the message, I don't understand how you can come to the conclusion that their account was compromised. The alternate account Microchip80 may have been compromised, but the account hasn't been in use and having a public account compromised does not mean that the primary account was compromised. The use of the phrase "canvas" is a bit unusual by Microchip08, but that does not mean that the account is compromised. I also fail to see what you are trying to assert by bringing up the Friendofmicrochips and BlueJayLover123 accounts. They have nothing to do with Microchip08 besides Friendofmicrochips having the word "microchip" in the name. So what are you trying to say here? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll address the matter with Microchip08 directly. As for the other accounts, I wasn't sure if they were related. -- Suntag ☼ 07:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats again from RonCram

A few days ago RonCram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) made a veiled legal threat that Worldnetdaily might sue Wikipedia if people claimed it was not a reliable source, in connection with his determination to source derogatory WP:FRINGE material about a presidential candidate to that publication.[80] A complaint was filed here (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive484#Legal threats by RonCram). The feeling here was that although it was a silly legal claim and he did not threaten to bring the legal claim himself, administrators felt it violated the spirit of NLT, which was to not use legal claims as a "bludgeon" to intimidate other editors out of making good faith edits. Warned that as an experienced editor should know better he would be blocked if he did it again,[81][82] he was more diffident than contrite,[83][84][85][86] accusing Wikipedia editors of liberal bias, hypocrisy, double standards, etc. Yesterday he did it again (two days ago depending on your time zone). Here[87] he starts a new thread at Worldnetdaily, saying he "would not be surprised" if Worldnetdaily sues Wikiepdia for calling it unreliable. He obviously did not get the message last time. He is hostile to me. Might someone deliver the message again? Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Blocked him for 48 hours. He knows what he's doing, and it's gone on long enough. Speculation on legal liability based on editing in any manner is inappropriate here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Good block, though it shows spectacular good faith to only block him for 48 hours. He's twice used the potential threat of legal proceedings in an attempt to force others to accept his side of an issue; this violates both the spirit and letter of WP:NLT. If he does continue to make these assertions, it would be well within the rules to indefinately block him until he retracts all statements about encouraging legal solutions to content disputes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Jay. Once unblocked, if there's so much as a legal peep from him, I'd go to indefinite block. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 11:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think 48 hours seems reasonable - while he's mentioning legal threats, he isn't so much threatening legal action as he is simply being threatening - WP:NLT vs WP:HARASS. Either way he's certainly been warned more than adequately and a block makes sense, though. ~ mazca ^t|c 12:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)