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

Request for uninvolved administrator to close a slightly messy RfC

[1] will spiral out of control if it is not ended soon. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Jake, could you offer some commentary? I don't think it's an outrageous request to let the RfC end of its own accord. The debate seemed to be making some progress despite certain disruptions. And on handling said disruptions, any advice would be appreciated. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw a lot of discussion and no chance of getting the criteria removed. There is consensus to close the RfC in the last section. Please just let it die. — Jake Wartenberg 13:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm not enjoying this either. I can understand that the FLC regulars are tired of it, I've seen arguments going back to 2006, but the fact of the matter is that the RfC was opened to get community input. The regulars have had years to figure it out where the community received less than ten days. And this sets a very bad precedent when five oppose votes—all regulars too, I believe—can shut down an argument which closes in their favour. Forget every other argument, forget that criteria 5 contradicts the last part of 5a, forget that there is community consensus stating that red links are good and none labeling them "ugly" or "distracting". I will let this matter drop if you or anyone can show me that there is a consensus that minimal means definition 1c and not a or b. Going through the FLC logs I've seen about half a dozen regulars that oppose based on red links and everyone else either doesn't care or reads it the same way I do. Maybe Dabomb can confirm that as his name appeared quite frequently. Otherwise, I would ask that you reopen or restart the RfC, possibly with a reminder of its purpose—even the FLC director seemed confused about it. I'm sorry that it's "messy" but I didn't ask regulars to repeat themselves ad infinitum, or to attack my character or insult newcomers. A couple more days isn't going to hurt anybody. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 22:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a second opinion. The editors asking for a close are "tired of the debate", the debate is long and muddled, this is not a recipe for "spinning out of control", this is a recipe for fizzling out. The ones who wanted it closed are young and don't listen to me as I'm "the enemy" but they respect authority and an admin will do. If you could reopen with a note briefly explaining the purpose of an RfC and why more than a week is desirable (honestly don't think they're familiar with the process) and as soon as comments dry up I'll close it myself an you'll never have to think of this again. I'd like a few more days as the subject of compromise and clarifying the wording had come up which had been little commented on previously. In my opinion, most had got hung up on stubs. It may well get zero new comments, that's fine and I'll close, but shutting it down early because a couple editors who voiced their opinions before the RfC even started and don't want to wait for more than a week of outside opinions is a bad idea. Thanks. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"The ones who wanted it closed are young and don't listen to me as I'm "the enemy" but they respect authority and an admin will do..." what? If you tried not to patronise the community so much, people may respect your arbitrary re-opening of this RFC at FLC and your arbitrary re-opening of this AN/I thread, on both occasions without notifying the closing admins. Think again if you believe we're all "young" and we "don't listen to [you]". The overwhelming and startlingly obvious consensus was that there was no consensus to change our criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

That was bluntness, I wrote that on my way out the door. Excitable would have been a better word. If you're familiar with WP:Requests for Comment, you'll know that the purpose is to get community input in the form of opinions, ideas and dispute resolution. Not everyone checks the RfC lists every day, so leaving them open for a couple weeks at minimum is par for the course. If a handful of regulars are tired of the debate—why wouldn't they be if the issue has been coming up again and again for years?—they are not required to participate. They've stated their opinion, it's been counted, they're free to go about their business. The discussion is so muddled by this point with the interruptions and that bout of infighting at the end that it may well not get anymore comments, but there might also be a good idea out there somewhere. If no action is taken by tomorrow I'll cut through the red tape myself. I can only assure you that this is not a big deal. A week or two from now this'll all be ancient history. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree here. The use of the word "consensus" in this case means the personal opinions of a very small number of FLC regulars-- possibly the ones who wrote the criteria. They are simply against changing the red link criterion, and have themselves become weary of the discussion, apparently, because so many "outsiders" fail to come to their own personal view. There are many editors who disagree with this, but who do not have Doctor Sunshine's persistence. Myself, I have seen commenting at this RfC to be futile, and so have limited my to making a few snide comments and leaving. Like many editors outside of the very small FLC "regulars", I am opposed to this criterion. It foists the personal preference of a very few Wikipedia editors onto the project at large. But I see that it would be a waste of editing time to argue the point there. So, is this how Wikipedia Guidelines and Criteria are run? By a very small group of "regulars" (read:"owners") who circle the wagons whenever an outside opinion is offered, and shut down the discussion as quickly as possible, before any other "outsiders" can join in? Obviously, yes it is... And this is the reason this sort of RfC gets so little input from the majority of Wikipedia, to the harm of the project at large. Dekkappai (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reopened the RfC and explained the process there as well. Second opinion request rescinded unless anyone feels the need. Doctor Sunshine (talk) 23:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is getting a bit silly now. Can we stop continually overturning admin's actions? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I did overturn an admin's actions. Why was my edit silly? --JD554 (talk) 11:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to Doc Sunshine and the continual reversions. Apologies for not being clear! Your edit summary summed it up nicely... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. --JD554 (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Trolling and POV-pushing in race-related topics

I've been discussing this issue with the admin user:Dbachmann on his talk page here, and he suggested that I bring it up on this noticeboard. There are several aspects of this issue, but the most obvious one is that the user Alun / Wobble has a history of trolling these topics and making personal attacks on other Wikipedia users. He’s been warned about this behavior both by Dbachmann himself, and by non-admin users involved in the articles he edits. I've linked several examples of this from my post about this on Dbachmann's talk page, and quoted one particularly obvious example there.

The article Race and intelligence in particular has numerous issues, some of which I've described here and here. I've been accused of edit warring on this topic, which I may be guilty of, but the underlying issue here is the various forms of POV-pushing that are going on. Several users keep making obviously POV edits to this article, such as removing properly sourced information without any explanation of what's wrong with it, and at the moment I seem to be one of the only people who cares enough to revert these edits. This aspect of the article would definitely benefit from some admin attention. --Captain Occam (talk) 18:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please be cautious about using the word troll, which means something very specific, as in deliberately antagonizing other editors just to get a rise out of them. It's not a term that should be used simply because someone disagrees with how an article is written. So you may wish to refactor that part of your complaint. Also, when you say "personal attacks", it would be helpful if you could provide specific diffs of what you feel are the more egregious violations. --Elonka 19:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This recent debate does also seem to be part of this discussion. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Another related thread is this 3RR report.[2] --Elonka 19:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not seeing any comments whatsoever from Captain Occam (talk · contribs) to the talkpage of Wobble (talk · contribs). Generally it's best for users to try and work out their disagreements on talkpages, before requesting attention at ANI. This is looking more and more like a content dispute. Recommend pushing this back to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 19:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I used the term "trolling" for this editor's conduct because it's the term that Dbachmann used; I'm not sure whether this term is an accurate description of it or not. But either way, his conduct definitely fits Wikipedia's definition of personal attacks.

Here is one example of this behavior, about which Wobble previously received a warning, and here is another example. While the latter comment was not directed at anyone who was currently editing the article, several of Gene Expression's authors (such as Quizkajer) are editors at Wikipedia who have edited these article in the past, so calling them "fascists" is still a personal attack on Wikipedia users. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

"I am not seeing any comments whatsoever from Captain Occam (talk · contribs) to the talkpage of Wobble (talk · contribs). Generally it's best for users to try and work out their disagreements on talkpages, before requesting attention at ANI."

The reason I haven't contacted him about this is because other users involved in these articles have already done so, the most recent time being three days ago. All I would be accomplishing by contacting him there is restating what Fixentries already said. (Incidentally, Wobble's conduct since then hasn't improved.)

• This is extremely complicated and difficult, and I recommend especial care to anyone poking their noses in here. It's a tricky balancing act between the outright racists and the contentions of a minority of respectable scientists who do see a link between genetics and intelligence. WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE? It is not helped, IMHO, by people like Muntuwandi (how the hell did he get unbanned?), who is certainly not a fit and proper person to be editing such an article. Moreschi (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• It is a very complicated situation, of which I am only aware of a portion. I will add, however, that having read through and participated in the discussion at the RSN, Captain Occam shows distinct signs of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-type behaviour, which along with the edit-warring, clear 3RR breaching reverts of multiple editors[3], suggests to me that s/he is a significant part of the problem. --Slp1 (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed elsewhere, particularly on my userpage and here. I've agreed to no longer edit war on this article as long as the larger POV issues can be addressed.

However, the two instances of personal attacks from Wobble that I linked to were on articles about which I've had very little (or no) involvement, so I think that issue should be decided separately. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You come at ANI complaining of personal attacks of Alun against you, yet of the two (dubious) examples you provide, none is directed at you...????--Ramdrake (talk) 19:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You have indeed stopped reverting but "I've agreed to no longer edit war on this article as long as the larger POV issues can be addressed" is not terribly encouraging. What happens if the POV issues you see are not addressed by the community to your satisfaction? The precedent set at RSN of Captain Occam being able to listen to other voices is not terribly encouraging, unfortunately.--Slp1 (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I think they're likely to be addressed, so I'm not sure it matters what would happen if they aren't. I'm not sure what I would do if they aren't, but based on the amount of frustration I've experienced over this, I've considered giving up on editing Wikipeda altogether.

If you look carefully at the discussion on the RS noticeboard, you'll see something rather odd there: the arguments against the NYT cite being reliable were not based on any specific policy. The other editors there would raise one policy that they thought it violated, we would discuss it at length, and eventually they would abandon their argument based on that policy. Then they would raise another, unrelated policy that they claimed it violated, and repeat the same process again. By the end of the discussion, they were recycling arguments that they had already previously abandoned after the previous time I refuted them, without even attempting to address the earlier refutations. (Some of the earlier refutations are on the R/I discussion page, which is where this dispute started.)

If there were one specific policy that everyone were in agreement was the reason why the NYT citation is inadmissible, that would be one thing, but in this case there never any consensus about what policy disallowed this. I pointed this out in more detail in the explanation of this on my userpage. Eventually I basically gave up on trying to include this citation in the article, but only because I didn't think it was worth the amount of time I was putting into this.

Can we please discuss the issues that I initially brought up here--the POV-pushing and the trolling--rather than having to rehash an issue that I've already more or less given up on? --Captain Occam (talk) 20:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say the personal attacks were directed at me. I said that he's been making personal attacks and possibly trolling, and the reason I care about this is because it's disrupting the articles in question, not because it's directed at me. --Captain Occam (talk) 19:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• As someone who has been involved on the talk page from the beginning of the above mentioned issues, I would have to say that Captain Occam can be stubborn, but that they eventually have come to understand most of the policy issues in question. The disputes between C.Occam and others seem to be genuine content disputes... more appropriately handled by discussion/RFC/mediation/arbitration than by admin actions. Fixentries (talk · contribs) however (whom Occam has inextricably described elsewhere as "uninvolved") has been extremely antagonistic and pointy, causing several editors to raise comparisons with Jagz (talk · contribs). T34CH (talk) 19:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Based on my limited experience in the dispute, I agree with the above. Content dispute inflamed by (assuming good faith) a lack of familiarization with standard wiki codes of conduct. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Can an administrator please address the issue that I brought up here originally, about trolling and/or personal attacks? The discussion here has gotten pretty far off-track, from people bringing up issues that are only marginally related to this, and my original complaint about Alun/Wobble’s conduct has not yet been addressed. I don’t want to have to post another new section here in order for this issue to receive an admin’s attention. --Captain Occam (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

You have administrator attention, for example, um, mine.  :) And I am not seeing any trolling here. As for personal attacks, I see a few comments which were more sharply worded than probably necessary, from multiple parties, but I'm not seeing anything that requires administrator action at this time. This noticeboard is really for requesting administrator attention in cases of blatant and unambiguous abuse. For content disputes, or non-blatant abuse, it is better to work through procedures at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 01:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And these are the diffs I linked to from Alun / Wobble that you’re looking at? The administrator who directed me here, Dbachmann, said that he thought that these diffs probably warranted a block; the only reason he hadn’t blocked Alun himself is because he occasionally edits the same articles that Alun does, and Dbachmann thought it ought to be done by an uninvolved admin. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Careful Occam. It seems you are totally "misreading" dab: User talk:Dbachmann#Alun_.2F_Wobble. If you want action, you need to post diffs (read that, as you seem to be confusing diffs with wikilinks) showing the exact comments you have issues with. To speed things up, here is the tail-end of the relevant conversation: [4][5][6][7][8][9]. I hadn't read it earlier because tldr, but I now see that actually Wobble accuses Occam of trolling, POV-pushing, and socking (well, implies the trolling part). T34CH (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No I did't, go and read the diffs again. I have never accused anyone of trolling. I haven't said he's pov-pushing, I have said "I can't help but feel that mostly you're here to justify a single point of view, much of it your opinion, and much of it unsupported by any reliable source." If there's something tremendously wrong with that, then I don't want to edit here any more. I didn't accuse him of socking either, what I did was say that I am suspicious that he is the same person as another editor (do you know the difference between a suspicion and an accusation?). That is not an accusation of sockpuppetry. Sockpuppetry is when multiple accounts are used for nefarious purposes, such as trying to rig a vote, or trying to influence discussions on talk pages. I never made that accusation. T34CH, you have totally misrepresented what I wrote. Well done. Alun (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Alun, I didn't mean to demonize you. I just thought there was something ironic about this thread. T34CH (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

T34CH, I already posted two diffs earlier, this one and this one. While these comments weren’t directed at me specifically, they’re still good examples of the disruptive behavior I was trying to demonstrate here. In his second comment, Alun accuses a group of several Wikipedia editors (those who also contribute to Gene Expression) of being “fascists”.

The first edit was the one for which Dbachmann said that he believed that a block for Alun would be justified. Dbachmann said, “This diff alone would buy you a block if I was in the habit of going to AN/I crying 'NPA!'" Putting that together with what Dbachmann said on his userpage about the blocking needing to be done by an uninvolved admin, I don’t think I’m misconstruing the opinion he's expressed in those two places. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again occam, you only give half the story. The comment I made about backmann I appologised for, [10] and I hardly see how it is relevant here. Your second point is just irrelevant, I called a racist websirte racist. Big deal, that's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. Indeed I'd suggest that it is far more disruptive for Wikipedia when editors continue to cite blogs (which is becoming something of a habit for you), rather than when edtors point out that these blogs are unreliable. Frankly I think you're wasting everyone's time trying to get me into "trouble". There's a word for that, oh yes wikilawyering. Alun (talk) 06:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out before, several of Gene Expression's authors (such as Quizkajer) are editors here who contribute to these articles, so calling them “fascists” is a personal attack on other Wikipedia users. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm totally unconvinced by that argument. If I knew that a specific editor was a contributer to that site, and called them a fascist on a talk page, then that would be a personal attack. But your claim is without merit as far as I can see. Alun (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Besides which Quizkajer hasn't contributed to Wikipedia for three years. So now I'm personally attacking someone who isn't even involved in the talk page discussion? Go and read Wikipedia:PA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F, because as far as I can see you're trying to claim that no one is ever allowed to critisize any editor or any publication ever because that's a personal attack. And no, I'm not telling you what you believe, I'm telling you what it seems to me you believe. I did that before and you called that a personal attack. I really think this is an absurd waste of AN/I time and space. Alun (talk) 08:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's my problem, if we take criticisms of wikipedians or publications that wikipedians "might" contribute to, as "personal attacks" then where does it end? My understanding is that a personal attack is a direct insult. I never thought that making a query of or disputing with another editor would be construed as a personal attack. I don't see how saying that you suspect that an editor may have edited before under a different name is a personal attack (and that is not the same as a sockpuppet allegation). I don't see how disagreeing with another editor about an article is trolling, I think that's what talk pages are for. I admit that I sometimes make mistakes and sometimes I express myself in a confrontational manner, but who doesn't? I have always appologised when I have crossed the line. The only diffs for real personal attacks here are actually very old and not directed towards Occam, and therefore not relevant to the current discussion. But to claim, as Occam does above, that I am a troll who has a history of making personal attacks is a bit rich (and frankly at best an exageration), and is just as much (if not more of) a personal attack as anything that I have written. So here's the thing, Occam seems to believe that I should be blocked for this, but I have the understanding that blocks are not meant to be punitive, but preventative. So the only answer is to open an RfC about my behaviour, or to instigate a community ban here and now. Otherwise I don't see what the point of this discussion is. Alun (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What would probably be quite helpful here, would be for all parties to avoid using the words "you" and "your". Because as soon as those words come out,[11] that's definitely getting into the realm of accusations and personal attacks. So please, try to keep all comments in the third-person, and this will help focus the discussion on the article, instead of the editors. If anyone perceives a need to make accusations like, "I think you may be a sock of so-and-so," please take it off the article talkpage, to that editor's talkpage, or even better, to WP:SSP. Keep the article talkpage for its primary use, discussion of the article, not speculation about the editors' motivations, and the discussion will usually be much more productive. --Elonka 20:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Template removal & incivility...

Restored from archive... - Adolphus79 (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Back on September 20, 2009, Chao19 (talk · contribs) was blocked for removing article maintenence templates and incivility. He was removing {{fact}}, {{refimprove}}, and {{references}} templates from assorted Creed articles... he was given fair warning, and his only replies the the warnings were that no references were needed and I was an asshole for restoring the templates. After the block, that user was inactive for a while, although there were one or two IPs (67.167.33.47 (talk · contribs) and possible others) that continued the pattern, even going so far as to continue the incivility on my user talk page (this and the following half dozen revisions)... within a minute of the IP's last comment, Chao19 had logged in, and replied to his own IP comment (Chao19's first edit since the block)... Since that edit, the IP has not made any further edits, and Chao19 has continued the incivility[12] and removal of maintenence templates without reason... I filed a report at AIV, and was going to file a report at SSP, but was told it would be better brought to ANI...

It is obvious that the IP is a sock of Chao19, and it is also obvious that Chao19's original block did nothing to change his editing habits... his counter-productive editing and harassment of other users has become more than an average bother to me, and I would like someone else to look into this... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleting talk comments

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) has made good on a threat to begin deleting my talk page comments [13]. Nothing I have posted on the talk page comes even remotely close deserving to be deleted as per WP:TALKNO. I had suggested that we seek arbitration or mediation to resolve a dispute over the content of an article, but this suggestion was deleted.--Dbratland (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh. If I were Delicious carbuncle, I would have just stopped responding to you in that particular section of the talk page, and merely ensured that anything put into the article itself was within policy. While I disagree with what I opine are hair-splitting statements over a minor facet of a minor topic, I don't think this should have been forcibly removed from the article talk page. Tan | 39 23:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than me simply giving in, I would appreciate any suggestions on how to resolve this dispute without any more drama.--Dbratland (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several options available to you; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. IMHO, your best bet might be to post a neutrally worded request at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Motorcycling for people to drop by and give their opinion. Technically, you've got 3 opinions already, but you could bend the rules slightly and request a fourth at WP:3O. It seems there is some question on reliability of sources; you could ask for input on that particular issue at WP:RSNB. I think if everyone involved tries hard to compromise, instead of insist that they're right, you'd all be able to come up with a compromise wording. Arbitration is not an option; the ArbCom only deals with user conduct, not content issues, and anyway thinks have to get a lot worse than this before you'd want to even think about heading there. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's proper for one person to remove the talk page comments of another involved in the same dispute. I've therefore reverted the removal. No opinion on whether or not the discussion really needs to continue, but this manner of forcing it to end seems improper. As Tan said, the other parties could have simply stopped responding, which would have been the way to go. WP:Just drop it. Equazcion (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I already tried WP:RSNB and Motorcycling -- we only have about 5 active members, and I'm the only one with a morbid fascination with the motorcycle gang articles, in spite of their overwhelming popularity over articles about actual motorcycles. So I'll see what WP:3O can do. The reason I don't want to drop it is not because I care one way or another about what is said about motorcycle gangs. I do care about being able to write and maintain the articles in the scope of the Motorcycling Project, and if you're not allowed to say "outlaw" can include a non-criminal subculture, then you have to throw out two thirds of the books and journal articles on the subject, and all you have to work with are police press releases and unreliable true crime books. It's easier to write articles if you are allowed to cite all authorities, not just some.--Dbratland (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wasn't telling you to drop it, Dbratland. I was saying that if your opponents wanted to end the discussion, they only needed to stop responding to you. That's what WP:JDI is about. I haven't read through your dispute in detail but I'll have a look and comment if I can. Equazcion (talk) 00:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize what you meant. I just wanted to vent, I guess.--Dbratland (talk) 02:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me briefly outline what is happening on here. Dbratland has split Outlaw motorcycle club from Motorcycle club. He has then selectively edited out references which suggest that "outlaw motorcycle club" is synonymous with "outlaw motorcycle gang". (Note that Motorcycle gang is a redirect to this article). Dbratland has inserted references to support his position that there is a distinction between non-criminal "outlaw motorcycle clubs" and allegedly criminal "motorcycle gangs", which is a distinction not supported by news media or law enforcement references. As you will see in this edit from Talk:Outlaw_motorcycle_club, he has misrepresented the positions of some of the references he seeks to use. Similarly, in this discussion WP:RSN#Sources for special meaning of the word "outlaw", he twice misquoted a source and failed to corrct his mistakes when they were pointed out to him. The WP:RSN discussion is the precursor to the one on the talk page and is similarly a discussion about the specific application of the word "outlaw".

Dbratland wants to debate whether or not outlaw bikers should be considered criminals. This is a philsophical debate and Wikipedia is not the place for it. He has been asked, clearly and politely, to stop using the talk page as a soapbox, but has persisted. As evidenced by this concurrent discussion at [WP:RSN], Dbratland has a specific agenda and decidedly not neutral point of view with these articles. He seems to be what is generally called a "polite POV pusher" or tendentious editor. There is no reason to allow him to use the talk page as a soapbox. I reverted his comments per WP:TALK on that basis, after telling him that I would do so. 01:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on the article talk page, which I think is the more appropriate venue. Equazcion (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If anyone cares to wander over to that talk page, they will see more of the same. I wouldn't mind a hand explaining the basic use of sources. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

DC, I think the other editor understands entirely about sources, and you should perhaps be a little less aggressive about assuming good faith. It would appear that other arrivals at the talk page are sympathetic to the other viewpoint. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You think the editor understands the use of sources? "In reading Drewery, do you detect in there any hints that perhaps the word "outlaw" has more than one meaning, depending on time, place, speaker, and context? I kind of think that point is in there somewhere". I disagree. And if you think he's simply being sarcastic, you are welcome to read the reference article in question. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm seeing more of a closed-minded "Assume everyone else doesn't know what they're talking about" attitude from you, DC [14]. Your stance has been rather combative from fairly early on. I'm pretty sure everyone else is just as frustrated as you. Please try to keep calm, and an open mind. Equazcion (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am calm and I don't know why you would assume otherwise. I do have an open mind, as evidenced by my repeated statements that I have no objection to including Dbratland's point of view (which, I note again, is already in the article). I'm not assuming that no one else knows what they are talking about. You certainly have assumed an awful lot from a one word answer. I haven't found your participation on the talk page very helpful thus far, but I welcome your help reviewing the sources that Dbratland has offered. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

When you leave one-word answers, you leave people no choice but to make assumptions. Equazcion (talk) 20:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have repeatedly asked Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) to stop attacking me personally and to instead assume good faith on article Talk pages, but this person is adamant that they will not stop, in spite of multiple editors who agree that my posts are valid part of a content disagreement discussion. I think further action is warranted to put a stop to this behavior.--Dbratland (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think I have made any personal attacks, please provide diffs. You and I agree that further action is warranted to put a stop to the problematic actions happening with motorcycle club articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't bother providing diffs, because you'll just explain to me how, in each instance, they technically aren't personal attacks according to Policy. But add me to the list of people who think you need to assume a lot more good faith with Dbratland than you have been. Your combative attitude towards him, from the very beginning, has made this whole situation more difficult to resolve than it need have been. This isn't a patronizing civility warning, or something silly like that; it's one human telling another human that I think you're treating a third human with less respect than they deserve. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd welcome someone else with a kinder, gentler approach stepping in, but I don't see that happening. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

...wait, why is Floquenbeam responding for Dbratland? I'm confused. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:213.171.34.244 running an unapproved bot?

After deleting three very odd talk pages made by this account (they were talk pages for nonsense strings of characters, whose only content was a blank speedy deletion template) I checked this ip's history for any other recent weirdness, and found that the majority of their edits have "robot adding" in their edit summary. Looks to me like they are sporadically running an unapproved bot of some sort. I've never tangled with this specific situation before, so I'm bringing it here. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like an interwiki link bot which I would guess is being run from the Ukrainian Wikipedia (its edit summaries were first in Ukranian). Icewedge (talk) 06:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I just ran a search (with this) and the IP has has thousands of edits on dozens of different projects. Its kind of suspicious, there is a lot of "Робот добавил: [interwikies]" ("Bot added: [interwikies]") but also a lot of nonsense page creation too. Icewedge (talk) 06:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It created a userpage on et.wikipedia.org ([15]) with userboxes indicating fluency in Russian and a very basic grasp of English. Icewedge (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what to do. It seems static so if you think its doing more harm than good a block could be effective. I don't think we are going to able to easily contact this fellow, although no harm in trying. Icewedge (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Does WP:RUSSIA have any members who are also admins? Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure the bot is doing any harm at all, really. They're just interwiki links, and the few I checked work and seem accurate. This does seem to be an unapproved bot, but if it's not doing anything "bad" maybe we should just WP:IAR and let it be. Of course that would be a lot easier to do if the same account wasn't creating gibberish talk pages. I've left a note on their talk page but if they follow their previous pattern it might be a month or longer before they come back. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Could just be a bot that got logged out? –xeno^talk 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet accusations

I have been accused of a sockpuppet but no case has been filed and I consider this a slur on my wiki-name. I have never been blocked or involved in sockpuppetry and I am concerned with how this will impact on my reputation. If no case is filed, can I remove it or ask for it to be removed?

What I also find disturbing about this is the editor who has added the report names two other editors who they say it could be - surely, editors cannot accuse multiple editors of being a sockpuppet and hope that one sticks? It looks like they wish to run a fish-tripping on multiple editors.

In addition, they deleted a reply of mine to that page where I noted that I had received an email about this matter to make it look like it was something I was trying to hide rather than someone I noted myself. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it. You're BOTH (you and Benjiboi) admonished to put up or shut up regarding sockpuppet accusations and WP:BITEing. I totally agree that its likely that user is not a new user, but you have no basis for who they could possibly be a sock of. If they are a new user, you both bit them in an attempt to bully the other. If you can establish who they might be, you're free to bring a CU request but until then neither of you should reinstate those sock notices. Syrthiss (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I hold my hand up on that - and will offer my apologies to the user about that - my anger at the false accusation got the better of me and I should have known better. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clear this is - yet another - attempt at WP:Baiting me and it's unfortunate that Cameron Scott invests sooo much energy in following me around. I guess I should be honoured they are obsessed with me. -- Banjeboi 14:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I don't particularly like having my good name thrown around by User:Benjiboi in all this as well. - Schrandit (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record both you and Cameron Scott have continued to heap piles of bad faith on me and this claimed concern about your wiki-reputations rings quite hollow, actually. If you didn't support banned editors using anon socks, blanketing articles with {{COI}} and {{fact}} tags with apparently no interest but in deleting material you apparently don't approve and, possibly most chilling - defending attackers and murderers as unjustly accused of hate crimes against LGBT people - none of this would likely be going on. Instead, bolstered by Wikipedia Review you nip at my heels and throw muck at my work until you hope something sticks. Essentially you're playing the worst sort of game and playing the community for fools. If you don't approve/like/condone LGBT people and culture than work on some of the other three million articles. If you don't care for another editor? Then avoid them, don't continually target articles they work on when you obviously have little to no interest in them. In short, move on. Your actions are disruptive and are counter to building good content. You work will make or break your reputations. -- Banjeboi 14:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This really isn't the place for more of the same vague accusations of bad faith that you have made previously and started this section. If you have a problem with my edits, I invite you to start a RFC and I'll be happy to stand on my record.Other well respected editors in the LGBT project have stated previously that they are happy with my edits and therefore I feel there is no case to answer. Otherwise I have no further comment to make here (as it only seems to encourage you in your accusations) unless invited to do so by an administrator or anyone else who is seeking answers. Otherwise I consider this matter resolved. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if that was too vague for you. Leave me alone, stop harassing me, stop accusing me of COI editing, stop trying to out me or whoever you think I am, stop WP:Wikihounding me. Hope that is more clear and we can all more on from here. -- Banjeboi 15:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Benji, your edits have shown time and time again violations of policies and guidelines. Anyone has every right to scrutinize them, and hiding behind the flag of homophobia is against common decency and WP:AGF. Please strike your accusations, apologize to the user and move on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of vague accusations. If you have some tangible concern of my "time and time again violations of policies and guidelines" please present them in a proper forum so some non-biased eyes might see what merit your concerns hold. I'm hardly hiding behind anything, homophobia exists on Wikipedia but most editors are willing to act civilly towards one another despite their beliefs. We don't suspend our civility in order to make a point or enforce some other policy. There is never a reason to harass other editors. -- Banjeboi 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who knows Benjiboi's real name will see that this is an obvious attempt to annoy or harass him. While this shouldn't give Benjiboi license to accuse others of sockpuppetry, perhaps the account should be blocked. On the other hand, if Benjiboi was more open about his connections to the subjects that he edits, I suspect that the editors he accuses of being obsessed with him would find other things to do. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Impressive sleuthing DC, that does put many a suspicion to rest. - Schrandit (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It had already been raised in this discussion, where the putative conflict of interest was relevant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 10:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• No comment on the other matters at play, but I have blocked the account indefinitely for harassment. –xeno^talk 17:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• My connection was answered here. And even if it hadn't been answered there is never an excuse to harass other editors here. No matter someone's background they need to act civilly toward others or find another website to express their ideas. -- Banjeboi 05:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So let's see if I understand this:

• At least as early as January 2008, Benjiboi is asked (during the first AfD for the now deleted bio of DJ Pusspuss) about his connection to DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.
• In early September, the COI questions noted in the first AfD were brought up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P.
• For the past two months, at this ANI thread, this WP:COIN thread, and a couple of AfDs, Benjiboi has steadfastly denied any conflict of interest in DJ Pusspuss, Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, etc, etc
• Now that a diff from 2006 is produced in which Benjiboi states that he is "the archivist for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, Inc. in San Francisco" with the same email used by DJ Pusspuss, Sister Kitty Catalyst, and the freelance journalist who shell not be named, Benjiboi states that the diff "was made by someone else" using his account.

It seems odd that after so much fuss, Benjiboi didn't earlier offer that "someone else" had used their account. And if "someone else" was responsible for the 2006 diff, it can only be assumed that the same "someone else" went back in May 2007 to remove only the email address from that comment.

I am fully aware of WP:OUTING and I understand that editors may not wish to have their WP usernames connected to their real life identities, but at some point the presumption of good faith is overwhelmed by the evidence to the contrary. Benjiboi claims that because he edits LGBT articles he is at risk of becoming a victim of a hate crime. Since all of the personas in this mess (Sister Kitty, DJ Pusspuss, unnamed freelance journalist) are openly gay LGBT activists and "homo-propagandists" (their term, not mine), it is hard to see how this can be rationalized. Rather than simply avoid editing the articles where the "someone else" who used Benjiboi's account would have a conflict of interest, Benjiboi has edit warred and blustered about being harassed by accusations of COI. This has become a low-level but constant distraction and has now blossomed into actual harassment of Benjiboi by anon IPs and abusively named accounts.

Ignoring the problem hasn't made it go away. Can we find some constructive way to deal with this issue, please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Unjustifiedly warned for vandalism

I have been warned for vandalism by a childish user who can't understand reasons, arguing that I'm adding unsourced information to an article, while the information I added is clearly sourced. What is the action to take in this situation? Thanks in advance. --uKER (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. Could you provide a diff? --Smashville^talk 14:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This user is being warned by a user that has a strong opinion on the outcome/future of a movie. Uker has provided sources, the other user has retaliated with the reason that they are "right". The other user (Anesleyp‎) has not participated in discussion on the topic, while urged to many times. Just a passer-by's observation. Gpia7r (talk) 15:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

If you mean the diff to his warning, you can see it here. I find this specially aggravating if you consider that the template is aimed at newcomers and I got it from someone with less than 120 edits and less than 2 years in Wikipedia. Also worth mention is that the user put the warning in my page not by using the template, but by copy/pasting a warning from somewhere else and then editing it (see this). Also, you may find interesting that his user page is just a mashup of false information copied from other user pages, which results in it saying the user has 23000+ edits (which as I said he has less than 120), him living in both Florida and Washington, him belonging to Wikiprojects he doesn't actually belong to, and showing barnstars he hasn't earned. Numerous users, seeing he had copied information from their user page, have edited and even blanked it, but there's still a lot more. Also, the user keeps making judgements about me editing Wikipedia too much, which I find totally uncalled for (see this user page message and this edit summary). --uKER (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, calling the user "childish" is a personal attack. Don't do it. Second, you're both behaving rather poorly. I suggest you seek dispute resolution on this issue. This isn't really a matter admins are going to worry about unless the two of you keep edit-warring. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. After a quick look at the material associated with Anesleyp (talk · contribs) -- user page, edit history, talk page, etc. -- it appears this person is on the fasttrack to an indef block. RHaworth is attempting to explain to this user what can one can borrow from other user's pages for use on one's own user page -- & how to do this. From her/his Talk page archives, Anesleyp has had a difficult time understanding licensing concepts, & was blocked for 31 hours for this. Since there's an unspoken requirement that a certain level of maturity is needed to successfully contribute to Wikipedia, in this case I think it is fair to say this user is acting "childish"; a more mature contributor would either accept correction much more quickly, or at least not make these kinds of mistakes. A less kind explanation would be to say she/he is being intentionally disruptive. In any case, it's clear that Anesleyp needs to change her/his behavior or face the consequences. And that may involve Admin attention. -- llywrch (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My saying he is acting childishly is due to him repeatedly reverting saying I'm adding unsourced information when it's perfectly sourced, his edit summaries being along the lines of "reverted, I'm right" and him making judgements about me editing too much. --uKER (talk) 18:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just read WP:NPA for the umpteenth time, and see nowhere in there any excuse for calling someone "childish", let alone the one provided above. We comment on edits, not editors. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Page locked in error

Resolved

 – Unprotected, although WP:RFP is thataway (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

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

The Polanski page was locked in error, admin was contacted, admitted it was in error - and then made up baseless reasons to justify his action rather than correcting himself. Discussion with the admin copied below, may also be found here:[16]

• Why did you lock the Polanski article?
• On the contrary, I unlocked it. It was locked even harder before I came by today. --
• You may want to double check. This[17] was 4 edits prior to your lock.
• Oh my... I think you're right... I didn't realize the edit part of the October 1 action had an expiration date. All the same, this article remains a target and it is a BLP, so longer-term semi-protection is appropriate. I won't self-revert, but you're welcome to raise the issue at WP:RFP.

1st, and perhaps most importantly - it is never appropriate to make a decision in error and then create a rationale. 2nd, there was nooooooooooooo IP vandalism or reverting of IP's. There is no basis for the lock, nor for the locking administrators intransigence in correcting his quite obvious and admitted error. 99.142.8.221 (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is there some reason not to take this to WP:RFP as suggested by the conversation? Admins who patrol that area will have the best knowledge of the appropriate action to take at the page. Whatever point you may have to make with the admin doesn't seem to rise to the level of an AN/I complaint.  Frank  |  talk  15:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Please take to RFP for a lil more discussion. I like it to be semi-protected, but perhaps ppl have other ideas. RFP is the venue. -- Y not? 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever to be engaged in an unreasonable run-around. The action was in error, the subsequent search for justification utterly baseless - there are precisely TWO IP edits over the last two days. (One on the 13th and one on the 12th.) 99.142.8.221 (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As a past RFPP regular, I took a look. While it is more than likely that the page will be protected again, and soon, preemptive protection is against WP:PP and thus I fully unprotected the page. I don't think the admin's reasons were "baseless"; I would bet a paycheck this gets vandalized within the hour - but I might be wrong, and policy dictates unprotection. Tan | 39 15:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

TY. Here are the two IP edits from the 13th[18] and the one on the 12th. [19]. 99.142.8.221 (talk) 15:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The page has been previously protected due to excessive vandalism. At any rate, I unprotected it, but just a thought - try to not be as confrontational. Tan | 39 15:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, my last response was written before I saw that you had unprotected - an edit conflict had occurred. (note too, that the original, full protection, was due to members) Also, my initial concerns were brought to the talk page in the kindest manner. 99.142.8.221 (talk) 15:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Removing all my edits

Zen-in methodically removes all my edits without any discussion and insults me on talk pages. I would like to get some admin intervention against his brutal actions. See: Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic, CMOS, Differential amplifier, Negative impedance converter, Talk:Negative resistance, Negative resistance. Thanks. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 16:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• possible edit warring according to this and this. You are both good editors editing almost the same articles (Zain, Circuit ft). I suggest you both read wp:3RR. We are all good in what we think we are. if we meet other good people in our field, there is no guarantee that we shall agree on every subject. best to read wp:3rr. all the best mate. Ecoman24 (talk page) 16:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• I think somebody with more familiarity with the topic should review. Zen-in was told that he was mistaken in some of his assertions, but also that he could roll back all of CF's edits on Emitter-coupled logic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• They seem to ve been in possible edit warring since FEBRUARY 2009. A good solution to need to be found. My suggestion still remains for both to understand WP:3RR. any fighting is not good and is not accepted at wiki. talk pages are not battle grounds. No one gets paid to contribute to wikipedia. we will never meet most editors we communicate to. They don't really matter in our day to day lives. Make peace for whatever the price, even lowering your integrity, do it. you will loose nothing. Ecoman24 (talk page) 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• There has been a lot of discussion concerning CF's non-stop edits to electronics pages. Once CF starts editing a page he is like a pit bull and will not let go of it. If anyone tries to edit the same page he will revert the edits and/or complain to admin. After 50-150 edits, with no other contributions, he will move on to another page, to do the same. There are many editors who completely disagree with his way of presenting electronics because the result is confusing to read. A few months ago we went through all of this with Negative resistance. I and several other editors completely re-wrote this page. I believe that maintaining the quality of Wikipedia articles is more important than letting everyone's edits stand.Zen-in (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• If you scrutinize my contributions, you will see that all my insertions are accompanied with concrete summaries and comprehensive explanations on the according talk pages about the root of the matter. I have been inviting many times Zen-in and other wikipedians responsible to these pages to join discussions. Conversely, if you examine all Zen-in's contributions, you will see that, as a rule, his edits are not equipped with accompanying explanations on the talk pages. Instead, his comments on talk pages are full with personal attacks, insults (e.g., "pit bull":) and offensive characteristics directed mainly against me. I have not ever managed to discuss in essence the contents of these pages with Zen-in. So, I begin restoring sentence-by-sentence my edits (removed by Zen-in) commenting all my insertions on the according talk pages and inviting Zen-in to discuss them. Circuit-fantasist (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• CF you should not take the criticism of your edits as a personal attack. Several other editors have stated to you that your writing is unsuitable for publication on Wikipedia, as it relies heavily on your personal opinions and insights (i.e, it is original research). Unfortunately there is a noticeable degradation in the quality and readibility of pages you have extensively edit, at the exclusion of others. You should not take this observation as a personal insult and you should be used to hearing it by now.Zen-in (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hrm, do we have an issue with self-promotion, conflict of interest here? I note a recent tussle over links to wikibooks, e.g. b:Circuit Idea/Revealing the Mystery of Negative Impedance, which all seems to point back to www.circuit-fantasia.com. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• User talk:Zen-in, this statement (Once CF starts editing a page he is like a pit bull and will not let go of it) is/could be interpreted as a personal attack. please, avoid using such statement. they don't help to solve a problem. You both have valid points, defending your actions. You have both made some good contributions to wiki. best thing you can do both is to compromise, not fighting any more. one of you will need to step back. you will loose nothing. worse scenario is, one or both of you may be disciplined. I don't want to see that. you are both veteran editors. Hope you can both compromise. may some one add a section called compromise below. Thank you. This case may also be a content dispute. Ecoman24 (talk page) 20:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Is this better? Once CF starts editing a page he will not let other's modify it. If you look at the history of the pages listed in CF's initial complaint you will see they all have long unbroken periods when CF edited them. The root of the problem is CF's use of Wikipedia to promote his university's alternative method of describing electronic circuits, as noted by Tarc. A good example of this can be found on the Negative differential resistance page. This is what CF's edits eventually become. CF's edits promote original, unverified research. I have had the good fortune to have studied electronics at a very good university and I have worked as an electronic and computer engineer for many years. I think every editor and administrator on Wikipedia owes it to the users of Wikipedia to maintain the highest quality and readibility of its technical pages. Sometimes that means rolling back one person's edits so that an earlier, well written article is restored. CF has been told in the past, by more experienced editors than I, that he should confine his alternative pedagogical method to his own personal pages because it is WP:OR and WP:POV. As much as I would like to compromise I cannot because to do so would be to participate in CF's conflict of interest.Zen-in (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you zain. thank you also Tarc for that information. Zain and CF, You are both here to find a long lasting solution. I see, you have been warring since february. i see that you are not willing to compromise. would you suggest a solution to this problem, (up to five bullet points, if you don't mind). Circuit-fantasist, could you also do the same. consider your friend in drafting the solution. Thank you guys. Ecoman24 (talk page) 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• We have not been edit warring since February. I, along with several other editors re-wrote Negative resistance page, against CF's objections. Since then I have not done much editing on Wikipedia, while CF has done a lot. Before any talk of compromise should occur action should be taken on CF's conflict of interest. My edits have been directed to restore articles to their original quality whereas CF's have done the opposite. If this is not apparent to you maybe someone who has a better understanding of electronics should weigh in. I can suggest SpinningSpark, Secret Squïrrel, Rogerbrent, and Timberframe since they have dealt with this issue in the past. That is my offer of a compromise. Zen-in (talk) 21:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A compromise suggested by:

Zen-in:

This is my offer of a compromise to end any so-called edit warring between Circuit-fantasist and myself, Zen-in

• Circuit-fantasist to desist from editing any electronic articles on Wikipedia because of his long-standing WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:COI activities that have degraded the quality of many of these articles. He is welcome to edit other non-technical pages.
• Zen-in, with the help of other editors, will restore the numerous electronics pages edited by Circuit-fantasist to their earlier quality and will not revert or otherwise "edit-war" against Circuit-fantasist on the non-technical pages he does edit. Zen-in (talk) 22:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Circuit-fantasist:

Ecoman24:

• Both Zen-in and Circuit-fantasist to stop editing any disputed article, ADMIN to protect pages mentioned below.
• In future, both Zen-in and Circuit-fantasist should not edit the same article more than twice in one week or revert the others contribution more than twice in two weeks. Any one doing so will be considered edit warring, and an initial 24hrs block may follow.
• Zain should not edit the following pages Emitter-coupled logic, Transistor–transistor logic,
• Circuit-fantasist not to edit the following pages Negative impedance converter, Operational amplifier applications,
• both of you not to edit the following pages CMOS
• Admin to to protect the following pages - Negative resistance
• Both of you should not use any PERSONAL ATTACK LANGUAGE, see WP:PA, strict rules may apply
• If you ever found in wanting to edit the same article, please step back, or discuss on the article talk page.
• YOU SHOULD AT NO TIME PUT DOWN your friends personal information on wikipedia. That may be considered HARASSMENT, see Wikipedia:PRIVACY#Posting of personal information.

I hope this is a neutral solution to the problem that will satisfy both veteran editors, contributing in the area where more editors are needed. Ecoman24 (talk page) 08:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• The above is agreeable to me. I can abide by these terms. Zen-in (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see the additional comments below. EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tarc:

I think you are painting the problem with an overly-broad brush. Zen-in needs to reign in the emotions a bit and adhere to WP:CIVIL, but I do not see a problem with his editing per se, as what he (and others) have been trying to do is keep Circuit-fantasist's self-published original research from weakening otherwise scientifically-valid articles. Again, I will point out www.circuit-fantasia.com as well as Circuit-fantasist; this person's general aim/goal is apparently to introduce science in "laymen's terms" for the Wikipedia, using his own diagrams and books. Circuit-fantasist is the one that should be kept away from scientific articles in general until he demonstrates an understanding and acceptance of basic editing policy. Perhaps WP:COIN would've been a better venue for this. Tarc (talk) 14:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Tarc. Zen needs to rein in their frustration, but I see the real issue as being Circuit-fantasist's editing methods and philosophy. They may indeed have some WP:COI issues, and certainly need to listen to advice from other editors. There also seems to be some misapprehension about what we're trying to build here; I wonder if Wikiversity might be more what they're looking for?

One question - is there a clear consensus among our regular subject editors/experts in this area that the type of material Circuit-fantasist is introducing is unwelcome? EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Linas, soapboxing on wikiprojects (and userpage)

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive564#Nuclear meltdown at User talk:Linas|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive564 § Nuclear meltdown at User talk:Linas]], and [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567#User:Linas again|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive567 § User:Linas again]]

Linas (talk · contribs) is apparently soapboxing/forumshopping on his quest to lead a sort of coup against the "nasty, abusive people in admin roles." He posted his rant to WikiProject Computer Science, WikiProject Mathematics, and WikiProject Physics. I'm in the group of five admins who he feels slighted by. That's why I'm bringing it here.

(Context: Linas's request for arbitration, Linas's request for mediation) tedder (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Woops, entire section edit conflict - merging mine with the one above...) The meltdown of Linas (talk · contribs) continues. Fresh off his third block in a month for vicious tirades and personal attacks (see here and here), he has refactored his user page, basically ignored my request to take it down, and is now spamming his version of events at various noticeboards.[20][21][22] There is another user subpage calling certain admins "fuck-brained idiots". Can an uninvolved admin (if there are any left) please counsel Linas regarding WP:USER, WP:CANVAS, WP:NPA, and any other policies that he is ignoring? Thank you. Wknight94 ^talk 17:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Working on it. Let me see what I can do, if anything. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I've removed or refactored the blatant personal attacks. Better than reaching for the block button, I think. Black Kite 17:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Linas was right to raise the issue at Wikiproject physics. This is how I learned about his case. I think he raises a very serious issue that needs to be looked into. Count Iblis (talk) 17:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed that section completely from his user page. If it gets reinserted then full protection of the user page is the next step. He has been warned not to reinsert it. Mjroots (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek reinserted it (why? it's still in the page history). Count Iblis, why do you think it needs to be looked at on WikiProject Physics or via any other forumshopping? tedder (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to separate the issue of Linas using inappropriate language here on wikipedia with the wider point he was making. I think Linas has the right to make the case he is making here and on the various wiki projects (but using decent language, of course). Count Iblis (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is why I think WikiProject Mathematics should be interested: If we can get a 1 week block just for getting a bit too angry about such an incredibly stupid edit (not sure if that's exactly what happened, but that's how it looks to me right now), then that's a problem that needs fixing. Hans Adler 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek says he's restored it for now. I'll bow to his judgement then. Mjroots (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping I could convince Linas to remove it himself. When it became clear that he wasn't interested in working with any of us, I re-removed it. Sorry, Mj, I was hoping that a demonstration of good faith would help matters, but no such luck. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem Sarek, I'm new here and am still learning. If I get reverted it's no big deal. :-) Mjroots (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So are we all. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

(Disclosure: I am also here because of Linas' message.) It appears that this whole situation was caused by this absolutely incredible edit by User:Aboutmovies. On first sight this looks like sneaky vandalism and an attempt to promote a new age publisher on a very technical mathematics page that is 100 % unrelated. I have never had any contact with User:Aboutmovies, but this seems to be a well-established user with a clear block log, so it's not hard to assume good faith. Which puts the edit into a different light: An extremely careless edit that happened to be one of the most stupid ones I have seen here. I am not commenting on what happened afterwards, because I am not familiar with it (yet). I would be grateful for links to all the relevant (archive) pages. I am particularly interested in reading Aboutmovies' explanation how this could happen innocently. Hans Adler 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He wrote the Beyond Words Publishing article and was simply looking for places to link it from. He found one that was wrong and was reverted. That's about it. If every time anyone made an honest mistake, they were called an idiot and an asshole and a dick weed, we wouldn't have a lot of people left. Wknight94 ^talk 17:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence in principle, although there is also the dimension of creating a climate in which experts don't feel overrun by Randies. I don't think this block was a positive contribution to that. Here is an important point that I got wrong at first, and I suspect that Linas also got it wrong, a miscommunication that may well have led to all of this:

Aboutmovies was reverted with a very clear edit summary that explained why he was wrong. He acknowledged this in his comment at [23]. Afterwards he reformatted the citation in question with a strange edit summary ("assist the citation challenged") that can easily be misunderstood as the edit summary of what would have been a revert. But it wasn't. This edit was followed by another that can be understood as a template attack on the article.

Most relevant pages seem to be linked from [24]. It seems that Aboutmovies made a silly edit to 3 pages, was correctly reverted, and then there were serious communication problems. I believe a member of WikiProject Mathematics could have deescalated these, and I am not convinced this was an occasion for blocking. (Blocking this troll who re-did one of Aboutmovies' mistakes and then immediately ran to ANI to boast about it would have made more sense.) It takes two sides to create a Michael Kohlhaas, and it appears both sides were very eager to do so. Hans Adler 18:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My explanation can be found at the ArbCom request under the "Statement by Aboutmovies". But for everyone here who somehow thinks this was vandalism or "sneaky vandalism" you really, really, really need to read WP:VANDALISM (we have a specific definition on Wikipedia), which is why I added that link to the original warning to this user. Secondly, since people have not apparently read the entire article on Beyond Words or the math (or physics?) article, a couple of points. First, with citations, under all the formats I know of, the pages come after the name of the publisher, which if you look at the article you will see "Beyond Words, pp. 123-456", thus why there was a mistake. As to the assertion about what the publishing company prints, the do not do New Age exclusively, they started out doing coffee table books, and they will print your own book for you for a fee (self-publishing) regardless of topic. So it is not exactly like they couldn't print this book in question, which in combination with the citation morass is why it got linked. Once it was reverted, there has never been any attempt by me to re-insert it (that would be vandalism). And (without reading whatever Linas has been writing since his original personal attack on me) I will say that expert editing is a noble concept, but then note I hope you math and science trained people would then never edit any article outside of your training, such as your local village or sports team or your local politician, etc. as you clearly would just be committing "sneaky vandalism", right? And as to eager to do so, note I never called anyone names, and I never asked anyone to block anyone. As to the anonIP, that is a long-term, sock puppetting, abusive editor that has been watching everything a certain set of editors does, and is not in anyway related to any of these discussion. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To me, the overriding point is that Linas is the one that escalated from the cordial tone of disagreement and misunderstanding above straight to "fuck off asshole" and "get rid of fucking asshole admins like you". There really is no context that explains that away IMHO. He wasn't even part of the original discussion - just a third party at User talk:Pohta ce-am pohtit. Wknight94 ^talk 19:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

For me the explanation is that the circumstances misled him into WP:ABF and he never got out of it. Hans Adler 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's a direct link to Aboutmovies' statement at ArbCom. Katr67 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Aboutmovies, I should clarify that I would phrase some things differently now that I have understood that you didn't re-revert. By "both sides" in my last sentence I meant Linas and the admins dealing with the matter, not you at all. And I only mentioned the troll because I felt that it probably contributed to the last block, but wasn't blocked itself.

Personally I consider your explanation convincing. But I think I can understand how Linas got into his train of thought. The idea that a serious maths book is published by a publisher known mainly for new age stuff is ridiculous, especially in this case (I can't blame you for not seeing this). And Springer Verlag is the largest scientific publisher worldwide, so that to all science types it was totally obvious who the real publisher was. I guess this made your attempts to explain how it happened sound disingenuous to Linas. That's really Linas' problem: he must understand that he was wrong about this crucial point. Hans Adler 19:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it help improve the encyclopedia to continue dogpiling on a constructive but testy editor? No? So why can't we just let him rant a little and stop helping him prove his point. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like some assurance that if a brand new math genius editor makes an edit to one of Linas's articles, but misspells something, he won't be called a "fuck brained idiot" and consequently leave the site permanently. Maybe you can handle that, and so can many others, but we can't ascribe tolerance for such immaturity to every new editor. There's no reason for it. Wknight94 ^talk 21:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

David makes a good point. Paul August ☎ 13:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Having looked over the history of this meltdown, I disagree with David. Linas is too far gone at this point to simply give him his head. I admit I've thought a lot of things he has written -- not against the people he mentions, please note -- but when I get to that point of frustration & disillusion the only solution is to take a long break from this place. In his case, he needs either a voluntary or enforced WikiBreak until he decides to act civilly again. And even if Wikipedia has degraded into a corrupt system that is producing increasingly unreliable content, the problem will be solved by our users voting with their feet -- which is a more efficient solution than foul-mouthed rants & personal attacks. -- llywrch (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A little Clue to those who are going to User talk:Linas and suggesting Citizendium: Citizendium policy in this area is unequivocal and clear. Had Linas made edits such as this, this, this, or this at Citizendium, xe would have been immediately and permanently banned from the project (even if Citizendium were giving second chances, since Linas made this edit back in 2007). Citizendium does not want this sort of thing. Yes, there's irony in someone who wants things done the way that they are at Citizendium acting in a way that at Citizendium would have xem thrown out on xyr ear in short order. Uncle G (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course. However, at CZ this scandal would not start, since CZ people tend to be less bold than careful, and to first propose a change on the talk page (unless correcting an evident mistake). Boris Tsirelson (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attack by Urban XII

Hello, I am having some problems with Wikipedia user Urban XII. The editor replied to one of my edits with a personal attack [here]. The [comment] was unnecessarily uncivil, had nothing to do with the issue and is an [Ad Hominem]. So I followed the dispute resolution first step and [asked the editor to remove the personal attack]. Urban XII made no effort to contact me or give an explanation, and instead [removed my request] and [marked it] as Vandalism, along with a different request by Wikipedia editor User talk:Wilhelm_meis. I am now requesting a third opinion or a Wikipedia Administrator's intervention. DD2KDave Dial 17:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I made a response to a personal attack by User:DD2K, merely pointing out his disruptive record at Wikipedia, leading to a permanent block of him in the past. My comment was clearly appropriate. This user, who has never been involved in anything else than edit-warring and conflicts with editors and never contributed with content to Wikipedia, apparently continues his stalking of me at this page. I don't intend to waste more time on such disruptive editors. Urban XII (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Can we get some actual diffs here? I'm not sure what it is I'm supposed to be looking at. --Smashville^talk 21:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

He's referring to [25] made in response to his own comment seen above. In short, a user who previously was banned indefinitely[26], who had made only 42 edits, who has never contributed with content to our encyclopedia, and whose only contributions so far have been edit-warring and conflicts with other editors, attacks me for "using Wikipedia as a personal soapbox" (although I'm the one who has been critical of other editors using Wikipedia as a soapbox). I pointed out the record of this particular user because he himself felt the need to point out that I registered this summer. I've actually made roughly 30 times as many edits as that user and unlike him written a number of articles. When one look at the contributions of DD2K, it's evident that he's in no position to attack other users from being involved in conflicts (or as in my case, being the target of disruptive stalking and vendetta sprees like this thread is just the most recent example of). The discussion is an attempt to revive a previous discussion that has now been archived. Some people feel they cannot let other alone. I see no reason to continue this discussion. Everything has been said before. A more appropriate heading for the discussion would be "harassment by User:DD2K". Urban XII (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment DD2K is referring to was placed [27]. Note: the discussion was already archived before Urban XII added the comment in question. Urban did not directly refer to DD2K's request for dispute resolution as vandalism, but he did imply a false accusation of vandalism with this edit. This is not the first time he has confused comments and warnings on his talk page with vandalism [28] [29] [30]. I notified this user here that some of his edits that were marked as minor edits were not considered WP:MINOR, but that seemed to fall on deaf ears, and my reminder here may be what he was referring to as "vandalism". Either way, false accusations of vandalism seem to be a theme for this user [31]. Looking at the user's edits, it looks to me like he is working at cross purposes to Wikipedia's policies, as he seems to continually have problems with NPOV, BLP policy, NPA, and WP:SOAP. It has been said (by another user) that he seems to be here to Right Great Wrongs. Maybe that would explain his persistent disregard for policy. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 00:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm, next time I will be the one who starts a thread on you. Maybe someone could explain about NPOV, SOAP, CIVILITY and POINT to you? The same group of users have been continously harassing me at this page following a disagreement at Talk:Roman Polanski. The abuse of WP:AN/I for the purpose of stalking one's opponents is becoming increasingly disruptive to Wikipedia as a whole. Urban XII (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe he was asking you(User:Urban XII) to provide links to your accusations. I've already supplied links. I asked that you remove your personal attack, I was responding to an Administrator's suggestion that User:Urban XII be blocked for 3 months. My previous experiences, from which I've learned from(violating WP:BLP and WP:COI) or how many edits I've made have nothing to do with the issue. In fact, they gave me a better understanding of those policies and how vital they are to Wikipedia. Any user can go to my [Talk Page], or the [last revision] made by User:Daniel J. Leivick to see that a resolution was made. Not that that issue, or how many edits I've made, has anything to do with you making personal attacks against numerous editors. DD2K (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:119.73.3.51

119.73.3.51 (talk · contribs) (and various related IPs) is sockpuppet of User:NisarKand/User:Khampalak/User:Alishah85 - all three being banned indefinitely. The user is propagating nationalistic POV, he is very offensive (example: religious chauvinism, comparable to Taliban ideology), and he is violating Wikipedia rules (he has once again violated WP:3RR in Amir Kror Suri). Because of him, the articles Ghurids and Muhammad of Ghor have been blocked. The user is known to have more than 100 sockpuppets, most of them have been blocked by admins. Tajik (talk) 17:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• user warned, also for issuing religious attacks here. Ecoman24 (talk page) 08:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

96.32.188.25 WP:Disruptive editing, WP:Edit warring, Personal attacks

• 96.32.188.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  

WP:Disruptive editing of Talk:Passive–aggressive behavior: [32], [33], [34], [35]
WP:Edit warring and deletion of content of Passive–aggressive behavior [36], [37], [38]
WP:NPA personal attack on User talk:Alansohn after being warned by that editor.
--4wajzkd02 (talk)

Apparently this person is attempting to characterize disagreement with Alansohn's behavior as a "personal attack". In this disagreement I simply identified his behavior as arrogant and presumptuous and noted that he was misusing Wikipedia's terms of use to prevent opposing points of view entry onto the site. - User in question @ 96.32.188.25

It's not a dispute; you're just deleting virtually an entire article because you personally disagree with its content. Wikipedia doesn't go by the anonymous word of one editor as to what is the correct definition of a term, instead basing its articles on reliable sources, of which that article cites many. If you continue to delete it, you'll be blocked from editing. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You do not get to dictate what is and what is not a dispute based on your self-serving misinterpretation of Wikipedia fundamental rules. Please see the article on Appeal to authority fallacy to gain some understanding of why a completely inaccurate and useless if not counter productive interpretation of "passive aggressiveness" need not be considered true even if there does exist published somewhere a claim to the contrary that can be linked to. The entire concept of a "reliable source" is fallacious. Making threats towards me based on your inability to win an argument using sound reasoning will only result in the inability of Wikipedia to operate as designed and the destruction of your reputation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.188.25 (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that your comments above and on my talk page do not mitigate the concern of you engaging in personal attacks, rather, they reinforce it. Moreover, your response does not address concerns regarding disruptive editing nor edit warring. Of these three concerns, I believe WP:NPA is well documented, WP:DE, while subjective, is also demonstrated, while WP:Edit warring is objectively met.

I encourage you to read the embedded links on these issues before you respond. Also, please sign your posts like this: ~~~~ Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

IP block needed user:168.8.212.131

Resolved

 – IP temp blocked. Ecoman24 (talk page) 20:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This IP is vandalizing articles. see this. need to be blocked soon before it is too late. cheers mate. Ecoman24 (talk page) —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC).

User: PassionoftheDamon

For some time, a number of users have noted the opinionated nature and POV pushing of the article Miami Hurricanes football and associated articles. User PassionoftheDamon with a few friends systematically revert every edit made to the page. This was made clear by my discovery that much of the history section of the article was in fact copied word-for-word from the UM Athletics Dept. website over two years ago. Even though many edits were made since that time, the overwhelming number have been immediately reverted, leaving the biased, overwritten text in virtually its pristine form.

I then applied a {{copyvio}} template, which clearly instructs that no further edits should be made and to work out a new version on a subpage. However, PassionoftheDamon deleted the template and blanked out the relevant portion of the history. I noted this on the Copyright notice board, and PassionoftheDamon claimed that I was lying about his removal of the template and blanking. Because no subpage was established by the deleted template, I then spent several hours reconstructing the history taking care to avoid paraphrasing the copyrighted material and avoiding the POV bias of that material. I deliberately avoided tracking the same selection of detail used by the original article, but I left footnotes to the article as a source.

Now PassionoftheDamon has blanket reverted the entire replacement version without any explanation as to what was wrong with it. His edit summary just says "rv." He is now slowly restoring a close paraphrase of the copyright material, using the same selection of details as the original. Rather than footnoting to the website, he is referencing a slightly different form of the UM history in its 2007 media guide.

This conduct is on top of two weeks of blanket reverting all of my earlier changes to the article. When I have added {{fact}} templates, they are removed without adding a source or offering an explanatory comment. When I delete a sentence as being unsourced (and impossible to prove), he restores it with an edit summary saying I should "slap a tag" instead.

I have tried to describe my concerns on the talk page since October 8.[39] and [40] and [41] While one other reverting editor did discuss my concerns a bit, in the end he explained that the neutral language which I had inserted into the article was "too plain." User PassionoftheDamo has generally refrained from discussing specific changes, and finally exchanged a few comments with phrases like "the only issue is your obstinate refusal to acknowledge sources anytime they contradict what you wish to be reality" to describe my proposal to attribute statements of opinion to their sources. (In short, when PassionoftheDamo finds a source, he is just adding it as a footnote to the end of the sentence instead of restructuring the sentence to something like "Some sports writers have used the term 'Quarterback U' to refer to Miami...".)

Finally, because there is a POV dispute, I have added the POV and cleanup tags to a three of these articles, only to have PassionoftheDamon repeatedly and promptly revert them (without attempting to resolve the dispute.)

We should also determine how this copyright violation continued for so long. What tipped me off was PassionoftheDamon's comment to me on the talk page, "Concerning your final two complaints, both of those passages are paraphrased from the official university history of the program, so if you want sources, those could very easily be provided." I am troubled by the idea that the goal of a Wikipedia article would be an unattributed, very close paraphrase of a biased athletic dept. website instead of an independent NPOV summary of the relevant and significant facts.

I agree that consensus is important. But Wikipedia's other standards including NPOV are equally important, and one or two people should not be able to assert ownership over an article to the extent that it would remain a verbatim copyright violation for over two years. Your assistance would be appreciated. Racepacket (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket's concept of POV is flawed, as he opposes the use of simple adjectives that have positive or negative connotations as not being of a neutral point of view.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• To the extent that there is more at stake than just POV, you have a point. However, "whopping", "rout", "humiliating" and other peacock words do not help a factual account. It is all the more troubling that such words were lifted verbatim from a biased source without attribution. So, we have copyvio, POV, and other cleanup issues. The POV is clearest in the case of the discussion of the demolition of the Orange Bowl (which is not even owned by the University of Miami.) Why should an article about the Miami Hurricanes football team cover either side of the argument on the city's decision to tear that stadium down? The current article covers only one side. When I proposed neutral language, it was reverted as "too plain." Plain language makes for an easy to understand NPOV reference encyclopedia.
• Apparently, I was not the first to notice the copyvio. Someone reported it on the talk page in Sept. 2007 Racepacket (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Racepacket has a documented history on the talk page of both ignoring sources and trying to force his edits into the article in the face of opposing consensus. This problematic behavior extends not just to the Miami Hurricanes football article (where he has been reverted not just by me, but others), but pretty much all University of Miami-related articles. He deliberately distorts Wikipedia policy, challenging or summarily blanking pretty much any use of an adjective in a UM article, and when an abundance of sources are provided to verify the description, he simply ignores them.

He voiced a frivolous objection to describing the Orange Bowl as "one of the most historic stadiums of college football," and when three cites were provided from mainstream sources (including The New York Times) describing the facility alternately as "one of the most storied stadiums in college football history", "historic, venerable", and "historic", he still proceeded to claim it was "unsupported" and obstinately tried to exclude it from the article.

He was similarly intransigent with respect to a reference in the article to the Miami football program's nickname/reputation as "Quarterback U." After he decided to make that an issue, four references were provided to support the statement[42][43][44][45]. Nevertheless, he's still contesting that.

He likewise objected to characterizing a 47-0 loss by Miami to Florida State as "humiliating" and "one of the program's worst defeats," even though it was supported by three sources: "most embarrassing, humiliating" "blown-out," "destroyed" (Feldman, Cane Mutiny). Most amazingly of all, he actually tried to claim that this characterization was somehow POV in favor of Miami, the team that lost the game 47-0.

As to the issue of the copyright violation on the previous History section of the article, once it was apparent that it was a blatant case of infringement (literally copied and pasted from the UM athletics web site), I removed it in the interest of shielding the project from liability. User:Drew1830 was responsible for the addition of the material some time in June of 2007 [[46]. Racepacket then began adding an altered version, which very closely matched the wording and details of the source that had been infringed and which, again, sought to inject the same contentious edits that were previously opposed and rejected on the talk page. With that, I went to work crafting a new history section from scratch which uses the 2007 media guide as a primary source while incorporating a variety of other sources. It is better worded, better sourced, presents no copyright issues, and does not contain any of the rejected edits that Racepacket tried to stealthily restore.

These are but a few examples of the consistently quarrelsome behavior of Racepacket. With a history of sock puppetry and lack of respect for both 3RR, consensus, and verifiability, he is a user who, in all frankness, should be permanently exiled from the community, and it is nothing short of amusing to hear him now act as if he is some aggrieved party.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Without getting into all the rest, the use of "humiliating" and "most historic" are not NPOV, as they clearly denote an opinion, not a fact. --Smashville^talk 21:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Aside from the merits of each position, the concern is that the {{copyvio}} give clear instructions on how to proceed, "Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue. To write a new article without infringing material, follow this link to create a temporary subpage." (bold in the original) Similarly the {{POV}} template is clear, "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." Yet, PassionoftheDamon repeatedly removes POV templates without acknowledging the talk page comments relevant to my concerns. At a minimum we should mutally decide that the POV dispute has been resolved. More serious is the removal of the copyvio template. The idea behind the template is that the original infringing material is left on the page, but not viewable and blocked by a norobots tag to prevent spiders searching it. A new consensus article is developed on a subpage and then an Administrator comes along, compares the two, and decides if the problem was resolved. There was no need for PassionoftheDamon to blank the text and remove the tag and indeed the instructions on the tag told him otherwise. Because the tag was not there to point to the new subpage, I spent two and a half hours writing a non-infringing replacement only to have him revert it without comment or explanation. Racepacket (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The copyright vio protocol also says that in cases of blatant copyright infringement (which this most assuredly was), the infringing material may be summarily deleted or reverted. As to the tags you continually and arbitrarily kept adding to the article (as well as just about every other UM-related article on Wikipedia), your concerns were discussed and considered on the talk page, and, simply unsatisfied with the outcome of those discussions and that you did not get every single change you wanted incorporated into the article, you continued to reapply the tags even after they were removed not just by myself, but by other editors as well. Finally, don't be disingenuous as to the "new" History section you added this morning, which, aside from being of poor quality, lacking diversity in sources, and very closely resembling the previously infringed work, stealthily included a number of the contentious edits/reverts that you proposed on the talk page and which had been rejected, over and over and over again.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll also point out that this ANI seems largely opened in response to a pending Rfc regarding Racepacket in which I and several others are taking part, an unsurprising tactic from this particular user.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I was not aware of any race to post, but I spent more than an hour drafting this ANI (this is my first time, and I had to review the procedures) and posted it at 17:58, your RFC document was clocked in at 18:30, so I believe you have the chronology reversed. This is all an incredible waste of time. Could you please stop hitting the revert button on every contribution to these pages and discuss instead? Racepacket (talk) 22:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• The constant reverting continues. This morning, I deleted the adjective "prestigious" modifying Heisman Trophy. I also deleted the phrase "A hotbed for professional talent". PassionoftheDamon reverts it without any edit summary or talk page comment. I have left a detailed basis for my concerns at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miami_Hurricanes_football#Lead_paragraph. Would a third party mediator be helpful in removing the POV from the article? Racepacket (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a request for comment concerning Racepacket's editing activities, in particular the disruption he has brought to articles in Category:University of Miami. This RFC can be found here, to serve as a third party mediator in all of Racepacket's disruption on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand your comment. User:PassionoftheDamon has improperly removed a copyvio tag and has improperly blanked out the non-infringing history that I wrote to replace the copyvio. He has also removed POV templates without consensus. We need an administrator to resolve these. As a separate matter, a number of users have complained for some time on the Talk:Miami Hurricanes football page that he has been systematically reverting everyone else's edits to prevent any changes to biased, copyrighted material for over two years. As a third matter, I twice proposed using a mediator to resolve a pair of content disputes with you on a different article {{University of Miami]]. You refused in one case and you did not respond in another. We moved on from both of those disputes. As a separate matter, two paragraphs above, and also on the Talk:Miami Hurricanes football page, I proposed generally to the editors of the MHf page (a page which you don't edit) that we have a mediator resolve some serious disputes including how to handle the copyvio. Yet, in the paragraph above, you are responding that your RFC, which appears to be filed in response to this ANI, should result in a mediation. I have yet to research exactly what an RFC is, but it seems to me the key to unwinding this is to get the copyvio resolved (which requires an administrator) and to get PassionoftheDamon et al to stop blanket reverting other users including: Mcmachete, Anthony Krupp, 74.229.5.6, and 67.67.223.78 (judging by just the complaints on the talk page). There are much broader problems here that require administrator intervention. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Deanb

Deanb (talk · contribs) is a long-time editor who mostly does minor edits to Tel Aviv-related articles. He also has a history of knowingly uploading copyright violations, for which I filed an ANI case earlier and eventually administered a block on him. Recently I have raised concerns about an image he has been promoting on a content basis, but quickly also noticed that there is no sufficient copyright information for the image, and it is likely that parts of it are non-free, making the image non-free (not an original work). It is clear that Deanb is aware of the ongoing discussion, but so far refuses to address the concerns, instead reverting on two occasions: [47] [48], both after not replying to talk page discussions for over one week, and without any proper explanation (a clear case of disruptive editing). I am requesting a sanction against User:Deanb as it is clear that he is not responsive to discussion, based on many previous encounters (see warnings that users have made to his talk page). —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. As I was writing this, it appears that Deanb replied to my Commons image deletion request. I hope that the discussion continues (on Commons), although this is not relevant to the disruptive editing concerns raised above. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User has uploaded images previously deleted. They are Flickr images that are not licensed with a free license. It is plausible that this is the Flickr account of Deanb, but that has yet to be established. If it cannot be established, I would recommend a block for repeat copyright violation uploads. I don't have time to go through all of the recent uploads, but I have found at least 2 which I have already deleted. There may be more, if others care to look. I've also contacted the user regarding this, and alerted them of this conversation here. -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for having a look. My apologies for not notifying the user, I meant to but forgot. Anyway, of course copyright is a much more serious concern than disruptive editing, but this is mainly what my complaint deals with, so that should also be looked into. Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting new editor

Resolved

 – Tan blocked the account as a sockpuppet Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User:O'Wallaby made his or her first edit today. I became aware of these edits on the wholesale removal of material from the Martin Luther page. Upon review of the other recent edits of this new account here at least to date all his or her edits have been, well, interesting, particularly the first edit, which seems to indicate a familiarity with some of some of the parties of the arbitration one would not generally assume a new editor woudl have. John Carter (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a potential sock of blocked editor user:Johnnyturk888. O'Wallaby's second edit (to Wichita Massacre) was almost identical to edits by one of Johnnyturk's socks last month. His third edit was to Media blackout), which appears to have been plagued by socks of this user. I suspect there's enough here to pass the duck test and block this account. Karanacs (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like User:Tanthalas39 just blocked the account. Karanacs (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

User Yogesh Khande

The user Yogesh Khandke comments are in clear breach of Wikipedia NPOV policy.. his quote; "Dickens was a b****y, f*****g, r****t. A white chauvinist p*g. No offence ment to the later. This aspect of his personality is absent in this biographical article of him, and the void has been filled imho by my additions"

With his set agenda and extreme bias this user is contravening one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. He also has unfounded issue with Anglo-American POV on Wikipedia. He has repeatedly highlighted certain unqualified comments to fit his set agenda, whitewash. As a repeat offender i propose user ban from this article. BobSilverman (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Notified user of this section--Iner22 (talk) 19:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have used *** so that invectives are alluded to. I have been stone walled. I have written hundereds of lines which would not be possible to repeat here unless I go in for a huge copy paste exercise. Would the concerend authorities kindly refer to the discussion on talk:Charles Dickens, please? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I am repeating my reply to BS's charges, they have appeared on talk:Charles Dickens.

Your clear breach of NPOV, no

self admitting set agenda, yes

swearing, no I have used ***, to remain civil.

racist slurs, no The system is biased, Wikipedia says so, I have not meant to make personal attacks, I have contested views, which I think is fair, freedom of speech

issue with Anglo-American POV yes, is that a reason to be banned???

repeated breach of one of the five pillars of wikipedia, no

i have no alternative but to contact administration. I do not know how to react to this.

Please it is 1.04 am local time here and I need to call it a day, will get back asap. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Censoring yourself does not make your comments civil. You admit above that you were alluding to invectives. How is this any different from saying them outright? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, interesting that he admits to having an agenda...combined with the incivility...I'm not really sure what to make of this user. A problem, for certain. --Smashville^talk 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

All of that nonsense should come out of the Talk page anyway, WP:NOTFORUM. The invective about a long-dead write who can't defend himself has nothing to do with the article. Who cares about US activity in Afghanistan, and what does that have to do with Charles Dickens? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 00:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Charges and my reply

See some charges here Talk:Charles_Dickens#The_five_pillars_of_Wikipedia

I am sorry but you are jumping to conclusions, which is not appropriate, despite your disclaimer, that you have not looked into the matter in detail.

Please there must have been hundreds of lines written on the subject. Do not jump to conclusions. Go through the entire discussion before making comments.

1. Except for the disguised invectives all the other points above are unwarranted allegations. I merely used them to describe Dickens in everyday language, devoid of scholarly euphemisms. But I have alluded to invectives. I perhaps should have used the words, today Dickens would, using everyday language be called a *** *** etc. English is not my first language, and though I understand words and their meanings, I do not know what the fine line between colloquiallity and profanity is, in the Anglo-American cultural context. The discussion page is as far as I understand a little more informal than the article. The American movies that we watch are many times full of profanity, even when families with members of different ages and genders are shown interacting. I have seen atleast one instance of a Wikipedia policy article using a word like jerk which wikitionary marks as (US, slang, pejorative), and gives some synonyms as asshole and bastard. I have no idea what goes and what does not. However in my native tongue, and personally I abhor profanity, and if I come across as profane, I tender an unconditional apology, as I cannot expect others to be sensitive when I am not sensitive to their feelings.
2. There have been no edit wars, so your advice though generally sound is unwarranted in this case.
3. I have not synthesised, I have not indulged in original research, the charge of wp:undue is unwarranted and not based on evidence,also you have to prove that only a minority of reliable sources hold the view that Dickens held racist views. Please quote one non-white non-Christian source that exonerates Dickens of the charge of racism.
4. Please read the discussion carefully before making charges, though your disclaimer says that you have not arrived to indict anyone.
5. As far as I can judge the situation, the editors involved are comfortable with their differing views, and I have stated that I do not need arbitration, or rfc, but am prepared to wait, for other editors to come in. Please go through the entire discussion before forming opinions.
6. wp:FREE which says editing Wikipedia is a privilege granted to you by the permission of the Wikimedia Foundation, and can be revoked at any time for whatever reason that organization sees fit to do so. Have I abused my privilege as an editor, unless criticising imperialism and slavery and white supremacist ideology is construed as a violation of this privilege. In that case I am prepared to relinquish my editing privilege, not on this article but on Wikipedia as then Wikipedia would not be worth to be around imho.
7. I have written that I have contested views and not attacked individuals. I have supported my arguments even on the talk page with reliable sources. I have gone through wp:LEDE and have quoted it above. It seems to confirm my arguments, but if there is no consensus I will not indulge in edit wars, this was and is my stated position.
8. I have not violated wp:V as every word I have written in the article has been sourced from good reliable sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• For context, I believe this is in reply to an attempt I made to mediate / intervene. For those who'd like to see the comments Yogesh is responding to, they're either here on the articles talkpage or in the box below (reproduced for convenience). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments that are responded to above
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Alright, I have no idea who the two of you are, or what started this dispute, so I consider myself uninvolved here. (So, this is based on a cursory review of the discussion, and is not an attempt to indict anyone in specific). So here goes: There's no need (or excuse) for cursing out the subject of an article. Doesn't matter if they're dead or alive, or if you spell it out or use asterisks. See WP:TALK if you need clarification. We work by consensus. Just because you think something doesn't mean it should be in the article. If you want to enact controversial changes, you need the support of others. To put it another way, we don't actually have free speech here. All edits need to follow WP:NPOV and WP:V, and that takes precedence over ones own opinion. Any controversial statement needs to be backed up by sources. For example, if you feel that Dicken's is racist against the swiss because in one chapter he has a character shovel other swiss characters into a meatgrinder, that's not enough. It would be original research or synthesis to make that claim. You'd need to find reliable sources that analyze the material and make the claim themselves. (Ie, you can't cite his chapter and then cite another source saying that writing chapters about people getting put into meatgrinders is indicative of the author's racism, that's synthesis). And if you do find such sources, you need to be sure that they are not given undue weight. That is to say, if only a minority of people hold the view that Dickens was racist against the swiss, it should described as such in the article.Note:after reading through the article, it would appear that there are at least enough sources to justify the racism section at least in part. The WP:LEDE should summarize the key points of the article. I don't currently see a justification for including the race issue there. And lastly, Wikipedia is not a battleground. The viewpoint that prevails in the end will be the one with consensus, not the one that makes the most edits. If you make edits that are continually reverted, you need to build consensus for your views, or if consensus goes against you, recognize that. If you feel a wider viewpoint is needed, start a Request for Comments, don't repeat edits against consensus. Hope that helps some. --Bfigura (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Links for the referred comments has been given above already. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply to charges here

1. I have replied to charges of incivility, though incivility is usually used in the context of other editors, also I have an agenda: try to make wikipedia articles multidimensional, and not just a perpetuation of the Anglo-American world view and bias (which has been acknowledged by Wikipedia, while following all Wikipedia rules,) is that a problem?
2. The charge of Wikipedia:NOTFORUM#FORUM is unwarranted. A reliable source which is mentioned in the article has referred to Fagin and the Holocaust in the same breath, events which had a hundred year gap. Do you wish I come up with reliable sources that connect Dickens' white supremacist attitude with US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq?
3. I do not claim to be perfect. But I have no hidden agenda, all my cards are on the table, and I am pledged to play the game by its rules. Is that a problem? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One source for 2 above

This one is not first class, let other editors judge.[[49]] It can atleast prove that I am not a mad railer imagining things. Dickens was a white-supremacist and a racist and a imperialist. Remember more people died in the Bengal famine than all Romas, Romas, Slavs and others in the Holocaust. Imperialism was a seriously damaging ideology, based on white supremacy, whose supporter was Dickens. He was an active campaigner, Jamaica, Rae, 1857-India, he used his weight, to further its end. (Do you want wp:rs for this, check his article.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User 118.101.5.219 (and many more other IPs) vandalizes, again

We have an issue at WikiProject Motorcycle racing. There's an IP editor from Malaysia, who's making again edits we decided were not useful: he's inserting tables of data regarding pole positions and fastest laps on articles about the World Superbike Championship and the World Supersport Championship (see this and this for example). We already had a similar discussion last year, but that time it was about the 2008 Grand Prix motorcycle racing season page (you can see the discussion here, the incident was reported here and it led to the protection of the page and of my personal user page for vandalism). Basing on that discussion, I reverted his edits and meanwhile opened a general discussion here waiting for consensus to be reached; but he still continues to revert to his old versions claiming the topic's been "discussed" in the edit summaries. Can you please do something?

Another note: he seems to have returned to his old habit of vandalizing Lewis Hamilton's page too (link), which almost cost him an abuse report to his ISP (see the discussion on my talk page). Asendoh (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP issues and Personal Attacks on JIDF Talk Page

Seems that two editors, John Nagle and Peter cohen have personal beefs with David Appletree of the JIDF. Here Peter Cohen calls David Appletree "crazy" in Yiddish ("meshugunnah"). Here we have John Nagle giving his personal opinion of Appletree "whining" and "complaining" on a radio show, pulling things out of context to put Appletree in a very negative light. These two editors have been butchering the article about the JIDF for quite some time, trying their best to shed the most negative light on the organization as possible. They are also using original research and their own opinions to question the character of David Appletree. I thought that BLP rules apply to ALL pages on Wikipedia? --64.120.158.78 (talk) 19:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

it's very telling that no one has responded to this yet. --216.244.65.89 (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

First, it would be helpful to others if you mentioned that JIDF stands for Jewish Internet Defense Force and added a Wikilink to its article.

Second, the JIDF article is a drama-magnet and uninvolved editors may not care that two JIDF supporters (who may be sockpuppets of blocked users) are contributing to the drama.

Finally, the instructions at the top of this page say "You must notify any user that you discuss." (emphasis in original) You neglected to notify John Nagle or Peter cohen. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 18:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Unreal and tourist like additions in Plodviv and History of Plovdiv

History of Plovdiv & Plovdiv.User Avidius readds this diff History of Plovdiv, and this Plovdiv giving a tourist tone to the article sections and claiming that This source he used is also claiming unreal things as that the city is "contemporary of Troy and Mycenae, and older than Rome, Carthage or Constantinople." see talk page on answer. He also used this abvg that claims that the city is older than the mentioned cities.The city had continual habitation but thats all ( Rodwell, Dennis (2007). Conservation and Sustainability in Historic cities. Blackwell Publishing. p. 19. ISBN 1405126566.) The claims on the other cities are irrelevant and the abvg "ref" has to go as well.Megistias (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Involved users seem to be unable to understand this that i have posted twice.[50]Megistias (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Please seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thracians

Section removed by users with no talk and DONT LIKE it attitude.[51]Megistias (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I already tried to explain to you that you cannot possibly write such a section on nationalism, basing yourself on another nationalism. Greeks argue that Thracians were actually somewhat Greek and you have a Greek writer as a source. And another book from the Balkans as the other. That's quite ridiculous. Using nationalistic rhetoric to battle nationalistic rhetoric? That'd surely lead you a long way. --Laveol ^T 20:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Same as the above section. Please seek dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Actually this was Megistias being disruptive, for which he is blocked. Moreschi (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User name: "Bruce Cairney" being used to defame him

Resolved

 – Editor blocked, user pages deleted. -- Atama頭 21:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Transferred from WP:COIN. -- Atama頭 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The User name Bruce Cairney has been used to put derogatory comments, contains photo of Bruce Cairney and make some editing in articles on wikpedia seem to come from Bruce Cairney when they have not. This has been continueing since 2006 and still no one does anything. What does wikipedia do about this type of internet stalking occuring within its pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Previous request for assistance on this when docglasgow Dec/06 interviened on editing of user page ... Revision as of 14:53, 4 December 2007 (edit) (undo)Bacmac (talk | contribs) (→User name created to Slur an individual) User name created to Slur an individual You visit the user page for Bruce cairney before and removed 'unhelpful comments' how about deleting the user completely it is obvoiusly only created to sling mud and BS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.152.12.41 (talk) 09:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC). oops , I see I did not sign - this user name is still being used to slur an individual -- Bacmac Bacmac 14:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 09:36, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

In which articles? I can find no article about anyone called Bruce Cairney? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cameron Scott - It is the ÜSER NÄME" - User name: "Bruce Cairney" being used to defame him —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacmac (talk • contribs) 20:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Bruce_Cairney. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place for this. Username violations are handled at WP:UAA. This might be a more complicated matter than what UAA handles, though. I'm going to copy this to WP:ANI to get administrator attention and comment from other editors, we'll see what happens. I would have replied to this notice long ago but it was incorrectly placed on this page and I kept missing it! :) -- Atama頭 20:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Requesting block of self-declared sockpuppet

Resolved

 – blocked indefinately. Ecoman24 (talk page) 22:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The Boy Who Read "Madame Edwarda" (talk · contribs) has declared himself to be a sockpuppet, and proceeded to vandalize userpages on that basis. Ray^Talk 22:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• Indeffed (not by me). Protonk (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive and impolite behavior by User:Cosmos416

Fresh from a two week block [52] for disruption on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA), this user is back to his old tricks. He displays highly tendentious behavior on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA), seemingly obsessed with the notion that this haplogroup originated in South Asia, and engages in an extremely aggressive edit warring in order to push his POV.

Examples of tendentious editing and edit-warring: [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59]. Virtually all his edits on that page consist of promoting the notion this Haplogroup originated in South Asia and removing anything that might imply otherwise.

Same on Indo-European peoples: [60]

He has an extremely hostile battleground attitude, cluttering Talk:Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) with inarticulate accusatory rants, shouting at everyone in ALLCAPS, accusing everyone who disagress with him of being a sock and generally lashing out at any one who he perceives as attacking him. The level of disruption form this individual on Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) is becoming intolerable.

Talkpage disruption, shouting and incivility: [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71]

POINTy behavior:[72] [73]

Personal attacks, lashing out at everyone, even those that try to help him: [74] [75] [76]. This, after User:Andrew Lancaster and User:Pdeitiker actually tried to help him.

The final straw was when he left a nasty personal attack on my talkpage [77], which he re-posted after I removed it [78]. I remove it again, and what does he do? He re-posts it on another user's talkpage, telling him I'm a sock on top of it [79]. The childish mean-spiritedness of this is mind-boggling. When I notified him that this little caper was the final straw and that I would report him, this [80] [81] was his reaction.

Seeing that he has apparently not changed his behavior in the slightest since his latest block, it is my opinion that this individual be given an even longer block, or a looooooooong topic ban from Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) and related articles, such as Indo-Aryan peoples. --Athenean (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Athenean, he had refused every attempt to get him to modulate his behavior, after asking him not to post ALL CAPS on people talk pages Cosmo began making false accusations against me, he appears to be reverting 3 individuals edits on the same paragraph on this page, imposing a Non-NPOV.PB666 ^yap 22:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely. Enough is enough on that. I blocked him for two weeks back in August; nothing has changed. Further disruption needs to be prevented. I welcome feedback on this block. Tan | 39 22:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic Source/community ban proposal

Hello, in the Thracians article a referenced academic source is being constantly removed. The source is: ( Poulianos, Aris N., 1961, The Origin of the Greeks, Ph.D. thesis, University of Moscow, supervised by F.G.Debets ). I have been told that the removal of such a source is vandalism. How must I proceed? Thank you for your help.--Monshuai (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good timing, I was just about to post here myself. The editor in question, Monshuai (talk · contribs) is a diehard Bulgarian nationalist single-purpose account whose edits largely consist of disrupting John Vincent Atanasoff and a few other instances of disruption on Bulgaria-related articles, for which he has been blocked twice. Now he's trolling Thracians with some nonsense or other, as well as my talkpage, informing me that I'm a vandal. Can we just ban this guy? I would do so myself but suppose me reversion of his stuff at Thracians makes me "involved". Moreschi (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's proper for Moreschi to accuse someone of being a "die hard nationalist" when the edit in question has to do with a properly sourced academic reference? I also don't think it's appropriate for Moreschi to threaten me with a long block (as he did on his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi), just because I pointed out that removing academic articles is a form of vandalism and that an investigation may be in order. I do not believe that is within his administrative duty to supress my opinion of his actions especially when they are in reference to his removal of academic sources, as per Wikipedia rules. In addition, I have had a Wikipedia account for nearly four years. It is true that I have been involved in revert wars which have caused me to be blocked twice from editing a specific article for a period of 24 hours. However I don't think that's a very negative record on my part considering the amount of time and effort I have put into contributing to Wikipedia over these four years. In addition, I have learned from my experiences and thus I no longer get involved in revert wars. In other words, I discuss everything as best I can in both discussion pages and user talk pages. That is also why I have come here. That said, nothing changes the fact that Moreschi removed the Dr. Poulianos source which was examined by Dr. F.G. Debets. Furthermore, if I were a die-hard nationalist I would not have included the other sources in the Thracians article years ago, which also show anthropological connections between Thracians and Greeks and Albanians and Greeks. Clearly, my goal was to show that various modern populations have connections with the Thracians, and not one nation versus another.--Monshuai (talk) 01:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Generally source discussions should happen at the reliable sources noticeboard, but I can tell you that phd/ma theses are not generally considered unambiguously reliable sources. Protonk (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thrace is in Eastern Europe. Nationalist warriors at Thracians might be given warnings under WP:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Remedies, or even under WP:ARBMAC. Either ruling would allow admins to impose discretionary sanctions if there is a pattern of ongoing edits that tends to disrupt the encyclopedia. I recall the Atanasoff business and in my opinion it was nationalist POV-pushing by Monshuai. I believe that Arbcom is concerned about nationalist editing and intends that the remedies provided in these cases be actually used. Lately some rather severe restrictions have been handed out under ARBMAC, for instance one revert per week on any article in the area of conflict. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the help Protonk. In 2006, I was told by an administrator that PhD theses are considered reliable as they are peer reviewed by the relevant university faculty. He/she also stated that PhD papers are referenced in peer reviewed journal articles. In addition, Dr. Poulianos and Dr. Debets are anthropologists.--Monshuai (talk) 02:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It turns out that the source in question is published, academic and peer reviewed:

The origin of the hellenes. An ethnogenetic inquiry. Aris N. Poulianos. 160 pp, 5 tables, 9 maps, 32 photographs. 1962. Morphosis Press, Athens. Originally published in 1960 by the Institute of Ethnography of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R., translated into Greek by the author with special assistance of Nikos Antonopoulos. It should also be noted that Dr. Aris Poulianos, the author of the said study, is the founder of the Greek Anthropological Association.--Monshuai (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• The discussion at RSN seems to have reached a consensus that the source itself is not reliable, but a highly critical review of it that was published in a journal is. Which is fine. Now, I've had multiple people email me over the last couple hours about this, including one with the (I presume CU-confirmed, since it came from a CU) allegation that Janelle4elle (talk · contribs) is actually just a sock of Monshuai (talk · contribs), which if I do get confirmation of would certainly be a cause to banninate very, very quickly. Moreschi (talk) 08:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion at RSN reached a consensus that the source is academic and peer reviewed. Please see it here: ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Origin_of_the_Greeks.2C_Ph.D._thesis ) Also, I resent the accusation that Janelle4elle's account is a sock for my account. What are the rules for such accusations and how are they dealt with when they are baseless? I will demand a full IP investigation and a disclosure into who is making these allegations, including why Moreschi is stating this here. Can someone point me to the Wikipedia rule page about such accusations? Thank you.--Monshuai (talk) 09:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Monshuai is grossly misrepresenting my opinion at WP:RS/N and was warned at WP:RS/N#fifelfoowarns at 07:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC). Monshuai is grossly misrepresenting my opinion which is that PhD theses are non notable, and that reliable published sources should be published. I find this behaviour grossly offensive. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC) I have additionally been misrepresented at User_talk:Moreschi#Academic_Sources and User talk:EdJohnston#Hi EdJohnston Fifelfoo (talk) 09:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifelfoo, I am working as constructively as I can with you as stated on your talk page. I would prefer that you and I combine our expertise and interests in this field as a way to write better articles that cover the full spectrum of academic perspectives. I don't see how the work of a respected Greek anthropologist who is also the founder of the Greek Anthropological Association is causing this trouble. I believe you've stated that your problems with the work are that it was originally published in the USSR. However, I don't think that's a problem considering that Poulianos was not Soviet at the time, nor was he to my knoweldge affiliated with the Soviet Propaganda machine. --Monshuai (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Historyprof101

He's made four reverts today to the Mein Kampf article, inserting material about a self-published translation of the book. Would a short block be in order? Bytwerk (talk) 01:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

He's been warned for potential 3RR violations, let's wait to see if he stops. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Return of multi-blocked sock?

Resolved

 – Blocked. — Jake Wartenberg 02:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand all of the background of this, but is there a possibility that Reparative Therapy Survivor (talk · contribs) is a sockpuppet of banned Liberty Against Domination (talk · contribs)/Born Gay (talk · contribs)? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

nm, they've been blocked by User:Will Beback. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, could somebody please remove the BLP-violating rant from the User's Talk page and protect it? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:The ed17 has rejected a request for page protection on the grounds that this user is not being disruptive. Repeated, willful, proud BLP violations are not disruptive? PLEASE protect the page!!!!! Several users are repeatedly reverting him. It has to be protected. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There's another reason the page doesn't need protecting, and that's shown in his block log: [82] Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to JD, and apologies over the RFPP mistake. —Ed (talk • contribs) 02:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Restarting an AfD?

Resolved

 – Nothing abnormal to do here. I've adjusted the discussion page links and heading. The AFD notice on the article needed no adjustment, of course. Renaming or editing an article during an AFD discussion does not magically invalidate the entire discussion. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#You may edit the article during the discussion. Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There is currently an active AfD on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jennifer Schuett but the article itself has been rewritten and moved to Jennifer Schuett 1990 Rape Case. The user who started the AfD has placed the tag on the new article linking it to the old AfD discussion. I am concerned that the casual reader might think we are still debating the Jennifer Schuett article (which actually had a valid delete reason) without understanding that this is a new article, with a new title, about a new topic. I would be all for re-starting the AfD under the article's new name with new reasons for why it should be deleted but dont know the procedure here. I'm also not posting this becuase I want my way or anything like that. If this new article is itself deletable then so be it. But right now the AfD is about the wrong article. Can we fix it? -OberRanks (talk) 02:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

John Carter abusing his protect button

Resolved

 – talk page unprotected by John Carter -- Samir 03:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

John Carter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) The above admin has abused his tools (particularly, the protect button) in order to prevent me from removing MY OWN COMMENTS from his talkpage. This has spun out of control from his mentorship of User:Mattisse, but this note is only about the narrower issue of his abuse of the protect tool to keep me from removing MY OWN COMMENTS from his talkpage. For the record, I open up my own contributions for scrutiny, in this narrow regard as well. UnitAnode 02:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Could an admin edit through the inappropriate protection to inform Carter of this thread? UnitAnode 02:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

While the protection may have been inappropriate, the admin in question has every right to remove comments posted to his own talk page, and if he asks that you stop posting there, you should respect his request. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue, Julian. That's what makes it even more inappropriate. He was deceptive in his edit summary. I was most certainly not posting to his page. Rather I was trying to remove my own comments from there, since he was allowing Ottava Rima to make misrepresentational comments about me, but wasn't allowing me to respond. I tried to remove my initial comments, but he protected the page, and restored them. Way, way, WAY over the line of being inappropriate. I have no need to talk to him further, and have stated as much. I do reserve the right to remove my own comments from his page, though, and I think policy is on my side in this regard. UnitAnode 02:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

May have been? Get over yourself Julian. How is it that one editor is able to confer a level of protection on his talkpage that other editors cannot similarly apply to theirs. Irrespective of the merits of the dispute at hand, John should have sought the intervention of another administrator. This is the sort of stuff which provokes cries of "tool abuse". Crafty (talk) 02:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I never endorsed JC's actions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Admins protecting their own user pages is generally seen as acceptable, in my experience. Admins tend to attract an inordinate amount of pissed-off people, so they're afforded that luxury. I don't really see any problem with it as long as it's done delicately. In this case the user should be allowed to remove his own comments from the admin's talk page. Equazcion (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Carter is now (and has been previously) accusing me of all manner of things. The genesis of this problem was at the Mattisse monitoring page, and started when I tried to clean up the clutter by moving it to the talkpage, per (what a I thought, mistakenly was) her request. It's just went dramatically crazy since that point, culminating in Carter's questioning my integrity, and eventually, his abuse of the protect button. UnitAnode 03:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(7 ec's) The problem appears to be that you were removing your posts after they had received replies. By only leaving the replies, you leave them no longer making sense as they are out of context at that point. Per WP:REDACT, the better course would have been to strike out your comments. No comment on the appropriateness of using protect, just my opinion on why he restored the content. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The protection was placed to prevent the ongoing, I have to say, harrasment by the editor who started this thread. For whatever reason, this individual has no on my talk page and another one, the other one being the one that started this recent burst of activity on his part, indicated that he has the right to do what he wants, and that others do not have the right to change it. The frankly dictatorial spirit of this editor is I believe deeply troubling, and his now repeated failure to abide by even the most basic standards of conduct is something I find deeply disturbing. Getting repeated messages from this editor after I had made it quite clear that he was not welcomee there, and having what I was doing interrupted by his regular violations of my request, with the accopanying "new messages" bar, particularly from such a dictatorial personality as this editor, is something I regret to say I could no longer abide by. If he didn't want the comments on the page, he should never have placed them there. And it was only after at least one presumptuous response to my request that he later deterined he had the right to continue to alter my page in other ways. Like I said, it struck me and still strikes me as a form of harassmen. I will remove the comments, as I have indicated on that user's talk page. However, he has to come to understand that his every whim is not in fact an absolute order to the rest of us, and to perhaps learn to behave more acceptably. I do however acknowledge my mistake, will unprotect the page, and do what I would have done had the editor in question approached me in a less demanding attitude. John Carter (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I challenge anyone to find harassment in my encounters with Carter. I made this edit to show how the "banning" from Carter's page happened, in the anticipation that he would fling wild accusations of "harassment." Look for yourself. UnitAnode 03:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd be curious to see diffs of the harassment/dictatorial attitude, but would also accept if anyone wanted to declare that the actual complaint here is now resolved. Equazcion (talk) 03:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    Once an administrator leaves an official warning at Carter's talkpage about abusing the protect button, and my comments are removed (with perhaps an explanatory note explaining why I want them removed), it's resolved in my mind. Ottava Rima should not be allowed to comment on me, if I'm not allowed to respond. UnitAnode 03:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    Also, he needs to cut the whole "dicatorial" nonsense, as it -- in my view -- crosses the line into personal attacks. UnitAnode 03:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

    • (edit conflict) Warnings are not punitive, so there would be no point in warning him now. John has already admitted fault. Equazcion (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

      That's true. My main concern now is with his accusations that I am somehow "dictatorial." It crosses the line, in my view. UnitAnode 03:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I shall warn John not to use the term "dictatorial". Since the page is now unprotected, are we all resolved here now? -- Samir 03:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The point of warnings is to inform, and John Carter clearly has been informed, so that shouldn't be needed. If you wish, you can strike out your comment, but its his talk page - he can keep anything you said there there, so long as he isn't misrepresenting what you said. I'll ignore the "dictatorial" comment, I suggest everyone else does too. Regardless of if John considers your actions dictatorial, or if you consider his protection dictatorial, the situation is the same regarding what each of you can - and can't - do. Prodego ^talk 03:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Shouldn't accusations such as "harassment" or being "dictatorial" be bolstered by diffs or withdrawn? I've not called his action dictatorial, I just said it was a misuse of that tool. I'm not making any assertions about Carter's essential character, which he seems to be doing toward me with his accusations. UnitAnode 03:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• One other unresolved concern is with whether usertalkpage rules allow me to remove my own comments. I'd be willing to leave a note there explaining my reason for doing so, but I hardly think it fair or reasonable that Rima is allowed to make misrepresentations about me there, but I'm banned from responding. UnitAnode 03:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Prodego. You can ask John Carter to remove the comments, but there's a way to do it. As WP:REDACT indicates, you do not have a "right" to remove those comments, and John Carter can either keep or remove as he thinks is appropriate. This issue is resolved as far as AN/I is concerned. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've not been incivil to him, though I've had ample opportunity. I was unaware that I don't have a right to remove my own comments from a talkpage. UnitAnode 03:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing you of incivility, but merely pointing out how it should be done (if you want the other party to respond positively). ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As he's -- for reasons only he truly knows -- banned me from his talkpage, accusing me of all manner of things, without a shred of proof, there's little chance of my approaching him at all, whether in a civil or incivil manner. UnitAnode 03:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• He's still at it, with his veiled implications that I'm lying when I say I don't have any history with Mattisse. I have asked him to stop several times, but he persists with his "suspicions." This needs to stop, as it colors the perception people have of administrators when they act in the erratic manner in which Carter has conducted himself over the last 18 hours or so. UnitAnode 14:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI

I started a big SPI report here. The only reason that I'm posting this here is because I'm not sure what sockpuppet situations would be better off here or there. Joe Chill (talk) 03:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I blocked two of the accounts in question as vandalism-only accounts. Are there reliable sources for the article in question or should it be taken to WP:AfD? -- Samir 03:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything. It doesn't even have an IMDb page. Equazcion (talk) 04:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Brought to AfD -- Samir 05:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Reinstatement of TWINKLE

Hello. Recently the user Hesperian blacklisted me from TWINKLE, a move which I believe unwarranted. Hesperian provided reasons for doing so, and I countered them. The conversations are at User:Nezzadar/tools/Hesperian box. I also believe that I have done far more good with TWINKLE then bad, and that rather than block me, he should have been more willing to talk about my contributions.

I strongly believe that Hesperian is abusing his admin privelages and acted in an inappropriate manner when dealing with me on several occasions, and at the very least, think he is unqualified to take any actions against me because of his previous involvement against me. The fact that his comments were harsh and were phrased in a way as to provoke a flame war with me also adds a disturbing layer to the equasion.

Someone please help me! Nezzadar (speak) 05:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we're probably not talking about the Geology of Mars, but User:Hesperian. Equazcion (talk) 05:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch, fixed. Nezzadar (speak) 06:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean this in the best possible way, and I am not trying to be mean. Your responses here: User:Nezzadar/tools/Hesperian box are inadequate and I don't think you understand that. I have reviewed each of the diffs in question and I think you are in the wrong for each of them. I agree with Hesperian that your use of automated tools has led to reversion of good faith edits as vandalism, biting the newcomers, and restoring of copyright, and I think that revocation of TWINKLE was appropriate. Calculating a batting average does not cut it when there are several egregious examples of inappropriate use of automated tools. You now have three people (Orderinchaos, Hesperian and me) telling you that your use of automated tools has not been up to par. As opposed to accusing Hesperian of admin abuse, I would take the time to review how the actions that you took were errant before requesting use of WP:TWINKLE again -- Samir 06:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked over some of the complaints and responses. Unfortunately I have to agree with the decision to blacklist, however I'd recommend that you be granted access again after a break, during which time you should build up evidence that you've changed your habits. The things I think need changing are your dealings with new editors, and your dealing with stubs. In many of those cases, you really should have opened a dialog with those editors in order to determine their motives, rather than just using whichever Twinkle tool best suited the situation. As far as your views on stubs, you need to understand that those are your views, and that Wikipedia allows "publish-as-you-go", regardless of how "unprofessional" you consider that practice to be. Also, this is a little unrelated, but creating these kinds of messages for regular use really doesn't help your case. If you can show at some point that your practices have changed, then I would have no issue with your being allowed access to Twinkle again. Equazcion (talk) 06:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The link Nezzadar provides is a quarter of the story, carefully excised from the context and from the edit history, and placed in a little box especially so he can link to it here. See below for the actual, full story, supported by diffs:

Nezzadar came to my attention after he used Twinkle to simultaneously nominate for deletion nine articles by the same newb—a hideous case of newb biting. Read about it here and here.

Having cleaned up that mess, Nezzadar's talk page was on my watchlist; hence I noticed when someone took him to task for tagging a perfectly good stub as vandalism, and I noticed his grossly inappropriate response. Read about it here and here.

Having warned him to slow down and use Twinkle more carefully, I kept half an eye on him for a day, in which time he rolled back an obviously good faith edit as vandalism, reported an obviously good-faith account as a vandalism-only account, and, when challenged, treated his challengers like this!

Considering the extreme and ongoing false accusations and assumptions of bad faith, I think Nezzadar should be thankful that I assumed good faith of him, and acted on the assumption that the problem is his Twinkle use, not just him.

Hesperian 06:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nezzadar, your talk page guidelines veer off into wp:bite territory in a number of places. I also agree that this is unacceptable, no matter who you are responding to, vandal or otherwise. Frustrating editors come in many shapes and sizes, some productive and constructive, some not, and some somewhere in between. In all of these situations, civility and patience are key, especially when you're venturing into an area of work in which any of us can far too easily alienate a potentially invaluable contributor from the project through one biting "welcome." I would really encourage you to look again at the concerns raised by User:Hesperian, and work towards understanding how to better handle those sorts of situations, before you dive back in with a tool like Twinkle. user:J aka justen (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

One need only look at the edit summaries on Nezzadar's contributions and his dismissal of anyone who asks him questions or wants to know what they did wrong, to see why this person should *not* be a first point of contact for new users. People have different strengths - some people are not born communicators but are great at something else - and I believe that is the case here too. Orderinchaos 07:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree. Nezzadar needs to calm down a bit and read up on WP:BITE and WP:AGF. Most editors are here with good intent. There are mechanisms to deal with those who aren't. Newby editors make newby mistakes - not wikilinking, bare urls in refs (if they provide them) etc. What is needed there is gentle guidance rather than biting people's heads off. The first bulleted paragraph on his talk page is a bit concerning.

Nezzadar, there must be at least one subject that interests you. There is probably a Wikiproject covering that subject. I feel it would benifit you to join a Wikiproject as it would give you experience in working with other editors on something. You come across as someone who is a self-appointed police force for Wikipedia who thinks that their word is law. Sorry, Wikipedia doesn't work that way. This isn't criticism for the sake of it, but aimed at improving your contributions to Wikipedia and prevention of you ending up with a block (no, I'm not threatening to block you, just pointing out one possible outcome of your editing and interaction with other editors). Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I recently had the misfortune of encountering this admin-hopeful as well. I've been editing as an anon for about three years and occasionally get flak from RCPers who don't understand what I'm trying to do, but usually after a conversation they come to a bit of understanding with me. This guy told me that essentially he doesn't have to understand me or AGF because I choose not to edit with an account. I have many thousands of edits to my credit, and yet this editor saw a pattern and made a judgement call without looking into what was really going on. I was blocked once in 2007 without warning, and have had warnings here and there for this and that, but I'd like to think any mistakes and misunderstandings don't outweigh my positive contributions. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, that is a shocking response. Blaming you for not having an account for their own mistakes and coming up with crap like this [83]?! This goes to show a lot of the problems we have with dealing with good faith IP contributions. From looking through the warnings on your page, there are a lot of dubious characterisations of vandalism, and not just from User:Nezzadar. This highlights some of the problems we have in dealing with good faith IP contributors. Quantpole (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• • mentor...Could Hesperian or another admin/experienced editor mentor User:Nezzadar on the use of twinkle? It may be too early infarct for you User:Nezzadar to use twinkle. Ecoman24 (talk page) 11:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• You are joking right? Suggesting that an admin who this user incorrectly accused of admin abuse would have any chance of mentoring this user? This suggestion is dangerously close to trolling as are some of your other recent suggestions on ANI and I would suggest you thought about finding ways to deescalate disputes rather then pouring petrol on the flames. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Humbug!, i made it clear, an admin or experienced editor to mentor User:Nezzadar. This is about helping each other contribute positively. I hope this is good. I have since edited my comments above, and will not say anything on this case. I remain neutral on this case. thank you. Ecoman24 (talk page) 12:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• In my experience a mentor for issues like this rarely works. Verbal chat 12:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For a mentor to work, the person has to acknowledge that there may be an issue - like the old sociology joke "how many sociologists does it take to change a lightbulb? One, but the lightbulb has to want to change". Bringing this situation to ANI, and any continued arguments that they "did nothing wrong" would show that mentoring would be a failure. We'll see what happens when the wake up (literally, and figuratively). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I see the writing on the wall here. Let me just say one thing though. If any of you think you never did something reprehensible, just tell me. I'm sure everyone makes mistakes. I have over 1000 edits. He found 8 bad ones. Even 20 bad edits is 0.05%.

So maybe I'm harsh, but I was harsh before TWINKLE and I'll be harsh after TWINKLE. I have an overarching policy against tolerating stupidity. Repeated experience has shown me that AGF doesn't work with IP addresses. The vast majority of bad edits not using accounts are decidedly malicious.

If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that there's good faith where there overwhelmingly isn't, feel free to do so. I won't. If you want to stick your head in the sand and pretend that being civil all the time will miraculously stop people from doing bad things, go ahead. I won't. Have fun cleaning up the crap that fools throw at Wikipedia. I'm done with TWINKLE. I'm sure of that.

Heck, feel free to follow me around, assume bad faith in my edits, and point them out in an equally abrasive way, go ahead. Hesperian has been doing that since before this began. Oh and Hesperian, you might have the support of other admins, but if you think that you made no mistakes in this, you are lying to yourself. Your comments were pretty much designed to spark flames. You accused me of being abrasive while being abrasive yourself. Stop following me, I'm sure you have something better to do with your time.

Whatever. It's your problem now. Have fun. Nezzadar (speak) 13:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* That was not the answer I expected from a respected editor. Re-read the purpose of the tool. Hell, we remove rollback for only a couple of minor transgressions - why would Twinkle be any different - and it's usually only temporary? Because you generally do good work does not ever give you carte blanche to bite, and otherwise use it wrongly. I implore you to re-think your position. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

For you, anything. Concidering that respect was the one thing I wasn't getting throughout this entire process, it's refreshing for someone to finally imply that my contributions to Wikipedia have at least some value. No one ever notices the good work, they only yell at you for the bad. Between you and me, I didn't start biting until being bitten, hard, a couple days ago. I can be civil. I am offline, just about always, but I don't respond well when people flame me, and I have the unfortunate habit of flaming back. Also, you are the first one to say anything about "temporary" which is part of the reason that I responded so harshly so quickly. If I can get it back in a few weeks, I wouldn't mind as much as losing it forever. I've learned the lesson and I have no problem serving time, but I'd like to have my rights restored eventually, and that didn't look like a possibility until now. Nezzadar (speak) 15:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Note During my initial read through, the edit marked with edit conflict did not appear to have been present, hence the above message. Nezzadar (speak) 15:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Closing? Remarks

I'm in the middle of writing a paper now, but when I'm done I intend on cleaning up the guidelines on my talk page so that they are less biting. I'll give this matter a rest of about two weeks and then poll the admins about the edits I made. I doubt I'll ever earn back your trust and respect, but I do intend on earning back TW. And I do mean earning. Concsider this to be a formal apology to the editors I have wronged. I'll try and be nicer from now on. Just don't push me too hard, okay? Nezzadar (speak) 15:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, Nezzadar. Good luck! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's all good, and yes, good luck! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Nom withdrawn closure

Resolved

Shii (tock) 18:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Could someone swing by and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/As a Peace-Loving Global Citizen. The lister closed it without my objection, but then changed his mind and wants someone else to close it instead.--Crossmr (talk) 08:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy close due to nomination withdrawn really only applies if there is no other editors argues for deletion. So this would have to be a snow closure. Taemyr (talk) 08:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

look at the page history. It was actually closed before the IP editor added that, and I have a problem believing that is a good faith oppose considering the amount of reliable sources I provided prior to his oppose, and considering that the nom was withdrawn and the AfD closed prior to him making that comment.--Crossmr (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

My thanks to Shii (talk · contribs) for the close. :) Cirt (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecoman24 needs guidance

Resolved

 – Mentoring offered by Skater EyeSerene^talk 17:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have seen Ecoman24 posting to ANI. Please take a look at their contribution history, especially those around the Wikipedia Sandbox. I'm not suitable for helping this person. (I'm just about to inform them of this post.) NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• what? this is interesting, contributing to sandbox? sorry in error, testing sandbox. Ecoman24 (talk page) 12:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Any one is free to give me impartial advise. I will read. I will set up a school page called user:Ecoman24/MySchool. feel free to post anything there. hope this is enough response. any other response will be answered in the same way as above. please, don't take it personal. Ecoman24 (talk page) 12:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh? What? Anyone got an English translation of this thread? one that includes Diffs, some explanation of what the problem is, some explanation of what admin action is required? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ecoman24 has put the WP sandbox up for speedy deletion as a nonsense page. He's reverting edits to the sandox as vandalism. He's asked for the sandox to be page protected. He's made many contribs to ANI, and most of them are "sub-optimal". Diffs are useful, but letting you find them avoids me being accused of selecting a few bad diffs from many good contribs, and allows others to see the scale of the problem. Really, a quick look through his contribs should show anyone the problem. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 13:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

lots of people have been up the sandbox up for speedy delete as a nonsense page, I think I did it when I first got here - because it's an em.. sandbox for em.. testing purposes. Diffs are useful yes they are and it's telling you are unable to provide them. So I'll ask again, please provide DIFFS that shows a specific problem and please explain what *specific* action you are looking for. You make a report here, you need to do the legwork. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You may have tagged the sandbox, but did you also put it up for page protection? I've made it clear that admin attention is maybe not needed, but this page is watched by enough people who will be willing to provide help and support to this editor before his editing becomes a problem that gets him blocked. You don't want to do the work (of look at contribs (many of which are problematic) or at talk page history (blanking discussion of problems) or at old accounts (abandoned for some odd reason)); that's fine. Feel free to leave this report to other editors, some of whom have noticed him on ANI making odd edits. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll actually see what I can find out. I've noticed him on ANI lately, closing threads that were not finished, giving improper or incorrect advice (I've seen him on more than one occasion tell an IP user on ANI to sign up for an account...at one point threatening a block). He's clearly trying to help, but since he's new here...it's hard to help when you don't know how things work. Give me a little bit... --Smashville^talk 13:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Here we go...some of these have been covered already...

• [84] - Requesting semi-protect on WP:SANDBOX
• [85] - Tagging WP:SANDBOX as a G1.
• [86] - Claims that userpages may only be blanked by an admin.
• [87] - Marking an unresolved ANI thread as resolved.
• [88] - "don't you think it would be good to sign up for a wiki user name?"
• [89] - Another premature "resolved".
• [90] - Yet another premature "resolved".
• [91] - Incorrect "resolved".
• [92] - "could you please stop using multiple IP address as your main user names? you risk been blocked".

He's obviously a little overambitious...he needs an experienced mentor... --Smashville^talk 14:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, I don't know how "Experienced" you want (bit over 3000 edits) for me, but I'd like to volunteer to mentor him.--SKATER ^Speak. 14:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I did a little checking on you...you look like a good one. Sounds like a plan to me if Ecoman is willing. --Smashville^talk 15:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And, only joking a little bit, a CU might be in order... that's an all-too familiar name. Tan | 39 15:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Who for? Ecoman24? They declare a previous account on their userpage, but they also ask people not to mention the name, and they blank reference to it. So, uh, I don't know what the protocol is here. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think the all of this subject came up by accident. YES, i tagged sandbox up for deletion. could you delete it please? perhaps this is the best ever response i can give. thanks guys. I am learning to be a good editor, if any one wish to mentor mean, yes, go for it. there is a school page you may use. the link is user:Ecoman24/MySchool. Even the newest editor may help me. I ve been studying wiki recently. My contribution at ANI is to help solve some disputes peacefully. I won't tell you what i do in my day to day life. thanks guys. thanks NotAnIP83:149:66:11 for bringing up this discussion. Ecoman24 (talk page) 16:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, tagging the Sandbox, maybe testing Twinkle etc on the Sandbox is perfectly valid IMHO. We all know that nobody will be deleting it (of course, removing the tags is the next step, if you're really testing). Closing ANI cases is not really helpful by someone who doesn't understand process to begin with, so that is the only issue that I see needing immediate help. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

point taken. Ecoman24 (talk page) 16:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sent the Mentor request, looking forward to his answer.--SKATER ^Speak. 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Skater, and my apologies to all that I hadn't noticed this thread when I left Ecoman24 a note regarding their contributions further up this page. I think their heart is in the right place, so with some guidance they'll hopefully become a fine asset to t'pedia. EyeSerene^talk 17:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please can someone mark this as closed or whatever? Thank you. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 17:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns, User:Pr3st0n

• Pr3st0n (talk · contribs)

Asked to help Pr3st0n with copyright issues after his recent RfA (in which I did not participate), I discovered evidence of considerable copyright confusion in that he had copied content from many websites into the article Lostock Hall (see User_talk:Pr3st0n/Archived2#Copyright_problems.2C_Lostock_Hall). He addressed this, but yesterday I was made aware of some image issues. Some of these also arise from copyright confusion (he evidently believed if he purchased an image, he could license it), but I need review of one set of images that raise questions of intent.

• On 18 September 2009, Pr3st0n uploaded this image, with the note that it was "A photo of Lostock Hall library which I took in 2008."
• This image is identical in every respect that I can see to that at the official website. Note, please, that it seems to show a plain brick facade.

• On 4 October 2009, he uploaded this one, with a note that it is "Lostock Hall Library as it looks in 2009 after some minor exterior paint work."
• This image is identical (down to the vehicles in the parking lot and the reflections in the windows) to one published under full copyright by David Scott here on September 25, 2007. Note the paintwork, which would suggest the picture with what seems to be a plain brick facade may be older. (According to Pr3st0n,the paint may have peeled and been redone.)

The metadata of the image on wikipedia dates it to 13:36, 25 September 2007--the same date it was uploaded to the other site, but Pr3st0n says that this is just the way it is with his camera. According to him, the van is perpetually parked there.

He also uploaded File:Todd Hall-2009.jpg on Commons, with an indication that he is the photographer. This picture is identical down to the shadows to another by David Scott, also uploaded in 2007: [93]. His summary suggests he took the photo on 04 October 2009, but the metadata also dates to September 2007. Note that in spite of an evident difference of two years, even the flowers are the same.

Questioned about these images, Pr3st0n asserts that he is the photographer and that similarities are coincidental, possibly attributable to standing in the same place.

I do not work much with images, but these seem clearly to be the same pictures to me. I hope somebody can clear this up and prove that I am wrong. But, if they are the same, again, we would now be dealing with intentional copyright deception rather than plausible misunderstanding. Since I have worked somewhat extensively with this contributor, I would appreciate fresh admin eyes to determine what might be the best handling of this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The Todd Hall image, and its counterpart on panoramio, have identical md5 sums; they are exactly the same file. It is utterly impossible that these these are anything other than exactly the same image. Even two images taken off a tripod a fraction of a second apart would have different md5sums. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And the two library pictures are md5 identical too. There is no possible coincidence where these two pictures could be taken by different people. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Seems that the first thing we need to do is to stop the problem getting any worse. Any other admins comfortable with an admin sanction being issued to Pr3st0n preventing the uploading of images to Wikipedia? (Can we sanction Commons uploads too, or would that need a Commons Admin?). Mjroots (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He has made unambiguous and deliberate statements that he took these pictures, statements that are clearly and willfully false. Given the thoroughness of Moonriddengirl's questioning of him, any claim that this is an accident or a misunderstanding of copyright isn't possible; he's done it on purpose. He should be immediately, and permanently, blocked. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Agreed that it is 100% impossible that those two sets of photos aren't identical. User:Pr3st0n needs to review what happened to another editor who made a similar mistake; lying, and then getting caught up in the coverup to the lie. The time to come clean and be honest about this is in his very next post to Wikipedia; an attempt to spin another lie should be met with an indef block. Intentional deceit is about the worst thing you can do in an encyclopedia, and there will be very serious consequences if he doesn't own up right now. (Also, it's a bit insulting that he thinks we're this stupid, but that's a separate issue I suppose). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Oh, very comfortable. The pictures are identical down to the cloud positions. No way were those pictures taken at the same place at different times. His lying through his teeth might indicate a need for outright blocking, instead of just sanctioning. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, Pr3stOn states that File:Lostocks hall.JPG "was taken by myself; and although it looks identical to the photo shown on the website you supplied, I can indeed stipulate that it isn't." He stipulates that it is only coincidence. Yet a comparison with the website photo indicates they are indeed identical - down to the exact sticks and leaves in the foreground driveway. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this user is evidently now engaged not only in a series of copyright violations, but also in building up a large web of lies to cover it up. If there should be anything exceptionally valuable in his non-image contributions, we might do just a permanent ban on image uploads (including a ban on inserting images he uploaded on commons, and a notice to commons admins they should keep an eye out on him); if not, block for lengthy period of time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think preventing further damage must be the correct first response (not sure about commons), though I'd also support stronger measures if necessary. There's no question that the images are not merely coincidentally similar, but as Finlay says, the exact same file. Pr3st0n should be seriously considering their next move at this point. EyeSerene^talk 14:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sanction to be issued (indefinite ban on uploading images to Wikipedia) and logged at WP:RESTRICT then? Mjroots (talk) 14:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As a first response, yes. I can't conceive of any mitigating explanation, but if there is one I'd like to hear it before we decide if a further response is necessary. EyeSerene^talk 14:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is intentional deceit, as Floquenbeam stated above. I'm sorry, but a ban on image uploading isn't going to solve the problem. Deceit doesn't restrict itself to one category. Lies are lies, and these are out-and-out damn lies. I almost just did it myself, but decided to comment here instead. Block immediately. Tan | 39 14:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, so did I on first reading the thread; it wouldn't be the first editor I've indeffed for causing copyvio problems. I believe we may well end up there yet, but with this amount of attention they aren't likely to do any damage so I don't think there's any rush. They haven't edited for a few hours, so they probably aren't even onsite at the moment. However, what I think we mustn't do is allow this to drag on too long without resolution; perhaps after (say) 24 hours we should just indef and move on. EyeSerene^talk 14:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, Mjroots. We can straighten out any changed details after we hear an explanation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sanction issued, logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Tan, let Pr3st0n at least have a chance to respond to this thread before we take any further action. Does the accused not have a right to be heard? Mjroots (talk) 14:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, notice I have not taken any admin actions. Tan | 39 14:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n's on, and claims he can't edit here for some reason. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, certainly not because of anything I did. He says "AfD" on his talk page - I think maybe he should just try again. Tan | 39 14:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I tried to and comment to this, and it wouldn't let me; I was being shown a "block" message - which was confusing to be honest. The image [File:Pleasant Retreat Inn, Lostock Hall.jpg] is of my own; I already informed that this image was part of a project to create a web-group for the pub which I was working at between December 2007 - December 2008; and image taken by myself, for my own purposes. So I cannot see why this is a problem. I would like to stipulate that I am not "digging holes to get out of lying". I am an honest person, and have been brought up by my parents to do so. So to make such accusations is out of order; I would never make such accusations to any user on matters like this. Treat others how you expect to be treated in return - that policy sound familiar to any of you? yes, right now I do feel a little angry at the statements made, and the fact that User:Moonriddengirl and myself were in the process of working this out; is shocking to find the same user "back-stabbing" me in such a humiliating manner - an action to which I would never do to any person, whether on the Internet or in reality. To back-stab someone is a shameful act, and one that should be dealt with cautiously. I can clarify that the Todd Hall image, despite their identicalness, are not the same. If it is to please people, I shall revisit the site and obtain a new photograph of this building, along with any other images that you state look "identical". That was one of the options I was about to put forward to User:Moonriddengirl in our disccusion about this matter... pending on her reply to my previous question (to which she hasn't replied to yet). So to ban myself from uploading images, is shameful on your behalves. I was working cooperatively with User:Moonriddengirl to come up with some resolution on this matter so that no such sanctions would ever take place. I am in the process of undergoing "adoption" assignments, and slowly but surely cover each policy step-by-step. I would appreciate that I am able to continue with my assignments, and also be allowed to rectify the images matter, by obtaining new ones (taken by myself I would like to add), so that a full and mutual resolution can take place. Pr3st0n (talk) 14:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear: your stance is still that the Todd Hall images, despite having an identical md5 sums, are not the same? Tan | 39 15:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with block. Flagrant denial in the face of indisputable evidence. At least this guy came clean when we essentially caught him with his hand in the cookie jar. Tan | 39 15:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, all, for feedback and assistance. :/ I would have hoped this wouldn't be necessary, but given what looks like copyright fraud, I don't know what else we can do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur. We simply can't trust any of the images he's uploaded; we should delete them all. Those that have compatible licences (or whose real owners we can reasonably approach), such as the geograph ones, we can re-upload with a fully compliant provenance. Much credit is owed Moonriddengirl for her level-headed tenacity in pursuing this. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Any Geograph images should be uploaded to Commons. Details on my user page for those who don't know about these Wiki-compatible images. Mjroots (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hrm. So this user says he took the pic, which is of a place he used to work at. Is it possible that the Pub is actually the one who is using his image, and not the other way around? Left them copies once upon a time, perhaps? Tarc (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I considered that might be the case, but it's not just one place -- the images are claimed by several other photographers, none of whom match the name on Pr3st0n's userpage.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that the picture of the pub, too, is not discussed in my listing. It is a separate issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:28, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, it's not up to us to create whatever implausible scenario might have happened. If there is a valid explanation, Pre3st0n can provide it. Tan | 39 15:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted File:LostockHallLibrary.jpg and initiated discussion at the Commons administrators' noticeboard, with a link to this discussion. Awaiting input from the editor and colleagues at Commons before taking other actions there. Regarding en:wiki, recommend a preventive indefinite block unless he admits the problem and assists with cleanup. Durova³²⁵ 15:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons discussion is at this thread. Mjroots (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Commons likes to reach its own internal decisions about site management. Durova³²⁵ 15:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the md5 sum for File:Lostocks hall.JPG is identical to this, published here, as noted in the CSD tag for the image. (For posterity, the md5 sum is d14a6efe99fd863f9d53c69484ef611f.) I am avoiding deleting the image - even under CSD - due to past involvement with User:Pr3st0n.  Frank  |  talk  16:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Pr3st0n has been given considerable help from MoonRiddenGirl. Frank also offered a lot of help, but was met with an odd reaction. Pr3ston is either acting maliciously, and thus needs to be blocked, or is never going to get it, and thus needs some kind of fierce restriction. All contribs (text and images) are suspect and will need checking. All comments from pr3ston about sources and licences are suspect, and need to be checked carefully for accuracy and truth. Certainly lying about sources of images which are in copyright should be blockable NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 16:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

He's just provided an explanation. This is no judgment as to whether it's a satisfactory explanation, just an explanation that finally addresses the question head-on, at least. Equazcion (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked indefinitely.[94] Although I've offered him one final chance at explanation, it's probably safe to say that this has entered cleanup phase. Suggest deletion of all locally hosted uploads by this user; there's just no way to guarantee that anything is legitimate. Looks like there will be a text copyvio cleanup too. Many thanks to Moonriddengirl for her exceptional diligence and patience (yet again--the latest of many). Durova³²⁵ 17:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Remaining images

Several images remain hosted at en:wiki that were uploaded by this user.[95] Would someone who has local sysop rights at en:wiki please review? Durova³²⁵ 17:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Although he states that permission should have been emailed to WP, without an OTRS ticket number we can't verify that so I've deleted File:WatkinLaneUMFC.jpg, File:Our Lady of Lourdes and Saint Gerard Majella Church.jpg and File:StJames, lostock hall.jpg just to be on the safe side. I'm not sure about the remaining three (File:Lostock Hall 10D MPD 27-07-68.jpg, File:Disused site of LHMPD.jpg and File:Map of Lostock Hall, 1892.jpg). I've made a quick run through Google comparing the photos and can't find any indications of further copyvio, but you're more familiar with this stuff that I am. Your thoughts? EyeSerene^talk 18:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

2nd one is on commons as well. Third one should be pd if the date is accurate. I can't read the map closely enough to tell. First one might be a copyvio, but I can't find a source online. Protonk (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please double check before posting. That file has been deleted from Commons.[96] PD-1923 material originally published in the UK is not necessarily compliant with Commons hosting policy. At any rate, all of this particular user's uploads that were hosted at Commons have been deleted. We have no reason to trust this editor's assertions. Durova³²⁵ 18:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Note also that no source is given for the "1892" map. Is there any guarantee that wasn't made in 1952? Durova³²⁵ 18:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Pr3st0n, the first one belonged to his grandfather, but it is also at this website under the same title. Pr3st0n also claims on his talk page that File:47008, Lostock Hall MPD, 25th March 1964.jpg on commons belonged to his grandfather. Strangely, it was uploaded in 2006 by another contributor. I don't know what to make of that. It has also been tagged for speedy deletion as a copyvio, but not in connection to this. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just looking at the dates for those two uploads; I believe the steamtube.ning.com upload precedes the WP one? EyeSerene^talk 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Just noticed you've removed it :) EyeSerene^talk 18:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The version on the website is the identical scan, but was uploaded earlier and is of higher resolution. Plus the version uploaded by Pr3st0n is identical to the one auto-generated by the website from the larger original. It seems a very safe bet that the version uploaded by Pr3st0n was downloaded from there. Whether or not it was originally at commons is a different question. - Bilby (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the File:Disused site of LHMPD.jpg following its deletion at commons as a copyright violation. Given the obvious copyvios on the other photos, it is prudent to suspect all uploads by the editor. Unless they can be definitely identified as meeting copyright policy, they should be deleted. I don't think it is worth spending a whole lot more investigating each photo. — CactusWriter | ^needles 18:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection of my user space page to control discussion and prevent me from posting there

Role account and username issue

• NERIC-Security (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Prior discussion at AN archive.

This is basically a WP:Role account for an organization, purportedly to monitor IP edits from that organization on Wikipedia. However, it is still a WP:Role account, and a username that is inappropriate per the username policy, specifically: Misleading names include those that imply you are in a position of authority over Wikipedia. (Specifically, both the organization's name, and the implied "Security" in the username.)

---

• Rlevse commented at the user's talk page:

This account has been vetted as an exception to the policy. But I suggest the account be renamed to reduce future problems, I can do that if you like.

• I agree with Rlevse that this is the best way to go here. The account should be renamed. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong at WP:RFCN? –xeno^talk 18:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It is both an issue of WP:Username policy and WP:Role account. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If a sitting member of ArbCom 'vetted' it as an exception to the role account policy, shouldn't you bring it up with them first? –xeno^talk 18:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I notified Rlevse of this thread. However if a sitting member of ArbCom says the account should be "renamed to reduce future problems", I agree that should be done. I would also like to see specifically where it has been verified that there are not multiple people behind this account. Cirt (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Rlevse's comment was to state that it is permissible for more than one person to operate this account. –xeno^talk 18:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what it meant, aside from that the username is not really appropriate. But I most certainly do not think it meant it is okay for multiple people to operate the account. Cirt (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If the account was vetted as an exception to the username policy, then why would Rlevse suggest a username change? My powers of deduction lead me to conclude the vetting was for an exception to the role account policy. Anyhow, we'll have to wait for Rlevse to clarify. –xeno^talk 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Xeno, he made a similar comment on the user's talk page (archived). I seem to remember User:NERIC-Security stating that the account was not a shared account. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Per m:Role account: On the English Wikipedia, five role accounts are currently permitted. I do not see any way that this account should be permitted to remain unblocked, unless it changes its username to make it specifically clear that it is both: 1) One individual, and 2) that the username does not imply a position of authority. Cirt (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked the user to comment here... –xeno^talk 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x3 Actually, the user page says just that (single user) with a link to a previous discussion. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

And where has that been confirmed? Cirt (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Cirt, I'm not sure how much more confirmation you're gonna get than the link above (and now below). A Checkuser won't necessarily confirm anything. As a single user could log on from more than one location (not at once, mind you) and a multiple-user account could all have the same IP. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. As agreed to at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive121#User:NERIC-Security the account is not, and has never been, used by anyone other than myself, and is only used to patrol the NERIC class B addresses. As far as the username, I work for NERIC and I am responsible for the network security at NERIC. When I sign the IP talk pages, since they are IPs on the NERIC network, NERIC-Security lets them know that it is coming from their network, and is not from the world at large. When I make non-work edits, I user my personal username. --NERIC-Security (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Re "confirmation", assuming that my word is not sufficient, look at the IP address used by this account when logged in. Most, if not all, of the edits should be from my office workstation 163.153.230.190 - a PC that is not shared with anyone else. --NERIC-Security (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Confirmation would best be done through WP:OTRS. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since we have untangled the role account issue from the username issue, I would suggest filing at WP:RFC/N to gather opinions on the username. –xeno^talk 18:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How are they untangled? Cirt (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

If you're not willing to take the user at his word above, why would an email to OTRS be any different? –xeno^talk 18:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Because conceivably it would be an email from the domain of the organization, but with an email address specifying a single individual. Cirt (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Even if you get an email from an individual, what's stopping that individual from sharing the login information with multiple people? Equazcion (talk) 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

An e-mail has been sent to issues@wikimedia.org --NERIC-Security (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I am about ready to throw in the towel. When each of you were up for admin, did anyone question your word? What have I done to make you question mine? --NERIC-Security (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep this issue focused, and not try to change the topic, thanks. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since the user has emailed OTRS per Cirt's request as well as stated here that the account is not being used by more than one person I would submit that this issue is resolved and any further concern over the username be brought up at WP:RFCN to gather outside opinions. –xeno^talk 19:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's please wait until this email has been confirmed. Cirt (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages not moved about

Last month, Lowellian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) moved Orange Bowl to Orange Bowl (disambiguation) (talk pages moved), and then moved Orange Bowl (game) to Orange Bowl, but forgot to do so with Talk:Orange Bowl (game) (probably a side effect from the redirect in place at the time). This just needs a quick fix (Talk:Orange Bowl (game) to Talk:Orange Bowl), but Lowellian appears to not be editing today.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• The above may be a case of wikistalking by Ryulong in response to my comment noting the problem and suggesting the restoration of the pre-Sept 2 arrangement with Orange Bowl being the disambiguation page. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
• Move done. {{db-move}} works too. No comment on the immediately above. –xeno^talk 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I did discover the issue by seeing that Racepacket had made a comment at WT:WPDAB. However, considering that I have filed an RFC concerning his activities in the subject area, I do not think it is wikistalking.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry

I don't know what to do about user:Abarbadoro and user:Korubin. Something isn't right. The two are fighting over material, each has only made one edit ever. Both made the same signing mistake, and somehow user:Abarbadoro knew to find and comment on a discussion at user talk:Korubin. It's suspicious, but I don't want to formally accuse them on the sockpuppet thread. Nezzadar (speak) 18:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock User:216.241.55.204 used for block evasion by User:Ionas68224

The IP above admitted on his talk page that he is a sock used for block evasion by banned editor User:Ionas68224, who is also banned on Simple as simple:User:Jonas D. Rand; and banned on Commons as Commons:User:Ionas68224 (along with his sock puppet Commons:User:Swusr. The IP has been warned repeatedly that he should not be editing.[99] when the IP returned to edit war with User:J over harassing statements after a resolved issue. Also editing sensitive articles and starting talk page threads. IP was blocked for by User:Nishkid64 for one week for harassment and personal attacks[100], which expired yesterday, October 13. Immediately, IP set about harassing other editors. IP is only used by this banned user--although he continually uses a few old, sporadic edits to say we can't block it--for block evasion, and should be blocked indefinitely. -->David Shankbone 18:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no proof that this [101] was me. I am Ionas68224, but there are a number of people in Primm, Nevada who use Cheetah Wireless for their residential service, Buffalo Bill's and Whiskey Pete's and Primm Valley Resort all use Cheetah for their free internet, as does the Gold Strike Hotel and Gambling Hall (nobody lives in Jean). In addition to this, there are a number of casinos on the Las Vegas Strip who use it for free internet service as well. And Cheetah only has about 14 IPs, so people tend to share IPs.

It's not true that I am the only one that uses the IP. I can point out 8 edits that were made since I started using this service that were not mine. IP addresses are not to be blocked indefinitely, either. And I think it should be clear who is harassing whom. 216.241.55.204 (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It has long been the general practice to block IP addresses which have been, and I may add, are currently being used by a banned user to evade the means of their ban from this website. Just because other individuals have been using the IP does not excuse it from being blocked as to prevent policies from being broken and bans being evaded. You know you are not wanted on this website Ionas68224, so why do you continue to return? To appeal your ban and be able to edit, you have to do so through the arbitration committee and only then will you be allowed to edit under your original name. That does not mean the use of sockpuppet accounts and "anonymous" editing through IP addresses owned by Cheetah Wireless would be excused in any way. You know this and you should just accept the fact that the community will not allow you back.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Article probation violations by User:Jawesome98

Articles related to Barack Obama are currently under article probation. Jawesome98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly violated this by adding "birther" material to Early life and career of Barack Obama, breaking 3RR in the course of the last 24 hours. [102][103][104][105]. He has previously been blocked twice for edit-warring on this article and breaking article probation. Given this continuing pattern of disruption, I propose an indefinite ban on Jawesome98 from editing Obama-related articles. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)