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

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

Entire discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Gibraltar to centralize discussion and to free up space on ANI. MuZemike 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Request interaction ban on Drolz09

Entire discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Drolz09 to centralize discussion and to free up space here. MuZemike 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruption, POV-pushing, tag-teaming on Iraq, Mesopotamia

I know it's Christmas and all, but the situation in Mesopotamia and Iraq is out of control. Two highly tendentious Iraqi ultranationalists, User:Izzedine and his tag-team buddy User:Mussav have taken it upon themselves to equate Mesopotamia with "ancient Iraq". They are resorting to edit-warring [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] to push their nationalist POV and admonish other users to get consensus for their edits, even though it is their POV that is against the consensus, as evidenced from the talkpage. They also are hypocritically dishing out warnings to other users in attempts to intimidate them [7] [8], while they themselves are just as guilty of edit-warring. Izzedine in particular, has a loooooong history of tendentious POV-pushing on Iraq and Mesopotamian articles and has been warned MANY times [9] [10] [11]. There is also a suspicion of tag-teaming, as Izzedine and Mussav burst out on the scene late on Christmas Day almost simultaneously [12] [13] and take turns reverting. At this point, page protection until the dispute is resolved would seem appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Athenean (talk · contribs) is calling the kettle black, as he is as much guilty of edit warring as anyone else he mentions, and he is a Greek ultranationalist who edit wars with Turks and Albanians and regularly deletes whole referenced paragraphs that he doesn't like, he's now pushing his frontier into Iraqi territory. He also threatens other editors with blocks on talk pages. Do please acquaint yourself with the talk pages and edit histories rather than taking his wild claims at face value. And a Merry Christmas! Izzedine 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Izzedine (talk · contribs) was making problematic edits on Europe and Talk:Europe a week or so ago. This blew over then, but there was evident POV-pushing as to the status of Georgia as a transcontinental country. The kind of inflammatory language he is using here seems to be par for the course. He also seems to be misrepresenting User:Athenean in an extreme and irrelevant way. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Check the talk pages, I engaged in much discussion and provided the highest quality references for my edits, and suffered terrible abuse from Satt 2 (talk · contribs) which I filed a Wikiquette report about here. This was weeks ago, and is unrelated. Mathsci (talk · contribs) disagreed with me at the time and agreed with Athenean, and he has now seen an opportunity to chime in with Athenean's mud-slinging. Izzedine 01:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appealed to me on my talk page to make a comment. He was POV-pushing and refusing to read previous discussions on the talk page of Europe. No "highest quality references" were produced, just a total unwillingness to understand the term "transcontinental country" and the same kind of tendentious and misrepresenting edits that we see here. Izzedine is clearly a highly a problematic editor. Mathsci (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci (talk · contribs) is being dishonest and trying to insult your intelligence.

Are these not the *highest quality* references -

• National Geographic - [14]

“ Georgia is geographically in Asia—the mountains forming its northern border serve as the Europe-Asia boundary ”

• UNdata - "Western Asia"
• CIA World Factbook - "Southwestern Asia"
• Foreign and Commonwealth Office - "South-western Asia"
• Library of Congress - "Southwestern Asia"
• Intute - "Georgia is located in Southwestern Asia"
• Open Site - "Southwestern Asia"

After reading the earlier discussions on the talk page of Europe, where Mathsci had bullied and intimidated a very articulate and constructive editor Npovshark (talk · contribs), It became clear that I was wasting my time with him. Izzedine 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest Izzedine be blocked if he continues writing personal attacks on me like this. It is indisputable that his wish to remove Georgia from sections in Europe is simply POV-pushing. That he tries to insult an experienced editor like me in this way shows that he has not really understood the core principles of wikipedia. If the BBC classify Georgia as a European country (like Armenia) that is an example of ambiguity. I believe National Geographic use the same classification, despite Izzedine's cherry-picked quote and the ambiguities in the definition of the borders of Europe. The historical evolution of the borders of Europe is discussed in several books, meticulously cited in the article. Is Izzedine throwing doubts on these sources now?

The edits above by Izzedine are clueless and an abuse of WP:ANI. Izzedine was told clearly that the status of transcontinental countries is ambiguous. He is simply bringing a silly content dispute, discussed multiple times on Talk:Europe, to this inappropriate noticeboard. He has not read the notes in the definition section of Europe and therefore is wasting time here, when several editors have confirmed his error. If major organisations like National Geographic, the BBC and the CIA use different classifications, there is an inherent ambiguity, and that is what is reported on wikipedia in an anodyne and neutral way. No matter how many times Izzedine stamps his foot and shouts at other users, the status of Georgia will not change. If he continues repeatedly writing in this way, it is probably appropriate that he should receive some kind of block for tendentious editing and disruptive behaviour. Besides I don't quite understand how Izzedine can make these claims after he invited me on my talk page to give an opinion after he edit warred with User:Satt 2. I did not agree with either user. NPOVshark's editing history is also exceedingly problematic. Izzedine's interpretation is completely off target like most of the rest of what he writes. He omits to mention all the other editors who disagreed with NPOVshark. I don't find that very surprising really. Izzedine is a disruptive editor: he seems to write whatever suits him, even if it is a gross misrepresentation. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I haven't edited the Europe article or talk page since early December. I left it after debate. I did not bring it to ANI you brought it here Mathsci! And what personal attacks? look at what you've said about me.. who is being more hateful? Let's just accept we had a disagreement Math. I'm sorry we've clashed, I'm no longer interested in the subject of Georgia's continental location, It doesn't matter. take it easy. Izzedine 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, this noticeboard is for discussing users' on-wiki behaviour, not content disputes. That is why your recent actions on Europe were brought up. You were disruptive there. The mere fact that you have made personal attacks on me as being "dishonest" and "trying to insult your intelligence" is extremely relevant here. Please tone down your language and refactor these comments. Mathsci (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment removed by Izzedine, reinserted for readability: "What is your aim here Math? to push for me to be blocked? I'd be willing to refactor or delete comments as a good faith gesture to make up good between us as editors, but would you be willing to do the same? it would be a skewed dialogue if not. Izzedine 15:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)" Mathsci (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing this. You have been POV-pushing on Europe and now again on Mesopotamia. Your edits have very little to do with content and are tendentious. As User:Dbachmann quite rightly said on Talk:Mesopotamia, if you continue POV-pushing in this way, the correct sanction might be a community topic ban. I have added my own views on Mesopotamia at the RfC on its talk page. I would advise you to stop POV-pushing and treating WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. When editors initiate naming disputes like this, it rarely has anything to do with adding content and those commenting from the sidelines are often gratuitously insulted for disagreeing with often unjustifiable POVs. In this case, as I wrote in the RfC, I think it is unjustifiable to say that "Ancient Iraq" and "Mesopotamia" are used synonymously. I have given my reasons there and will not discuss this further here. Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personal attacks will get you nowhere. If I were a Greek "ultranationalist", I wouldn't give two cents about Iraq. The accusations about pushing my "frontier" into Iraq are malark pey The reason I am filing this report is because I have become incensed with your tendentious ultranationalism and POV-pushing and because your actions are extremely disruptive to this encyclopedia. Multiple users have disagreed with you, and yet you keep trying to push the same POV over and over and over again. And the fact that you chose Christmas for this latest rampage speaks volumes. --Athenean (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks? – you called me an ultranationalist first. And as you described here - you don't give two cents about Iraq. Athenean has been 'raiding' my edits over the past week, encouraging disputes and disruptiveness. He has *never* edited Iraq articles before, he has been serial undoing many of my older contribs - deleting references as he goes, and not even bothering to use talk pages. Athenean is simply throwing mud and insulting your intelligence, and wasting all our time. I'm not an "Iraqi ultranationalist" I'm a history scholar and a member of the British Museum and British Institute for the Study of Iraq. Izzedine 01:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What or who you are in the real world is irrelevant. It is your behavior on this site that matters, and so far it has been nothing but disruptive and tendentious. And no, I haven't been "raiding" your edits or any such nonsense. Stop playing the victim. I just casually came up on the article on Mesopotamia and was struck by how many times the word "Iraq" (in bold, no less) appeared in the lead, and posted on the talkpage [15]. I was validated by the response of User:Taivo and User:Dbachmann [16]. Izzedine's response? [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Lastly, don't twist my words. What I meant by ultranationalists not giving two cents about Iraq is that ultranatonalists are usually completely uninterested in articles that have nothing to do with their country. You are completely twisting my words. This is unbelievable. --Athenean (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Athenean (talk · contribs) has been raiding my edits, one after the other after the other. It is duplicitous and tendentious the way he is crying wolf about it. At any rate, I don't want to argue about it, this is pointless and wasteful. I'd rather build bridges than throw mud. Christmas time should be merry, too. Izzedine 02:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

All of you, cool it. Izze, you would appear to have been jumping the gun without some talk page discussion first[23]. on you reverted things to different forms after that, citing that "discussion still underway"... in other words, using your own warring to your benefit while claiming to sound fair. Not acceptable. Systematically removing all the existing references was also completely unacceptable as there was no fair cause given to do so. Just because a link changes isn't a reason to remove a reference, even (I learned the hard way, too). Since the end result was conflicting reference information, that's what the talk page is for. Not that it probably would have helped all that much, but it's a necessary first form of dispute resolution that at least defines the issue. That said, I'm going to revert back to the version before the first unjustified source removal. Izze, your edit summary of [24] edit shows the very dubious nature of your actions, as what Athenean did in one revert is the exact same thing you did, just spread out across 20 to either confuse and/or make it look justified. Try to combined you edits at least a little, please. I don't care about which sources are whose or what content they have-- Izze, you hacked at the article for no given reason, systematically removed old and put in new references and adjusted wikilinks to a different POV. cont.

Hi there, I think you've misunderstood, the first diff is five days old, and much discussion has been going on since, at that stage I was simply restoring the deleted references. and the second diff was actually me *deleting my own* references because of the discussion that was underway - in good faith. I agree with you I am the one who provided those references! I didn't want to remove them. This edit from five days ago was undoing a mass deletion of references, nothing dubious about that. I don't know what you mean I haven't removed any references (other than restoring Taivo's version in good faith) ask - Taivo. It can be very complex to work out the true picture when faced with a long version history and several editors. But thanks for the advice. Izzedine 09:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone involved is edit warring at this point, in that the only changes are to predominately restore old versions or remove the content of others. I see no 3RR violations, at least. Tavio seems quite aware of the policy and has wisely backed off for now. Take it to the talk page on the sources. Dispute there can start the normal process, and this is just pointless edit warring that will just get everyone blocked at some point more than likely. Again, I'm reverting back to places before reference removals started. It's the removals/replacements that were without any discussion. That's what they started as. That's where they need to be discussed from. Period. [25] is the version I'm reverting to, as it was the last version before the debated edits started. There you go. Since it's inevitable this will start up again, remember that you were here tonight, and consider this an unofficial final warning in that any admin is free to block for disruption here on without additional notice. You really don't want to go down this road, since I know you've seen it happen a thousand times here before and the ending it never pleasant if certain editors decide to "go rouge" or just shove their agenda forward. I'm entirely comfortable having said all of this since I don't remotely care about the content in the article, nor have I ever come across it before. Izze, you've been placing in your POV in a not-so-subtle manner ever since the old reference removals started, so I'm reverting to before that started. That's what the ANI was about originally, that's what I'm addressing now, nothing more. Future manners of tag-teaming, incivility, suspected puppet use, etc., can be taken through their normal incident boards. Content disputes need to start with discussions, first, which is what should be done now. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This dispute on Mesopotamia has not been resolved so I have removed the unsigned "stale" tag added by User:Datheisen, which did not seem particularly helpful. It confused two separate issues involved here: a resolved issue, namely the POV-pushing/edit-warring by Izzedine/Satt 2 on the status of Georgia in Europe; a current unresolved issue, namely the dispute on Mesopotamia and Iraq. The first was brought up to add context to Izzedine's recent editing patterns. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC here on whether "Ancient Iraq" is synonymous with "Mesopotamia" (the content underlying this dispute). I hope that archaeology experts like Dougweller (hint, hint) will add their comments, even if it directly contradicts the 2 centimes worth that I added. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine's replacement of Mesopotamia with Ancient Iraq (Mesopotamia) at Babylonian mathematics[26] has been undone by five different editors since May[27][28][29][30][31]. Izzedine - and only Izzedine - has reverted all of them, seven times so far [32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. - Ankimai (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again, in Iraq this time [39], repeating the same line over and over again [40]. It is quite clear from his history that this guy is here on a mission and will never stop. --Athenean (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And he's edit warring over other issues as well: I count seven reverts in Muntadhar al-Zaidi from Dec 14 to Dec 24, no matter who had edited in between.[41][42][43][44][45][46][47] - Ankimai (talk) 18:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Hate to stir up drama, but...

resolved Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...I think this needs some attention. I nominated 2009 Obama assassination plot in Hawaii for deletion. Original author, after seeing more delete than keep-votes first changed my nomination and added two other articles about attempted Obama assassinations. After that failed he put up his own AfD for all three articles. (resolved) Since that apparently gets him nowhere, he now created a cut-and-paste article lumping all three together to "make his point". I'm only bringing this up since I don't know what other stunts he's planning on... (notified) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC) To me it seems a good faith editor, even if probably a bit new to the thing. Have you tried to discuss with him before bringing the matter at AN/I? --Cyclopiatalk 14:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I think the appropriate venue (that all the rest of us chose) is to stick to the AfD-discussion and argue your point. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The new article, being copy and paste without attribution, breaks our licences, let alone any other problems. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Yepp, that's just one of the problems... is there a deletion-cat for this? I tried A10, but that was removed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I've speedy closed the AfD he put up for all three articles, as one is undergoing AfD, it was malformed, and pointy. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Good. So what are we doing about the lumped one with respect to attribution licensing? As it stands, it has to go. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I think the appropriate venue (that all the rest of us chose) - I am not talking of the AfD, I am talking of the AN/I you presented. What is the point of an AN/I if you don't want people to comment on it? I found the AN/I notice on the author talk page. About the new article, I didn't think about copyright problems when I removed the CSD -my fault. Put the appropriate CSD tag if copyright is the reason, and let's delete it, in this case. --Cyclopiatalk 16:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC) the line you quoted was w/ respect to him, not you, your comments are welcome. I'm just at a loss right now. Is there a category to delete this? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I would have deleted it as an A10 duplicate article if you hadn't removed the template. Are you happy about me deleting it? I'm a bit worried about 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan - I'd say it belongs in Kevin Rudd's own article, not as a separate one. I've put some welcome cookies on this guy's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC) So we'll make it A10? I can do that, but I'm not gonna edit-war on this. Cyclopia what say ye? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Regarding 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan: you know that something's rotten in the land of Wikipedia when an article about an event spends more time discussing why it is supposed to be notable, rather than discussing the event itself. Just look at the current version. So many more efforts were spent to convince us that this event is notable than to describe the actual visit. The second sentence in the lead: "It was notable, like the 2009 Barack Obama visit to China, as an important visit." [Why? Was there a comparison between these two visits in reliable sources?] Following sections: "The visit was covered by the foreign press, not just Australia and Japan." "Even the press in India, covered the trip demonstrating notability." "It was also covered in other countries besides India." I don't dispute these facts; but, apparently, anything is notable as long as the actual main-space article goes "it is notable... it is notable... it is notable..." -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Continuation Could somebody please explain to him now what AfDs are for? He put up the next one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"RfC: Oppressive editing and page ownership" at Talk:Global warming

Resolved

 – Nothing for admins to do here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that really is the title of the RfC. Yes, the thread is filled with every bit as much good faith and productive discussion as you might think it could be. I just dropped it in an archive box for a second time as part of an attempt to get the editors to focus on improvements to the article there and each other elsewhere if necessary. If somebody could keep an eye on it (or tell me why I am off base on this one), I would appreciate it. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I support global warming 100%, But the tactics of the supporters is heavy handed, receiving multiple negative media accounts, and maybe deserving such RFC title sections.

Rename the section, don't close the section. When editors are not able to speak out and express their frustration the situation gets worse, especially when an admin swoops in and tries to stop all argument on procedural grounds.

I would strongly encourage you to change your mind, reopen the debate, and rename the section. Short term closing RFC is only the easy solution in the short term.

Moderate the debate, don't squelch debate. Ikip 18:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

2/0I would urge you to rethink your position in stopping the RfC. There really is no better venue for this discussion than the article talk page. It is not a matter of individual editors acting wrongly but of a group of editors exerting excessive control over the page content. Any comment on their actions is immediately deleted from the talk page. It is not realistic to expect that this discussion should take place on user talk pages, it is the action of a group of editors that is being questioned here. Arbcom is the final resort and I am prepared to take this matter there if it is necessary but the original indecent has already been escalated out of all proportion by the heavy handed actions of the regulars. My original remark was essentially about an edit summary, with a reversion being wrongly classified as vandalism. Had the discussion on this subject been allowed to continue for a while that would have been the end of the matter but it was immediately deleted and this eventually resulted in my raising an RfC, a standard non-confrontational method of dealing with situation where agreement cannot be reached. Now the RfC has been effectively deleted and no uninvolved editors can now comment. This action supports my assertion that all opposition is being ruthlessly squashed. I have even suggested setting up a 'discussion' or maybe 'dissent' talk page where more general issues about the subject could be discussed, with a longer term objective of improving the page by ensuring that it represents all POVs fairly. This would leave the current talk page for discussion of more immediate improvements. I should add that this proposal does rely on the good faith of both sides to some degree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If the problem with the RfC is just the title, please feel free to give it another title and reinstate it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[In reply to Ikip ]

If that's the case, why don't you open another RfC, using a more appropriate title for the thread and starting a meaningful discussion on the problem. I've no doubt whatsoever that 2/0 acted in the utmost good faith, if a little too quickly- after all, the point of the RfC is to come up with an acceptable solution and, with a thread title like, it's likely to descend into a dramafest! HJMitchell You rang? 19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The current RfC title accurately describes the problem, a group of regular editors are attempting to control the page. I fully understand that this page is a FA and that quality must be kept high to retain this status. This does not involve the deletion of dissenting opinions from the talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Accurate or not, it shows a complete lack of desire to resolve the issue. You have framed the discussion as a contrarian position - there is no chance for Win/Win ... it's a guranteed Win/Lose. Wikipedia is built on Consensus, and you've removed that chance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone has already noted this is not really the place for this discussion, it should be on the article talk page or even a sub page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As 2/0 suggests, there are more appropriate venues for the kind of discussion that was taking place on the thread. Although I supported the initial discussion as a means of airing grievances about talk page management (and in answer to some concerns have myself abated actions for which I was accused of being too aggressive in archiving), I think the discussion has ceased to be useful in that venue, and probably should be pursued through mediation, user RFCs, or arbitration. --TS 19:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Ikip, you are so right. The way forward is by reasonable, structured, and civil discussion of the issues involved not by total suppression of dissent. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I welcome someone else from the community to open another appropriate named RFC. Maybe 2over0? Having tried to stay out of this, I only know the general subject, not all the players.

Tony, I have not followed the argument at all, so you would know better, but in my general experience, escalating a situation rarely works, albeit based on all of the drama of the past few years, if any article needs some outside eyes, it is probably this one. Would these parties agree on mediation, or is there already too much bad blood? I guess there is only one way to find out...Ikip 19:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably it would first be ncessary to find out who the parties are, and indeed what the dispute is supposed to be William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, every pro-warming editor assumes that all dissenters' statements and viewpoints are made in bad-faith. Every pro-warming editor assumes that any sources used by dissenters are lousy sources. Every pro-warming editor assumes that debate or edit disputes by dissenters are borderline vandalism to be ended as soon as possible. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF much? I don't suppose this is a subject where any editor is regarded as neutral, in so far that the first (and sometimes only) edit they make is perceived as one or the other - but it would make a refreshing change if some people were to work to a position that NPOV is attainable... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

LessVan heard, thanks very much for your response. I would like to note that your edit summary reads: "Talk:Global warming: pot - kettle - black - the - calling? In this instance only, no opinion on dispute." Would you mind explaining what you meant by that? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I am commenting that by your grouping all "pro-warming" editors as being inflexible and reactionary toward those who do not share their viewpoints in your comments on this page, that you are exhibiting exactly the same mindset - but in reverse. As for the specific matter(s) which gave raise to your complaints, I have not reviewed them and thus cannot offer an opinion on the validity of the concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply. however, respectfully, I feel you are incorrect in your statement; a person who identifies a problem and its sources should not automatically be equated with the people causing the problem. One's response should be based on the evidence itself; I appreciate your referring to this in your comment as well. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk), 00:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

aside Does anyone really support global warming? As in "It'd be a grand thing if New Orleans, Venice and the country of Kiribati were all flooded. Let's burn an extra gallon of fossil fuel to help melt the ol' Ross Ice Shelf." befuddled Durova³⁸⁶ 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one of the climate guys of climategate fame stated he wished global warming turned out to be true so the science could be proven correct - so yes, in that respect, some people certain due support global warming. Also, increased temperatures would open up more land for farming/food production, which would be a good thing. Your comments about flooding are also rather inaccurate. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this page I was staggered to find that all dissent is ruthlessly squashed, even on the talk page any dissenting comment or suggestion seems to be immediately deleted. I fully understand that this article is an FA and this the content should be of the highest quality, supported by reliable sources, thus I would expect to see any poor quality material quickly removed from the article, however I would not expect to see the removal of dissenting material even if it is of poor quality, described as vandalism. Furthermore I would expect a little more leeway on the talk page, non-majority views should be discussed rather than immediately deleted. When I attempted to discuss these issues (which involved several editors) on the talk page this discussion was immediately deleted, I therefore proposed and RfC to attempt to get some uninvolved editors to give their opinions.

It is interesting that the title of this RfC ( Oppressive editing and page ownership) has been questioned but the RfC, the standard way of getting opinions from uninvolved editors, has been deleted. I think this fact rather proves that the RfC was justified. What exactly is the problem with letting it stand, are the current regulars afraid that outside opinion might go against them. It has been suggested that I take this to arbitration and that is exactly what I intend to do if even the RfC process is to be suppressed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Martin Hogbin's concerns, and hope they will be given full attention. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree, and can't believe this is still an issue. Martin restored an edit that was egregious POV-pushing to the article. He was reverted. He started a massive, massive discussion about how upset he was about this. I can't possibly understand why; in his shoes I would probably feel horribly embarrassed and apologize for taking the time of all involved. (You (plural) may be able to tell that after my several comments on this IMO non-issue, my patience is waning. Sorry.) Awickert (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was valid with guidance support from WP:OWN and Wikipedia:Tag team among others for POV info suppression. Shutting the RFC down early was inappropriate, and does reinforce the original concerns. These concerns are difficult to diagnose and cure. The simple solution would seem to require the folks who may seems to control the range of discourse in a article by excessive negation ... to actuality propose compromises, with good faith that progress will occur. It's simple to say no, and requires great editing skill to work a reasonable compromise. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The RfC was shut down because of concerns over its title and the quality of discussion within it and, going solely by the title and 2/0's word (which I have no reason to doubt), it was entirely appropriate. However, there also seem to be some valid concerns here about the management of the talk page and the way in which content is controlled on the article. Whether they are perceived or genuine, I have no idea. It seems the best way to resolve the issue would be to open a new RfC (under a nice, neutral, drama-free title) and attempt to thrash the issues out there (hopefully once and for all). However ANI is not the place to carry on this dispute. HJMitchell You rang? 00:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

First, a compulsory history lesson

Sm8900 attempts to recruit some Republican divisions of his Armada

Sm8900 attempts to recruit some Conservative divisions of his Armada

Having lost these battles, he now complains about "oppressive editing and page ownership". But all that is going on is that the Global Warming page is editited just like most other scientific Wikipedia articles: Only peer reviewed sources are allowed in for statements about the science. We don't want to have endless debates that go nowhere anyway. We do tolerate editors on this page that would not be tolerated on other pages if they behaved in a similar way. There would have been an Arbcom case and the editors in question would have been topic banned a long time ago. So, I don't see how we can be accused of "oppressive editing and page ownership". Count Iblis (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

nice ad hominem arguments, Count Iblis. that all happened during a huge edit dispute two years ago. Here at Wikipedia, we follow WP:Civil#No_personal_attacks_or_harassment, WP:AGF, and WP:Discussion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up. The current editors have carte blanche to do what they want. If someone who disagrees can civilly make their argument, they may have a shot at getting something changed but for the most part, that issue is lost and is best left to the blogs ranting about it not here. Call it systemic bias if you want but it's not going to change. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Want to bet? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I'm having trouble understanding your reply. Are you agreeing with us in the substance of our complaint, but simply claiming that nothing here can work? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I know they were said with tongue in cheek but I am challenging 'The current editors have carte blanche to do what they want' and, 'that issue is lost'. This is not how WP works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't tongue in cheek. I've seen the talk pages. The current editors have carte blanche. All this discussion about how the talk page discussion is controlled doesn't happen in Wikipedia. It just doesn't. We sit around debating control but until you get to ARBCOM, nobody really cares about how discussions are controlled. Any attempt to discuss how the talk page is organized is inherently an personal attack on the people you claim to be in control. Drop the idea that (even if it exists) you'll be able to beat back the consensus on the page about how the article is framed and how the talk page is run. On its face, the Global Warming article uses scientific sciences only for the science (as people note, while there is debate out there in reliable sources, there is no scientific debate so any argument that it's being debated is ignored), but when discussing the effects, it goes into all reliable sources, scientific and not. Inherently, that looks biased, as some people don't believe there are any effects because they don't believe the science, so any source that minimizes the effects is going to be ignored because it may be minimizing the science. (Let's ignore the blatantly obvious point that, instead of noting the specific criticisms by skeptics in the relevant sections, we'll lump them all of them into one single paragraph, scientists and lay-persons together and say "some people argue"). However, I know when the consensus is set but if you guys want to tilt at windmills, go ahead. When it's a conduct issue, Wikipedia is inherently bad at fixing it (no talk page discussion, no RFC, nothing here works for that issue). Now, is there any reason why this section shouldn't be closed because of Talk:Global_warming#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents? This isn't productive here, this isn't the complaints board, and no administrator here is going to do anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you make good points about the nature of edit consensus. however one thing I have to say in response is that the problem we see here is not the existence or strength of consensus, or the lack thereof; the problem is that even the existence of consensus does not give any editors the right to simply reject any and all further edits which in any way differ from the existing topics and themes. consensus is a way to manage an approach to an existing issue; not to give editors an excuse to reject all new or additional topics or ideas. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, as usual. And there is nothing requiring admin intervention. To remove one non-issue: Awickert's summary of MH's complaint is correct. LHvU's comments on Sm8900's comments are correct. If we believe Sm, then we have a very odd one-sided problem, with all the evil on one side. Naturally, this is wrong, and all the evil is on the other side :-). D: no: no-one "supports" GW in that sense. As to the substance, it appears to be absent. Who is complaining that they have a valid, scientifically-based addition to the GW pages that they are unable to discuss on the article talk pages? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that anyone here is evil, nor is anyone else here claiming that. however there is nothing wrong with saying that one set of editors, upholding one approach to the article, currently hold prevailing influence over the article, to the degree that they are excessively shutting out other editors' ideas on how the article should be developed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Back to the ANI point

This ANI is about faith folks can have in a productive article development, with regards to the RfC that was closed. I see good concerns raised above about defining a "peer reviewed" process for only Scientific content in the article. Well .... this ANI is about the peer review process for the article itself. The RfC was to help resolve a dispute over the article's peer review process. Discussing content would be outside of an ANI. There is significant concern about a POV being owned by eds and specifically how the resolution is proceeding. Expertise would be most appreciated on resolving the perceived balance of power with regards to a suspected owned POV in the article, so that faith may restored and further DR can be avoided. The RfC and this ANI are the correct path to granting faith in wiki to resolve a perceived bias in the content. Restarting and redefining the RFC with reference to specific wiki guidance seems fair to me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been argued many times. The editors there have determined that they aren't biased and there's no POV there. If there's an actual point about the article (not "OMG, you all are BIASED!!!!"), then discuss it on the talk page. Otherwise, unless someone can point to a specific discussion with a particular individual with particular diffs, admins don't deal with "you all are biased" allegations. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky is right. Perhaps someone should supply some diffs for the specific edits in question. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Good points, however the ANI was about the RFC, not diffs. Diffs can go into restarting the RfC along with sited guidance. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Two things I could see wrong at Global Warming.

First thing to notice is a deficient article. You can see my protest in talk here: "Who is Dr Will Happer?". Happer (a very well published atomic physicist at Princeton) claims to have been sacked for dissent on the ozone hole by Al Gore back in 1993 - then kept his nose clean for years and eventually came back to say "Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted". I don't care that he has "no publications ... directly related to the physics of climate change", he is notable enough to either get a mention, or at least to be included with other notable dissenters.

I quickly found more notable dissent, here and again, the reasons for excluding it only arouse suspicion. (An exasperated IP editor has thanked me - in case it's not obvious, that is not me, I've not solicited the support and have no idea who it is). And again here, where I've come to defend the complaints (though not the material) of two obviously exasperated IP editors. (Again, absolutely no connection to me in any way). The whole topic is not being treated in a fashion that does credit to the authors, it reeks of bias.

The second thing I found was seriously bad behaviour from the owners of the article. No way should editors be conspiring to remove comments as they blithely tell us they've agreed amongst themselves to do here. Most disturbingly, when I requested to see a listing of these "dispute resolutions previously undertaken" (including the agreement to delete anything in Talk they didn't want recorded), my request was deleted! As I said at the time, a proper shaking up is in order. It is difficult to have confidence in the present crowd producing a good article. Or articles, because I happened to approach this topic again at Snowball Earth after seeing the topic treated as orthodoxy on television. I found owners again simply reverting any mention of notable dissenters. In that case, the discussion I started here eventually had people telling me they didn't really know what they were talking about, I should go ahead and improve the article, but I (presumably) still mustn't do it the way I wanted. Please excuse me for deciding that Wikipedia is censored and I have better use for my time. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK policy is pretty clear: if it's not directly related to the article, it's not appropriate. General discussions about the global warming, commentary about whether certain individuals are controlling the article, rants about bad behavior don't discuss the article itself. If you want to play victim because nobody lets you rant, go ahead. You ask "who is Will Harper", you get a response that he doesn't directly work on climate change and you start ranting about what drew you to this article. Did you have an actual point? Did you want him added, deleted, a mention of him changed? Otherwise, it should be gone because your unsourced BLP-violating name-calling about "paid alarmists" is useless at worst and distracting at best. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fight at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard

Resolved

 – there's a block and arbcomm involvement now (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I don't think this is resolved, see below. More admin eyes would be helpful, at a start, as well as admin input about how, or whether, to do anything about the issue. (feel free to remove this comment if the issue is unmarked again) ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've wandered into a firefight between a couple of long-established editors, JohnnyB256 (talk) and ++Lar: t/c, one of whom (Lar) is an admin. Their behaviour at this AfD concerns me. There are accusations of sock puppetry, poisoning of wells and more, and a huge history including a couple of arbitrations. Please also note the comments on my talk page here. andy (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's heated, I'll give you that. They don't appear to have violated any policy or guideline though, so far as I can see from my skim read of the to and fro. HJMitchell You rang? 01:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That isn't unusual for AFDs. HalfShadow 02:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no violation of WP:OUTING to prejudice the AfD?[48] [49][50]. Outing is a blockable offense, whether or not the accusation is true. Used in this context it's a personal attack. Once somebody accused me of being a different person ("Johnny Birkett," brother of the lady in the David Letterman controversy), and the comment was deleted right away. I could see if I was an SPA who woke up yesterday, but I'm an established user. Lar is an administrator and is supposed to set standards, not see how far he can push them.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Outing is a blockable offense, whether or not the accusation is true." This is so far from the real day to day behavior of wikipedians. How in the world can you be outed if the outing allegations are not true? As two recent OUTING cases have shown me, there is HUGE leeway given to editors to accuse other editors of all manner of outing. The outing allegations in this AFD are minor by comparison. Ikip 20:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:OUTING. I'm not going to waste my time debating something that is clearly in policy. Lar's accusations disrupted the AfD. Once before, a much milder outing question addressed to me in a different context (not an accusation) was redacted under that policy.[51]. People raise COI red herrings all the time as personal attacks, which is why it is a bannable offense in the policy.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a smoke and mirrors attempt to detract from the issue at hand and probably uncivil but, no disrespect, you might be making more of it than it is. Both you and the other editor need to focus on the issue at hand (the notability of the subject) or make room for other editors to make their judgements, most of whom I think have better judgement than to rely on those kinds of accusations. HJMitchell You rang? 13:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely what it is, and I've done my best to deal with the notability issue to the exclusion of the smoke and mirrors, but it seems to have influenced one editor.[52] I didn't raise the issue here, but since someone else did I think that needs to be pointed out and acted on.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally, I don't think it's done any harm because most sensible editors know to look at your arguments and your contributions rather than you supposed identity. However, if you you want to make something of it, I suppose you'd be within your rights to take it to WQA or to perhaps open another thread on here since we seem to be the only ones paying any attention to this one. HJMitchell You rang? 14:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit, there's no real way to proceed without fostering unproductive drama, which I assume was the purpose of the smoke and mirrors in the first place. There just seems to be a double standard here. Hell, I got a warning (OK, I was wrong) recently for "biting" a newcomer as I was a tad too aggressive with Huggle. Yet something like this, far worse, happens and nothing is done. (Just venting, not your fault.) --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it is very instructive to review the Mantanmoreland Arbitration case, especially the section on Mantanmorlands's topic ban. Then take a look at this Wikistalk report, comparing JohnnyB256, Mantanmoreland, and Sammiharris. ... the articles where all three ID's overlap just happen to include 6 articles.... Short (finance), Patrick M. Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked short selling, Jim Cramer, and Gary Weiss... with the possible exception of Jim Cramer (which is debatable), all of these articles are covered by the topic ban. No other articles overlap this way.

JohnnyB256 started editing not too long after Mantanmoreland was banned. JohnnyB256 has a consistent POV in this topic area, one that closely matches Mantanmoreland, one that consistently tries to downplay the importance of NSS, of the various lawsuits related to the matter, of the possible culpability of others, and in general the seriousness of the problem. Mantanmoreland and his socks evaded detection for a very long while and it took repeated community efforts to get something to be done about it, in the face of resistance from the seated ArbCom of the time (I have some understanding of, and sympathy for, why they felt that way.... but it nevertheless was a struggle that consumed much resource)

It is not just idle speculation to ask if JohnnyB256 is Mantanmoreland reincarnated. It is exceedingly valid, based on the information available, and it is far from well poisoning to scrutinise things closely. This userid has been the subject of intense investigation by various CUs and so far no connection has been evidenced. But  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust and absence of evidence (of a connection) is not evidence of absense (of a connection). So, here we have yet another example of JohnnyB256 POV pushing on an article related to this topic area and when questioned about it, his response is to attack the questioners, and say this is (in effect) "less important than a misuse of Twinkle". I submit there is a potential that JohnnyB256 is Mantanmoreland, returned, and that he is editing in violation of the topic band, and if not, he has a potential COI that cannot be resolved by assurances to the contrary.

I suggest that the community consider measures to deal with this user, although I'm not prepared yet to suggest exactly what they ought to be, and I welcome input. I suggest the status quo ante, in which JohnnyB256 is permitted to more or less WP:OWN this topic area unless much effort is expended to fight line by line for balanced articles, is not satisfactory. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to respond in some detail, but this is more smoke and mirrors, more drama, to divert attention from Lar's own disruption of the AfD and WP:OUTING. Just, for the record, this is the first time I've ever heard any complaint about my editing of the NSS articles. The discussion pages of those articles are placid compared to plenty of others I've edited, and I don't "own" them or a blessed thing.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar, can I ask, meaning no disrespect, what the hell any of that has to do with the AfD? As far as I can see you're both getting a little too heated and perhaps need to regain perspective and you should focus on the content, not the contributors. Unless you have some solid evidence of wrongdoing, I would advise you to strike that part of your comment as it serves no purpose but to fuel a dramafest. HJMitchell You rang? 16:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD is a side issue, it just happens to be about an article that reveals JohnnyB256's attempted ownership of this topic area. I'm suspecting that you don't have the background on this matter... Have you reviewed the Mantanmoreland arbcom case? Or are you just coming in and seeing an argument without examining the underlying issues? I'm open to suggestions as to how to proceed. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the AfD is the only issue. This ANI was started by a user who was troubled by way the AfD was being conducted. He's right, this is not the way AfDs should be conducted. You did a great job of disrupting the AfD by poisoning the atmosphere. You don't fight an AfD by ignoring the merits and attacking the person who brought the AfD, as you did here. You falsely accused me of engaging in a "WP:POINTy AfD" (which is absurd and false) and asking for a "speedy keep" on that basis. That nonsensical accusation would be bad enough to make on an article about a dismissed lawsuit, but you made bad things worse by your clear breach of WP:OUTING there and on Andy's talk page..--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Run that outing analysis (as in, how exactly were you outed???) for me please, will you? Make sure you work all the permutations. I suspect you aren't going to do that, though, because many of the permutations end up with you in flagrant violation of an arbcom topic ban, don't they? ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Run the outing analysis by you? Have you looked at WP:OUTING? Trying to disclose a person's real name is a bannable offense whether or not the "real name" is true. I guess the reason must be that people do it the way you did in the AfD, to poison the well, which you did very adroitly. I mildly was asked if I was a real life person ("Johnny Birkett") once and the question was redacted by an administrator[53]. You've thundered onto my talk page to do that, and you've repeatedly done that elsewhere, not just to ask but to accuse. There is no "Weiss exception" or "Lar exception" to WP:OUTING of which I am aware. That is my analysis: read the policy. Or better still, someone should read it to you in the context of enforcing it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: I suggest that the community consider measures to deal with this user, although I'm not prepared yet to suggest exactly what they ought to be, and I welcome input. Since Lar does not want to proceed at this moment, I suggest this conversation be moved to Lar's talk page for ways to proceed, and this ANI section is closed. I also suggest an admin remove the sections which have nothing to do with the AFD itself, either to the talk page, or remove it altogether. I think Lar brings up some really good points, but without a checkuser, there is really no reason to bring up these points in the AFD. Ikip 20:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but just a moment now: What about the AfD? As Cool Hand Luke just pointed out there, the AfD is "hash" because of the belief, promulgated by Lar, that I have a conflict of interest. What can be done to rectify the poisoning of the AfD and prevent Lar from engaging in similar misconduct in the future? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, I suggest the AfD is hash because of your wild accusations and attacks, not because I raise valid concerns about your potential COI or that you're actually a banned editor. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What "wild accusations"? Name one. I haven't said a thing except that I don't have a COI, and I've tried to get the discussion back on track. It is irreparably poisoned, thanks to you.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"poisoned", "misconduct", "personal attack", "smoke and mirrors" and half a dozen other phrasings I could point to. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

These aren't wild charges, they're accurate characterizations of your behavior. You poisoned the atmosphere of the AfD, turning it into "hash" by accusing me of a COI; WP:OUTING is policy and you blatantly violated it, which is misconduct; you've personally attacke dme repeatedly, and "smoke and mirrors" was used by HJ Mitchell in describing your attacks and I agree. It is also accurate. Nothing wild about any of that.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Ikip (and the offer to help with the article) but really, I am hoping for some input from admins previously uninvolved in this particular discussion who have some knowledge of the background here, so this does seem the place for it. Either here, or Arbitration Enforcement, perhaps. Because something does need doing, or else we need to collectively take the decision to write this area off and leave it to be POV pushed into oblivion. (as a note, CU involvement isn't going to help, unless there's been a recent change in patterns. I'm a CU myself and I've consulted with other CUs about this matter.) ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, "POV pushed into oblivion"? You just earlier said this AfD was "POV pushing." I invite administrators to examine the AfD and make a determination as to whether it was an exercise an "POV pushing," and whether Lar's contributions to that discussion were constructive or disruptive. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to restart the deletion discussion after asking JohnnyB256 and Lar to stay away. Lar became so obsessed with this case that he permanently lost my respect, and I think he needs to step away, just as I did. Never was a troll better named than WordBomb. --TS 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "restart"? The discussion is FUBAR. It's "hash" as someone else said. Lar's attacks remain, he hasn't redacted them, and nobody else is willing to do that. He has done a simply splendid job of diverting attention from the glaring lack of notability of the article, and turning the AfD into an attack on me. He's getting away with it too, and shows not the slightest acknowledgment that he has done anything wrong.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm all that obsessed, Tony. It's just that at the time of the case, I turned out to be right about Mantanmoreland in the end, and you turned out to be wrong, and perhaps that has some bearing. However I'd be willing to have nothing more to do with this topic, broadly construed, if JohnnyB256 was similarly constrained. I doubt he'd go for that though. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't put me on a par with your behavior, Lar. There is no moral equivalency here. I started a good-faith AfD, you disrupted it, and did a real fine job. I tried ignoring you and you got worse. I've tried to remain as calm as I can but your behavior has just been abysmal, and the fact that you're apparently going to get away with it without even a slap on the wrist is pretty lame. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't think you'd go for it. As to why? This Wikistalk report is all the explanation needed. I'm not here at Wikipedia to push Mantanmoreland's agenda the way you apparently are. The fact that you're still editing here is pretty amazing really. Or perhaps maybe not. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I get the picture. I only figured out you were obsessed on the Mantanmoreland thing when I saw this strange comment in the Cla68 arbitration election[54]. Someone called you on it and you didn't reply, and it was moved to talk. Then I remembered how you protected Cla68 when he violated WP:OUTING here[55]. How many discussions are you going to disrupt before you get that out of your system? As for how come I'm "still editing here," I guess maybe the reason is that I haven't done anything wrong.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• JohnnyB256: that diff is not a violation of WP:OUTING; it is a question. People are allowed to ask civil questions. There are nontrivial concerns here concering a nexus of articles that were previously edited by one of the site's most slippery sockpuppeteers. Please answer in a reasonable manner to settle the concerns. This might be coincidence, but your current approach of taking issue with the questions is similar to that sockpuppeteer, who took umbrage at questions rather than answer them. Lar: the underlying concerns here deal with something that was mainly resolved two years ago and had been ongoing for two years prior to that. So many of our newer editors and admins are unlikely to remember the background. It isn't realistic to expect the community to take action at this thread based upon the wikistalk report; those of us who do remember the background would likely find it intriguing but not convincing. If JohnnyB256 refuses to address the matter frankly here I would certify a user conduct RfC. Durova³⁹⁰ 01:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying "who many people think is..." sounds like outing to me, but it's certainly uncivil and a bad way to conduct oneself in an AfD. The Afd is the only issue here since this thread was starting in good faith, a page some editors might wish to refresh their memory of, by a third party about the conduct at this RfA. Accusing somebody of being a sockpuppet or a previously banned editor only detracts from the issue at hand and, without evidence, is uncivil. Let's assume for one minute that JohnnyB256is who Lar is accusing him of being, it's quite irrelevant since he appears to have a made a good faith nomination and has been greeted with multiple accusation of bad faith. That said, both of you are far too preoccupied with each other when your arguments should be about the merits of the article. As for claims to JohnnyB256's identity, I'll be quite frank: put up or shut up. Come up with evidence and take it to SPI or get back to a discussion on the merits of the article rather than the nominator. HJMitchell You rang? 01:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not "pin the tail on Johnny." This is an AN/I commenced by someone else to discuss the AfD. But I haven't evaded a thing, I've answered the question nicely in the past. [56] and yes, I guarantee Durova that I am totally pissed at the way this AfD issue is being handled. I think the AfD was FUBARd. If that has a familiar ring to it, I can't help that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't meant to be interpreted as being in your support, Johnny. Lar needs to produce evidence or stop going on about your identity, which is beside the point in itself. The point of this whole thread is that both of you are out of line for using this AfD as your personal battleground rather than a forum to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the article. HJMitchell You rang? 02:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing I'd like more than than for the AfD to discuss the merits of the article. I agree that this discussion has not been productive. I didn't expect it to be and it was not my idea to bring it here. But I've tried to stick to the merits of the article in the AfD. To the extent I haven't I'd be happy to redact, but then there is all the stuff about me in there which has not been redacted.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, maybe that is the correct outcome here. An administrator should go into the AfD and redact what doesn't belong there. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the linked question appears to have been asking whether JohnnyB256 has a conflict of interest regarding the article at AFD. That is relevant. So let's not quibble over wording: do you have a conflict of interest regarding that article? Durova³⁹⁰ 02:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I think the linked question was about something else. It doesn't matter. The answer is no. I repeat NO. I repeat N-O. Is that clear? I have never had a COI on anything I edit. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Johnny was indefinitely blocked by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)—[57]. Not sure of the exact reason for blocking, as it was from private evidence collected by Thatcher, but I believe that Arbcom is aware of whatever he has per [58]. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I had always assumed that Johnny was Mantanmoreland et al since I put a couple of things together here and here. I doubt I was alone. I didn't send anything to ArbCom (or anyone else) about it. The problem is, what happens when Johnny starts over again as a new set of accounts? I kind of felt like it was easier with him sticking to that account. Not that he wouldn't use others, but at least with that account you knew what was going on. The whole thing is so dysfunctional, it's too bad. Mackan79 (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am recused from this matter for obvious reasons, but I would like to say that ArbCom is certainly aware of this matter. Inquiries about the block from JohnnyB256 (or information from anyone else) should be sent to arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. As this has been turned into an ArbCom matter, further public speculation is not likely to help anyone. I think it would be appropriate to box this heading, but I leave that decision to others. Cool Hand Luke 10:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

False information in reception section for video game articles?

I just recieved an interesting post to my talk page. This is tied into posts on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (and again) and Prototype. Honestly, I'm not quite sure exactly what's going on or if it should be reported here or elsewhere (say COIN) or how to describe it (it's 2:20 in the morning, gimme a break), but I thought it could use a couple of hundred other eyes to decide if it's a problem or a slightly odd troll (I've seen weirder around the internet, so I can't say for certain, though I'll assume good faith obviously)... Does this require investigating? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite interesting. If he is telling the truth, we might have a scandal on hand. I think that this could be a lie by someone who wants to gain favor on this site. The question is, if he worked for a company adding stuff to our pages, why doesn't he have a username? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

didnt Microsoft and other companies pay people to make their wikipedia articles "preferable" a while back?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

They probably did as they are Microsoft. Although, since pretty much everyone owns something of theirs, I wonder why they would do that. I'm just wondering if he is telling the truth. If so, it would be worthy to investigate. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I just came upon a link here that talks about Microsoft's thing. Apparently Jimbo and Bill Gates had a laugh over this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I no longer work for the PR company, if I were to use the the username from that time I could be in serious trouble for violating my agreement with them. As a general rule when companies wish to edit Wikipedia and spam forums for marketing purposes they use a PR company, because the IPs will be so easily traced. Take for example the Nestle page here on Wikipedia, where an employee was altering the page for controversy reasons--I know not the specifics of that situation though--or the Monsanto incidents, among others, it tends to be a good idea to use a PR company.

I do not have a goal that would serve any particular corporate faction, or at least not knowingly, but I think something should be done about "reception" sections of Wikipedia. POV writing gets taken care of sometimes quite well by other editors, even with edits from those of us trained to find ways around that. But the fact that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (among other template-like patterns of reception sections) are on every single movie or video game page possible make me question the validity of Wikipedia articles.

Call of Duty MW2 was a sample I used to illustrate my point: How many reviews of the game were listed? I think eight or ten or something. How many different companies own those reviews? Well, I am sure you'll get the idea if you just click through the media links.

Let it be known this is mostly openly obtainable information, it is not a grand conspiracy. If you wish to see more media tactics check out FRONTLINE (since Frontline does not have commercials it can at times afford to be less biased abotu this particular issue) news about marketing to kids and the marketing of the future. I hope the WIkipedia community can develop effective ways of avoiding becoming just another marketing tool.

Lastly, I chose TheJadeFalcon's page to write on because I have witnessed his editing style for several months, I feel there is a level of integrity there, and I figured he would know many more people to bring this issue up to.75.214.123.146 (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing seems pretty fishy if you ask me. Not the IP but the fact that people are getting payed to "edit" wikipedia. Couldnt we just remove the bias if we wanted to?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 16:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well he seems to be telling the truth. I lost the link, but I know there is a page out there where you can plug in the page, and suspicious IPs come up. That might be worth a try, but for now, I wonder if we can get usernames of those who edited, as this has the potential for scandal. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

True. This probably is a scandal (of some sort). Can the IP tell us anything else before we continue?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He could also e-mail us his username since this is all anonymous. I can't see any harm in that being done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

True....perhaps we should notify the IP.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

← Can e-mail me if he wants. Contact information is here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you get anything, share it with an administrator who would likely care about this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Any admins willing to be e-mailed? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What is being encountered here is a form of astroturfing: a manufactured opinion that is passed off as a popular one. Lots of corporations & special interest groups do it; Microsoft simply gets caught doing it more often than other computer-related companies. (Not that this makes MS any better than the rest; they simply aren't quite as amoral & skilled as some of the other companies are.) Obviously this specific issue needs to be investigated & fixed, but unfortunately this won't be the last time this kind of stuff will happen here, no matter how this specific incident is handled. --llywrch (talk) 17:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Emergency disruption help needed

No reason to keep this expanded since the situation has been resolved. ArcAngel (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – No action is necessary here. JB50000 is a new editor and is overreacting to a non-situation. ArcAngel (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC) User:Seb az86556 is redirecting the page. If she/he opposes the article simply discuss it and, if that is not successful, file an AFD. Do not edit war. Consider warning the user and advise her/him that if she/he hates the article, just file an AFD JB50000 (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC) The artile is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obama_assassination_scares&redirect=no I don't believe it. Somebody tell him. And explain to him [[what AfDs are for. See earlier post above... I am at a loss. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) You may want to look at this edit here (in particular, the edit summary), where a different, experienced editor redirected the page with valid reasoning. As such, there is no issue here as the article is now being redirected appropriately. ArcAngel (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reopened and logical way to solve it < Resolved  – editor informed about legal situation Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC) This editor is not uninvolved and an uninvolved administrator should give fair advice. Please stop closing this, Choyool because you are the one in dispute. You are not the judge! Please just be patient! Proposed article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obama_assassination_scares&action=historysubmit&diff=334197314&oldid=334197197 ArcAngel has made an error because he cites that he is following the logic of editer Hunter Kahn. However, Hunter is not an uninvolved editor. Hunter has spent a lot of time creating 2 articles about 2 minor assassination scares. After careful study, I (and not only me but a few others) think that they should be merged into one article about scares. I created an article to do that. But Hunter probably fears that his articles will be merged into it and wants his own articles. He should get a pat on the back for effort in writing but not for his logic against merging. But ArcAngel should not condone blanking out an article and redirecting it since there has been no discussion about the redirect or even an AFD. Requested action: an administrator says "this issue should be settled by not redirecting it without discussion, instead, restore the article and discuss an AFD or merge". This is the calm way to deal with it. I accept a deleted article or a redirect if calmly discussed, not heavy handed redirect. JB50000 (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC) The way you created this thing by copy-paste is in conflict with wikipedia's attribution-licensing and cannot remain lest we face copyright and/or creative-commons violations. The redirect is a quick-fix solution to avoid such calamities. Mergers such as the one you propose are not done by copying and pasting into a new page, but by performing a page-history merger after consensus to perform one has been established. You have been informed about this earlier on your talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC) It was put up for AFD and the consensus was Speedy Keep, so there was discussion on it. ArcAngel (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Just a railroaded discussion, why the rush to speedy it? JB50000 (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC) GFDL says we can copy anything in Wikipedia. There was no discussion on the redirect. The speedily keep did not reject merging. The speedy mistook the request for a pointy request when it was really an attempt for fairness and uniformity. The merge is an even better neutral handling and logical move. ArcAngel, the best way to handle this is to just let some others chime in. You can see that I'm not serially reverting but calling for some discussion, not just 5 minutes then shutting discussion down. JB50000 (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Resolution: Chooy, ArcAngel, and JB5000 will stop adding comments for 12 hours. Other administrators will not close this. Others will just add useful comments and opinions. Muzzling people or closing down discussions is just disruptive and pours fuel on the fire! JB50000 (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Again, you did not perform a merger, you did a copy-paste. Our current license is CreativeCommons3 which calls for attribution. (GFDL cannot be applied to content that was added after November 2008.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Just to avoid spreading misinformation, our current license for most content is the disjunction of CC-BY-SA-3 and GFDL; that is, most new textual material is still licensed under the GFDL, but since November 2008 all such material is also licensed under CC-BY-SA-3. See foundation:Terms of Use, linked on the bottom of every page of every WMF wiki, for more on this. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's more precise. Thank you. The attribution-question still applies though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Indeed, both licenses do require attribution, and in practice that means that we must have an intact and traceable article history, since that is our primary method of attribution. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC) 12 hour block of disruptive editor User:Seb_az86556, aka Choyooliihi, should be blocked for disruption. She/he keeps marking the above section as resolved when she/he is an involved party and cannot shut down discussions like this. Just be an adult, state your opinions, and let others chime in. Don't just muzzle discussions. If I did that, I could mark all of ANI as resolved. This user has been told of this but persist in this very disruptive stunt. JB50000 (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Look -- the legal question is settled, and thus resolved. Your copy-paste cannot stand. If you want a merger, you can start a merger discussion, and we have templates for that: {{merge}}, {{mergeto}}, and {{mergefrom}}. You are welcome to use them. In the meantime, I have gone ahead and fixed the second AfD you started since it was incomplete. Where there any other concerns? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

JB50000 (again) and reopening of AfD hours after I closed it

JB50000 requested closure of this section, so be it. ArcAngel (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
JB50000 (talk · contribs) is new but also being very disruptive. Unhappy with the progress of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Obama assassination plot in Hawaii he opened what I saw as a pointy AfD for that article and two others under the heading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee which I speedy closed as an attempt to make a WP:POINT and as it was a duplicate AfD for the Hawaii article. Within hours, instead of going to DRV, he opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee/2 which didn't include the Hawaii article. Part of his nomination statement says "Since another article has significant delete support, the same standard should apply. That's like speeding, you don't execute one driver but give a medal to another speeder. I think the best compromise would be to merge all 3 assassination plots so we can see and compare the 3." And he doesn't actually want anything deleted, he !votes for 'Merge all 3 articles'. Would someone else please deal with this so he doesn't see it as personal? Of course my original close is open for review, but I think it was correct. I'll notify him of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC) You can see I am being very helpful and not disruptive by not reverting back, unlike Choyool. I also see that there is a merge process. Unless there are objections, I will close this as there is nothing for administrators to do unless someone wants to help fix any merge proposals that I might make. JB50000 (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC) That's exactly what several people have been trying to tell you since... yesterday. Go ahead with your merger-proposal, that's the way to do it. Excellent. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC) That's a nicer tone of message. Let's close this section and the one above. JB50000 (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)  Done ArcAngel (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars Kid vs Google

If you search for the Star Wars Kid's real name (which I'm NOT going to put here - WP:BLP absolutely applies) on Google, our article comes up as the first result - despite our ongoing and deliberate omission of it on the article.

1. Why is this?
2. Can we get Google to remove/stop this?

Exxolon (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See PageRank and, especially, Google bomb. If a lot of pages linking to our article use a particular term (even a term which doesn't appear on our own page), our page may be perceived by Google's PageRank algorithm as a relevant result for that term. If this is done deliberately, it can be described as 'Google bombing'. (A few years ago, Google searches for 'miserable failure' returned George W. Bush's biography as the first hit; a coordinated effort by hundreds of bloggers and website owners created hyperlinks from that term on their own pages to Bush's White House biography page.)

As far as I know, there isn't anything we can do from this end, short of deleting the page outright. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea, but even if there was something else we could do instead I doubt it would have any practical effect when almost all pages one finds when searching for this name do clearly identify him as the “Star Wars Kid”. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 08:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there no way to request Google to remove that page from the results? Exxolon (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how BLP applies here. His name has been reported in the press repeatedly. BLP only applies to things we cannot source well. Many many well known reliable sources have stated what his name is.--Crossmr (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See Q1 of the talk page FAQ. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case - read the policy page - this falls under the "Presumption in favour of privacy" clause of WP:BLP, specifically "This is of profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Exxolon (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but our BLP is for us not the rest of the internet. Deleting an article because of something that is happening on Google is simply not on in my book. Theresa Knott | token threats 11:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose “prurient epicaricacy” isn′t a good enough delete-reason either. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this over with. Sign up for a Google Account, and use SearchWiki and click the X on the result. It's just that simple. Problem (temporarily) solved. ConCompS (Talk to me) 16:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If a lot of web sites use his real name and link to us then we cannot help that, not are we responsible, it is not a BLT violation. This is no basis for the deletion of anything. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The only true BLT violation is too much mayo, if you ask me.GJC 16:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lettuce ketchup on rye puns. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If somebody already knows this unfortunate guy's name then the fact that our article turns up on top when they enter it is quite appropriate. If they don't know the name then no harm is done because they won't know to type it. If they hear his name and wonder who he is then hundreds of websites will be returned by the result, but if ours is at the top that's a good thing because our article is written to the highest standards and does not trash him. --TS 17:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See Q5 of the FAQ, which I just wrote. --TS 17:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's written to the highest standards, why is it still Start class? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 14:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock / spam needs investigation & stopping

There is a pattern emerging with at least three (I suspect more) accounts. A new account is created, an existing user's userpage is copied to the new user's talk page and user page, then the same spam link is added to a Wikipedia article. Perhaps someone here has seen this before and knows who is behind it (i.e. who the original sock is) or whether this is simply a spammer abusing multiple accounts. Either way I suspect someone here has the time/skill to stop it.

• Marcduc (talk · contribs)
• Zeninre (talk · contribs)
• Damueo (talk · contribs)
• Senxone (talk · contribs)
• Gabrido (talk · contribs)
• Mendiwe (talk · contribs)

--Biker Biker (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the same case discussed below and also previously. Whoever the puppetmaster is, they are very intent on placing their links. --RL0919 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock of Alex contributing from LA, much in the same vein

This should be a well-established and benchmark case by now, but I have trouble finding a better venue to address this. The indeffed User:Alex contributing from L.A. (here), who is but one avatar of the same editor, among banned/blocked accounts such as User:Alexander 007, User:Alexandru, User:Winona Gone Shopping etc., has returned yet again as User:Alex '05, and uses his own pages as a venue for attacking me and other users over and over, picking exactly where he left off as Alex contributing from L.A. This man has admitted to having behavioral problems (for one, a drug addiction, which he claims over and over has led him to use seriously mood-altering substances while editing wikipedia), and, in his long disturbing rants, he called me a cocksucker for which he was indef blocked in July 2009 at User talk:Alex contributing. The speculations he makes about me, and the many imaginary issues he takes with me are serious harassment, particularly given that this guy is only enticed by the possibility that I may experience discomfort. It seems he is untouched by the blocks, and simply creates a new account when his older one is compromised, without even bothering much to conceal that he is the same guy. He has probably opened up several new ones as we speak, so I would like to ask admins to make a special note of this.

PS: Pl;ease don't tell me to repost this on a more specific subpage; as you can see, there are several very serious issues that relate to more than one specific area. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"he even went as far as to state that I and several others are part of a giant real-life conspiracy against him."---I never made any such statement. Link the diff where you believe I stated something like that. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to be allowed to edit here in the future. I was harassed by psychopaths at another website, then I developed a situation with editors here. Furthermore I was blocked by free-wheeling individual parties without them considering my case. Alex (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to edit here then you should probably refrain from calling other editors "stupid pieces of shit" or "use them as punching-bags". --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Some psychopaths attempted to murder me in 2007 and early 2008 at another website, so I have problems I'm clearing away. I was giving back to the world what it tried to do to me. But no, I'm not giving it back to the psychos responsible, one of the psychos responsible is <redacted>, a psychopath wanted for hurting many people. Alex (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, allow me to just say this. If what you say about users on some other forum is true, you have my sympathy, but wikipedia is not therapy for either this or any of your other problems. Above, you implicitly admit that all of my assessment is true, and, no matter how much any wikipedia could be persuaded to sympathize with you over those problems, this small segment of the many serious ways in which you break rules central to wikipedia has made it impossible for you to continue contributing here. And that fact that you still don't see the problem only adds to the problem. As for your conspiracy accusation against me (one of the many accusations, all for no reason): the diff, if I recall correctly, could only be picked up from the deleted talk page of your earlier account.

That's all I will say to you, and I sincerely hope this is our last encounter. Have a nice life. Dahn (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. At least a coupe of his previous accounts have been indefinitely blocked, and he assured me that he would not return.   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a disgrace. This Alex guy was nearly murdered for Pete's sake! Cut Alex some slack and unblock them IMMEDIATELY. Was-new-cola-fan-in-early-90s (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The above is obviously yet another sock of Alex. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Highly likely considering the account was created today and yet they already know how to find ANI! HJMitchell You rang? 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No I am not a sock of Alice, why does wikipedia always presume that when a User defends a blocked User that the User is a sock of another User? Now yes this is a result of me getting to big for my boots and sticking my nose into Another's business but did'ent the same thing happen with User Mcjakeqcool? I suggest wikipedia stops abusing it's community before it has no more editors. From what I know User Mcjakeqcool acted in good faith, clearly something wikipedia does not know about. Was-new-cola-fan-in-early-90s (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. Is the person editing as Was-new-cola-fan... the same as Alex 05? Why are their User pages showing them as being socks of different people? Woogee (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Apparently it was decided further down, but I am clueless as to what evidence that shows it should be that McJackcool something guy and not the Alex user, which Dahn clearly shows to be a master puppeteer as well.--Saddhiyama (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It was because of this edit where the sock continues a discussion started by Mcjakeqcool. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, McJake is not me and I've never encountered him and I'm not familiar with his case, but he says his case was similar to mine in some way. By the way, I was never a sockpuppeteer if you mean I was disguised in some account or other. You've stated that you are "clueless" about this situation Saddhi, if so be careful about believeing User:Dahn, he's dirty, very dirty.

The User:Alexandru situation is from late 2005, and an admin User:Jtkiefer thought I was usurping that account. I didn't mean to, that was my mistake, check the records. Now, User:Alexander 007, that account never got blocked and it was a clean account, no sock stuff, that was my account. Then I changed the username to WGS (see above) mostly because I was harassed by Bonaparte's socks and I was tired of Wiki (check the history). Then while I was WGS I was blocked for erratic edit summaries (check the history) by User:Tony Sidaway in July 2006.

Years later, I came back as User:Alex contributing. You can check the talk page, User talk:Alex contributing for what happened with the last block in July 2009. It started because of a User:William Allen Simpson or something, my mind was as it was because of those psychopaths from myspace, and I had a short fuse. I insulted Simpson and others. Then Dahn appeared on my talk page then and started going into an argument about categorizing, and I wasn't in the mood for such a discussion; as it happened then I accidentally inhaled some Fixing Spray and I got aggravated, went to my talk page, and called Dahn a cocksucker. And I also told him "don't be a faggot". This was in July 2009. I never said anything about him being part of a conspiracy, that's stupid shit he just made up, check User talk:Alex contributing. Who would he be conspiring with, Bogdangiusca? I know Bogdan well enough to know that he acts very independently in Wiki. No, I never said anything about a conspiracy in Dahn's case. I did call him a cocksucker, and on my new talk page by implication I called him a piece of shit and a retard. I want my case reviewed well, Dahn is spreading way too much disinformation and slander. 76.208.181.210 (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And the psychopaths stalked me and assaulted me in 2007 early 2008, I explained some on User talk:Bogdangiusca, I can link that. 76.208.181.210 (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My use of the word "clueless" was only referring to which methods that had been applied in establishing who the different accounts was sockpuppets of, not to the general facts of this case. I approve of the indef as per WP:THERAPY. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One more question and I'm done commenting on this thread: both User talk:Alex '05 and Alex's IP-signed comments above make some quite humiliating and explicit comments about me (not just about me, but I don't want to comment for other users). Normally, I would not discourage editors from expressing themselves freely, but the words he uses and serenely acknowledges to have used for describing me are simple curses, and I have to wonder if there is any point to them being preserved in records and archives (as they look set to be). Would it be asking too much from admins to redact them out, at least once the case is sorted one way or another? Dahn (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Spammers are back

The spammers cited from the last thread are back with brand new accounts:

• Damueo (talk · contribs)
• Gabrido (talk · contribs)
• Marcduc (talk · contribs)
• Mendiwe (talk · contribs)
• Senxone (talk · contribs)
• Zeninre (talk · contribs)

Since they're only editing a couple of articles:

• Bolivia
• Cable (from the last batch of socks)
• Micro
• Microprocessor
• Spanish language

is it possible for a short term semi-protection to stop the disruption? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if all they're doing is spamming, surely it's preferable to block the accounts rather than to protect the articles, which would affect any new or IP editor making good faith edits. HJMitchell You rang? 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that new accounts are popping up (there may be more) and blocking them doesn't seem to have any effect since they just keep coming back with more sock accounts. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well they are not having any effect. Why not simply keep reverting them until they learn that they cannot succeed? Theresa Knott | token threats 14:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been going on for over a week now and their edits have been reverted during the time period. But sometimes, constantly reverting and blocking doesn't work especially with sockpuppetry and determined users. Also, what I meant by short term semi is like 3 days or something like that. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The concern is that they will move on to other pages. i think reverting will work as we a clearly far more determined than they are and there are a lot more of us. We can always win in a straight fight like this. A useful tool can be found here to see if the links exist anywhere in Wikipedia. Never the less I will try a 3 day protect for you. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I have protected them all for 3 days to give you a bit of a rest from reverting. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully they won't move on to other pages and this will work. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we consider a sockpuppet investigation while we are here so we can find all of the users? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll file one, but I don't know who the sockmaster is or what would be the sockmaster. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just look at the one with the earliest creation and go from there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Filed an SPI case under a new name: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carmendi. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Both urls have been Blacklisted --Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Could some admin who speaks Spanish figure out what he's posted as Menxuo? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 19:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not your man for translation, but based on the presence of recognizable phrases that are unlikely to appear elsewhere, I'd say it is a translation of the page at User:Merlion444. --RL0919 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination) outside opinion

I would like to get an outsider opinion on the way this AFD was closed. The current way it is closed, is a userification which is only used for material that is inappropriate for the encyclopedia, which the article clearly wasn't (there were more keeps than deletes, and several strong delete editors had switched to keep). Since the majority of the content was moved to article incubator, which has a poor track record of being a place where articles never leave, I consider this a de facto deletion.

Userfication is usually performed because material is added in article space that is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but not objectionable as content in a user page or a subpage thereof. This can be a satisfactory result for new users unfamiliar with the boundaries of Wikipedia content, and for users who inadvertently create personal templates in the main template space.

This is clearly not applicable to this case. Therefore, I request an outside opinion on whether this AFD was properly closed, or should it be overturned to keep . I had previously sought help at WP:DRV, but they said this was out of their scope.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I see the nature of your concern. Why do you disagree with this close? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Having had a very brief look and nothing more, it seems to me that many of the delete votes were because of the poor quality of the article. Is that correct? So why not spend an intensive week or so improving the quality? Then ask the closing admin to move it back into the main space. If that doesn't work, then come here and ask for outside opinions. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought the normal procedure for AFD's was to keep if a large portion of the editors voted/argued to keep and to delete/userify if the majority thought the article was unencyclopedic. In this case, the majority of editors voted to keep and even the nom clearly thought the article was encyclopedic; so why was it userified? That basically amounts to a deletion. Also the way the closing admin put it, the article won't be moved back into userspace until both sides of the dispute think it is good, which is a blank cheque; people who's been agitating for a year to delete the article no matter what won't be moving it back to mainspace anytime soon.see this link when they argued that not being able to insert Pro roman OR was a reason to delete the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, Theresa. If the article sees significant improvement, I'm sure the closing admin or any other would be willing to move the article back to mainspace, or, not wanting to encourage edit warring or wheel warring, if there's nothing at the target page, you could just move it back yourself once the improvements have been made. It's not doing any harm where it is atm and to argue against it on procedural grounds is a little pointy. HJMitchell You rang? 16:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't exactly move it back considering it is protected.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, ask the closing admin to do it for you. But the first step has surely got to be addressing the concerns of those who voted delete. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I'd respectfully suggest you make the improvements required to the article then ask the closing admin nicely to move it back to mainspace when you're done. At least where it is, you can make them in your own time ratger than having the threat of another AfD hanging over you- think of it as the same kind of thing that happens at AfC. HJMitchell You rang? 16:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, first of all. But if you read the AFD, most of the delete voters who were strong deleters have already switched to keep (the article was overhauled massively during the AFD), while the ones that remain were the ones that have been agitating for nearly a year to delete this article. see this link when they argued that not being able to insert Pro roman OR was a reason to delete the article. They're not giving me any advice cause they don't have concerns; they just want the article deleted. The way it is now, is perfect for them (an AFD where keep exceeds delete results in delete). I'll try to work on the article for a week, but unfortunately I think I'll be back at ANI soon.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And those !voters wanted an article without original research which drew on sources that actually made the comparison, not an article stitching together various sources on the two empires separately. Gunpowder Ma, by the way, is not 'they'. There were a lot of legitimate concerns about the article. Please remember that although you started the article it is not your article. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out one example of "original research" in the article?Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

An RFC has been filed for this topic.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Block requested I am the closing admin and teeninvestor did not notofy me of this thread. The close is currently sitting at DRV with a clear consensus to support the close. Teeninvestor then brings it here because he doesn't like that and not getting his way promprtly files an RFC. This appears to be blatently disruptive forum shopping. I'm too involved now to block myself but I would be grateful if someone could review teenivestor's recent edits and dish out the appropriate block for disrupting the project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about ready to comment that the article is currently at WP:DRV and the consensus there is to endorse the closing. It very much seems that Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) is going around forum shopping the outcome of the AfD. —Farix (t | c) 20:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his talk page. There's definitely forum shopping occurring and if he continues this crusade, any administrator should probably issue a block. AniMate 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning Animate. I also see that they have been warned for canvassing the RFC. Priceless. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's my opinion that it is this sort of behaviour that has made it difficult to improve the article and led to the present situation. He's persistent, I'll give him that. Dougweller (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to say, and impressed, that Teeninvestor has apologised for some of his behaviour and has told me he is taking a Wikibreak and after that will not be editing the incubator article. Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

userification is properly employed for material which is not currently suitable for the encyclopedia but which might become suitable if sufficient work were done on it--normally finding additional evidence of notability. It is not properly employed for material which which would never be suitable, or which violates the basic rules such as WP:NOT. This was a suitable case: the material was considered incomplete and not sufficiently representative and NPOV. These are correctable faults, bnd working on it in userspace is a suitable option, complaining about the results is,just as Spartaz says, not the appropriate response--the proper response is to take the opportunity to work on the article. Now, I supported keeping the article in mainspace, but I certainly thought it needed improvement. The goal of AfD is to =help people make acceptable articles.and where top do it is secondary. Userifying an article shoudl be seen as an expression of confidence--confidence that the article could become a suitable article if dealt with properly. It's almost a varianty of keep, not delete. ` DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Block-evading "Dakota Fanning" vandal

There's an active IP-hopping block-evading vandal vandalising articles, often (but not always) making references to Dakota Fanning in their edit summaries. They seem to particularly like editing the Ron Guenther and Iron Man (film) articles, although they have also edited many others. They are very actively evading blocks at the moment.

Some sample IPs:

• 201.43.149.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.92.135.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.42.212.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.92.134.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 201.13.197.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

The address ranges 201.13/16, 201.42/15 and 201.92/15 are all listed by WHOIS as being assigned to "TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO S.A. - TELESP"

-- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well 201.43.149.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is in violation of 3RR at Iron Man, everything else aside, IMO that and the personal attack in the edit summary are blockworthy. I'll check the rest out unless an admin beats me to it and blocks them. HJMitchell You rang? 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sad case. It appears that the IP originally tried to discuss this issue with Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs) but was so frustrated by COM's rude response, has reverted to uncivil interaction, block evasion and WP:TE. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He was banned long before he and I had ever interacted. Learn the facts before wasting our time. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo; and also note that 200.158.192/18 is also listed by WHOIS as being assigned to "TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO S.A. - TELESP" -- The Anome (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Their edits are getting more and more aggressive: see the edits of 201.43.34.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and they've range-hopped again to 189.46.27.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), on the same ISP, address range 189.46/15. -- The Anome (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting: reverse DNS addresses are of the form:

189-46-27-93.dsl.telesp.net.br.

201-43-149-157.dsl.telesp.net.br.

201-92-134-193.dsl.telesp.net.br.

It looks like telesp.net.br are either giving out very short address leases, or this user has access to a large number of DSL lines. -- The Anome (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See also 201.68.111.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), address range 201.68/15, WHOIS details as before. Note the use of Unicode obfuscation to hide rude words in edit comments, which looks like an attempt to evade countermeasures. -- The Anome (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the usual targets of this editor. I'll let someone more familiar with rangeblocks take care of the broader question. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite tempted to do a short rangeblock across all these blocks, but they are very wide, and the collateral damage seems excessive at the moment, if they are kept under control for now by other means. However, if anyone else thinks it's necessary, I'll gladly do it: a softblock would seem appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I came to the same conclusion. See if they stop, otherwise a very short soft block might do the trick. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that didn't stop them: see 201.68.111.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log): applying softblocks now. -- The Anome (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple /16 softblocks now applied. -- The Anome (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Here's another one. 201.95.48.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Not sure if it is covered by the softblock or not. --Slp1 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

201.95/16 now also softblocked. Please let me know if this vandalism/block evasion pattern resumes, and I'll re-block the appropriate ranges for longer. -- The Anome (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI page for these IPs here. ConCompS (Talk to me) 17:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

User Off2riorob: Bad faith

Archiving as clearly nothing to answer. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

block evasion?

I came across an issue with this unregistered user ; he/she has been blanking sections in the Lebanon article and was blocked following a number of warnings, the block includes account creation (i guess), yet this person managed to bypass or outpace the block and created this account and has made what seem to me like an attack on a veteran editor (here), which was later reverted by the same editor. I'm concerned that this petty bickering may not stop here, is there no way to prevent this kind of mishaps ? Eli+ 18:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The account was created prior to the ip being blocked, as were the noted edits by the account - technically thus not block evading. Under the circumstances, even on the basis that ip and the account are the same editor, a softblock on the ip would not stop the account from being able to edit. I think attention should be given to the purpose and good faith of the accounts edits, rather than making a case that editing at all was in violation of policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Mark Eli+ 18:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

We have no TFP

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#We have no TFP. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by IP in Subaru Sumeragi

An IP has been repetedly inserting content which at first seems an honest mistake (describing manga instead of anime plot and inserting a pairing bias), but has re-inserted their addition again and again after multiple reverts (e. g. here, here, here, here and here). He/she does not react either to messages left on their or on the article's talk page. I'm at a loss what to do. --KagamiNoMiko (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Subaru Sumeragi protected for a week. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet vandalism again

User:InkHeart (banned for abusing multiple accounts) is back again, this time using the sockpuppet anon Special:Contributions/99.253.86.157 to again remove maintenance templates. Ωphois 04:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User: BQZip01

Hi all. It has come to my attention that BQZip01 (talk · contribs) and Hammersoft (talk · contribs) have been in a dispute over the copyright statuses of files File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg and File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png. As some of you might be aware, this dispute has been going on for some time now; it has resulted in several WP:ANI threads and nearly a year's worth of slow motion edit warring at File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg and File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png. As an uninvolved user, this dispute came to my attention with the posting of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive588#Edit trying to force an image as free of copyright/submitting editor trying to force personal preferences as if they are policy on the Administrator's noticeboard. I looked into it and had to agree with Hammersoft that the files were non-free content. Noting that the on going discussions regarding this topic were producing nothing but more tension and hot air, I marked the most recent relevant ANI discussion and discussion at File talk:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg as closed. However, this did not settle well with BQZip01 (talk · contribs). He has repeatedly asked to create a WP:RFC to discuss further should he wish to but he has completley ignored those requests. To date, he has been repeatedly reopening the archived discussions [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64] to make accusatory statements, distuptive comments, personal attacks, and troll, only to be reverted by other uninvolved users. Since those tactics have been unsuccessful, he has resorted to accusing User:Hammersoft and users who have reverted his reopening of discussions as sockpuppeteers (see [65], [66], [67]). Once again, he was not successful. BQZip01 is now trolling on my talk page here, here, and here, as well as removing/refactoring other users' posts. This disruptive behavior needs to stop. We're here to build an encyclopedia and not drama monger. BQZip01 needs to be reminded that he is not above Wikipedia's policies and free to harass users he disagrees with. I am requesting that another uninvolved sysop review the situation and block/warn BQZip01 as necessary. Thanks for reading. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a partial aside, should other images that BQZip01 has fought to claim that they are PD-text (several other University sports teams symbols, not limited to those that were added to the userbox templates, all of which are here) be investigated? I know that I had reservations with File:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg being determined as "PD-text", but I only decided to step back because of the way BQZip01 and his supporters handled the matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I only decided to step back because of the way BQZip01 and his supporters handled the matter."

If by that you mean that it was handled in a rational manner with lots of evidence, thank you. If you mean it to demean my contributions and that of others, don't be vague and accuse me of something when, in fact, I did nothing wrong (WP:PROVEIT). — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your threshhold for originality is much lower than everyone else's. You and your supporters simply said "That is just a U, and because it is just a U it cannot be copyrighted", when the University of Miami "U" symbol can certainly not be emulated in any typeface I am aware of.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss that issue with you below. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. I have a valid concern and, instead of discussing it, an admin just trusts a new IP ("strangely" well-versed in WP policy, edit summaries, etc) over a user with thousands of edits and assumes I'm to blame for "drama" and accuses me of being a troll without discussing any merits of the issue. The admin then decides my questions aren't worthy of any discussion and deletes them! When I ask about this, he ignores me.

I have a valid, rational point. I provide LOTS of proof that my point is valid. His response is "no" with no explanation and makes reversions. Then he makes these baseless/skewed accusations here twisting normal conversation and requests for clarification into villainy.

I have made no personal attacks of any kind. Accusing me of something while providing no evidence is a bit hostile and misleading.

I have not accused Hammersoft of being a sockpuppeteer.

If you can look at these contributions and not see the sockpuppetry: [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73], and not see the similarity between it and User:Grandma Dottie/User:TomPhan, you are being completely unreasonable.

I've never called someone's points "tension and hot air". I've contributed LOTS to this encyclopedia and I find his dismissal of my contributions as being worthless completely baseless!!! It is also quite hostile; not the behavior I'd expect from an admin

Fastily has decided that all of Hammersoft's assettions are 100% true and not worthy of actually checking. For the record HS stated this issue with the WV image was ongoing for a year. This is false: It has been ongoing for three months.

I indeed have been asked "to create an WP:RFC to discuss further" but I have not ignored it. I have stated that the image talk page should be used first as dictated by WP:TALK. If no one is willing to discuss it on the image page or their talk pages, why would I expect them to discuss it in an RfC. I have also asked Hammersoft to start RfCs, but he has also chosen not to do so. This is misleading and demonizing appropriate behavior.

At least three other users agree with me regarding this image, so my point is, at least, not unreasonable and has support. Asking for clarification from and admin and getting a request for a block is completely inappropriate! — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He is making a new section as asked on the talk page, so I am not sure why his comment is being removed and the archive template is being added back. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The archived template should remain however. It'd be much appreciated if you could restore that. Thanks! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does Fastily just get to decide when discussion is over (we talked about the issue for all of 2 days)? Where is the policy that guides this? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but I added that new section you wrote, so the discussion can continue. Also, Ryulong, come speak to me on IRC about the U of Miami logo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it to be a little disingenuous to discuss things off-wiki. However, as long as it isn't hidden and I can get a copy of the discussion, it's still within the realm of "acceptable" to me. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Everything you are going to hash out below with him is the same I will hash out with him. Also, I will explain my actions on why I am even doing the logos in SVG. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Miami logo

They are not my standards but that of US law:

"Typeface" is a term defined by the House Report of the 1976 revision of the Copyright Act as follows:

"...a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles, whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters."

It should be noted that "articles" in this case means "any medium in which it is used".

Eltra Corp. v. Ringer sets forth:

"Under Regulation 202.10(c) it is patent that typeface is an industrial design in which the design cannot exist independently and separately as a work of art. Because of this, typeface has never been considered entitled to copyright under the provisions of §5(g)."

The United States Copyright Office' sets forth:

"...mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring" ... [are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection]"

I concur that, if the artistic element can be separated from the utilitarian, it is copyrightable, however, I do not see how this is the case here. What part of this logo can be separated? What is artistic that is not utilitarian. I certainly agree that there is stylistic design involved, but US courts have ruled that that style alone in a typeface isn't eligible for copyright. Excerpts from [74] (mentioned yesterday in the WP:ANI thread):

The rejection of functional or utilitarian articles from protection as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works” is found in 17 U.S.C. § 101 (2006). That section states: “...the design of a useful article...shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.

A letter, no matter how elegantly designed, standing alone, is simply a building block for larger units, words, that convey information. In the same way, when we give copyright protection to the design of buildings, we do not protect individual bricks because they are fungible.

Although a typeface may be a work of applied art, copyright protection would only extend to artistic aspects of its form, not its utilitarian attributes. If the artistic attributes are de minimis or not severable from the functional aspects, they will not be copyrightable

if the shape of a utilitarian article incorporates features, such as artistic sculpture, carving, or pictorial representation, which can be identified separately and are capable of existing independently as a work of art, such features will be eligible for registration.

etc. (these are not isolated quotes)

This "U" image is in distinct contrast with the Washington State University logo or this ASCII art in which letters are used as a medium to form other art.

Under these definitions, the "U" is a "U" and cannot be separated from its "intrinsic utilitarian function" of being a "U". Accordingly, it isn't eligible for copyright. Given that Wikipedia chooses not to distinguish between images ineligible for copyright and trademarked images ineligible for copyright, there isn't a different template available and this is the most accurate as it does mention the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer which covers the use of this logo. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There is more than a "U" in question for this image. It consists of two non-standard geometric shapes of two different colors surrounded by a white border that encompasses the "U" shape. The form this takes is not a U in any type face and can certainly not be emulated by any one. The intensive visual identity campaign and guidelines the University has produced (found here) shows that thought and some sort of legal control has gone into effect over this symbol. Just because it is used as the letter U does not mean that some sort of creative thought went into the design of the U symbol, as much as it was into the "WV" for West Virginia. It is not merely a typeface, and it is most certainly unique enough to be more than merely a variation on the English/Latin letter U.

In short, your interpretation of the copyright law is flawed in this instance and the University of Miami's athletic logo, which they never refer to as a "U" in the manual I linked above but as "The University of Miami logo ("U")", is not a mere typeface and cannot be a public domain text logo.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

...by which they do refer to it as a "U". They certainly don't refer to it as two weird shapes that just happen to form a "U". No one is saying that creativity wasn't involved in the logo's creation, but, as mentioned above, that creativity is inextricably linked to the utility of the letter. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's "utility" is as a logo representing the school, which the school owns "all rights, title, and interest in and to...which includes trademarks, service marks, trade names, designs, logos, seals, and symbols." Just because it is made to resemble the letter U does not automatically remove any possible copyright the school may have on the imagery.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not once is copyright protection mentioned. Additionally, it doesn't just "resemble" the letter "U", it IS the letter U and is used as such in marketing campaigns:

For my involvement with the U of Miami image, I just changed the colors to what that manual Ryulong points out has. Honestly, while I tend to believe that some element of work has gone into these symbols, a lot of times I went to the Commons and deleted stuff only to have it return again because someone on the Commons called it simple enough. Same with the WVU logo; I took the SVG file from official college documents. I carried over the rationales for fair use to the new image, because I sometimes think a lot of the GIF files for these logos are utter crap. I took the colors from official documents and put it on here. It was BQZ that placed the image into the public domain because of the whole typeface issue. I know there is a lot of colleges that put a lot of work in their images, and these documents say so. I remember looking at the documents today for the University of Alabama (a logo BQZ believes is PD) and the university claims copyright on everything they touch. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the claim of copyright? I'd like to see it. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Check your inbox. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Kind of surprised at the language. I'd also be interested in the "redacted" comment unless that is part of the IRC thing. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

While the University of Miami does have a trademarked logo (registration number 1922571), that colored "U" isn't it. The trademarked logo is a completely different design, with the words "University of" above "Miami" in larger letters, with a big black bar below. The University's seal is also trademarked. But the big "U" isn't registered. Probably because it's not unique enough as a standalone graphic. Not that this matters for Wikipedia. It's permissible to use a trademarked logo to refer to the organization or brand using said logo, but not for other purposes, and WP:LOGO reflects this. So what's the problem? --John Nagle (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Us having the logo is not the issue; the logo being either PD or Fair use is the main issue. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Zscout, but I also note that Nagle never once used the word "copyrighted". — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The main reason why too is that after 1978, copyright is automatic and does not have to be asserted as much than in the past. The University, among others, assumes that everyone knows it is copyrighted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

...but that assumes it is eligible for copyright protection in the first place. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I still have the documents User BillTunnel (or Tunell, not sure about his last name) sent about copyright laws and simple designs. I will need to look at it again and see what logos are talked about and figure something out. It is almost 4 am, I need to say おやすみなさい。 User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• This dispute has been going on for a long time and shows no sign of rising above the level of pantomime (oh yes it is / oh no it isn't). One thing that BQZip01 should know is that in matters of copyright it is up to the person claiming public domain to prove it. And yes, logo styles based on letters absolutely can be copyright, the law prevents you from asserting copyright over your company name written in a given typeface but there is more than juta typeface involved in most of these cases, as I believe you've been told before. The threshold of originality is pretty low for copyright and I would be very surprised if File:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg did not qualify as it incorporates elements over and above a simple typeface (two separate colours, the split in the loop of the U). The two halves of the U do not qualify as "simple geometric shapes". So unless you have an independent source that the image is in the public domain you'll need to write a fair use rationale, which will be trivially easy. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

References

Something that should be addressed

While looking over this discussion, I clicked on the WVU logo and seen this was linked to this page. That page is ripe with trademarked (as the page rightly says) images the user has uploaded. I did this one and got in big trouble. I have nom'd the page for deletion here. I think User:BQZip01 should be admonished for putting trademarked images on a userpage like that. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

images the user has uploaded. Not quite true; a lot of the images being displayed on that page are not from him, but me taking logos from official college documents. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And some are hosted on the Commons, like the Texas Tech logo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, userspace is not where you "display" images. You want to show off what you have uploaded, or a list of images, show them in the [[:Image:NAMEHERE.jpg]] format. Using fair-use and trademarked images on a userpage is not necessary and against the rules. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And which "rule" might that be? I'm not aware of one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 09:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not appreciating your tone right now, so you can lose it. Right now we are trying to figure out which rule that is, as no one seems to be able to find it (oddly). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The only rule we have on images is explained at NFCC 9, where copyrighted images are limited to the article space. There is nothing about trademarked images in there; it also said that images must be inlined if they are not free. So, the main solution is to use extra colons and inline all of the images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Zscout370, I knew someone would finally find the rule I was looking for. If BQZip01 will inline his images, I will gladly withdraw my MfD on the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC#9 applies to non-free/copyrighted images, not these. I am sorry you don't like it, but I see no valid reason to remove them. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious BLP problems at Climategate scandal

An editor, Wikidemon (talk · contribs), has created Climategate scandal as a POV fork of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident in an apparent attempt to do an end-run around BLP and NPOV. The title of the fork is one that has consistently been rejected on NPOV and BLP grounds, and the content uses disallowed sources, such as blogs, that were excluded from the parent article. It is effectively an attempt to create a BLP and NPOV-free zone where Wikidemon and some like-minded editors can create their own POV-laden alternative article.

The fork is currently being AFD'd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climategate scandal. However, I'm concerned that BLP is being quite blatantly flouted by the content of Climategate scandal. What can be done about it while the AFD is underway?

Secondly, a lot of the editing has been driven by external lobbying by right-wing bloggers (see e.g. [75]). I expect to see an influx of sock- and meatpuppets on the AFD. Could people please keep a close eye on the AFD? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have created this monster with an invitation to the above poster to bring his concerns to AN/I or BLP as an alternative to blanking an article under AfD.[76] They seem to have raised an identical issue at AN/I and BLP,[77] and given that the complaint seems to be a BLP one other than a behavioral one (despite the aspersions that I am part of a climate change denier cabal) I think the BLP question is better raised there. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You could not get consensus for your preferred article title, which violates NPOV, or for the use of blogs as sources for accusations against living persons, which violates BLP. So you created your own separate version of the article. That is simply not done. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you please just cut it out? If you have some reason to suspect a behavioral violation that needs urgent administrative intervention this is the place. If you just wish to take wild swings at editors for proposing things you disagree with, I don't think there's a place on Wikipedia for that. You disapprove of something about the article or its title? Fine, deal with it. There are venues for that. But don't make unfounded accusations against other editors, okay? - Wikidemon (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the AFD with the summary "Userfied to User:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal to give non-admins access to the page and see how it is a blatant POV fork of Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident: just put the two pages next to each other. Early close to minimise drama resulting from blatant WP:GAMEing." Additionally, I suggest blocking Wikidemon a minimum of 1 week for disruption and WP:GAMEing. It was a blatant POV fork of the entire Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article, under a previously rejected title, with justification weakly based on the fact that the "reaction" section in Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident may be spun off at some point in WP:SUMMARY style. Such a spun off article would obviously look very different. Rd232 ^talk 11:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: the fork was moved to Climategate controversy just before I userfied it, which I don't quite get how that worked. I userfied the copy too, being identical to the fork. Rd232 ^talk 11:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous proposal; I could equally propose that you are desysopped for a thoughtless and out of process close on such a contentious issue. Please consider that not everyone sees things like you do. Mackan79 (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec - responding to rd232) Wow, that's an extreme misreading of the situation, not to mention an abusive administrative threat in support of a disputed content position. I have patiently explained why I created the article, and it is a careful attempt to organize information based on considerable discussion on article talk pages. Many editors have supported this, either in concept or application. Speedily closing an AfD that is being thoroughly argued on both sides, while calling for the other side to be blocked, is well outside the range of the role of an admin. We haven't even begun to establish whether the article should be deleted, much less whether the very creation of it is a behavioral violation. Rd232 ought to take a break from the subject matter, either as an advocate or an administrator - you can't do both at the same time. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"you can't do both at the same time" - what the hell are you talking about? Rd232 ^talk 11:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That comment, particularly the invective, is unbecoming of an admin. Please take a moment to contemplate the contradiction between using admin tools to enforce a disputed content position and advocating for the other side to be blocked. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm proposing that your clear disruption of the project be sanctioned, having attempted to limit that disruption. I believe this falls under admin duties. Rd232 ^talk 11:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(before ec) Since when has creating an article been disrupting the project? I have explained again and again that I created a new parent / sibling article after considerable discussion and support on the original article talk page for splitting the article into two different subjects. Claiming that article organization is POV disruption, despite my repeated assurances to the contrary, is is off the charts in terms of unfounded accusations. If you believe the article should not exist, opinions to the contrary notwithstanding, you are free to hold that position. That is a content position that you are not supposed to use your tools to enforce. It is unseemly even for a non-admin to come to this board calling for blocking people based on a content disagreement. You really ought to take a step back from this. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"Since when has creating an article been disrupting the project?" - when it's a blatant fork. If you could point me to the talk page support for your actions, I'd be a lot more inclined to let the forking go. As to what I want to happen with the article: I don't care. (The fact that I've never (as far as I remember) edited it might be a clue to this.) Any split should of course follow Wikipedia:Summary style and not be Wikipedia:Content forking, blatant or otherwise. Rd232 ^talk 12:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up already. I can sympathize with being defensive about it, but you made a mistake. If you didn't care you wouldn't have deleted the article out of process and would not be arguing at the DrV for keeping it deleted. The talk page history is in the archives. Figure it out for yourself, and please don't waste any more of my time and patience trying to argue with me that my assurances about why I did things are false or that my edits were not in good faith. We all have better things to do than that. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You're being very evasive, both here and elsewhere on this particular issue. Rd232 ^talk 13:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"invective"! I just had no idea what you were talking about, clearly I should have just assumed that you were assuming bad faith. Rd232 ^talk 11:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that a sarcastic response? I can't make heads or tails of it. What I mean by "invective" is that if you're here as an admin, please don't ask me what the "hell" I am talking about in response to my objection to your proposal on an administrative board to have me blocked over a content addition with which you disagree. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not sarcasm, it's confusion and a touch of despair: I can't remember the last time I edited this topic, but your remark implied it was very recent. And of course the issue is what looks like blatant WP:GAMEing behaviour in creating a fork, not whether or not I prefer the original version to yours. Rd232 ^talk 12:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is clear forum shopping and should be closed immediately. I am appalled by both the submission and the action taken by the "admin". jhe_iv (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Inevitably, it's now at WP:DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_December_28#Climategate_scandal. Rd232 ^talk 11:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Followup?

This blatant POV fork should never have been created; compare User:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal and Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Wikidemon himself said (at WP:BLPN) "The content and sourcing in the new article are a near-complete overlap with those at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎..." It was a blatant POV fork of the entire Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article, under a previously rejected POV title, with justification weakly based on the fact that the "reaction" section in Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident may be spun off at some point in WP:SUMMARY style. (Such a spun off article would obviously look very different.) This is blatant disruption and disregard for policy, and were it a less contentious area I would have zero hesitation in blocking Wikidemon for a week (as I suggested above). As it is, I open the the floor to comments as to what, if any, followup would be appropriate. WP:RFC perhaps? Or if Wikidemon agrees to not doing anything like this again, let it go? Rd232 ^talk 17:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest: let the DRV run its course and refer disputes about the appropriateness of the AfD close there. Give Wikidemon and any other interested editor a week or two to work on the userfied version of the article to see if anything encyclopedic can be made of it. I don't think blocks or other sanctions are really the way to go here - I think tempers are stretched a bit thin by the constant influx of sockpuppets and externally-recruited ideologues on top of an already contentious topic, but Wikidemon has been around awhile and I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and a few weeks to work on the article in userspace to see what can be developed. Incidentally, I agree completely with your AfD close and have opined as such at the DRV. MastCell ^Talk 18:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there a seasoned admin who can take RD232 aside and counsel him/her on use of tools? Addressing RD232 - I have asked you more than once to back off. Your repeated calls for blocking me have crossed the line and are at this point just a personal attack. Are you being deliberately obstinate? Please consider WP:BLOCK and get it into your head that you do not block good faith editors either punatively or over their content positions. I've explained my rationale for creating the article several times now, that it was designed to facilitate a parent/child topic organization in response to some support for that on the talk page. You refuse to accept my assurance that this was in good faith, and you're pretty much accusing me of lying. To prove your point you are cherry picking statements out of context to try to make me look bad. That is not the work of a neutral or uninvolved administrator. You need to recuse yourself from this. Please pipe down and let the community weigh in on whether your WP:IAR article deletion was permissible process, or whether it was mistaken to the point of being reversible. Your belligerent tone, unfounded accusations of bad faith, and lobbying to have me blocked over having made a controversial administrative decision, are all creating a hostile and oppressive editing environment for me. Stop threatening to have me blocked unless you want to take this to ArbCom, where I assure you the focus will be on the propriety of your assertion of authority, not my good faith as an editor. Admins are supposed to solve problems, not create them. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is the seasoned administrator you are looking for: he has agreed with Rd232's actions. Mathsci (talk) 19:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• What makes it particularly egregious, in my mind, are two things: the title and the content. There had already been numerous demands for the existing article to be renamed "Climategate" or "Climategate scandal". These were all rejected because such a name would be blatant POV (Wikipedia:Naming conventions even lists a -gate title as an example of an unacceptable title). We didn't adopt "Attorneygate" (Dismissal of US attorneys controversy) because Democrats demanded it, nor did we adopt "Rathergate" (Killian documents controversy) to placate Republicans. This has all been explained numerous times on the talk page. Wikidemon chose to ignore that. Second, Wikidemon's fork used sources - blogs - which are simply not allowed under the BLP policy. They had been excluded from the existing article because they failed the BLP sourcing requirements. Again, that had all been discussed on the talk page; Wikidemon again chose to ignore it. The only conclusion one can draw from this is that Wikidemon deliberately and knowingly created the fork to flout NPOV and BLP. The article title demonstrates that it was meant to be a POV article from the outset. Its creation was an act of pure bad faith. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a misstatement of the article content, a misstatement of content policy, a personal attack, and an accusation of bad faith, all in one. You need to knock it off, too. Please a step back, stop lashing out at editors you disagree with, and come back when you can be civil about it. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of Rd232's actions in this incident

Yes, I think that there needs to be follow-up in the form of a review of Rd232's closure of an AfD using a decidedly non-neutral result that was wholly unsupported by the state of the discussion there. There was no consensus there for anything, and certainly not for Rd232's obviously preferred position. Please explain for us Rd232 how it is you discerned the closing position you cited from the commentary that existed on the AfD page? --GoRight (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Userfying a blatant fork is not an outcome that requires a week of discussion, or that could possibly be in doubt, as the balance of comments at WP:DRV indicates. The other issues, on the title and content of the existing article, should be discussed, obviously, on the talk page of the original article, not at AFD or DRV. The userfied page can be also be a jumping-off point for discussion, for those as wants. Rd232 ^talk 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What in the ensuing discussion in the AfD led you to conclude that the article was a "blatant POV fork" and that there was "blatant WP:GAMEing" ongoing? (See [78]) Had the discussion reached a consensus on either of these points or are these merely you own subjective determinations based on your own POV? Do you make a habit of injecting such uncivil accusations into your supposedly neutral closings, or was this a special case? --GoRight (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, administrators are not given the tools they have so they can play favorites. WVBluefield (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The usual suspects here, of course, refusing to recognize an obvious fork and making spurious allegations. This presumably will hasten the fairly inevitable RfAr/GW in the New Year. Mathsci (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It was Wikidemon who said "The content and sourcing in the new article are a near-complete overlap with those at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident". Given that, how could it not be a clear fork? Dougweller (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Soviet Russian Kamrad

This user has been messing with me because I removed his comments on the Modern Warfare 2 talk page due to running afoul of WP:FORUM. He has vandalized my talk page and userpage. Please block him. thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Warned user. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not an admin, but I have some problems with this and maybe I am missing something here but I believe this is biting the newcomers. Although Soviet's comments might be considered running afould of WP:FORUM, why was the whole discussion deleted from the page considering it is a semi-protected article and an anon editor felt there was a problem with the plot section. Then when Soviet tries to ask why his edits were deleted, [79], that question was deleted with an edit summary of "i dont accept vandals in my midst, nice try." [80]. This is weird since neither the article talk page addition nor the user talk page edition should be considered vandalism. After this second discussion deletion, Soviet then vandlized User:Eaglestorm, [81], and should have received a first level vandalism warning then. Soviet then reverted (added back) his comments to Eaglestorm's talk page only to have them deleted again with no edit summary. Eaglestorm brought the discussion here without discussing the issue with Soviet or letting Soviet even know about this discussion. Then Eaglestorm added a warning to Soviet's talk page, [82], about deleting/editing legitimate talk page comments which was in fact what Eaglestorm was doing and not Soviet. Also Eaglestorm added this to the template "If you don't want your talk page to be messed the way you did mine, bugger off." which is not being very civil.

Soviet was rightly concerned about why another editor removed his comments from an article talk page and tried to communicate with the deleting editor. If Eaglestorm would have simply replied to the comments explaining why they were deleted this whole mess could have been avoided. I am off to leave a message on Soviet's talk page telling him about this discussion. Aspects (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He should have read the FORUM policy first before even attempting to talk to me, and his rants to me are borne out of his failure to understand that the deleted thread did not discuss anything on how to improve the article - it was just some jabbering about language use on one part of the story. I cannot and will not deal with anyone who comes to WP and fails to understand the project's policy one bit. Aspect, his messages on my talk page and their revision warranted a TPV2 warning and I will not have such nonsense stuff (peppered with Cyrillic lettering, if I may add) on my talk page, and SRK has no right to revert anything on my pages as he please...even my user page. Now if this Russian guy is now done yanking my leg, I got better stuff to do. Oh and BTW, sign after you post instead of the signature being first on your responses. Jeez. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

2 Eaglestorm: Roger, wilco.

Thank you, Aspects. I am not guilty, Eaglestorm is guilty. He could just tell me where I did wrong. Instead, he just deleted my comment(with the entire discussion "PLOT") without explaining. Also he did not respond to my message, just deleted it. That made me angry. Well, I am sorry if I did something wrong.Soviet Russian Kamrad (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Eaglestorm says "I cannot and will not deal with anyone who comes to WP and fails to understand the project's policy one bit." which is a bit funny really seeing as Eaglestorm does not seem to understand Wikipedia:No personal attacks as per this (the only place I could see where WP:FORUM was mentioned). If an editor is new then try explaining the problem rather than getting upset because others don't have your vast experience of Wikipedia policy. All of this could have been avoided if you had left a message at Soviet Russian Kamrad explaining the problem. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 15:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal letter from Behringer

I understand from Wikipedia:No legal threats that editors are supposed to report legal threats on this page. Behringer sent me a legal threat. By mailings directed to my home address and to the addresses of three of my sometime employers, I have received a demand that I cease and desist from editing the Behringer page, except that I immediately remove all negative text from the article. This demand came from Behringer North America Legal Counsel EdatBehringer, dated December 22, 2009. Because of holiday travels, I didn't see the letter until December 27. I understand further that an editor such as EdatBehringer who initiates a legal threat will typically be blocked while the dispute is outstanding. Binksternet (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• If a "cease-and-desist" letter has been sent against a Wikipedia editor with the idea of restricting their normal Wikipedia activity, then that is squarely covered by the WP:NLT policy disallowing editing while the dispute progresses. I will wait a bit for input from other administrators (EdatBehringer has not edited for four weeks, so there is no rush), but if the description of what happened is true, then an indefinitie block is certainly appropriate. I am also disturbed by the fact that the username "EdatBehringer" indicates a connection with the company, and that the account has been used to try to get rid of a section critical of the company, creating a conflict of interest possibility. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • (As a side, how did they get your home address and employer-contacts? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC))
    • This seems to be a WP:OWN issue. Behringer do not own the article about their company. They have no say whatsoever over what goes into the article and what is kept out. There is no "Biography of Living Companies" policy either. If Behringer haven't done anything negative, then we don't put in anything negative. If they have, and it is verifiable by reliable, third-party sources, it can (and should) be included in the article. I see no reason why EdatBehringer (talk · contribs) shouldn't be indeffed now. Mjroots (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would caution that, while we should AGF of Binksternet, we must be certain that such a threat has been made before sanctioning the EdatBehringer account. Perhaps if Binksternet could forward the email to another editor for confirmation? I would be such a recipient, but I am about to be unavailable for a few hours. Is there any other editor (or pref an admin, who can then act accordingly when the threat is confirmed) who will act as a reviewer? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Would be better sent to one of the crats IMHO, with an explanation and link to this thread. Mjroots (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  Why a crat, exactly? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't need to go to a crat, crats have no special standing in regard to this type of thing, it just needs to be sent to an admin. Binksternet, can you email a copy of it to an admin? If you don't have a trusted admin you can send it to, I'd be willing to receive it and I can also recommend LessHeard as an admin worthy of trust. Also, Binksternet, are you saying the letter was signed with the words "User:EdatBehringer"? Sarah 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Certainly NLT remains policy; I see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Behringer -- apparently the section on trademark charges is the issue. As far as i can tell, it is not alleged on the article talk p. that the contents is false, but rather that is is not proportionate weight. DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The edit history of EdatBehringer (talk · contribs) is rather curious. As soon as the editor creates the account, they remove the "Trademark claims" section of the article and immediacy file a mediation request against Binksternet (talk · contribs) without even discussing the issue with Binksternet or other editors first. There are also a number of other single purpose accounts that have edited the article, such as Hohan22 (talk · contribs), RyanAtBehringer (talk · contribs), Guitarman987 (talk · contribs), CGspeaks (talk · contribs), Will at BEHRINGER (talk · contribs), and 203.215.73.180 (talk). A couple of these accounts have self-identified themselves as being employed by Behringer. I would suggest that a checkuser may be in order on these SPAs. Eqdynamics (talk · contribs) is another SPA that appears to have attempted to WP:OUT Binksternet. —Farix (t | c) 15:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I looked at this a bit further and entirely outside the issue of the legal threat, I've blocked some of these accounts for disruptive editing. The accounts I've blocked are EdatBehringer (talk · contribs), RyanAtBehringer (talk · contribs) and Eqdynamics (talk · contribs). Eqdynamics hasn't been used since October but it was being used in a very disruptive way and some of his edits had to be oversighted for attempting to out Binksternet. I'm going to go and leave them notes on their talk pages now, but also of interest is the account Will at BEHRINGER (talk · contribs) whose last edit back in July was to claim that he lost his job at Behringer because he refused to assist in sanitising the article. [83] Regardless of the whole legal threat issue, I think this needs to be dealt with on the basis of disruptive editing as they're clearly trying to control that article. 16:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Block the accounts and leave a note on their talk pages referring them to info-en-q@wikimedia.org where the volunteers will patiently explain to them why apparently well-sourced material does not get excluded without a pressing reason founded in policy. Legal letters should be referred to the Foundation as well. Editors in receipt of legal letters should email user:Mike Godwin if they are worried, and in general are best advised to walk away and leave it to someone else. We can usually find an editor on another continent who can do the needful. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, JzG, I will email Godwin with a scan of the letter, even though one paragraph of it begins "Please be further advised that this letter is copyrighted, and you [sic] not authorized to republish this in any manner."
• Sarah, the letter is not signed "EdatBehringer", it is signed with the first name Ed, last name withheld by me here so that I don't "out" him, and Ed in the letter identifies himself as Behringer North America Legal Counsel. The phrasing and tone of the letter compared to that of EdatBehringer makes me conclude that the two Eds are the same person. I have no other proof.
• Seb az86556, somebody at Behringer dug around online and found out who I am, and tried to out me. It is not very difficult, as my username here relates in a certain way to my email address and business name, and I have plainly stated on my user page and elsewhere what it is that I do for a living—audio engineering. The letter was addressed to a home that I last lived at in 2002, so the people at Behringer were not able to locate me until they gave that old address to United Parcel Service who looked up the name and made an educated (and correct) guess about where I live now. The three sometime employers of mine that they contacted are listed (with others) on my business website.
• Thanks for the discussion and advice, folks. I will contact Godwin now. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

when I see things like this, I always wonder whether the people who try to suppress the material realize that their efforts have now become a matter of permanent record on probably the most prominent possible place on the internet. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I love the attempt to claim copyright, so it may not be reproduced without permission, on a threat of legal action... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Block needed, better done by someone other than me

Resolved

 – Sultaniman (talk · contribs) blocked 31 hours. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I warned Sultaniman (talk · contribs) for attacks on 2 editors, eg [84] and he's come back continuing the attack on another editor and me [85]. Someone want to give him a suitable block please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours. Theresa Knott | token threats 11:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wknight94's deletion of guideline material to sabotage an RFC about compliance with it

I've opened an WP:RFC on a long unresolved (though somewhat dormant) dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people), in an effort to depersonalize the issue and let the community decide. This is a normal (and in fact preferred) means of dispute resolution instead of continued pointless argumentation. (I've been savaged for it anyway, with ad hominem rants and blatant mischaracterizations of my position and of the facts, but oh well, my skin's thick, and Wikipedians will likely come to the proper conclusion at the end of the RFC, or we wouldn't trust RFCs). The problem is that Wknight94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an opposing party in the RFC, is now deleting [86][87], over objection and clearly explained revert, the material in the guideline that the RFC pertains to and he disagrees with. It is a fait accompli action which would render the RFC moot and meaningless, as its very topic is his project's noncompliance with the deleted material! This is guideline wording that has been completely stable, word-for-word, for over a year and should not be deleted without discussion and consensus at all, much less to improperly influence an RFC, regardless of the merits of either major side of the RFC debate. Wknight94 has subsequently struck the main point of the RFC and is seeking to have the RFC closed. This is a farcical sabotaging of dispute resolution and consensus building.

The wording at WP:NCP needs to be restored at least until the RFC is over, and this under-watchlisted guideline should be watched for further changes of this sort. I have not reverted it myself any further, because I would eventually trip over WP:3RR if I keep attempting to deal personally with the double-teaming deletions of Wknight94 and Djsasso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (my other most vocal opponent on the issue, and one who abused his admin authority by threatening me on my talk page with a block if I reverted him again[88]) at both NCP and at the closely related Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) proposal also at issue in the RFC (and where everything I've done in months[89] has been reverted by one[90] of these two editors or the other[91][92][93][94],[95] including removal of dispute tags to deny any dispute, and reversion of minor edits simply because they're mine). This seems to me an overly proprietary attitude toward the material in question, indeed the entire topic. —User:SMcCandlish/Sig

without any particular view at this point on the actual issue, and no great interest in sportspeople in any case, the removal of a key paragraph with the edit comment "(Remove bit that was unilaterally forced in by SMcCandish back in August/September 2008. The community finally acquiesced to his/her wish to keep the peace, but it's still not necessary.)" and then the repeated removal after it has been restored, does seem inappropriate--BRD can justify the removal, but certainly not a second removal when there is ongoign discussion. DGG ( talk ) 14:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Edit wars over naming conventions are some of the lamest disputes we have, however removing something to gain an advantage in a dispute claiming that it was "unilaterally forced in" a year ago is also clearly unacceptable. Having stood for over a year he will need to get consensus for changing it. A much better use of your time would be merging Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) back to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), this degree of specificity is hard to see as anything other than process creep. Guy (Help!) 14:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Your edits at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) have been reverted there because there was consensus on the talk page there for the wording that was being proposed. Don't act like the victim when it is you that is trying to do everything you can to sway an Rfc which has gone against you in the past and seems to be going against you again. If you can't see that you are a one man army trying to fight against consensus you probably never will. -DJSasso (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

the rfc seems to have received relatively little attention--since the position of the current parties seem entrenched, we needs to see what does represent the more general consensus. RFCs are supposed to do thaat, but they seem sometimes not to get the necessary viewing by those oustside the dispute. DGG ( talk ) 14:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, and the page that I referred to is a different page from that which the rfc was on and was being reverted back to the original as per WP:BRD. He was acting out of process by continuing to revert to his preferred version, especially when as you say there is an Rfc going on. -DJSasso (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, it's Process Wonking Day, is it? So be it. There is now a proper proposal at the page in question. Enjoy. Wknight94 ^talk 15:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• And let's not have more process than we need. So, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (baseball players). Guy (Help!) 15:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

How to handle a certain user name issue?

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

---

This has been taken to OTRS. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming here because I'm uncertain of the proper procedure: we have a new editor, Leigh711 (talk · contribs), who claims that she is Cecilia Timpany, and that the account Timpanycecelia (talk · contribs) is spurious, and that she can prove it. Since the Timpanycecelia account has edited the Lester Coleman article and talk page in the same way as a series of socks who have repeatedly attempted to insert misinformation, there is a high probability that she is correct. My question is, should this be handled here or at UAA, and does she need to provide proof via OTRS or is the assertion enough to justify a block? Looie496 (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If Timpanycecelia is claiming to be Cecelia Timpany, it's up to her to prove it. Impostors making credible but false claims have always been blocked in the past. I think bringing it up here was the right decision, because this is where the largest number of people will see it, though I don't know where to go from here so I'll have to wait for someone else to give further advice. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the policy is pretty clear at WP:REALNAME (I've bolded the most relevant parts):

Do not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that well-known person or you make it clear that you are not. Such usernames may be blocked as a precaution.

If you have been blocked for using your real name, please don't take offense; we're trying to prevent somebody from impersonating you! You are welcome to use your real name, but in some cases, you will need to prove you are who you say you are. You can do this by sending an e-mail to info-en@wikimedia.org; be aware that the volunteer response team that handles e-mail is operated entirely by volunteers, and an immediate reply may not be possible.

Although not well-known, there is enough evidence to be concerned that there may be an impersonation of a living person going on. Therefore, block the account as a precaution and only unblock if proof is emailed. Singularity42 (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Changed my position - see below.

Question - what evidence, other than a complaint from an anonymous user, is there that impersonation is going on? Unless there is something I am overlooking, that is pretty scant evidence to go on for the issuance of a block. Shereth 17:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I agree that both ANI and ORTS are correct forums for these type of requests. UAA is for blatant breaches of username policy, which this isn't necessarily the case. Singularity42 (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since the responses agree that this is the right place, could an admin handle this, please? Looie496 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is a relevant question - is Cecelia Timpany a well-known person? There is no Wikipedia article about this person so it becomes difficult to judge whether WP:REALNAME is applicable in this situation. Shereth 16:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I must also point out that there is nothing in the edit history to indicate any intent to impersonate anybody, well-known or otherwise. This is most positively not a WP:REALNAME issue. If any information supplied to OTRS can show that there is some kind of malicious stalking, impersonation or harrassment going on, this issue can be handled as such, but based on the information available to me (in the form of the user's contributions) they've done nothing that warrants a block. Note that they were blocked for 1 week for disruptive editing and have not returned to edit since. Shereth 17:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't understand what is going on here and I don't know about Cecelia Timpany either. Googling only brings up 3 hits [96] all on Facebook and reversing the names brings up nothing, so it's hard to see how this could be a well known person. I agree that if she's being impersonated/harassed/stalked, she should email OTRS otherwise I don't see what we can do or how we can verify whose telling the truth and whose impersonating who, if in fact anyone is. Sarah 17:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, there just seems to be a bald claim by Leigh711 that 1) they are Cecelia Timpany and 2) Timpanycecelia is being used to impersonate them and that the user of the account has a history of this. Other than the claim, there is not much else here. Therefore, contrary to my earlier commments, there is no evidence of impersonation. The next step is for Leigh711 to email ORTS with the proof they apparantly have and let ORTS handle it. No precautionary blocks should be given, since the person is not well known, and there is currently nothing to substantitate the claim of impersonation. Singularity42 (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is being handled at OTRS. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Uninvolved admin welcomed at Negroni

It came to my attention that an old and long revert-war on the article about the cocktail named Negroni was revived this month. Editors have been disputing who created the drink:

• 24 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 says General Pascal created the drink [97];
• 24 Oct 2009 - User:Chromatikoma says Camilo Negroni created it [98];
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 reverts to the General Pascal version [99];
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:188.221.168.112 reverts to Camilo Negroni version [100];
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 reverts to General Pascal version [101];
• 26 Oct 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 creates a Pascal/Camilo merged version [102];
• 14 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to General Pascal version [103];
• 15 Dec 2009 - User:Hectorgaspar reverts to the Marine's merged version [104];
• 15 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [105];
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 reverts to his merged version [106];
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [107];
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Hanegroni reverts to the Marine's merged version [108];
• 17 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [109];
• 23 Dec 2009 - User:71.178.237.197 reverts to the Marine's merged version [110];
• 24 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [111];
• 26 Dec 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 reverts to his merged version [112];
• 27 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [113];

At this point, Marine reverted to his own version, protected his version and started a discussion on the talk page explaining why he believed his version was the right one.

I'm not sure this was an wise use of his admin bit. Maybe some uninvolved admin should step in and assume the role of neutral arbitrator. --Damiens.rf 16:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The admin that has stepped in here has done everything he can to help out this discussion. He protected the page to avoid another edit war and is waiting concensus. There is no problem with this happening. --MWOAP (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One could easily make the argument that this admin has used the tools to protect "his" version of the page, but it appears to me (if that list is exhaustive) that he's been a very minor participant in the goings on and is trying to gain consensus without allowing the edit war to descend any further. However, an uninvolved admin should probably review the decision since even the appearance of impropriety could lead to discussion on the talk page deteriorating into a criticism of the action, rather than an attempt to establish consensus on the content of the page itself. HJMitchell You rang? 17:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

NJMitchell is right about which version of the article the admin protected. Admins always protect The Wrong Version. –MuZemike 17:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'll note positively that Marine immediately requested review of his actions on the EW page [114], but has received no response (likely because it wasn't the best place to ask for it.) I would agree that reverting to "his" version before protecting wasn't appropriate, especially as the concern about the reliability of the sources expressed on the talkpage used is quite legitimate.(see also this post-hoc discussion --Slp1 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that the edits in favor of Pascal are being made by three editors, two of which are descendants of Pascal Negroni, and the other is the admin which has protected the page. The admin is involved at the direct request of one of the descendants, and the admin is also the creator of the article for Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni as well as one of the two brothers Héctor Andrés Negroni that are editing the article. The admin denies COI. Thanks for taking a look at this, I just want to bring the quality of the article up to speed. - Chromatikoma (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no need to revert to his preferred version before "protecting to avoid another edit war". Again, as said, I have no opinion about which version is better (if any), what is not material to this thread. --Damiens.rf 18:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think Marine was exactly right in what he did. The dispute was over "Fact A" versus "Fact B". Marine's so-called "version" did not take a stance, it merely made equal mention of both theories A and B, along with the accompanying citations. This is the best and only way to avoid protecting "The Wrong Version". Whether one of the editors requested admin intervention, and whatever relationship that editor has with the subject matter, is irrelevant. Me Three (talk to me) 19:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is what I have been trying to say. The admin that protected it could not revert it back to a version that had not been part of this edit war because there was new information between those revisions. --MWOAP (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Marine's version, although arguably the most diplomatic one, was proposed on October 26, and had been reverted back and forth seven times at the time he reverted it back to his own version and protected. You may agree his version is better or worse, but this should not imply agreeing with his using of adming tool in the case.

To lessen the drama, I recall you all I just asked for an outside admin overview/arbitration to avoid the decision being made by an involved admin. --Damiens.rf 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that it would be best for another admin to review the decision, but I don't think that his revision was necessarily bad, and I think that he did the sensible thing. If he had protected a revision which presented only one viewpoint, someone would complain about him being biased.  fetchcomms☛ 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As of my understanding, protections should be done blindly. Choosing one version before protecting is a bad decision even for an uninvolved admin (let alone for the author of the version). Being an admin does not imply you can not start a request for page protection. --Damiens.rf 20:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

• Ian Plimer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are repeated insertions of blog-sourced accusations of criminal activity made by Plimer against identifiable third parties, against BLP concerns expressed by multiple editors. I think administrator intervention might be in order. --TS 19:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Pajamas Media is a notable media source which is independent of Plimer himself. Plimer wrote an editorial that was published in this media source. Plimer himself is notable for being skeptical of the whole AGW position. Climategate is a notable event in the whole public debate over the AGW position. As such, Plimer's opinion on Climategate is notable in it's own right. The opinion in question is critical of the CRU as an organization and mentions no one by name. BLP restrictions apply to living PEOPLE not ORGANIZATIONS. But even IF the BLP restrictions were applicable in this instance they still DO NOT restrict the inclusion of a notable individual's opinion on a notable topic when attributed as such and when publish by a third party media outlet. --GoRight (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

"This behavior is that of criminals" is a comment about individuals, not an organisation. Behaviour applies to people. Saying that certain people are acting like criminals is a comment on people. Guettarda (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See this discussion on BLP noticeboard in which it seems that the consensus is that this material doesn't belong here. --TS 20:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Returning sock vandal causing trouble

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely by MastCell. Jeffrey Mall (talk • be merry) - 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Dr. Starscream is a sockpuppet of banned user E-d-itor X-XV. He has recently created two new accounts, and an LTA page for himself.

--Dr. Starscream (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

And filed an SPI to thwack the rest of this clown's socks. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Need to Close RfC/U

Could an uninvolved editor please close Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Logicus 2. The discussion at the RfC/U led to an AN that was resolved with a siteban. Thanks, SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

WATerian (talk · contribs)

I'm wondering if an uninvolved admin could have a word with WATerian (talk · contribs). This editor is on a bit of a crusade with regard to Hulda Regehr Clark. They've been pushing material that has universally been rejected on the talk page. Most recently, they have persisted in adding links at Talk:Hulda Regehr Clark which violate WP:BLP - blogs which make objectionable claims about living people (e.g. [115], [116], [117], etc).

I've removed these links per WP:BLP, but they are continually re-added despite detailed warnings. I'm about 10 minutes away from blocking myself on the basis of BLP, but it's probably better to ask uninvolved admins to have a look, so here I am. MastCell ^Talk 20:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I don't see how blocking yourself is going to help matters... Seriously, although I admit to not being up to speed on BLP, I do not see the BLP issue; the subject is dead, and the noting that a prominent oncologist cast doubt on the cause of death does not - in my view - provide sufficient detail to invoke BLP as regards that person (and, if true, would not matter). I'm sorry if I come across as dense, but what precisely is the BLP issue? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had in mind this link, which is continually being reinserted and which does contain inappropriate negative claims about a living person (not the article subject). Maybe I'm being oversensitive about the BLP angle, and I'm just tired of seeing this editor plaster the talk page with links that have no remote chance of ever forming part of any Wikipedia article. And I am not above blocking myself... MastCell ^Talk 21:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The BLP violation is on the oncologist/blogger. Diff of re-insertion following second final warning. (Note: I am also involved at this article, though not lately). - 2/0 (cont.) 21:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours with a comment on the editors talkpage that further transgressions of the like will result in longer sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

User:John254 socks question

I posted this at User:MBisanz's talk page, also.[118] However, the User:Sir Arthur Williams appears impatient with the matter.

Based on prior AN/I and on contributions of this user and prior sock puppet User:Kristen Eriksen and the behavior of prior sock puppet User:Andrea105 and her edit history compared to User:Sir Arthur Williams edit history, in particular how both started with the same monobook edit, moved quickly to fighting vandalism, then advanced rapidly to bot requests (Sir's, Andrea's) I suspect sock puppetry.

I'm not clear on whether a check user is necessary. The instructions on SPI's are designed for experienced users only. I'm tired of dealing with AfDs and RFBAs filed by sock puppets. It's a waste of user time. I'd rather just ABF and deal with the matter up front, then not waste my time on the AfD or RFBA and watch it all amount to nothing as the nominator is banned as a sock puppet.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you suspect and have good enough reason, file an SPI. It's actually not too difficult - Simply go tp WP:SPI, replace "SOCKMASTER" in the right-hand box with the name of the sockmaster, and follow the instructions on the edit page. I'm not sure how successful an abuse filter would be at this. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You may think that following the instructions at SPI is possible if you have never done it before, but it's not. Most wikipedia instructions for filling in templates are not followable, these being no exception. I tried. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Total nonsense in any case. Lots of users register accounts to fight vandalism, giving themselves appropriate tools to do. Lots of users file BRFAs too soon. Actually, many BRFAs are rejected simply because they are filed by users with almost no edits. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So, whose alternate account are you? Not only are you very quick to edit your monobook (something I have never done - although incompetence struggles with laziness on my part), and are very familiar with WP acronyms, you speak authoritatively of the habits of new users for a few days old account. I would comment that an account seemingly as familiar with process as you should not fear SPI since it can exonerate as simply as it can condemn. When the SPI is filed you could offer to contact the CU with information on who you are/previously were; I'm sure that any innocent pushing at the boundaries of alternate account policy will be not sanctioned. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice essay, and not one I have seen in my four years here. Anyway, I have not said you were a sockpuppet (an abusive alternate account) but only a new contributor with knowledge of the environment that is very possibly the result of already editing within it. That is Wikipedia:Assume good faith, a policy, that it is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you never used the word "sockpuppet", but you've been dancing around it. Editors certainly need to be warned against excessive displays of Wikipedia proficiency too soon after account registration, it seems. Sir Arthur Williams (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Another sock puppet investigation of a User:John254 sock is already in the works. As the Sir Arthur Williams sock points out, his edits are very much like the pattern of editing in the User:Alison22 sock. John254 is on Christmas vacation! The Alison22 sock is busy, like other John254 socks, with AfD, but did start out with template edits, bot requests, the usual monobook edit (LessHeard vanU, monobook editing is useful, you might look into some of the John254 monobook edits for yourself), vandalism. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but have any of the accounts you're accusing of being sockpuppets actually engaged in disruption or done anything else untoward? There is no policy against the use of multiple accounts, as long as they are not used abusively if my somewhat hazy recollection of policy is correct... HJMitchell You rang? 22:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)