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

The upbeat vandal

MrMan12321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I do feel a little bad about bringing this here, but user MrMan12321 is an SPA whose sole purpose is to leave 1-line compliments on people's talk pages under the heading "Well done!". I'm not going to raise any complaints, but I would like to raise awareness of this.AerobicFox (talk) 07:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, this lemon may have soured after I brought this up. A recent post by him on my talk page seems not so nice.AerobicFox (talk) 08:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Since this user is basically a bot that searches for random contributors from the Special:Recentchanges page, and then congratulate them for that contribution, and since I believe I speak for all when I say such a bot would never be approved, I thus am voting to have this user deactivated, the same way we would pull the plug on such a bot.AerobicFox (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Why? Don't we all want to have the gift of manliness bestowed upon us? sonia♫ 08:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Editor notified. "Be not afraid of manliness: some are born manly, some achieve manliness and some have manliness, erm, thrust upon them."--Shirt58 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Well done, he was already notified. 2 notices is admittedly more manly though.--Atlan (talk) 12:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Initial notification did not use {{subst:ANI-notice}} and wasn't an otherwise obvious notification.--Shirt58 (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Well! I archived mine out of sight. This is quite annoying, especially when in the middle of fixing up a complex table. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Creepy. Congratulating female contributors for being "manly males" seems quite inappropriate though. I blocked it. —Ruud 21:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, in this cynical world, a truly sincere "well-done" is rare. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is automatically revoking talk page access appropriate here, Ruud? I didn't think that was standard policy at all unless the user abuses their own talk page. Silverseren^C 21:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It can mail to unblock-en-l if it desires so. Consider it an occupational hazard of award-givers to be mistaken for trolls. —Ruud 21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question though. I thought you weren't allowed to revoke talk page access unless they abuse it? Silverseren^C 22:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not willing to wait for that. —Ruud 22:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's appropriate, all blocked users should have the opportunity to request unblocks unless they have abused their talk pages - for starters it makes sure that blocks are applied appropriately, as sometimes admins make mistakes. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That's why we have the unblock-en-l mailing list. —Ruud 22:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

That isn't reasonable. Most people aren't able to navigate bureaucracies well enough to figure that out. I'm really good at navigating bureaucracies and I have x thousand edits and I didn't know about that - I would have ended up emailing arbcom if I was blocked with talk access revoked (but 99%+ of users won't have heard of arbcom). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The e-mail address is display to any user who is blocked and tries to edit a page. —Ruud 15:31, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Why on Earth have they been marked as "Banned" [1] ? Also, why was their talk page access removed? I do, personally, suspect possible troll - but this seems extremely extreme. Especially the 'ban' thing.  Chzz  ►  23:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Some sort of preventative measure I suppose. But I don't understand why talk page access was revoked at all. Ruud's explanations up above make no sense to me. Silverseren^C 00:17, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the admin was trying to be, dare I say it, manly? I don't think there is too much to worry about, but unblocking its talk page may be a good idea.AerobicFox (talk) 04:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that people consider saving their energy for worthwhile cases. Yes, rules are great and they should always be followed meticulously, but is it really worth spending a couple more hours debating a satisfactory result? Several admins must have read this section, and if they want they can enable talk page access—I don't imagine that would cause much drama, although a brief discussion with the blocking admin would be polite. Meanwhile, there are lots of unresolved tendentious editing cases to be finalized. Johnuniq (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I already asked the blocking admin, Ruud, to restore talk page access above. But he went on about having people use the unblock mailing list, something very few (pretty much none) new users would know about or bother to use. Silverseren^C 08:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Somehow I doubt Mr. Manly is a new user; 2. There is already a template on the user's talk page pointing to this ANI discussion which points to the mailing list. Good RBI by Ruud, with the talkpage disabling helping the "ignore" part. I think Ruud's ban (now undone, but whatever) was fine. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The block wasn't actually lifted. Just the "Banned" message from the talk page. mechamind90 14:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think allowing this user to communicate further in any form on-wiki is a good idea, you either have a seriously bad sense of judgement or need a reality check. —Ruud 15:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

But mebbe he was just trying to reach out to the other men on this manly Wiki while we write articles on manly topics like Key West, Fire Island, & San Francisco! (Okay, someone had to allude back to that unforgettable & manly SNL sketch. Feel free to close this thread now.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Considering that there are five users including myself that are advocating for allowance of talk page access, I think it should probably be restored. We're not advocating an unblock, but just an avenue of discussion with the user. Silverseren^C 00:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Might as well. I think he's flown the coop anyway, unless he's communicating behind the scenes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Has an admin given talk page access back yet or is this section just being ignored? Silverseren^C 22:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• The talk page is not protected. You can leave a note on it if you want, mentioning the unblock mailing list, if for some reason you think the person might make use of it, though IMHO it's just an invitation to more trolling. I'd say what we currently are seeing re that user is a community ban in the old traditional sense, namely, a block that no admin is willing to lift. That seems fine to me. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• *waits* Silverseren^C 22:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Add me to the pile on of non-admins who think that talk page access shouldn't be revoked without cause, which hasn't been shown here. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

" "  Chzz  ►  08:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So, including myself, that's five people now who feel that talk page access should be restored. Oh, and i'm going to keep bumping this discussion section away from archiving forever if necessary until I get some admin response. Silverseren^C 00:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I know admins are reading this. :/ Silverseren^C 06:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

*bumps yet again* Silverseren^C 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Six people. Passionless -Talk 01:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Silverseren^C 02:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Seven people. Has this manly man done anything that's actually disruptive? Reyk _YO! 02:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The only disruptive thing the user has done is use the recent changes page to find users to give this "Manliness Award" to on their talk page. He gave this to 70 or so people in a short period of time, so he was blocked in a preventative manner. The logical next step would be then to use the user's talk page to explain to him why this was improper and get him to agree to stop, as it is clear that he did interact with people that spoke with him. However, Ruud's block also included removal of talk page access, which makes it impossible for there to be discussion with the user in order to see if he can agree to edit in a more productive manner. Admin Ruud has refused to give back talk page access to the user, continually citing that the user can just use the unblock mailing list in order to get himself unblocked, which is entirely unrealistic, I think. Silverseren^C 03:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

[unindent] Per this discussion, I've restored talk page access. To my surprise, talk page access and talk page protection are two different things: I had always thought that unchecking the permit talk page editing button resulted in the page being fully protected, but apparently not. Nyttend (talk) 03:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Really though, it shouldn't have taken this long and I shouldn't have had to be so persistent for policy to actually be followed. :/ (That's not directed at you, i'm just saying in general) Silverseren^C 03:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Apparent annual creation of role accounts for a class assignment

This report is regarding the following accounts:

• Psyc3330 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psy3330 W10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Psyc3330 w11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

These 3 accounts appear to have been created at 1-year intervals for a class project at the University of Guelph (random example). Ordinarily I would have taken this to WP:SPI; however, contributions appear to be constructive and in good faith, and no two accounts were ever used at the same time. It appears each successive account was created months after the last edit of the previous account. I notified the currently active account that shared accounts are not allowed ([2]), and it appears the W10 account was also similarly warned ([3]). My question is, what is an appropriate course of action here, if any? I'm leaning towards at the minimum requesting that the w11 account declare on the talk page that he/she used to edit under the other two names, and possibly requesting a block of the other two. Thoughts? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:51, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• I find it hard to take or recommend any enforcement action towards what appears to be a very constructive class project that benefits the project greatly each year (e.g. [4] [5], [6]), as there are apparently no other user conduct issues apart from improperly/inadequately tagged images. I think that one of the problems with shared accounts, however, is attribution. –xeno^talk 22:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• I agree that the contributions seem to be constructive (some of the sandbox stuff seemed very good) and that their identity management is nowhere near best practice. However, rather than going for any quick fix I suggest Kuyabribri escalates the question to someone in the Foundation, because they wish to attract and keep new editors (per Sue Gardner's March 2011 Update) and university involvement is part of the picture. No, wait! I appreciate there's something slightly yucky about asking the Foundation for advice – what do they have to do with anything? – but at least they could co-ordinate a discussion about sandbox names (e.g. should there be a naming convention for course roles, in which "Psyc3330" would become something unique like "ca.uoguelph.psychology.3330.Memory") and whether individual students should have their own logins, if only for legal attribution reasons. AFAICS there's potentially a lot of detail here that needs consensus, so trying to create guidelines on the fly will probably be counter-productive. We're not seeing vandalism from this vector, so we have the luxury of time to find an effective solution. - Pointillist (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• I'm loath to add only a complaint to a discussion, but I think the attribution/account requirements are rather tenuous and spur more problematic enforcement than they are worth. In this case I think a personal message to each accounts should suffice and unless we have evidence that they really are being used as pure role accounts for a large number of individuals we ought to tread very lightly. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  It's obvious from the editing pattern/rate that it's being used by a good number of people simultaneously (or perhaps it is a very advanced android...), but again, I'm finding it hard to care too much about that, so long as they are benefiting the project with these fully-formed and well-sourced psychology articles (an area that is understaffed as it is). –xeno^talk 23:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone should tread at all before considering the wider implications. Let's get advice from the people who are running the course (who can describe the dynamics they are seeing on the ground) and whoever around here knows about facilitating collective editing by university classes. - Pointillist (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Perhaps engage someone at Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination? See also: Wikipedia:School and university projects. –xeno^talk 23:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Makes sense to me. No doubt some models of university class contribution will be more effective than others in attracting editors who will contribute in the longer term. This needs someone who is familiar with the territory. - Pointillist (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  I've posted a message at User_talk:Sross_(Public_Policy)#Best_practice_for_class_leader_and_student_accounts. - Pointillist (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks for pointing me this way. I can't speak for any WMF staff but myself, but I've seen quite a few similar situations with group accounts for classes, because that's just what seems natural to a lot of people trying in good faith to do a transparent Wikipedia project in class (without wading far enough into the rules to find out they are required to use individual accounts). They generally feel persecuted when people start telling them they're doing it wrong and might be blocked. I'd say drafting a guideline about these situations would be really helpful, since over-aggressive enforcement often creates useless stress and bad feelings for instructors who were trying to do the right thing but are too far along once the problem is pointed out to easily change their system. I'd say the guideline should be along the lines of, explain the expectation of individual accounts to the instructors/group accounts, but let them continue through the current assignment or term if it would cause much disruption to switch to individual accounts immediately. The Public Policy Initiative team is working on an information portal for educators who want to do Wikipedia assignments, so hopefully that can be a tool to teach more instructors best practices for these kinds of things before they get started. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Agree with Xeno, Sross. We must be extremely careful not to discourage new good faith editors and collaborations. Rjwilmsi 14:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

  Also agree. In my opinion some group accounts should be permitted, like constructive academic groups as in this case. Zakhalesh (talk) 16:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• If group accounts that are editing constructively are normally reviewed as sockpuppet at WP:SPI, something is wrong - role accounts are distinct from sockpuppetry. If they are blocked rather than encouraged to branch into one account per user, then the relevant policy is broken and needs to be fixed. –SJ+ 20:16, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• • Thank heavens we have common sense so we can let them contribute in peace, no? Zakhalesh (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• The username policy is absolutely explicit - see WP:NOSHARE: "User accounts can only represent individuals. Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked." I understood that there was a reason for this, connected with attribution and the license terms. If we are going to make an exception for class projects we should be sure it's legal and document it, not just turn a blind eye. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  According to [7], the licensing angle isn't even salient. And yes, perhaps the policy needs updating to reflect current practice. –xeno^talk 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

  If I've understood correctly, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are just the manifestations of consensus with a small amount of law (copyright for example) added, not An Ancient Book of Ancient Law. There's seems to be a clear consensus here to allow constructive use of group accounts for class projects, so I say why not? Zakhalesh (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• (Hope my input here is okay, even though I'm not an admin...) The project has had a positive impact and should be allowed to continue. That said, each member of the project should have his/her own account and the main project user account should be blocked or have its username changed so it reflects that it's used only by the project's head. That way, the project can have a centralized workplace while still fulfilling Wikipedia's licensing, username and account policies. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaimechelle COI, Incidents

Unresolved

 – awaiting admin close N419BH 01:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This user has a conflict of interest with this article and is hostile to other editors while trying to push in inclusions without consensus into a Fringe Theory article Frank J. Tipler with his beliefs that it is mainstream [8]. He has been attempting to do this by citation overkill [9]. This is evident from the talk page of the article Talk:Frank_J._Tipler. He has also previously been hostile [10]. He also has been making accusations [11] (non-exhaustive list). I can provide many more diffs if required. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, yes, because Prof. Tipler's Omega Point cosmology has been so widely published in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific literature, including those papers makes this whole affair unfair.

How dare I include his papers which have been published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings.

At any rate, your objection is absurd. Administrator N419BH already settled this issue, so stop attempting to go over his head. His requirement was that the references more appropriately pertain to the sentences which they address, and with that proviso he agreed that all of these peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings can stay in the article. Hence, *at most* all you can do is rearrange where the citations appear in the article. You cannot simply *delete* them.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, would you be able to provide more diffs of his accusations? I feel that those diffs show him as a bit arrogant, but not hostile. LiteralKa (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Diffs? How many diffs do you want? I could spend a large portion of my time collecting them. But see the latter portion of this discussion: [12].--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I regret having to put the matter bluntly, however Jamie Michelle is a known crank with a long history of disruption at Wikipedia articles relating to this subject. Clearly on a mission to promote the unorthodox theories of Tipler, his repetitive cut and paste monologues on Wikipedia Talk pages are evident all over the internet as well, simply Google the phrase ""the only way to avoid the conclusion that the Omega Point exists is to reject the known laws of physics" for a taste. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

After seeing that, I agree. (Though diffs would be cool too :D) LiteralKa (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

LuckyLouie is part of an athitheist crowd that got worked up after Prof. Tipler appeared on a television news broadcast. The online video of this made the rounds and was posted on a number of antitheist discussion boards, after which they started disrupting all the articles associated with Prof. Tipler on Wikipedia, even though they knew nothing about the Omega Point cosmology other than that they disliked its theological implications.

LuckyLouie follows me around on Wikipedia in order to inject his would-be wisdom.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that I added the ANI template to LuckyLouie's edit page as an editor recently involved in the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Here are some diffs. Some of these diffs are from this administrator noticeboard [13]

[14][15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Here he misquotes a settlement plan to justify edits against concensus. [21] IRWolfie- (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep in mind that IRWolfie-'s complaint here has no foundation whatsoever. This issue has already been settled. Administrator N419BH already settled this issue, and IRWolfie- is here attempting to go over his head. N419BH's requirement was that the references more appropriately pertain to the sentences which they address, and with that proviso he agreed that all of these peer-reviewed papers published in mainstream scientific journals and proceedings can stay in the article. Hence, *at most* all IRWolfie- can do is rearrange where the citations appear in the article. IRWolfie- cannot simply *delete* them.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a diff of this alleged settlement. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

N419BH is not an administrator.[22] But it wouldn't matter, because administrators make mistakes as well as non-administrators and are usually open to having their decisions reversed if other factors surface. Doc talk 21:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Pardon me. "[R]eviewer, rollbacker", I ought to have said, if I could have found out that information, which you have now provided me with.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Civility problems aside, a more long-term solution might be to request that Jamie Michelle stop edit-warring and abide by consensus at the article: i.e. cease "citation bombing" the article with any and all papers published by Tipler. Continued edit warring might be followed up by a topic ban if needed. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Because, Lord knows, Wikipedia needs less citations to papers in mainstream peer-reviewed journals and proceedings. This is what is distroying Wikipedia. We must put a stop to it! Yet this issue has alreadly been settled by "reviewer, rollbacker" N419BH.

It's clear what your objective is here. And that objective is not to tell people about how widely-published Prof. Tipler's papers on the Omega Point cosmology are in the mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals and proceedings.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

At any rate, IRWolfie-'s posts here are an attempt to get around "reviewer, rollbacker" N419BH discession on this matter. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is quite clear, and so there is no ground for IRWolfie- to say that this discession is out of bounds, as N419BH's discession was merely based upon Wikipedia policy.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaimemichelle, conference proceedings are not peer reviewed and therefore not considered reliable sources for science articles. They are definitely not reliable sources for fringe theories. IRWolfie has plenty of policy based reasons for removing the sources you added. See policies such as WP:UNDUE and WP:SPS. Sailsbystars (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, proceedings are peer-reviewed. Peer-review is a standard process of proceedings papers.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This is about your conflict of interest with regards to the topic, not what occurred in an imaginary settlement (provide diffs). IRWolfie- (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As an aside to Jamie Michelle, N419BH's opinion on the matter is merely one editor's opinion. There's obviously a discussion going on, so one previous opinion isn't sufficient to gauge consensus. Please focus on the current matter. Dayewalker (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, because how horrible it would be if Wikipedia started citing peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceeding. Wikipedia could never last were that to occur. This is a horrific outcome, which must stop if sanity is to prevail.--Jamie Michelle (talk)

Oh, so you don't want to be implicated in bringing up an already-settled issue. How convenient of you. Wow, you're really looking out for yourself. You're really taking the high road there.

Perhaps we should all just bow-down and worship you for your selfless devotion to truth and beauty. Lord knows you have only the highest of motives.

At any rate, your posts here are an attempt to get around "reviewer, rollbacker" N419BH discession on this matter. Wikipedia's policy on this issue is quite clear, and so there is no ground for you to say that this discession is out of bounds, as N419BH's discession was merely based upon Wikipedia policy. And N419BH's discession was that all the peer-reviewed papers in mainstream scientific journals and proceeding must remain in the article.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Jamiemichelle, you need to drop this "reviewer, rollbacker" nonsense, because it is meaningless here - any editor who has been around a while and hasn't misbehaved can be granted review and rollback rights, and they provide no authority whatsoever. N419BH has no authority and has not "finalised" anything. But even if N419BH was an admin, they would still have no authority to make content decisions - the community, through discussion and consensus, makes content decisions, and that's exactly what's happening here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward is there anything that can be done to mitigate the effects of the obvious COI of Jamiemichelle?. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You have expressed your own views on the Omega Point cosmology. And I have offered counter-points to what you expressed. Thus, it is improper to say that I have some sort of "conflict of interest" when you have expressed the same sort of interest, but in an opposite way.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that the user spends most of his time spamming internet forums with ideological pro-Tipler diatribes entitled "God Proven to Exist According to Mainline Physics" I think expecting him to behave differently here on Wikipedia might be unrealistic. I support a topic ban to include the articles Frank J. Tipler, Omega Point, and Cosmology. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your post here violates Wikipedia policy, as despite who you think I am you are not allowed to connect my Wikipedia presence to whoever you think I am on any matters outside of Wikipedia. I will report this.--Jamie Michelle (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not and administrator, and I have never claimed to be one. Rest assured that if I was and administrator I would have blocked you for violation of WP:3RR, a red-line offense. and if you look at my post the article's talk page I told you that one citation per sentence would suffice and that you would need a reliable source to claim the theory in question was mainstream science. Furthermore, I told you that each citation should be relevant the information contained in the sentence. Your response was to revert, for the fifth time that day, to your preferred version of the article, claiming in the edit summary that as an administrator I had endorsed your version, when in fact I had not. You have continued to make this claim while continuing to edit-war over the article's content. N419BH 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Likewise support a topic ban. I'll take Jamie at there word that they wish to be a productive editor, but that clearly cant happen while they're tied up pushing crank theories a simple Google search shows they're rather obsessed with. -- ۩ Mask 02:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I see a history of tendentious editing in non-Tipler topic as well (in 2006, alleges that the FBI was involved in the 1993 WTC bombing,[23]). I loved this two-hour, 108 edit revert war on the Tipler biography between Jamie Michelle and Headbomb in 2009. Didn't we used to have a 50-revert rule (j/k)? The bulk (but not all) of Jamie Michelle's editing seems related to Tipler and the Omega Point, including attempting inserting it into Existence of God,[24] but I do see some ok edits to computer-related articles and other topics[25]. The 1994 Nature review of Tipler's "Physics of Immortality" is brutal, by the way. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

An 108 edit revert war? Wow. It appears that Jamie Michelle has been a cyclical disruption problem for 2 years now, and a lot of editors including myself have been kept busy cleaning up the mess. A recent statement indicates they feel persecuted for bringing "truth" to Wikipedia that "God and the resurrection can be proven by standard physics". Please admins, this is a case where you can do this user and the community some good by using your tools. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

My experience with Headbomb has shown he has a high tendency toward edit warring; I know because he has permanently turned me off bringing any additional physics articles up to FA. I don't think you can lay the blame entirely on Jamie Mitchelle's doorstep here.—RJH (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right about that. But I might add that Headbomb wasn't involved in the last couple of Tipler article disruptions. They originated from behavior by Jamie Michelle. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

In light of continued POV-pushing against consensus, I propose the following:

Jamiemichelle (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from all articles and corresponding talk pages related to Frank J. Tipler and Omega Point Theory, broadly construed. This topic ban applies to discussing the above on unrelated pages. Failure to comply will result in the removal of editing privileges for an appropriate length of time as determined by the blocking administrator.

Commentary

• Support as nom. N419BH 03:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support as previously noted. A mandated break from the Tipler crusade is a smart idea, and enables him to contribute productively to other areas of the encyclopedia if he wishes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 03:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• As noted earlier, support. -- ۩ Mask 04:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support JM, please try to edit some totally unrelated topics for a while. The ban can be reviewed and maybe lifted once you've gotten some more experience and built up a good record. You currently have 432 edits of which the bulk are related to Tipler or dispute resolution. It takes a good while longer than that to understand how this place works. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support This gives time to see whether or not edits by this user JamieMichelle will turn out more productive results on other pages than any of the recently disruptive contributions made on pages related to Tipler and the Omega Point Theory. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support 3rr is a brightline policy and it's been violated on more than one occasion, both today (which got a block) and Monday [26][27][28][29]. An enforced change of topic to one where the user doesn't have a strong opinion might help the him understand better how to edit in a collaborative environment. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support We'll then see if this editor is really here to help the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - topic bans should not be drafted with phrases such as "broadly construed." Try limiting it to just the two specific articles and see how it works out. Racepacket (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment "Broadly construed" is standard wording, so that the restricted editor cannot wikilawyer regarding their edits to a "related" topic, deprecating those in conflict with the subject or their topic ban for instance, are not covered by the terms. The uninvolved admins are usually adept at determining whether contested edits are related to the topic. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• The whole idea is to avoid further misunderstandings and disputes, so it would make more sense to develop something precise that would avoid future "wikilawyering" and return trips to ANI. The question is not whether there are admins "adept at determining" what they think we meant here, the question is whether the proposal can be clearly understood by JM. He can push other theories, just not the Omega Point Theory. Racepacket (talk) 15:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• I concur with LHvU's explanation: wikilawyering can work both ways. If JM were to edit pasta & be sanctioned because "obviously Frank J. Tipler eats pasta", that reasoning won't fly. On the other hand, if JM edits pasta to add the fact Frank J. Tipler eats pasta & BTW here's some facts you need to know about his ideas, then I'd be surprised, were the clause "broadly construed" not included, if JM didn't wikilawyer over being sanctioned. The point here is to see if can make contributions which improve Wikipedia, not to find innovative ways JM can advocate for this Tipler guy. -- llywrch (talk) 19:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support looks like enough of a pattern of disruption to justify a topic ban... — Scientizzle 14:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, let's see if they're actually interested in helping the encyclopedia. Dayewalker (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment; leaning towards oppose in favor of alternative wording; in my opinion, this doesn't go far enough because the extent of the problem justifies going beyond the article and article talk space alone. Some individual interpretations of appropriate lengths of time are absurd to the point I'd remove that mention altogether, but due to the nature of this issue, why force an admin to use a presumably definite period of time if they are up to scratch with the nuances of policy and such rulings? I'd be willing to support "Jamiemichelle is indefinitely banned from editing on the topic of Frank J. Tipler and Omega Point Theory, broadly construed, including talk pages. This topic ban also applies to discussing these topics on unrelated pages. Any uninvolved administrator may enforce this topic ban." Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Hmm, I wonder if there is standardized wording from arb decisions for topic bans. If there is (finding out would require comparing a bunch), I'd say go with that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support; it would be a net positive for article content and for the community. I'd be happy with indef too. bobrayner (talk) 14:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Maybe tweak the wording to be more standard, if there is such a thing. But obsessive fringe theorists rarely listen to reason, and we have plenty of evidence that this one isn't. So for the good of the project, this has to be stopped, whatever the precise wording. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support the proposal, but if possible I'd like to see the topics of science, religion, and pseudoscience (broadly construed) added to the topic ban. --NellieBlyMobile (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support, as an editor involved is a previous situation with this editor. Ncmvocalist may have a better phrasing, but "broadly construed" has been used to support Ncmvocalist's preferred wording, as JM's edit adding Tipler to an article makes that article "related to ... Tipler ..., broadly construed." — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Perhaps an administrator should make close this thread and make a note of it at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• Regrettably, Support and close thread. Sigh, it's such a shame whenever intelligent editors with so much potential turn out to be single-purpose POV pushers. Let's just hope this one will turn out to be different. -- œ^™ 22:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

posting personal information about another editor

Administrative action is required against User:IntrigueBlue for posting personal information [30] [31] in an attempt link a real-life person to Wikipedia edits - against WP:PRIVACY. IntrigueBlue has been warned to stop disclosing the personal name of his target, [32], and was also chastised in a recent ANI, [33] but the message has not gotten though. "Outing" is a form of harassment and is a serious concern, even if it is not true, and it should not be tolerated. Onthegogo (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If Ralph D. Scurfield is claiming elsewhere that he is editing that Wikipedia article, it is hardly a case of outing an editor. Pointing out a credible concern that an article is being edited in POV fashion by someone with a conflict of interest is valid. Resolute 15:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think this comes under WP:OUTING either. IntrigueBlue hasn't linked a name to an IP address and they've said that one of the accounts "claims to be" rather than "is" the person mentioned. If that is indeed what the account has claimed, then cautiously repeating that claim (ie leaving open the possibility that it may be false) shouldn't be a problem. Reading the ANI thread you've linked, consensus seems to be that this is OK; I'd say IntrigueBlue has posted in line with what they would have understood the conclusion of that thread to be. EyeSerene^talk 15:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem with the message as far as I can see - if someone claiming to be Joe Blow is editing Joe Blow's article, then it is worth mentioning it, as there may well be several issues arising. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It looks like IntrigueBlue attempted to respond to this section but it was lost in some sort of strange edit conflict [34]. (I wasn't logged in when I initially edited but logged in in the background then submitted and then had a session error so just resubmitted, I guess this contributed in some way.) I have informed him/her of this. Nil Einne (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the observation, Nil Einne.

This issue has been discussed at some length, as Onthegogo has observed. However, I'm concerned that he/she may not have completely read the discussion before linking it and starting this new section. The general consensus, following a RFC, was that the only issue was that I stated as fact what was only a claim. In my repeated comment on Talk:Sunshine Village, I corrected this error, after first discussing the matter with the involved administrator. I see no reason to have this discussion again, as to the best of my knowledge it has been adequately addressed. WP:OUTING is explicitly not applicable to repeating information provided by other editors. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 18:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I am concerned with the dismissive responses by Resolute, EyeSerene, and Elen of the Roads (even more so when they repeat the name of the targeted person in this forum). IntrigueBlue is defending his "outing" actions (which by WP:PRIVACY is defined as a form of harassment) by claiming that the target of his harassment has identified himself and has also been removing content from the article. However, the only removal of content from the article in the past week was made by myself, and I am not and have never claimed to be that person. Onthegogo (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) There's no specific prohibition against an editor using their real name as their user name, although WP:REALNAME points out the inherent issues with doing so. That said, I must concur with Resolute et al that this isn't a case of WP:OUTING, since the editor in question has apparently used their real name as their username. Referring to such an editor, by definition, can't be outing, since they already "outed" themselves. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The assumption that the editor in question used their real name as their username is wrong. I can find no evidence of that. The claims of IntrigueBlue are suspect and should be verified as he may have his own COI. Onthegogo (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be something a CheckUser would need to verify, one way or the other. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 20:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The statement was originally made by 207.229.0.198 here, but was prematurely removed by an administrator during the original ANI process. Unfortunately, there's no way to reverse an edit deletion after the conclusion was overturned, as it most certainly was if you review the original discussion.

Assuming that I have a COI in this matter is a violation of good faith. I do not have any association or prior experience with the subject of the article or the individual in question, and am merely reacting to conduct and discussion on the two articles. As far as COI edits go, please review the edit history. Most of the anon edits, including two by 207.229.0.198, have removed information critical of the organization, as I must observe also applies to your own edits to the article. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 20:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW they can be undeleted if it is decided to do so. --Errant ^(chat!) 22:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 23:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me try to understand this discussion. IntrigueBlue's position is that because some IP address allegedly once claimed to be Ralph Scurfield, IntrigueBlue and other editors are now permitted to violate BLP policy to insinuate that an identifiable living person is making COI edits? And now IntrigueBlue is insinuating that I have a COI because I have stated my opinion that it is not appropriate to list a minor personnel issue concerning four former employees in an encyclopedic article about a ski resort with 700 employees. Does IntrigueBlue think that every editor who disagrees with him on this article is Ralph Scurfield? If not outing, then it is a violation of BLP policy and it must not be tolerated. Onthegogo (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm definitely involved on this, but I hold now as I held during the last ANI discussion on this: IntrigueBlue is stating only things that were explicitly stated on Wikipedia. This is by definition not outing, because it doesn't involve external information. While admins agreed that it is wrong to definitively state that a certain IP is automatically a certain real world identity, since IPs can change, there is nothing wrong with reminding editors that semi-protection is ending and that we might see a repeat of IP editors making changes without discussion. As to whether or not this belongs in the article, that's a content issue, which should be handled at the article talk page; if you (Onthegogo) feel that there is a BLP violation by keeping that info in, then you should raise it on the BLP noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The only editor who I think is Ralph Scurfield is the one who explicitly stated that he is Ralph Scurfield. It's not that complicated. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 23:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are you seriously complaining about IntrigueBlue insinuating you have a COI here after you accused him of same? Seriously? ... Ultimately, the statement that there appear to be POV issues with potentially COI editors is credible. It is also credible to state that BLP issues have occurred in the past at both Sunshine Village and Ralph D. Scurfield and it is prudent to note the fear that these edits could pick back up now that protection has expired. As to the value of the section on the fired employees, I am not a big fan of highlighting it by putting it in its own section, but lets face it, the firings certainly have notability beyond the immediate Calgary/Banff region. Where to place it, and how much emphasis to put on it is an editorial matter, not an administrative one. Resolute 00:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

We're getting hung up on the wrong issue here. Claiming your name is X is not a problem, and people repeating that claim is not an issue - normally. But in this case an IP editor is claiming to be one of the individuals related to the article; this is a BLP issue, not an outing one. We have no way to verify that this individual is as claimed, it could be a spurious attempt to drag his name through the mud (it's hardly uncommon; most people claiming to be XYZ are not that person in my experience), or just a misguided attempt to stand up for him. Who knows. We don't judge. But as this person is a subject ot the article it is strongly recommended not to go around throwing the name out in relation to the IP editor. It is fine to mention that some of the editors on the article may have a COI, but naming is a BLP concern so please do not do so. I'll leave a note for IB. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that's more of a concern here. I agree that we should be very cautious about linking real people to problematic behaviour even where they have disclosed their identity; people unfamiliar with Wikipedia often fail to realise that this is a hugely public forum and something that seemed like a good idea at the time can turn up on Google, linked to their RL details, for years to come. It's not usually necessary for managing disruptive behaviour on an article to know who's behind the disruption - we just treat individual edits on their merits and apply the rules accordingly. EyeSerene^talk 10:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just adding that I don't believe IntrigueBlue is at fault. As I wrote in my first post, on a neutral reading of the previous ANI thread I would have taken from it the same conclusion that IntrigueBlue appears to have done (although personally I feel that the conclusion fails to take full account of the sensitivities surrounding BLP issues). EyeSerene^talk 11:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I can accept that. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 17:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• The post is still there, should it be redacted? January (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the parenthetical statement; whether the edit history should be redacted is up to an admin I guess. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 19:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Request review of administrator action by User:SarekOfVulcan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

• At this point, this is quite stale. Even if Roscelese broke the 1RR, she's not going to be blocked for it three days down the road. Sarek is not going to get desysopped over this, and Haymaker's block has expired. There's literally nothing to gain continuing this discussion, which is generating a lot of heat and very little light. Courcelles 00:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

---

The issue is whether he has deliberately refused to block the edit-warrior he likes, while blocking the one he dislikes.[35] Review by one or more uninvolved admins would be appreciated. This concerns activity at an article subject to unusual 1RR sanctions, titled The Silent Scream (which I have never edited to the best of my recollection but may have long ago). I am on an iPhone right now. and my ability to present details is limited, but this discussion at Sarek's talk page amply describes the problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Review welcomed. It was a close call, and I wanted to block them both for 1RR, but I couldn't justify it. Anythingyouwant supplied diffs on my talk for Rosecelese: the diffs that I used for Haymaker (talk · contribs) were:

• Added "pro-choice activist"
• Restored "pro-choice activist" - first revert
• Added "abortionist"
• Restored "abortionist" - second revert

If an uninvolved admin feels I misread these, feel free to unblock.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict): @Anythingyouwant: While I understand that you want to help, I would stear as far away from Haymaker and his ilk as you can. I tried to help out him and another editor (not the one you also discuss) and it became a royal headache. Just don't get in the middle of that mess, it ain't worth it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 18:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. As Sarek knows, I am not disputing that Haymaker deserved a block. What I object to is the blatant bias.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rosecelese has three diffs:

• changes "pro choice activist" to "political scientist"
• adds "anti abortion activist"
• changes "abortionist" to "abortion provider"

--Diannaa ^(Talk) 19:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Those three diffs are not the same reversion. They add up to one reversion. Roscelese did not revert the same content twice in one day. Binksternet (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be the same content, but it still doesn't seem like a 1RR violation. Rewording something that's just been added (ie. "abortionist" to "abortion provider") doesn't really fit the description of reverting - if Haymaker's edit had been to change "abortion provider" to "abortionist" and then I changed it back (instead of vice versa), that would definitely be a revert, but just changing the wording of new content? I don't really think so. Adding "anti-abortion activist" certainly isn't a revert. (I'm not sure re-adding "pro-choice activist" is necessarily a revert, but I'll leave that up to other people.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Undent)Removing the phrase "pro-choice activist" was EXTREMELY CLEARLY a revert. Because Sarek deliberately ignored it, I recommend that he be desysopped. It's about time that Wikipedia stop the blatant discrimination against people who don't happen to be radically pro-choice. Am I coming across loud and clear now?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is. No one seems to be arguing that removing "pro-choice activist" wasn't a revert. However, it hasn't magically multiplied into more than one revert. No conspiracy theories, please. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:12, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese, your removal of the word "abortionist" a few hours later was also EXTREMELY CLEARLY a revert. One plus one equals two, except here? Your opponent in this matter is conveniently muzzled and so cannot speak here. But I can speak here, and can point out that Sarek's POV is obvious from the content edits he's made at this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying it in all-caps won't make it so. Changing "abortionist" to "abortion provider" at a first occurrence is no more a revert than changing "anti-abortion activist" to "pro-life activist." It's not undoing someone else's work. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are coming over loud and clear - but perhaps not in a manner which you would appreciate being told. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Re "Roscelese, your removal of the word "abortionist" a few hours later was also EXTREMELY CLEARLY a revert"". Anythingyouwant, have you checked what the word "revert" actually means? It means to change *back* to something that was there before. So if someone changes "abortionist" to "abortion provider" when it did not previously say "abortion provider", then that's no more a revert than if I changed "elephant" to "aardvark" when it had previously said "blancmange" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

LessHeard, the argument for imposing the block in this fashion seems to be as follows: an editor can remove as much content as often as he likes, as long as he replaces it with something else. So, LessHeard, if you will support that sort of policy clarification at WP:Revert, then I will consider you totally fair and neutral in this matter. In the mean time, we have an admin, SoK, whose content edits clearly show his POV, and who is exempting people from blocks based on their POV. This general sanction was implemented without so much as mentioning the proposal at the relevant article talk pages, and now the general sanction is being used as an additional tool of abuse. I call 'em like I see 'em. By all means speak to me in any manner you deem straightforward.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You will consider me fair and neutral if I support your version of matters? This is despite (nearly) all other commentators here explaining that while you have been reverting (changing something back to a previous version) while the other person has not (substituting a word for another of similar meaning), and you advocating the desysopping of SarekofVulcan for acting in what appears to be the subsequent consensus? I would advise you that I am considered a fair and neutral admin, by persons rather less prejudiced and certainly more conversant with policy than you appear to be. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have the slightest idea what you're referring to. I did not edit the article in question, and I suggested above a policy clarification to implement the new policy that you are supporting here. Good night.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

(Psst, it's not AYW whose edits we're discussing. The user in question is still blocked and hasn't been able to comment.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing "abortionist" is a revert. "Abortionist" is seen as a pejorative by some. This is word smithing that is similar to "pro-choice" v "pro-abortion". I'm not saying "abortionist" should have been used but that is not the discussion. If the change was made since based on subtle differences in POV then it was a revert since it (even being as little as one word) reversed the intended tone (as inappropriate as it might have been)_ of the editor. The admin is not going to lose the mop over it but should study up on the policies and guidelines if he going to make blocks but let other reverts slide. Cptnono (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment by non-administrator Anythingyouwant, Sarek has admited that he was in a tight situation there and there was really no good answer for the issue. Accept that not everybody is infalible and move on. I may be looking at this from the newbie prospective, but this is a minor flub (and the first one in a bit that I'm aware of Sarek making). Asking for Community based de-sysopping is supposed to be used in cases where there has been a consistent demonstration of abuse of administrative tools. At this time I see no such demonstration. Hasteur (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a close case, and the admin has not acknowledged any imperfection in what he did. That said, it's nothing new at Wikipedia, and I don't have anything more to say about it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: This section was closed and hidden while it was only the fourth section from the bottom of the page. I object to such an early closure, and would have liked more input. If there's nothing actionable here, is that because an admin is completely free to not use tools against one editor in the same way that he's used the tools against another editor who's done the exact same thing?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It was closed because no one except you sees a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Then you evidently didn't read all the comments.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sarek is on board with a review, and there is an excellent argument that Roscelese violated 1RR and got away with it. The collapse is definitely premature. Lionel (talk) 06:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I amend my statement: It was closed because no one who is able to do anything about sees a need to do anything it. Nor do I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The second problem is that if it's supposed to be a review of SarekVulcan's actions, why was it necessary for Anythingyouwant to oppose everyone who agrees with SV's POV or else finds it's not worth discussing? I think editors would have been more willing to let it be if it was indeed just an open discussion by uninvolved parties of SV's actions rather then as it came across to me, an attempt by AYW to convince people SV was wrong and indeed deserve to be desysopped without winning much support. Nil Einne (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Calling for desysopping here is baseless. Where is the pattern of tool abuse? This is a possible one-off mistake and nothing more. AYW, can you establish a longstanding pattern of abuse? Clearly, there aren't going to be any sanctions nor even warnings for Sarek. The usual protocol would have been to file at RfC/U (don't do it now as it would seem bad faith) and not come here with "Off with his head".
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 17:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

SoV specifically advised me to bring it here, at his talk page. No, I cannot establish a longstanding pattern of abuse, because I have not encountered SoV until recently. People seem to be telling me here that an administrative action that (let's presume) is POV-biased cannot be remedied in any way whatsoever, without a longstanding pattern of abuse. That seems screwy.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

While de-sysoping for this lone event is going way too far, a warning may be appropriate so that if this admin continues to make one-sided blocks, there will be more of a case against him in the future. Passionless -Talk 22:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I respectfully request a warning.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no consensus in this thread for a warning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) No, what people are telling you, and what you seem determined not to hear is that your interpretation of what happened is the worst possible one, and that they do not agree with your contention that something needs to be done about it. If no administrator is willing to take action, then there is no administrative action to be taken, which is why the thread was collapsed, and should be closed again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen here any plausible explanation by anyone who actually has looked at what happened. A lot of talk, Beyond My Ken, but no one actually explaining why removing controversial material from an article that was inserted by another editor is not a revert. Of course, people like Haymaker will continue to get banned and blocked for such behavior, but people who you and Sarek like won't get blocked or banned. It's obscene, and this page should be re-named the "Administrators Defense and Coverup Noticeboard". Such is Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Insulting admins and fighting for justice is a blockable offense you know, even if you are a senior editor with many barnstars. Passionless -Talk 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that fighting for justice is a blockable offense. Anyway, I'm sure this Noticeboard accomplishes a lot of good things, and the same goes for everyone who comments here. I just see no logic or rationality with regard to this particular incident. So maybe it's me who's stark raving mad.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

When Sarek asked you to come here, it was so that the blocking action itself could be reviewed. It was not so that you could start a desysopping action. After discussion, if a consensus was reached to unblock Haymaker then that would occur. This noticeboard is only the correct venue for desysopping IF and only if there were egregious abuse. You are asking the wrong things and getting frustrated for the wrong reasons. You should have focused on making the argument for unblocking Haymaker not starting a desysopping process. You're barking up the wrong tree. Neither you nor Passionless should be crying injustice. Analogy: A cop hands out a questionable speeding ticket but has a very good record. Do you ask the department to fire him?...especially when the case for the speeding ticket hasn't been heard in court yet?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But I've never said (or thought) that Haymaker shouldn't have been blocked. Roscelese did the exact same thing as Haymaker, and yet only Haymaker was blocked. And incidentally, the edit history of the article shows Sarek has a definite POV in this, and was on Rosecelese's side regarding the content. A warning to Sarek would be fine with me, as I already said.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Roscelese did not do the same thing at all. '1RR' does not mean people dont get to edit your contribution. Haymaker added a clearly POV description. Roscelese, having already reverted once, decided to work it into a tone more appropriate for an encyclopedia rather then reverting it out. That level-headedness and desire to stay within the rules on a heated topic should be commended, not blocked. -- ۩ Mask 00:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

1RR means people can edit your contribution once, and no more. Sarek acknowledged that it was a "revert" when Roscelese changed "abortionist" to "abortion provider". However, Sarek asserts that it was not a revert when Roscelese changed "pro choice activist" to "political scientist". The latter change by Roscelese was obviously an attempt to make the person sound like a neutral "political scientist" instead of a biased activist. There is no edit in the universe that is more a revert than this was, and it makes no difference what your politics are. A revert is a revert. The rule is simple: "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word." This isn't rocket science. I find it kind of funny that not a single person at this page has mentioned the phrase "political scientist" except for me and Diannaa (who merely reported the edits without comment).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this case is pretty simple- two editors both broke 1RR, and an admin blocked only one of the two editors. We are not asking that the admin get in trouble for allegedly taking a side, only that this goes on his record so if a similar situation arises soon that people will remember this case through the warning. I feel the main problem here however is that no admin wants to warn another admin. Passionless -Talk 01:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is misleading to claim that you are not asking to get the admin in trouble when you have already asked for desysoping and fairly early on. As I've already said, that sort of thing has clearly poisoned the well making it difficult for anyone to feel there's much point discussing this. The fact that there are only apparently 2 users pushing hard on it, and continuing to do so after multiple users have said to drop it or don't agree with their POV doesn't help. And it's clear that not everyone agrees the case is simple or that two editors broke 1RR so to claim the problem is because no one wants to warn is also misleading. In fact it's clear quite a number of editors feel it's a borderline case where SV actions and interpretation were justified even if some of them wouldn't have done the same or even recommend the same in the future. And even most of those who don't feel that SV did the right thing don't think it goes as far as to require a warning. Do remember for an admin a formal warning often doesn't even really matter. If it's been made clear to them in multiple discussions some of the community doesn't agree with what they're done, few are going to argue we need to formally warn them before action can be taken. The question can and will remain about their actions not about what formal warnings they may or may not have received. Ultimately there are always going to be cases which are borderline and not everyone may agree with what happened but that's life and there comes a time when you have to accept people despite having seen all the same evidence and given due consideration to what's been said aren't going to agree with your POV, respect that and move of. It would be nice if in life there was always a simple formula we can use to decide exactly what everything is and always come to an agreement, but life isn't like that, often things are subjective and require human judgement and people having seen the same thing don't agree on the outcome. Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The formal definition of a revert (": "A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, ...") cannot be read separately from what the restriction on reverting is supposed to accomplish, namely to prevent edit warring. There is a certain amount of judgement involved (a) in labelling edits as reverts and (b) sanctioning editors who exceed the allowed number, based on whether they're editing constructively or edit warring. That judgement should be applied fairly and evenhandedly, and where there are genuine concerns of WP:INVOLVED then the action should be referred elsewhere. Bottom line: I think it was correct not to block the one editor that wasn't, I'm not quite sure if the other should have been, but it seems a reasonable call, and they can request an unblock if they want. However, next time, on this topic, Sarek should pass the decision to someone else. Now, let's all go do something more constructive. Rd232 ^talk 02:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

"They" do not deserve an unblock, as I've said several times. Rd232, the goal of preventing edit-wars is a fine goal, and it can always be accomplished by blocking only one of the two parties such as the party you dislike or disagree with the most --- and yet preventing an edit-war in that manner is (as I said above) an obscene way to implement 1RR. It's a message to the person not blocked that they can violate Wikipedia rules as much as they want, and that anyone who tries to take countermeasures will be blocked. Anyhow, I'll try to go do something constructive now. April 15 is approaching, after all.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's clear Rd232 isn't saying the other editor didn't deserve a block because they agreed with their POV but rather the other editor may not have deserved a block because their violation wasn't as clear cut a violation of 1RR Nil Einne (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

So here is how I see things; SOV's description of my actions are correct - I added a word, then re-added it, then I added a different word, then re-added it. In order for me to be able to re-add two different edit, both edits that I originally made had to be reverted. Those two reverts were made by Roscelese. I can see where my reverts were more ovbious (sorry about, the 1RR on that article slipped my mind) but Roscelese had to twice remove the material that I added in order for me to be able to re-add it twice. She probably doesn't deserve the same 48 hours that I got but she too broke the 1RR rule on same on the same article that I did. She deserves something.

I don't know what SOV's position on this issue is, as far as I can tell only blocking 1 editor was just an oversight but now that attention has been brought to said oversight it can be solved relatively easily. - Haymaker (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)(copied from Haymaker's talkpage)

It wasn't an oversight, Haymaker -- I tried to apply the same rules to Roscelese's edits that I applied to yours, but I couldn't make it come out the same way. Are there any neutral editors here who can pair up Roscelese's diffs and come up with two reverts in the same way that I paired up Haymaker's diffs?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I counted three uninvolved editors here who came up with two reverts for Roscelese. The definition of a revert is pretty clear, but if you can suggest a clarification of the definition that would be welcome. I didn't want to come to ANI but I followed your suggestion and did so. I also didn't know exactly what to ask for, so I asked for "review" and then "desysopping" and then a "warning". It's hard for an average editor to know exactly what the options are. Nothing personal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There are three uninvolved editors telling you it wasnt a 1RR violation as well, nice of you to leave that part out. -- ۩ Mask 00:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is surreal. Sarek asked above: "Are there any neutral editors here who can pair up Roscelese's diffs and come up with two reverts in the same way that I paired up Haymaker's diffs?" I was answering that question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• (Comment by uninvolved administrator) The call for desysopping are absurd and should not be repeated. I would probably also have left Roscelese (hence R.) but blocked Haymaker (hence H.). Whereas H. seems to have refused to consider the proposed changes at all (by outright-reverting every attempted change), R. tried after every revert to compromise. Roscelese's reverts were not ideal, but in my opinion he was open to compromise and seemed to be embracing the principle of WP:BRD; Haymaker, however, was just trying to 'own' the article. I agree with Sarak's actions here, and see no merit to this complaint. AGK [•] 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Gross incivility and personal attacks

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

The above user's comments are disruptive, in spite of them knowing the applicable policies.

• "Another creationist POV"[36]
• "POV pushing...always entertaining."[37]

In response to those comments, a user requested that they assume good faith, etc.[38]
LeftCoast replied:

• "...I don't give a shit. If he's a dumbfuck that thinks that creationism is real, then he really should be assigned to the denialist bin of the local mental institution...."; "...I don't do well with admins with their pretentious attitudes because they're fat little unemployed fucks who get erections by pretending to be powerful here."; "I really really [...] don't give a shit about hurting some creationists little feelings. Fuck that shit."(diff)

The other user seemed offended by the response in a subsequent comment,[39] to which LeftCoast replied, "... You should review that bullshit policy about personal attacks..."[40] Their actions are a big deal because they seem to be openly attacking people of religion with no intention of stopping. See their userpage for context on their personal beliefs. This seems like a matter where some outside intervention is required, and I don't think I'm able to individually resolve the matter. Swarm ^X 05:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I left a little love note there. - Philippe 06:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the extra set of eyes on this. Unfortunately, I don't think the feeling's mutual.[41] Swarm ^X 06:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this gentleman has crossed the boundaries of civility. However, I'm now involved and (as an involved party) can't take an administrative action against him. I strongly urge others to look carefully at whether or not he's capable of collaborative work in this environment. - Philippe 07:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How exactly are you involved, Philippe? Because you left a note on his talk page? That sounds to me as if you were acting as an admin. Are you involved in an editing dispute with him? If not, I don't think you're involved. Are you saying no admin can block a user they've previously warned? Can admins check me on this? Is Phillipe involved? Take a look at his user page. He's just about declaring war on the rest of Wikipedia. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Phillipe means that they've left a warning so now they're involved. From what I can see, they have no other involvement with this user. Which, of course doesn't make sense. I don't think they're really involved at all. All the same, can someone else take a look? Swarm ^X 09:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that admins ought to avoid taking admin actions in situations where theya re involved as an editor. I read the comment (now removed) that Philippe added, it was a warning, wearing the hat of an admin. (And I might add, a very politely worded warning.) No, assuming that is the only interaction Philippe is not involved, in the sense of editor involvement. --SPhilbrickT 13:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not involved, either; I support a block. The only reason I'm not imposing one is because I seldom seem to block for long enough. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Take a look at his user page. It's a big "SCREW YOU". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• He's on compulsory holiday for a couple of weeks now. Moreschi (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Someone had to lock his talkpage access as well. For someone who clearly prides themselves on their intelligence, he seems curiously ignorant of the usual rules of civilized discourse. Moreschi (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

His last talk page edit is interesting. To quote But I did prove a major point to my friends on Facebook. Polite POV bullshit trumps accurate, evidence-based editing with pointed commentary and you know what, he's right. The problem is civil POV pushing. Some of our cranks and nutters have discovered that if they act like angels (and throwing in a dash of wikilawyery and soupery) while the "mainstreamers" lose their temper and act like complete dicks they can outlast the mainstreamers. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The quote at the top of my user page seems apropos here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I'm really tired; got a heavy RL workload at the moment. Apologies in advance if it makes me a bit incoherent. :) It seems very likely that this is somebody's sock, based on the edit summary here. User:MuZemike seems to suggest socking could be an issue [User_talk:MuZemike#Does_this_kind_of_thing_warrant_a_sock-drawer_check.3F here]. I don't know if this is some kind of WP:POINT, but a finite block may not really be the answer, that taken into account. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 03:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• It's funny that the concern about civil POV pushers has been brought up while a the thread below this one deals with that very thing and is largely ignored. I also agree that this is probably a sock. Swarm ^X 03:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Middayexpress

Middayexpress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly throwing allegations of personal bias against well-established editors that disagree with him. I'd like to ask an administrator to step in and perhaps issue a warning for this to stop.

Under his definition "non-neutral parties" are anyone who disagrees with his position.

Danlaycock (talk · contribs) automatically became an "open supporter of Somaliland" when he uploaded a photo of a map of the Horn of Africa showing Somaliland separate from Somalia. Quote: "One of those accounts has protested that I have no proof that he is a supporter of Somaliland's independence and that he is therefore indeed a "neutral" Rfc participant. I believe this is absurd since he recently uploaded a non-free fringe map depicting an independent Somaliland "country" juxtaposed by the Somalia it is internationally recognized as being an autonomous region of."

Middayexpress opened a thread on the ANI in January, where he introduced both Danlaycock and I (Night w (talk · contribs) as "open supporters of Somaliland".

In February, I weighed in on an RfC with which he was involved, where I was immediately labelled as one of the "old pro-secessionist Somaliland accounts".

Recently, Danlaycock was labelled as "one of the pro-Somaliland accounts" when he opined on another RfC on the same page. In the same RfC, after repeatedly asking the other user to desist, he was labelled, often offhandedly, as "partisan", an "open supporter of Somaliland's self-declared independence".

Can someone stop this please? They're baseless accusations associated with a subject where I very rarely edit. Nightw 06:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's only by coincidence that I happen to see this thread, but myself and several other users have previously noted both biased editing and bad faith assumptions on the part of Middayexpress. There was a strong consensus that the the article for Somalia was biased, but when it was rewritten accordingly, they accused virtually every other editor of bias and bad faith. I can dig up diffs if need be, but I thought I'd mention that there's a pretty clear history of this behavior. Swarm ^X 06:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I, too, have been the target of Middayexpress' baseless accusations of Somaliland bias. Night is absolutely correct in his assessment that if anyone disagrees with Middayexpress' very rigid POV, he or she is automatically labeled a Somaliland nationalist. --Taivo (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Note: User:Copper button has been notified of this discussion due to his participation in the discussion on Talk:al-Shabaab TDL (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress' response

All of the accounts above are accounts that I have encountered in some form or another on the Somali-related articles. User:Swarm is an account I encountered in a separate, long-resolved discussion on the Somalia talk page who doesn't appear to like me very much and who, together with User:Danlaycock, actually tried (albeit unsuccessfully) to get me blocked only last month [42]. The User:Night w and User:Taivo accounts are both indeed open supporters of Somaliland, a self-declared sovereign state that is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia (as can be readily observed, for example, via their many pro-Somaliland comments here). Nightw above links to a Third Opinion discussion on the Al-Shabaab talk page, where I indeed pointed out to him the basic fact that he is an open supporter of Somaliland's secession; however, he neglects to mention that I did so in the first place not to "attack" him as he absurdly insinuates but because he attempted to weigh in on a Third Opinion discussion that I and another party were having over the same Somaliland region's alleged ties with the Al-Shabaab insurgent group in southern Somalia while WP:Third opinion quite clearly stipulates that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute" (which of course automatically rules him out, as well as all of the other accounts listed above).

Basically, the sole purpose of Nightw's post above is to attempt to demonize me; there was no recent "incident" to report. As can be easily confirmed by checking my contributions, this is a user with whom I have actually not had any contact for months; the same goes for Taivo. So why the AN/I post, you ask? Because presently, there is an Rfc going on on the Al-Shabaab talk page over the same Somaliland-related issue I mentioned earlier (and which none of the accounts above were even involved in to begin with, Danlaycock/TDL notwithstanding; he belatedly attempted to provide a "neutral" third opinion anyway). However, that same WP:Third opinion instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute" of course still makes it difficult for the OP (and the other parties) to credibly weigh in on it, as he attempted to do before. So trying to demonize me as much as possible -- although, again, we haven't even had any contact for months -- is pretty much the only avenue that's left. Note that at the top of this AN/I board, it is also emphasized in bold letters that "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page". Nightw never even bothered contacting me about any grievance he may have had (and that's probably because he wasn't even involved in said talk page discussion to begin with); the only message I got from him was a notification of this self-serving, opportunistic post. Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Danlaycock's response

This issue first arose during this discussion on AN/I. I was previously aware of the dispute, although I had not commented on the matter, and noticed that Middayexpress had failed to notify the involved editors ([43]) that he had just reported them to AN/I. When I left a response I was immediately personally attacked. Middayexpress insisted that because I had uploaded this map I was obviously not neutral. Middayexpress repeatedly accused me of not including the source of the map, of lying about the source, and suggested that it was from a "partisan source" in spite of the fact that the source of the map was clear in the fair use rational from the very beginning.

The dispute latter resurfaced due to an issue on the al-Shabaab article which Middayexpress brought up on the RS Noticeboard. Knowing the history, I suspected the other editor hadn't been notified, which turned out to be the case again, so I notified User:Copper_button and left a comment pointing out that Copper_button didn't dispute the reliability of the source, but rather was advocating for a reword using the same sources. Once again, I was immediately attacked, and labeled as "one of a group of accounts that are open supporters of Somaliland's secession".

Since this time, Middayexpress had repeatedly suggested that since I uploaded this map I'm biased pro-Somaliland: [44] [45] [46].

He's also suggested that I (and Night) can't comment on the al-Shabaab article because of our alleged bias: [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52].

Other recent examples where Middayexpress has accused editors of being "Open supporters of Somaliland" (or some variant of this): [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59].

I've repeatedly requested that if Middayexpress has an issue with me personally, that s/he should take it to AN/I and focus on the content on the talk page. I've also suggested multiple times that if s/he objects to the map I uploaded, the solution is to file a WP:FFD: [60] [61] [62]. However, s/he has refused to do this and seems to prefer to keep it around so that it can be used as "evidence" of my pro-Somaliland bias whenever I make a comment.

And finally, it seems from the post by Middayexpress directly above that s/he's still making these unsupported "open supporters of Somaliland" personal attacks against several established users. TDL (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the full extent of my Somalia related edit history in article space is: 11 edits to Somaliland, 8 to Somalia, 2 to East Africa, and uploading the map discussed above. I've reverted plenty of "pro-Somaliland" edits ([63] [64]), so beyond the fact that the attacks are uncalled for, they aren't justified. Middayexpress edits almost exclusively East African (predominantly Somali) related articles. I've been editing here for almost 6 years and have never been so much as warned for my actions, let alone blocked. Midddayexpress' history speaks for itself. TDL (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress' reply

The foregoing post by User:Danlaycock/TDL is an utterly disingenuous but rather predictable attempt to cast aspersions on my edits by attempting to tie previous run-ins on other pages (some from months ago) that I have had with his account and other pro-Somaliland accounts that also regularly post on the List of sovereign states article (including User:Night w and User:Taivo) with the completely separate, current dispute involving just myself and User:Copper button on the Al-Shabaab article's talk page. As can clearly be seen here, this dispute never involved any of the accounts above (though Danlaycock/TDL certainly tried to get in on it), nor was there any "incident" to report, Again, per his own admission ("You will recall that I did hold back from offering an opinion when the third opinion was requested previously" [65]), he never could provide a "neutral" third party opinion in the first place after the Third Opinion initiative had already been filed by Copper button (the other actual disputant) because of WP:Third opinion's clear instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response [should] not offer a third opinion on that dispute". Copper button subsequently filed an Rfc to help resolve the matter between myself and him [66], in the process again logically listing just myself and him as the two disputants, just as he had done with the earlier Third Opinion initiative (c.f. [67]). Danlaycock/TDL then rather predictably showed up again yesterday, trying very hard to share his supposedly "neutral" opinion (remember that this is someone who just last month tried to have me blocked on another article [68]) -- this despite the fact that I had repeatedly pointed out to him that WP:Third opinion's neutral third party directive still applied since a "Respondent or Third party is the person (usually a third opinion contributor) providing the third opinion" [69]. Besides the transparent, all-but-the-kitchen sink attempt to demonize me above, Danlaycock/TDL also clearly missed the instruction at the top of this AN/I board not to "clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion" and that "this page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues". Middayexpress (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As I've explained to you several times, all of the policy you quote here refers exclusively to WP:3Os. As you correctly pointed out, I intentionally didn't partake in the third opinion, because I knew that you would just attack me as non-neutral. However, the third opinion took place a month ago and little progress has been made. The current discussion is as a result of a WP:RFC. WP:3O policy doesn't forbid me from contributing to WP:RFCs, or to the article in general. Please explain why you think I should be banned from this article?

PS: Continuing your personal attacks here, as you did with the comments "his account and other pro-Somaliland accounts", isn't going to help your situation. I'd suggest retracting this statement. TDL (talk) 23:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never forbidden you from contributing material to the article nor requested that you be "banned" from editing it, so those strawman arguments are beside the point. It's the fact that you are clearly not a neutral editor vis-a-vis one of the two disputants (i.e. me) that makes it unlikely that you can offer a truly neutral third party opinion. Indeed, you even at one point accused [70] me of being a "Somali nationalist" without my even having so much as once divulged my ethnicity anywhere on this website. That is both highly presumptuous and contrary to Wikipedia's instruction that third parties should "try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions" and "Mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart". Middayexpress (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress continues to call me an "open supporter of Somaliland" while failing to note that he is far more active in an anti-Somaliland campaign than anyone he has mentioned as a "Somaliland supporter". My position has always been clear--Somaliland is a de facto sovereign state and should be set apart from other state names by italics with note on its disputed status. That is hardly the position of "a supporter of Somaliland". Indeed, Middayexpress' objections to the very mention of Somaliland, even when italicized with a note on its disputed status, is a clear indication that his own bias colors anything he says about other editors. Middayexpress, parroting Danlaycock above, your continued personal attacks and comments here are not going to help your situation. --Taivo (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Repeatedly having to point out the basic fact that Somaliland is internationally recognized as an autonomous region of Somalia [71] to folks who have stated outright that "there is a country named "Somaliland". It doesn't exist as a "fringe" theory--it exists" [72] is not being "anti-Somaliland". It's just stating facts. It's also difficult to see how I am involved, as you say, in an "anti-Somaliland campaign" when I actually furnished most of the images and a lot of the text on the articles of the sub-regions of and people from the territory, just like I've done with just about every other Somali region. As one of the main contributors to WikiProject Somalia, this is to be expected. Unprovoked personal attacks from editors I haven't even had any contact with for months, on the other hand, are completely uncalled for. Let it go already; this is not the place to carry on disputes. Besides being plain unhealthy, holding grudges is against the very spirit of Wikipedia. In future, it would be best to concentrate on working together to actually improve the encyclopedia rather than wasting time playing gotcha! and engaging in petty recrimination. Middayexpress (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Where has anyone disagree with you over the fact that Somalia claims Somaliland as an autonomous region? The fact that Somaliland declared independence and controls it's territory, in spite of being completely unrecognized by other states, doesn't contradict this. Just because other states don't recognize Somaliland doesn't mean that RS don't consider it to be de facto independent. [73] This is notable information that belongs in an encyclopedia. TDL (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Kindly stop talking about the politics of secession. They are irrelevant to the dispute between Copper button and I -- not you or any of the other accounts above -- and an unwelcome distraction from the ongoing RFC regarding the two proposed draft paragraphs (the incumbent one vs. Copper's new proposed draft edit). Middayexpress (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I declare my interest as having been involved in discussion with this editor in January 2010 (and not since, as I recall). This is the editor who once argued that all pro-Somaliland-independence sources were inherently unreliable, and therefore that pro-Somaliland arguments are unsourced (curiously, this didn't apply to anti-Somaliland-independence sources, which were treated as paragons of neutrality even when they were openly campaigning). Shoot, this is the editor who once sustained an argument that any state that does not control 100% of its claimed territory does not de facto exist - a suggestion that would doubtless come as something of a surprise to those in the US, UK, Australia, New Zealand, China, India and many others who are, we are presumably to believe, experiencing mass delusions about their countries' de facto existence.

We should not be surprised that he's still labelling as "open supporters of Somaliland" anyone who does not accept that the pro-Somaliland-independence POV must not be allowed on Wikipedia. Doubtless we've seen many other people saying many similar things in other subject areas. But if this is still going on, I think we as a community need to consider whether it is really constructive having someone editing these articles who is so consistently unable to see past their own POV on their subject matter. Pfainuk talk 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The User:Pfainuk above is yet another one of the aforementioned group of accounts from the List of sovereign states article. That unprovoked personal attack above is another very transparent attempt to cast aspersions on my edits by (a) completely misrepresenting the actual nature of previous, long-resolved and unrelated disputes, and (b) trying to then tie those previous run-ins on other pages (some from months ago) that I have had with his account and other pro-Somaliland accounts that also regularly post on said article with the completely separate, current dispute involving just myself and User:Copper button on the Al-Shabaab article's talk page. As can clearly be seen here, this dispute never involved any of the accounts above, nor was there any "incident" to report, The user has also clearly missed the instruction at the top of this AN/I board not to "clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion" and that "this page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues". Middayexpress (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, please retract the statement "his account and other pro-Somaliland accounts". Continuing with these personal attacks here (with no justification) isn't going to help your situation. Do you have any intention of stopping the personal attacks? TDL (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I hate to be "that guy", but is it possible an admin could resolve this soon? I feel like this is getting cluttered with accusation/counter-accusation as spillover from the talk page or something and it's clear to me that neither one of these editors are willing to work together let alone be the bigger man and just let the other have the last word. It'd be nice if this got resolved soon. Sorry, just my opinion. Dachknanddarice (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Valid point. I tried to end my first post today on a positive note, indicating that "in future, it would be best to concentrate on working together to actually improve the encyclopedia rather than wasting time playing gotcha! and engaging in petty recrimination", But of course, that fell on deaf ears. My offer, however, still stands and was sincere. Middayexpress (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem, Middayexpress, is not only your personal accusations against any editor as being "pro-Somaliland" if they are other than strictly against mentioning Somaliland in any way shape or form. Indeed, there was a mediation earlier this year on how to treat Somaliland in the East Africa article. Throughout the mediation you were absolutely, positively focused on preventing any mention of Somaliland whatsoever in text or in footnote. You were completely inflexible in your POV and eventually simply abandoned the mediation because no other editor was being as inflexible and uncompromising as you were. When the other editors began editing based on the non-Middayexpress consensus, you started an edit war on the matter. Don't start trying to sound like an editor that plays well with others. You don't. --Taivo (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I could easily debunk your comments above regarding who supposedly started "edit wars" from old, completely unrelated and long-resolved disputes on other pages and launch more counter-accusations of my own. However, I won't take the bait because those unhelpful remarks are completely irrelevant to the actual ongoing dispute and Rfc (that neither you nor any of the other accounts above were a part of in the first place). Looks like I will have to be the bigger man that Dachknanddarice alluded to. My offer to work together to actually improve the encyclopedia rather than wasting time playing gotcha! and engaging in petty recrimination still stands. Middayexpress (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to try (and have attempted) to work together with you to address these issues. However, you've repeatedly refused to consider my arguments with statements such as "No point in addressing a user who probably shouldn't even be responding to the Rfc in the first place" because in your words I'm "an open supporter of the Somaliland region's self-declared independence". If you are willing to agree to cease making these completely unsupported personal attacks, and to stop insisting that I shouldn't be allowed to contribute on the al-Shabaab talk page, then perhaps we can work together to solve these issue? If not, then I don't see much hope of a collaborative environment developing. TDL (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

...and as I'm sure you're already aware (since I did, after all, tell you as much [74]), I also indicated that I would first "ask an admin whether this quite logical precept still applies" viz. whether or not WP:Third opinion's instruction that editors who have had "dealings with the article or with the editors involved in the dispute which would bias your response" still applies to third party RFC respondents since WIki defines a "Respondent or Third party [as] the person (usually a third opinion contributor) providing the third opinion" [75]. The admin has since contacted me back, indicating that "in practice, partisans or participants in a dispute often comment at related RFCs" and that "there doesn't seem to be any way of stopping this from happening". However, he has not addressed whether or not there is a policy actually permitting or forbidding this. I'll try and ask another admin just to make sure. Middayexpress (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Just so we're all clear here, your answers to my questions are:

• a) you have no intention of stopping your unsupported personal attacks, such as calling other editors "partisans"?
• b) you intend to continue to insist that editors who disagree with your POV should not be allowed to respond on Talk:al-Shabaab?

Unless you change your position on these issues, I'm not sure how we'd be able to "work together". TDL (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been notified of this discussion as the second editor currently involved at Talk:al-Shabaab but I'm not really involved in this dispute, which seems to have different roots. Although I've found trying to negotiate with User:Middayexpress quite frustrating at times, I don't think anything happened that needs administrator intervention. My only request would be for comments at our RFC (Talk:al-Shabaab#Somaliland RFC) which has so far only attracted one other editor. --Copper button 21:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

While my negotiations with Copper button have also been somewhat frustrating, I also would not characterize them as requiring administrative intervention. Indeed, prior to the Third Opinion and Rfc stalemates, much (albeit slow) progress had been made. As I indicated in my talk page remarks, I also welcome Rfc comments. However, they must respect WP:RFC's aforementioned instructions to "try not to be confrontational. Be friendly and civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions" and to "mediate where possible — identify common ground, attempt to draw editors together rather than push them apart." Middayexpress (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Middayexpress, working with you has been frustrating every single time that we have crossed paths. Your absolute refusal to admit of any mention of Somaliland as a de facto state--either in text or footnote and marked as disputed--leads to a complete breakdown of communication in every case. --Taivo (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I agree that Middayexpress's repeated assumptions of bad faith and bias are extremely counter-productive and cross the boundaries of civility. I won't further extend this thread with my own horror stories, but I just want to stress that some intervention is needed- without the above dramafest. For reference, more of this behavior (POV pushing and accusations alike) can be seen at Talk:Somalia. Regards,Swarm ^X 03:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Still no word from an admin? Nightw 04:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you want an Admin to do? Believe it or not, Admins aren't cops, we don't go around looking for people who deserve sanctioning. Well, none of us who are still around do stuff like that; the cowboys have got tired, moved on, or had their Admin bits revoked. Have you followed the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? Or at least tried mediation? (No, I'm not volunteering: once upon a time I tried to be a Mediator, back before most of you had even heard of Wikipedia; I did a crappy job of it & resigned.) We have a conflict which, if you take the time to think it thru, is based on nationalist pride: I doubt any Somali is very happy about the situation in Somalia, & are going to approach the subject from the heart not from the head. So unless you folks involved try the DR path, I'd be surprised if any Admin will touch this: they want to know first that every other step has been tried before considering whether to block or ban anyone -- which is all an Admin can do. And only will do if this is clearly the community's consensus. -- llywrch (talk) 05:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for the help. Swarm ^X 08:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Iaaasi

Iaaasi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It is time to review the unblocking of Iaaasi. Iaaasi is an extremely disruptive editor with a long history of abuse [76]. Iaaasi was unblocked following a cited "mild consensus" in [77] this discussion. However there are some reasons now to reverse that decision:

• - The unblocking proposal was based on the outrageous lie that Iaaasi did not sock since March [78] This lie was told by Iaaasi on IRC on September 27 (check the dates on socks before that date[79]). Since Iaaasi lied to a person in a position of high trust (MuZemike, Administrator and CheckUser) the effect of the lie was devastating to the integrity of the discussion.
• - The discussion took place during IRC canvassing, with multiple people commenting confirming this. One participant even said: "I dislike the IRC canvassing" [80]
• -Several people only supported the unblock with a full topic ban yet none was imposed at the time of unblock

So the consensus was 1. Based on a lie 2. Based on IRC canvassing 3. Based on votes actually supporting a topic ban.

Please note that IRC actions are not always transparent to the on-wikipedia community. Things such as Unblock request spam is somewhat evident on wiki, by counting the number of UBs on socks and main account (dare anyone to try to add it all up) but there is evidence to IRC requests as well [81] With the case of IRC requests responders may be unaware of previous requests. They are even hard to find if they posted about on wikipedia (diff above). Thus the community is unaware of the previous actions, and most previous declined requests. If dozens of admins decline to unblock that certainly shows something in way of consensus doesn't it?

Yet the unblock happened, let's see what changed since then. Iaaasi was recently blocked again(5RR), proving once more he is highly disruptive. [82] This block was about the 25th block [83] he recieved, he immediately reacted with posting three different unblock requests, previously he posted about 15 of them, on various accounts. Funny how all the declined unblock requests are later, discounted and forgotten huh? In fact before Iaaasi was unblocked he had an unblock request declined 20 minutes prior... [84] Yes let me repeat that, 20 minutes later Iaaasi already submitted a new unblock request which was accepted [85].

So the unblock was done in EXTREMELY questionable circumstances, to say the least. Iaaasi is back to disrupting wikipedia continuing the exact same patterns, the exact same types of edits only with more gaming more wikilawyering and more pushing the limits. We have confirmation that he is abusing IRC in various ways, fishing for reverts, canvassing, you name it.

Simply put Iaaasi have exhausted the patience of the community by operating a multitude of sockpuppets for well over 2000 edits and various other antics. There is no way he is a net positive to the project under these circumstances.

Proposal1 : Iaaasi to be banned from wikipedia indefinitely

Proposal2 : Iaaasi is topic banned from Central and Eastern European topics broadly defined indefinitely.

Please indicate below whether you support or oppose the proposals.

• Support Siteban Hobartimus (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban Hobartimus (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment When I got noticed about the fact that the indef block of Iaaasi was countermanded, I believed that that couldn't be any other thing than a joke ,and no it wasn't. First I would like to quote what administrator Toddst1 told about the case [86] when the voting was about the second chance of Iaaasi that "This user has exhibited some seriously racist hatemongering. Please read [87]. This should have been logged as an WP:ARBMAC block. I think unblocking would be bad for the community in general even without the sockery.". And then one another administrator FisherQueen told the one detected sockpuppet of Iaaasi that " You really have broken too many rules for us to allow you to edit at all. If this information is truly important, it's inevitable that someone else will eventually add it, but you seem not to understand that you really are blocked from editing the encyclopedia at all. You've created so many sockpuppet accounts that it's very unlikely that you'll ever find an admin willing to unblock you, or at least, not until several years have passed without any more edits from you. You've tried often enough that you know now that any accounts you make will be blocked, and the changes you want won't be made by you"[88]. But ,unfortunately, sometimes there are when the impossible things come true, and now Iaaasi is allowed to edit the English Wikipedia under a legal account. And now the user follows me onto almost all of the pages that I posted on or edited from the onset of his unblock even though I do not want to encounter this user, but so were with his sockpuppets ,too, that followed me around on Wikipedia, and when I wanted to commence check user investigations concerning this user, or I just mentioned my suspicion in connection with his sockpuppetry to an administrator, the sockpuppet still emerged at the same place to hoodwink the administrator that he was not a sockpuppet of Iaaasi.--Nmate (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support Siteban--Nmate (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment – If I may, I would like to direct those involved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi as well as the previous SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iaaasi/Archive#15 March 2011. All of the socks submitted have not edited since July 2010 at the latest, but yet they are just now being brought up at SPI, while Iaaasi is currently blocked for 3RR (which may be interpreted as akin to kicking a defenseless person while down). I'm sorry, but I have to question the motivation behind this proposal, as it looks like skeleton-digging to me and an attempt to Iaaasi re-blocked for something in which he was already blocked for. Moreover, there are other commentary made by other users [89] who question this same motivation. –MuZemike 15:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

So what suggests you that Iaaasi being blocked for a violation of 3RR, MuZemike?--Nmate (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, assuming I don't have ESP to read other admins' minds, I'm looking at his block log. –MuZemike 16:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear MuZemike, before commenting anything on this case, first can you please explain to the community, why did you post the following to Wikipedia from a position of high trust? since his block this past March for disruption, and he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. as opposed to reality [90]. Was this because of the IRC lies told by Iaaasi? Hobartimus (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Simple answer. I have not seen the additional socks, nor was I aware of any additional socking, if that is true, then I have nothing else to say. Before this past week, I have not communicated with Iaaasi since virtually his unblock; it has only been the last couple of days that I have been communicating with him as a result of the two previous SPI cases. If he is socking again, then I am the one who would be very disappointed, and I'll let the community carry on with whatever they choose fit to decide. –MuZemike 19:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You see that answer is far from simple. In fact it's extremely complicated, first in your reply you say "additional socking" as compared to what? Your original comment clearly states "has not shown to have socked during this period of time". So what is additional here? On the day in question the user page of Iaaasi looked exactly like this, [91] with the links to the categories clearly visible [92] [93]. Once again, the comment posted by you following your extended IRC discussion with Iaaasi [94] and the reality [95] In your comment you also claim "He has been consistently constructive over at simple.wiki and at ro.wiki". Did you have help in determining that the contributions were constructive, or do you have a native like understanding of the Romanian language as well? Hobartimus (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That being said, also keep in mind that on User:Hobartimus/sandbox4, all the socks were from last year; User:Zzzsolt, while it says "15 April 2011" was part of the recent two SPI cases which was just discovered, and you list 3 more suspected socks, all of which have last edited in June 2010. Why reporting them now? Do you have evidence that Iaaasi is or has been socking in 2011? Because how I see it, we're basically having the exact same ban discussion from earlier, except you seem to be digging up whatever old sock puppets you can find to be taking into account stuff he did back in 2010 as the result of his first indef block in order to try and sway the community in your favor. –MuZemike 19:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Why reporting them now? Because they were discovered now... Because some members of the community were busy spreading statements about "no socking" and "constructive contributions", instead of investigating finding and handling them at the time, when it should have been done. Isn't it the admins job to enforce policy? Why wasn't policy enforced, why were these socks not blocked at the time? Aren't you an admin with the CheckUser access? You ask me why the sockpuppets were not found earlier? Hobartimus (talk) 19:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

First off, I wasn't a CheckUser at the time, and even after the fact (i.e. September 2010), there was no reason for me to "go fishing" for further socks. Unless you brought something up privately with another CU or even another admin about suspicions of further socks; no SPI cases were ever filed until a couple of days ago; I cannot be everywhere at once who is able to "sense everything". Unless there are more socks after August 2010 which we don't know about, he has kept clean for several months, at which point I requested the community reconsider the indef block, which achieved a rough consensus in support of. –MuZemike 20:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are definitely more socks after August 2010. Were you unaware of this? Does anyone read any of the evidence presented in these cases? Hobartimus (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tell us who they are then, and provide some evidence. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Warning Since we have confirmation of abusive stealth canvassing (on IRC) from the last discussion, [96] I explicitly ask everyone to not whether the same thing is going on here now (Iaaasi going to IRC urging others to post on his behalf in an extremely abusive manner trying to derail consensus). Please preserve any off-wiki communication you have with Iaaasi because if the IRC abuse case goes to arbitration, the committee would presumably want to look at all the evidence. (Note MuZemike has a history of communicating on IRC with Iaaasi, so I would ask him if he was explicitly asked to comment above by Iaaasi, or influenced in any way by off-wiki communication) Hobartimus (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't see any evidence of recent sockpuppetry. If a past decision to unblock is now judged to be wrong, we'll just have to live with that - we don't ban people as punishment for past problems, we only do it to prevent future disruption. So lets leave the current block to expire, and then consider taking action if necessary based on future behaviour. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you please comment, to confirm or deny whether you were canvassed on IRC by Iaaasi into this present discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I was not -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oppose per Boing; this seems very punitive and vindictive to me. Also, since when has off-wiki interaction been considered in on-wiki blocks and bans? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 16:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Will you please comment, to confirm or deny whether you were canvassed on IRC by Iaaasi into this present discussion. Hobartimus (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I go on Wikipedia IRC only twice a month and have never had any contact with this user. How about you learn to assume a bit of good faith? Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 16:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I do assume good faith. But with confirmed abuse on IRC in the past in a discussion like this, and confirmation below that Iaaasi is presently on IRC right now, you could see that it may be important to get the facts straight. And you seem to have misunderstood the request, off wiki behavior is not the reason to block, present and past disruption and abuse on-wiki is the reason to block [97]. Including as administrator Toddst1 put it "seriously racist hate mongering"[98]. Hobartimus (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - How ironic that at the time of this proposal an additional method of Iaaasi has surfaced as well: he seems to be keen on harassing users on accusations of sockpuppetry regardless of whether it's proven or not. In this case he seemed to have achieved the blocking of an innocent user that's been caught up in the crossfire between Iaaasi and some others with the user's only fault being the fact that he was a regular editor of the Golden Team article. The accusation of sockpuppetry was also quite hypocritic from a user who has his own list of sockpuppets (though truth be said, it still pales to Bonaparte in comparison). In fact I still don't know what was anyone thinking when they voted to allow Iaaasi to come back....
  

The other thing that amazed me about Iaaasi's attitude was his obvious lack of respect for even the most credible sources (provided they don't fit his agenda): this was the first occasion when he removed the source in question (an academic source published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences). He also proceeded to remove the same source from the Matthias Corvinus article and used an absolutely bogus and irrelevant argument for defending his move much like in the John Hunyadi article, albeit with some difference in wording. All in all I

• Support a complete site ban as per the reasons above and the fact that I fear it's unlikely that his attitude might and will change in the future. I think that the site ban is necessary due to the fact that Iaaasi might view his methods as "useful tools" in "settling disputes" (i.e. silencing any opposition) in any other topics as well, should he be given a topic ban only. CoolKoon (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Apparently Iaaasi's currently online on IRC. He doesn't say much though, only seeking the help of admins. Interestingly enough he only seems to appear there when he wants support for his cause. CoolKoon (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I was pretty shocked when Iaaasi was unblocked without providing a response to this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Iaaasi asked to be unblocked so that he could post here at ANI. I declined the unblock and offered to transfer any comments from his talk page to this board. So far he has not posted anything but I am watching for a response and will copy it here when it appears. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I've been sort of half-following and occasionally commenting on this rather tedious battle. There's quite a bit of apparent acrimony between Nmate and Iaaasi, and between Hobartimus and Iaaasi. Some problems with Nmate's editing are in this thread from a few days ago. IMHO there was no intervention because the editing from all sides was pretty bad, and the dispute is too complex for outside observers to reach reliable conclusions about. Iaaasi has made some good contributions and also (IMHO) some subtly tendentious edits that he defends with wikilawyering. Be that as it may, I have NOT seen evidence of further socking since his unblock, and I think Nmate focuses too much about the pre-block socking which is not news. If Nmate has evidence of recent socking, s/he should please post it. My alternate hypothesis is that Iaaasi has become skillful enough with WP content guidelines to be able to game them without having to resort to socking, which of course isn't a good thing either. I hate extended DR but I don't see a way to get to the bottom of this short of an RFC/U that would have to examine the edits of several of Iaaasi's opponents as well as that of Iaaasi himself. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The socking was never the issue it was the disruption caused by the socks. Edit warring, harassment, wikilawyering, gaming, etc. If you look for signs of recent disruption you should look over Iaaasi's recent contributions, or might consider the fact that he is currently blocked for disruption. Btw, the original unblock given, was conditional on being fully reblocked on further disruption. Now that disruption was proven this shouldn't even be a question. Hobartimus (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's blocked for some lame revert warring, with unblock requests declined because he should know better by now, but excessive reverting per se is fairly low on the disruption scale, which is why he only got 1 week block. One of the reviewing admins made noises about indef if the disruption continues; we're not there yet though. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose As other editors stated there are no evidence of recent sock-puppetry. He can`t be banned again for something he was already banned before, otherwise one user who receives a block could be blocked indefinetly and never receive a second chance by all this. He was banned for a arbitrary rule (3RR) that doesn`t really state anything that Iaaasi is acting like before(sock puppets and similar). I also don`t think it is right to file a report about someone who is blocked and doesn`t have a possibility to defend himself. Adrian (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Could someone ask for a Commons checkuser to look into this? commons:user:Hobartimus was created in February so data might still be around. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I don`t believe it was really Hobartimus, especially because that day he had activity on Wikipedia at 23:13 and commons 15:03. I don`t really know, when someone logs in your commons account, is that the same account as on wiki? Can that person, once he had access to commons account to use the wiki account also? Anyway, maybe there should be a check on this matter to avoid any further confusion. Adrian (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Adrian, there is a feature called Unified login that allows a single account to be linked across all the Wikimedia sites. However, Hobartimus is not enrolled in it.[99] I proposed a checkuser because that might be able to tell who (if anyone) impersonated Hobartimus. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Me neither, I think it's quite obvious that it's a sock made by someone with the intent of libeling Hobartimus. The problem with Commons is that you have to log in in order to be able to upload anything. The account created on Commons doesn't have to correspond to your account on EN WP at all, just like it's the case with WP in other languages. A unified account is a convenient tool for preventing similar situations from happening in the FUTURE, but doesn't help in resolving issues like this. I'd say that these require some sort of arbitration by admins. CoolKoon (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Now THAT is an excellent idea indeed! Good job, AB from Oakland, CA ;) Even if the SPI won't reveal Iaaasi's connection to this account, I have a feeling he isn't by far the only one who doesn't see eye to eye with Hobartimus (to say at least) so it might reveal a sockpuppeteer for sure... CoolKoon (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral (for now) I think that perhaps the most involved and a neutral editor on the Hunyadi articles with the least experience of Iaaasi before the socking began is perhaps me.

It is true that Iaaasi can be domineering in arguments, his warning on my page for redacting his Stubes comments off the John Hunyadi article were somewhat aggressive, although this seems to be true to his form. In the last six months he has argued vehemently with other users, taking it to their talk page and putting multiple posts before they have responded, I believe that in his time-frame quick is ten minutes and slow is an hour :¬)

There have been plenty of discussions and editing approaching warring, the main problem is that the editors who mostly edit the Hunyadi page are either swamped with Iaaasi's enthusiasm about the Romanian aspects or by a general brow-beating to which they quickly succumb. There is also the problem of him introducing the "this might be a sock of Stubes" all the time, that really has to stop as it really does Iaaasi no good at all - report it to the appropriate notice board and once a decision is made, then act rather than putting it all over article and user talk pages. For the articles he is involved with it takes a lot of work to get him to co-operate in discussions before reverting and, once BRD has been circumvented, he does not really take the point that consensus is the way forwards before the second revert.

In reality it is difficult to opine on the previous behaviour. It seems to me that he has calmed down and the week block has not been evaded (to my knowledge) or any nasty posts made on his talk page. There were some recent posts on his talk page during his block that were not really to do with an unblock request and seem more of him keeping an eye on things - posts he would normally have put on a user sub-page and which he has deleted today.

My main concern is the build up of this feud. People are collecting evidence against each other and I suspect that the situation must be resolved before any further progress can be made. Collecting evidence which proves ones innocence and another's guilt is, in reality, that old "I am in a war" scenario that is to be avoided at all costs - escalation is inevitable.

Iaaasi's block runs out tomorrow. There have been several of the old crowd editing the John Hunyadi page after coming out of their shell holes, I hope that there will not be any edit warring over the work that has been done since Iaaasi was prevented from editing. I have kept an eye on them and they seem fine, but we will see what happens once his block is lifted.

In conclusion I suggest that Iaaasi tries to get out of his very narrow scope of editing and tries to look at a more broad set of articles that he can turn his hand to. He is an excellent researcher and has, in my opinion, tried to gain more balance in his editing. That said, he really does need to stop at the first revert, discuss, and if consensus is not found, he needs to learn to let it go. After the improvements that I have seen in his behaviour it is true that he still needs constant watching and prodding with the NPOV stick every now and again - but I really do think that a permanent block, whether or not it should have been given earlier, is not appropriate now. Someone who has had that many socks, entered into so much warring and wikilawyering can also learn to edit in a collegial fashion. I would hope that he has learnt by this block that it is better to edit than not and that he will also have learned that warring achieves nothing. I urge him to look for guidance and consensus much earlier on in disputes and once he can abide by BRD things will be better for all.

(I have not supplied any diffs as I do not think they are necessary and would perhaps just add fuel to any fire - If anyone has a need for them I will be happy to supply anything requested) Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose It seems to me that User:Hobartimus just will not let go. He is constantly trying to amass any evidence he can to try to rid User:Iaaasi - as can be clearly seen at User:Hobartimus/sandbox4 where some considerable time has been spent to document every possible (old) error by User:Iaaasi. The consensus was to give User:Iaaasi a second chance offer (not to just unblock unreserveably) , he formally accepted that offer, did the second chance requirements, and was finally unblocked on the 8th December. Since that time, as far as we know, he has continued to edit under a single user name. I see no point in continually dragging up old history just because some editor dislikes him. If a new (post Dec 8th) sock can be found then I'm for a ban, but we have stated that he could have a second chance, and I think that to now revoke it would give a bad impression to others - are we going to say to other editors "Have a second chance, but we might block you again if the mood takes us"? We must not lose sight of the policy The purpose of blocking is prevention, not punishment - to me this request is all about punishment, not prevention. It's time to let it go and get back to building an encyclopedia  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There was no consensus. Please do not claim there was a consensus when there was only 4 users who supported the unblock, who didn't either 1. want a topic ban imposed 2. were mentioning the lie that WP:OFFER applies because of the big lie that Iaaasi did not sock. 3. mentioning that they came to vote after persuaded on IRC. These false claims of consensus are getting really really annoying. Please also note that unblocking someone 20 minutes after their request was declined by another administrator (in this case Sandstein) is a very interesting procedure to say the least. Hobartimus (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's no longer relevant - a decision was made, and even if it was made badly, we do not go back and punish people retroactively for things that were done months ago. Any new block or ban would only be to prevent future disruption, and you have given us no evidence of any *ongoing* disruption that you think needs a ban to prevent -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For transparency reasons which I feel should be here instead of fragmented on my talk page, the first set of comments is in response to [100]:

1. With regard to my thought that Iaaasi was being constructive on Simple English and Romanian Wikipedias, that is a question on interpreting judgment.
2. The only ways Iaaasi could have possibly communicated were either via email or via IRC. According to his block log, between 18:24, 10 March 2010, and 07:16, 26 November 2010, his talk page editing privileges were revoked. The talk page restriction was lifted by another admin. Shortly after, he posts an on-wiki unblock request.
3. Yes, at the behest of Iaaasi, I requested that the community take another look at the indef block of him; I figured, if he wishes to be constructive in his editing again, and the community can agree to it, then why not try? I did what any other Wikipedian would do and AGF in that he sincerely wishes to be constructive on en.wiki.
4. I wanted to see if I had some time to go through some SPI cases, and that's when I saw the first SPI; at that point, I watchlisted it. That's how I saw the 2nd SPI case; I have already explained this to Hobartimus before.

I am a fairly approachable person, and I take most requests (such as the December 2010 unban request) seriously. I made the unban requests and the comments on the two SPI cases as a member of the community and not just as an administrator. That's why I decided to leave the unblock situation with the community, and that's why I only commented on the two SPI and took no action.

Now, let's go through all the socks Hobartimus recently reported to SPI, if I may:

Socks reported to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations the last 4 days

Account	Date of last edit
BBorbely (talk · contribs)	05:16, 11 June 2010
SlovenskýMuž (talk · contribs)	15:30, 21 June 2010
Zzzsolt (talk · contribs)	09:46, 6 July 2010
Karpatia1 (talk · contribs)	05:56, 7 July 2010

Other socks listed at User:Hobartimus/sandbox4

Account	Date of last edit (or account creation, if no edits)
Nauneim (talk · contribs)	13:22, 11 March 2010
Ddaann2 (talk · contribs)	15:53, 17 March 2010
Nauneim1 (talk · contribs)	14:58, 9 March 2010
Umumu2 (talk · contribs)	07:19, 19 April 2010
Umumu (talk · contribs)	06:41, 20 April 2010
Conttest (talk · contribs)	07:12, 12 May 2010
JanVarga (talk · contribs)	16:44, 25 May 2010
DerGelbeMann (talk · contribs)	17:42, 7 June 2010
MarekSS (talk · contribs)	06:38, 7 June 2010
EurovisionFan2010 (talk · contribs)	15:09, 3 June 2010
DusanSK (talk · contribs)	17:35, 16 June 2010
Karpatia1 (talk · contribs)	05:56, 7 July 2010
MartinMagera (talk · contribs)	13:09, 20 May 2010
Rogvaiv1 (talk · contribs)	14:52, 9 August 2010
CyanMoon (talk · contribs)	08:24, 11 August 2010
YellowFF0 (talk · contribs)	07:57, 25 August 2010
NimeniRo (talk · contribs)	06:29, 18 June 2010

Iaaasi has very well made some edits anonymously under 79.117.128.0/18 (see [101] and [102]). As far as the other edits on that range, keep in mind that this is coming from a mobile ISP, so we are dealing with many people on this range editing similar things.

Anyways, with the exception of the two anonymous edits above, can anybody name another possible sock of Iaaasi whose last edit or account creation was September 2010 or sooner? –MuZemike 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You mean ones that were active after 2010 Sepetember? There are several fairly obvious ones, but I'd rather not waste the time on explaining it. It seems that a good 90% of what I was saying was ignored anyway no matter how much the evidence. If you actually spend a minimal amount of time investigating the case you will see them anyway. Don't get me wrong I'm very happy that some of the evidence is actually getting looked at now, but I'm afraid the discussion is already populated by comments which were made before such new developments. (not to mention the previous discussion) I understand that some admins (or others) don't have much time for looking at cases. I guess it's something to take into account for next time. This is why I became a bit concerned; when I realized that the person who was the blocking admin in May of an account from the above list became the person who said the following in September since his block this past March he has not shown to have socked during this period of time. Hobartimus (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you have some evidence of post-unblock socking that you don't want to put on the wiki, please email it to MuzeMike or some other checkuser or the checkuser mailing list (WP:CHECKUSER). Alleging there are/were socks you know about, without giving evidence, is not going to result in action. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, as I am now rather involved in this dispute, it should be left to another uninvolved CheckUser. You claim "fairly obvious socks", but you are not mentioning a single one of them. –MuZemike 09:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I'm certainly no fan of Iaaasi's editing but I'm pretty ticked off at Hobartimus's alleging "obvious" recent sock activity without giving a shred of evidence for it. I'd like to formally request that Hobartimus refrain from casting such aspersions in the future, unless he provides credible specific evidence on-wiki or to checkusers. If he makes further such unsubstantiated allegations he should receive administrative sanctions. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation, stolen picture present in Wikipedia

I have opened a separated section on the ground that a picture uploaded into the commons by Iaaasi, is given counterfeit license saying that the author of the picture is User:Conttest, who is the name of one detected sockpuppet of Iaaasi, and the picture is included in two Wikis, the English and Romanian ones in the articles ro:Ioan de Hunedoara and John Hunyadi when in fact the real author of the picture is Glatz Ferenc , which was published in a historical book under the title of "A magyarok krónikája" on the page of 174 in 1995 and the original name of the picture was "Hunyadi János birtokai 1456-ban". In my opinion, by doing this, Iaaasi committed a violation of GDFL license trespass ,mainly because the user is being blocked for a violation of 3RR at the article John Hunyadi that contains the aforementioned picture. And when the user wanted to ask for an unblock, this moot map was brought up as a reason for being unblocked on the ground that this map is a significant part of his constructive contributions here on English Wikipedia."Except referenced text, I've uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and inserted in the article the following images: [1] [2] so I don't think I can be accused of having disruptive intentions regarding it."[103]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Huniade-domeniul.jpg
• http://mek.niif.hu/01900/01918/html/index74.html

--Nmate (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a clear cut case, the picture was uploaded as if it's author was Iaaasi. While in reality it was the work of others. If you look at the picture it becomes quite evident but with exact source given at the above link [104] (A magyarok krónikája. Officina Nova, Budapest, 1995, 174. oldal) there could be no doubt. Hobartimus (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagged for deletion on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow! Talk about cynicism! He not only "pirates" a picture off the internet to claim it as his own, but also cites it as a "fine" example of his "constructive" work. Just how many of such mishaps are you willing to tolerate him before cutting him off for good? CoolKoon (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, that was pretty lame of Iaaasi. Still, incorrect and/or bogus image attributions are one of the most common serious mistakes on Wikipedia, and that was from almost a year ago. Has this or anything similar been brought to Iaaasi's attention before? 75.57.242.120 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It's hardly from a year ago it was present in the Wikipedia article John Hunyadi as of today. Hobartimus (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The file was uploaded on 27 April, 2010.[105] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually it's hard to assume good faith in this case especially due to the fact that Iaaasi was bragging about that picture at a time when he was already well-acquainted with WP rules. And besides, when you download something from the internet (especially one that doesn't have copyleft/CC/public domain written in its proximity), in >90% of the cases you just know it can't be used by you and uploaded to Commons as it were your own, due to the fact that it is NOT your own. CoolKoon (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It was rather unwise of him to refer to it recently as an example of his good work. But the correct action is being taken - it's up for deletion. Again, we should not be considering bans based on things done a year ago. It looks to me like there has been a long standing content dispute and a lot of emotion and bad feeling, and that neither side in it is entirely innocent - but that some progress has been made in calming it down. What we should be looking for now is evidence that it is likely to continue, or whether it looks like Iaaasi (and others) can be brought round to editing collegialy and within Wikipedia policy -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (Updated -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC))

I wouldn't say this in itself requires banning but I think it's wrong to just think of it as something that happened a year ago. The fact that they were boasting about it shows they were aware of this image and hadn't simply forgotten about it. This either means they completely forgot that what they were boasting about was an image which was not their own and which they did no receive the permission of the copyright holder while claiming it was their own (possible but doesn't seem that likely) or they were aware of this and didn't do anything about it (choosing instead to boast of their good work). Given how serious we take copyrights the later is completely unacceptable for an established editor. As I said I'm not calling for a ban, but it needs to be made clear to them that they must respect copyright policy and should not make misleading claims about the copyright status of content they contribute and no we're not going to keep giving them second chances on this like we may have done with sockpuppetry and whatever else they have allegedly done wrong. Frankly I'm far more concerned about this then their alleged? xenophobic personal attack mentioned above or whatever socking they may have done in the past or heck even if they are socking right now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd ask for Iaaasi to list all images that he's uploaded from any account, for license checks. That said, unless he's been in trouble for this particular issue in the past, I wouldn't flip out about it. NFCC problems are rampant on Wikipedia because of the tendency of users to click past the confusing or unfortunate requirements, and endless drama results all the time. I've elsewhere suggested that users should not be allowed to upload images directly (they can still use WP:FFU), without a rollback-like permission that would only be given after showing some basic understanding of license requirements. However, that idea has never gotten much support. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User "Johan se"

Johan se (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated inappropriate edits to article Helena Mattsson. Ignores requests to stop it. See such request. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The editor has only a couple dozen edits since coming on board in the summer of 2009, and every one of them was to that particular article. If it happens again, take it to WP:AIV, unless someone here decides to ice that guy right now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact, I have taken it to AIV, as there is no evidence the editor is here for any useful purpose. But if they reject it for some reason, it's still here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I put a rejection template on the account because the account was not warned about its behavior. This is what is says in the big green box at the top of the page:

2. The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop.

The account had not even a level one warning on its talk page. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Pandelver posting to many Wikiprojects about an AFD

I've noticed that User:Pandelver is posting a comment on the talk pages of numerous wikiprojects asking them to review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaron Tobey (see his edit history [106]). Most of the wikiprojects are completely unrelated to the subject of the AFD discussion. It isn't clear to me what he is intending with these posts, but it is certainly disruptive to post the same comment on apparently every wikiproject he can find when the discussion doesn't involve those wikiprojects. I was hoping an admin could get him to stop doing this and take whatever other actions might be appropriate. Calathan (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've notified him of this discussion [107]. Calathan (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pandelver (talk · contribs) has spammed several unrelated WikiProjects about an AfD of an article s/he created. A rollback of these edits is desired. —Farix (t | c) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just revert the inappropriate notices; the editor has already been informed of the canvassing policy. Unless there is some indication of bad faith there is no reason to involve an administrator. Skomorokh 22:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

When I started typing my post here, he was still posting to more wikiprojects, and I was worried he wasn't going to stop. But he does seem to have stopped just before I posted here. Calathan (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Has his own licensing policy

See User:Pandelver#My Licensing policy:

"My 3 requirements attendant upon or restricting all forms of copyright and public domain release in every other respect, are that I always require:

(1) notice to be given directly to me, prior to release, whenever material I have produced is quoted, excerpted, or included in other writings, presentations, correspondence, or works, paraphrased, copied, published, or distributed (2) a courtesy copy, prior to release, of your product from you or from the reuser whenever material I have produced is copied, published, or distributed;

which notice and delivery are in addition to

(3) proper attribution to me within the new format or work, attribution to any collaborating authors, and all other terms of the relevant licenses.

To request a contact method in fulfillment of these requirements, please indicate your need and ask my on my Discussion (talk) page and correspond with me about it there"
No one has notified him of this discussion so I will now. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that shit is right out. In my view, this user should by blocked until he agrees to remove this from his user page and understands that the only licensing policy that applies to his contributions is the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license and the GFDL as described in the notice under the editing box. This just can't be permitted. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hm, this is something I didn't know about. It looks like he's using this template on his user page. Of course he's also imposing a lot of conditions on use of his contributions that he really can't impose, but I'm a little surprised about the template. It looks like it has been around since 2004 and there are over 400 users who have this on their user pages. Also, there are a number of similar templates. Is this really a good thing? Have the lawyers looked at these templates to see if they conflict with the standard licenses that apply to all user contributions? Even if they don't conflict, doesn't the existence of these templates just create confusion with different editors claiming to license their contributions under different terms? Sorry if these are foolish questions and this was all sorted long ago, but I've been around for a while and I've never heard of this. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In a certain sense, a block isn't really necessary on the alternate license, because it has no validity. Every time xe clicks the "save page" box, that's automatically agreeing to our Terms of Use, and I'm pretty sure WMF never agree to his/hers. I mean, yes, someone who can explain it well should prolly leave a message to let xem know how submitting here works, but I don't see how the "claim" is blockable. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

But making phony legal claims about the licensing of your work, even if they're totally unenforceable, tends to muddy the waters and create confusion for those who wish to reuse our content under the licenses we provide. I found this deletion discussion regarding the template that was closed as "no consensus," but, really, isn't this something the lawyers should look at? Is there an easy way to pass a note to the WMF and ask if it's an issue? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

According to the template they have released their contributions into the public domain. Would that not mean that there was no need to pay any attention to the 3 requirements. Even if it doesn't they need to be removed. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree - editors have been banned for making absolutely ridiculous legal threats. The "alternative licencing" page should be deleted as it will not serve any purpose apart from confusing editors who aren't familiar with Wikipedia's licencing and that users can't override them. Zakhalesh (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Steven J. Anderson in that I don't believe that he should be contributing text here until he acknowledges his understanding that he may not override WMF:Terms of Use. Unless WMF is willing to waive those, the more restrictive terms are completely unacceptable. In terms of the PD, I'm afraid that it is also questionable under ToU, which says: "all users contributing to Wikimedia projects are required to grant broad permissions to the general public to re-distribute and re-use their contributions freely, as long as the use is attributed and the same freedom to re-use and re-distribute applies to any derivative works." If material is public domain, derivative works may be released under copyright. I don't know how much WMF cares about the more liberal release, but the more restrictive terms just don't work. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Does someone want to tell him. The chap is completely clueless, but very keen to learn. And why does that template exist in the first place? Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If I understand what that person is trying to do, then yes it clueless, but it seems s/he is trying to multi-license to the PD "but not really". As for the multi-license templates, basically they're attempts by contributors to relax the GFDL/BY-SA copyleft on their contributions, so that downstream parties can then add new restrictions to later derivative versions. There was a big talkpage spam campaign circa 2004 to get people to use them for bogus reasons that I won't bore you with, but it was somewhat successful and the meme stuck around. To some extent the templates also reflect the ideological schism over copyleft in the FOSS world. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. {{MultiLicensePD}} is fine, but it's just the text in the box. The "three requirements" place additional restrictions than would be allowed by GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or the template. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it looks like this boils down to two questions.

1. If we're agreed that the "three requirements" are out, what are we going to do about it? No one has said anything on his talk page yet. It seems to me best that an administrator do the talking.

2. How can we be sure that {{MultiLicensePD}} is fine? Have the foundation's attorneys looked at this and given advice? If not, what's the best way to contact them? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Multilicensing under PD is perfectly fine. We have lots of PD text in Wikipedia (from 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica for example). Users are free to multi-license in this way as well. They cannot, however, alter or add conditions to the default cc-by-sa licensing. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll tell him that the multilicensing is fine, but his additions won't stick. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

How does that prove multilicensing is fine? We have a lot of CC-By-SA-only text on Wikipedia, too, but contributors are not permitted that liberty (unless they are importing something in which they share copyright); they are required to multilicense. I don't particularly care if somebody wants to release their content under more liberal allowance than ToU, but, then, I wasn't here when it was decided that CC-By and other licenses which would allow derivatives to be copyrighted should not be the one we use. There must be some reason that the language in ToU is written as it is. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, your pronouncement that "multilicensing under pd is perfectly fine" doesn't carry any more weight than the many other user comments for and against such licensing unless you are a lawyer offering legal advice. Are you? To my understanding it is not ok to append unenforceable language to a contract (which I suppose this is) under the rubric that it can be ignored because it's unenforceable. I'll ask again. Does anyone here know how to contact the foundations lawyers so we can get this definitively resolved. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if you think it's necessary. I contact them occasionally about issues at WP:CP. I'm not sure if we're still with our interim attorney, but I can find out. However, before I give it a whirl, I'd like to make sure that I know exactly what we're wanting covered here. :) I'd also like to know if anybody has run this by them before, if anybody knows. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Multi-licensing has been around forever, and before the GFDL-to-CC switchover, the file upload dialogs explicitly encouraged it. I have a low opinion of the practice myself and never engaged in it, but it is basically recognized by WP:C, which says "You retain copyright to materials you contribute to Wikipedia, text and media. Copyright is never transferred to Wikipedia. You can later republish and relicense them in any way you like. However, you can never retract or alter the license for copies of materials that you place here..." Multi-licensing looks to me like an instance of this. It says your stuff is available under GFDL/CC as required, and that you're also exercising your right to extend additional licenses. IANAL, YMMV, etc. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

need advice

I need advice regarding user:Tehwhirled. The user in question was created on March 10th, 2011 and his first edit was to create an article about the Libyan no-fly zone on his user page. Since then every edit of his 160 edits, except for 11 has been on this one article Libyan no-fly zone. His intention seems to be to keep as much criticism of the operation as possible in the article, even if it based on wrong or outdated quotes i.e. he had Alain Juppé as a critic of the no-fly zone. He says Clinton is critical of the no-fly because of a statement she made on March 3rd about lack of demands for it in the Arab world. He puts Richard G. Lugar into the section of people saying it is "An act of war", when Lugar has never said such a thing, but criticized how Obama intends to proceed and opinions that Obama seek first "a declaration of war against Libya" from the US congress. Lugar does not criticize the no-fly zone, he doesn't call it an act of war, and when you try to remove this misquotation [108], and remove the outdated quote by Clinton [109], he reverts and calls it abusive editing. Then I took to the talk page pointing out that Clinton has been misquoted and that Alain Juppé is definitely not against a no-fly zone this happened: "Wikipedia is not your SOAPBOX", I then told him to please watch his tone and [110] and to not misquote. His answer: insulting me and avoiding to discuss the wrong insertion and misquotation of officials. Asking him to take it down a notch [111] and for a NPOV [112], were ignored too. Now he continues to add criticism of the no-fly zone [113], [114] which is fine with me as long as he does not do it in a POV way [115] and as long as he does not refuse to accept any criticism of wrongly listed people, edits with a NPOV and stops insulting other people. But the advice I am looking for is what do to about the suspicion that this is a sock specifically created for POV warring by an editor: the focus on one topic, the one sided editing, the abrasiveness of his style and the refusal to allow anyone to remove "supposed" critics of the no-fly zone, points in my view to POV-war sock specifically created to control this article. What can be done about that? Should there be done anything about that? thanks, for any advice. noclador (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You know what. I don't give a shit about this fascistoid bullshit. I request of the admins that my account be deleted. It's the last time I countribute to this website. Thank you. --Tehwhirled (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Because of attribution requirements for edits we do not delete accounts. You are free to wipe your user and talk pages and discontinue contributing if you desire. -- ۩ Mask 23:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username Nil Einne (talk) 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Harassment and Detrimental Edits by Jack Sebastian

Summary

User:Jack Sebastian has been hounding me for days to the point of now making article-harming edits. Below is a history, item (3) is the serious one, the rest shows his attitude.

I also note he has a recent history on this notice board.

History

(1) We had a disagreement over the article Justified (TV series). (There is no admin involvement.)

After two net edits [116][117] there by me, he advised me that I had "violated" wp:3rr and then lectured [118][119] me on how to indent my comments (!) on talk pages.

(2) He followed me to an unrelated page, and advised me [120] not to make edits [121][122][talk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Japan_Trench] which were correct, despite his lack of understanding. (The information was later made more exact, but my edits ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg Eurasian>North American) were correct as made.)

I advised him [123] his hounding was unwanted. He advised [124] me that he was acting for my own good and that I would regret not having his advice.

(3) He then followed me to a page he had never edited, Excalibur (film), partially reverting [125] my edit, thereby (b) removing a citation for a direct verbatim quote, and creating a bogus quote from an editor's summary, (b) changing a balanced comment reflecting mixed reviews to a wholly positive one, and (c) leaving an obvious spelling error. He reverted to these blatant errors twice even when they were explicitly brought to his attention on the talk page [126] and in the edit summaries.

I "restored [the] balanced critical reaction, restored [the] source for verbatim quote, and [the] restored proper English spelling" [127]. He insisted he knew I was a troubled editor "I know about you from another page" [128], and again reverted [129] his ungrammatical and unbalanced statement with a bogus quote.

I left the mistakes stand to come here before further conflict. It's obvious this isn't about content any more - it's about emotions. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, when I advised the editor to learn more about WP:LEDE, and maybe to ask an admin about how we currently implement that part of the MOS, I guess I should have expected that it was going to turn into a Thing with her.

Now, for a bit more accurate interpretation of events:

1. Medeis is a bit off on her revert counting (1, 2, 3, 4). Last time I checked, that's at least three reverts (I counted one of them as a successive edit as opposed to an outright revert). Rather than reporting the user, I went to Medeis' user talk page and let them know they were in violation, and to use the article discussion page to argue for their edit. I also took the time to point out to her that she needed to indent her posts - perhaps a trivial thing, but annoying as hell when you are trying to follow a discussion and one person treats the discussion like their comments need not be following others. It's a pet peeve of mine, but I certainly wasn't lecturing her; indeed, I even offered to help her along "the learning curve", especially since she seemed to confuse outdenting with proper indentation.
2. Actually, i didn't even go to the page being discussed; I simply pointed out (pretty nicely, I thought) that adding uncited information is a sure recipe for getting reverted, and to respect the collaborative process. Medeis' response was to remove the post and then post in my page that I was hounding her, threatening to report me if I posted in her page again. Again, I didn't go to the article in question, but was simply responding to a comment from Medeis who stated that a sourced article was wrong, and that her single academic course meant that she didn't need to add such "rather basic and well known information" without citation. As to the statement that she'd "regret not having my advice", one need only go to the link that she thoughtfully provided to see that this is a fairly uncharitable and incorrect interpretation of the post. I respected her wishes and have not posted on her page since.
3. The only part of this accusation that is correct is that I had not in fact posted to Excalibur before. The one time I'd read the article, it seemed fairly well-done. After watching it again recently (big Helen Mirren and Nicol Williamson fan), I went back to the page to see i there was anything I could add. Yep, i noticed Medeis' edits, and they were the only recent ones that were wrong. I thought I fixed it, and went to the article discussion to further discuss the matter.

Without delving too far into content issues, Medeis keeps adding content to the Lede and nowhere else in the article. This was pointed out by several other edits when it first popped up in the Justified article, but she doesn't appear willing to read WP:LEDE, which marks it as both an introduction to the subject matter as well as an summary of the article.

And that "obvious spelling error"? I left off the 'i' in the word 'it' - mea culpa. I think it uncharitable in the extreme to think that I'd revert any spelling fix, and esp. one dealing with a simple typo. Almost everyone knows what a stickler I am for both perfect grammar and spelling. If I've corrected someone's grammar in an article, it isn't a personal attack - its a fix to the article. I am not going to see a typo fix as an affront to my person. Saying that this is about emotion and not content is both silly and absurdly egoistic. It isn't about her.

Long story short (too late!), Medeis needs to grow a thicker skin and maybe consider the advice - even of the unsolicited sort - that she is getting from several different editors. No one is out to get her or hound her, and I could frankly care less about her edits. Prior to the Justified edits, I'd never run into her (though wikistalk says that we both have non-proximally contributed to two other articles last year). All I feel I did was offer advice, and found myself defenestrated for my effort. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian forgets his own admission [130] "As for where I edit, I will edit whereever I wish. If I happen to see a problematic edit of yours - well, I know about you from another page, so I know you better than someone off the street. " that he is following me around for my own good, [131] putting the lie to the excuse above that he simply happened by chance to revert me on an article he had never before edited.

The "four" edits Jack Sebastian supplies are two separate sequential edits by me which count as two, not four reverts. But this is not about content. I have not accused Jack Sebastian of a spelling error. I have accused him of ignoring content entirely while stalking me, which he still justifies as being helpful. μηδείς (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting tedious. If Medeis would be so good as to point out all the many, many articles where I am supposedly stalking her at, that would be nifty. As it is, there appears to be only two articles where we've have interacted at all. I guess its too much to actually ask her to read the policies and guidelines regarding the accusations that she's making. As it is, it's tedious, stupid and tendentious to state one thing, add a supposedly supporting link that says nothing of the kind. Clearly, she's made up her mind that attacking, and not learning, is the better course of action. I won't waste any more time trying to assist her or correct her clearly inaccurate assessments; her links do that for me. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

And maybe Medeis could stop refactoring my post, putting it in its own special little category. I've now removed it three times, which means this clever girls has added it more than three times. Also, it bears pointing out that Medeis has been altering her initial post successively now; the response I'd posted above is not to the initial complaint filed. I'm close to losing my patience and calling for her block for tendentious editing and edit-warring. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Diarrhea

"When is this POV prolivferation going to stop!?" is a disgusting comment in which the user describes my point of view as being "diarrhea" (Serbo-Croatian "proliv") [132] But that's not all, get the "apology" a few seconds later in the edit summary [133]. There the user actually repeats the obscene personal attack, calls me "diktator", and then proceeds to sombrely assert that he has to remove the comment, but can (luckily) continue "thinking it".

I will add that the user has a long history of personal attacks (WP:NPA & User:FkpCascais), with remarks such as "you shit out your words" ("sereš"), "imbecile", "your IQ is minor", "learn some education, or go kick some rocks in your village", etc. The user was specifically warned with regard to WP:NPA. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 04:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment was kind of accident, and it was removed by me a few seconds later, as you confirmed. Your NPA issue happend 2 years ago, when I also had reported you several times. You are manipulating now, just as then, the expressions used. And btw, "proliv" in a conversational context means a long, blind insistence on something you actually know it didn´t happend that way. I removed my comment exactly because I figured the missinterpretation it could have. I removed the comment, but you went there serching for it. I explained it to you on my talk page and apologised to you, twice.

Now, you should follow what was agreed on the mediation process we both participated, and stop nazyfiying a person and a movement that is complex and sensitive in nature (Mihailovic). Your ignorance of facts and insistence on it are quite insultive. A report on that should be donne against you, but I lack patience now.

I apologised twice and the comment was removed by me seconds later. FkpCascais (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a "long history of PA"? Are you joking? And btw, what I said back then was that "I don´t beleave your IQ is minor and you don´t understand things when said over and over again." Quite different, and you´re making me change my mind about that. FkpCascais (talk) 04:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of another user comment on article talk page

Is this OK? The comment was donne by an IP (diff) a long time ago, but DIREKTOR, an editor, simply removed it. Shouldn´t he rather ask some admin to do it? It is unpleasent towards him but I think it doesn´t give him the right to remove it from articles talk page. FkpCascais (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a personal attack, and personal attacks can be removed by their subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The edit I complained in this section has been modified. FkpCascais (talk) 07:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This,[134] which he deleted today, is a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I of course usually don't touch people's comments, but that IP with the old "you're a communist!" bull finally touched a nerve. Its also very likely a sock of an old "friend". Though we seem to be digressing here? :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

A personal attack, with no resemblance to anything to do with improving article content, is fair game for zapping. And even if it did have to do with article content, he's slinging mud. If he's got a case, he should start an RFC and provide evidence. If not, he should buzz off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit problems with List of The Annoying Orange episodes by various users

There has been an ongoing problem with the above page that I have mentioned, specifically regarding the division of the list into "seasons". There are no reliable sources available to confirm that there are actual "seasons" for Annoying Orange episodes. Normally such incidents are requested to have the differences cited. However, the incidents have happened too often and a list would take up way too much space (it's at least 500 edits, if not more; [[135]] would be a better link IMO). There is a hidden comment placed at the top of the page that clearly states that season divisions are not to be added unless there is a reliable source for those actions. (I would like to add that the article was put through an AfD review, which ended with a consensus of keep.)

Two examples of people that refuse to follow the directive are User:Fuzzyball321, whom I have had to warn twice about adding season designations to the page (having done so twice over a period of 10 days, re his talk page. Another is an anonymous IP, User:68.195.37.107, who was [warned twice] on his talk page he has since blanked regarding disruptive edits. He also disregarded other editors' concerns by putting in his edit summary "It would be better with all of the seasons. The episodes all together look horrible! Let's just separate it out, okay?" in spite of the warning. --173.54.203.93 (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed its why I nommed it for AFD awhile back, people adding Production Codes, Seasons and even future episodes without sourcing. Not that there is any sourcing for anything else their either. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 18:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As I stated though, the consensus was Keep. The issue is not whether or not the page should be deleted, it's whether or not action should be taken when there's a clear violation of a warning.--173.54.203.93 (talk) 00:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

If I may ask the obvious question, has anyone considered putting {{unreferenced}} at the top of the page then detailing on the Talk page what needs citations? So far IP 173.54.&c has simply been edit-warring over this point, rather than trying to explain to other editors what the problem is. That will get 173.54.&c nowhere except for a 3RR block, which I'd hate to see happen. (FWIW, I think you guys have a valid point -- where does this information about "production codes" come from? And if there is no reliable source, it shouldn't be in this article. But I'm not warning or banning anyone for adding it; policy doesn't allow Admins to ban people for inserting information that is crap.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a {{unreferenced}} tag on there already and these edits still happened. There is also a rather pointed hidden comment that editors see once they click to edit the page that says "do not add episodes that don't exist and do not add season divisions unless there are sources to prove otherwise." I don't see what blocking me for removing violations of that comment will accomplish because I'm not the one causing the problem. The production code argument is valid but no one has been willing to take them off the page. --173.54.203.93 (talk) 07:11, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And now I know why the tag was removed...User:68.195.37.107 removed it, along with the hidden comment I cited. I returned the tag to the page and reworded the comment. --173.54.203.93 (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Might want to hide this edit.

Ref [136], vandalism edit with phone number. Already reverted. --John Nagle (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Um, I would highly consider emailing emergency﹫wikimedia.org on this one, because, if my slang is still current, "packing a bowl" refers to weed. So...if they are directing people to a phone number (address too) about that, then having WMF involved would be a good thing. Let them know the IP registers out of Costa Mesa, CA at the Orange County Department of Education (so one of the schools). - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 05:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Revdel applied. If law enforcement needs the edit content, direct them to contact an admin. (Probably not me, since I'm not going to be available much longer.) --Chris (talk) 06:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of the "Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia" template takes on a new meaning with this IP obviously... Nate • (chatter) 09:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now suppressed the edit - any Law Enforcement agencies would need contact the Office (which would be the preferred route in any instance) if they need to review the content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Caring-writer

Can someone deal with this user's edits, please? Particularly the talk page spam should be reverted. --MZMcBride (talk) 08:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User spammed the talkpages of about 50 other users. Would be quicker if someone with rollback could take care of it. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I could do it, but I'm not sure it qualifies as vandalism. Besides which, the users can decide for themselves whether to revert or not. Meanwhile, the user seems to have stopped after being told to stop. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I've rolled-back ~ 25 edits by User:Caring-writer. It's prolly fine, but would ask that an admin checks to see I have not mis-used my WP:ROLLBACK privileges.--114.76.107.160 (talk) 10:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)--Shirt58 (talk) 11:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:Peer Review

There is a bit of a backlog at PR. If a few good editors and admin could take a look, review some articles and send these on their way, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 11:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami_casualties_dead

Template:2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami_casualties_dead should be semi-protect. There is very big number of revert, and revision undid.--Olli (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep, heavy vandalism going on there. Dropped a request at RFPP earlier. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 12:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I already semi-protected the template for a week. Some (but not all) of the vandal's IPs have been blocked. — Edokter (talk) — 12:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Wikinews links regarding Japanese Earthquake/Tsunami

Hi. I'm writing this, not in my capacity as a regular editor of WP, but as an administrator to Wikinews. It has been brought to our attention that an as yet unnamed editor on WP has been removing links from Wikipedia to Wikinews, to our articles concerning the Japanese Earthquake and Tsunami. I'll show you what was posted to us in the early hours of this morning, and by whom.

"As an established editor on Wikipedia has removed all specific links to Wikinews from the various articles of the 2011 quake/tsunami/nuke incident, without even bothering to note their removal, and when asked, said that Wikinews articles were not worth linking to, I will no longer be adding Wikinews links to Wikipedia; it's not worth the effort, when someone else will just come along and delete them without even writing it into the edit comment that they're doing so. You may notice a drop in page accesses due to the link removal. 65.95.15.189 (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)"

Since Wikipedia and Wikinews are sister projects, I find this behaviour to be totally unacceptable, and would request that whoever is responsible for this (I have requested the name of the "established editor" at Wikinews), is dealt with by whatever means are necessary. The fact that you link to us from the Main page is wonderful, but I can't honestly see why someone would do this without even making note of it, and then make such an appalling statement as "Wikinews articles are not worth linking to". We do a lot of work to make sure what we publish is relevant, accurate, and appropriate to the situation we're covering.

Your help in looking into this issue would be welcomed.

BarkingFish 13:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC) (admin @ en.wikinews, My talk page at ENWN)

I see nothing actionable per se in removing wikinews links from wikipedia, sister project or not. I'd suggest it's only actionable if it becomes a revert war to remove said links. Just my non-admin opinion. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment): If we are dealing with an IP, we (here at en.Wiki) could do a CU and find out who they are. Otherwise, they should be sternly warned that something like this isn't something they need to be doing without consensus. I would wait until the name of the user is found and then deal with it on our end since this was done on en.Wiki. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 13:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear who the user is if one looks at the talk page for the earthquake. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:18, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Things are a bit hectic at Fukushima I nuclear accidents. But the issue or removal was raised at Talk:Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Wkinews a day ago without receiving any justification. My suggestion would be to readd and explain that again at Talk:Fukushima_I_nuclear_accidents#Wkinews suggesting discussion rather than edit-summary-less reverting (btw: I haven't checked if that was generally or always the case, navigating the page history is a pain). The same might applies mutatis mutandis to the International reaction to Fukushima I nuclear accidents. We are still far away from and endless discussion or revert-war on the subject that would require action here... L.tak (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• There's a larger issue here. Wikinews has been superceded by Wikipedia. Whether you agree with it or not, any major current event will have an article started within a few minutes on Wikipedia and will be rapidly updated in almost real time. We're now a de facto news feed on major events and links to Wikinews are redundant - the information is already here. Taking the Japan earthquake article as an example - our first coverage was approx 1/2 hour after the event [137] and unless I'm missing an earlier article, the first coverage on Wikinews was FOUR hours later [138] - since we're outpacing wikinews by a ridiculous margin, linking to them is pointless. Exxolon (talk) 13:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • 2 Things. Compare your "first coverage" with ours, and look at the difference. You must understand that because we're published over Google News, our stories undergo a full peer review process confirming the absence of copyvio, plagiarism and general errors in work prior to their publication. Your articles undergo no review whatsoever before someone slaps them up, they only get taken down after something's already been done wrongly. Our story was actually started at 9:26AM UTC, yours at 6:18AM. Maybe we are being outpaced by Wikipedia, so what? The fact is we're publishing news - you're publishing an encyclopedia. Either way, we consider that our articles are worth linking to - that's part of the reason we publish them. If we're not useful in articles, why do you link us from your main page? BarkingFish 13:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
• This is just an edit removing some links. Do we "sternly warn" people for removing wikilinks? Ohconfucius stated their reasoning for removing the links on their talk page, it doesn't sound unreasonable. --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• This is a content dispute. It's not unreasonable a place for BarkingFish to bring this up, in an effort to get eyes here to look at it, but we can probably point people on this thread to the thread at the main article's talk page. Keeps things central, apart from anything else. I've placed my view on the dispute there. It's certainly something consensus is required for, and it looks to be vaguely against Ohconfucious just now. In xyr defence, WP:BRD is quite applicable, although edit summaries would have been nice. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• Has BarkingFish tried discussing it with the person removing the links, or even on the talkpages of the affected articles? That's always the first step of dispute resolution. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• This whole situation is utterly unacceptable. We always link Wikipedia from Wikinews, because it is a sister project, and as a family, the projects should support themselves. This is not the case, though. I reverted like twice an editor (user:Gold Hat) some days ago after removing Wikinews links from the eq/ts page, they gave no reason at all. This needs to be solved; Wikipedia is becoming a diva these days. "There's a larger issue here. Wikinews has been superceded by Wikipedia. We're now a de facto news feed on major events and links to Wikinews are redundant - the information is already here." – WIKIPEDIA IS NOT THE NEWS, okay? Diego Grez (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Funny that. Sniping at Wikipedia and its contributors has become de rigueur on Wikinews, yet as soon as links start disappearing you're all over here playing up the "sister project" angle. the wub "?!" 22:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I object to that. I'm a Wikipedian every bit as much as a Wikinewsie. I also question what relevance that issue over there has to a content dispute over here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I second what BRS says, I'm also a Wikipedian anyway, but this is kind of stupid, and disruptive. Links to Wikinews do any damage whatsoever to Wikipedia? No. So...? --Diego Grez (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not required to carry links to Wikinews, nor must they link to other Wikimedia Foundation projects (Wikinews, Wiktionary, Wikiversity, Wikibooks, etc.). Indeed, the quality, reliability, and relevance of other WMF projects varies quite a bit from project to project and even from page to page within a given project. The implicit or explicit assumption made by some individuals here that Wikipedia is obliged to link to other projects wherever and whenever possible is not justified by policy or practice.

While I share concerns about the tendency for Wikipedia to be treated as a wire service and the effects of instantaneous news updates on our goals as an encyclopedia project, that problem is unlikely to be solved by mandatory Wikinews links. Links to sister projects should continue to be evaluated in the same way that we evaluate any other external link. Demands that we 'deal with this by whatever means are necessary' come across as a tad overwrought, given that your contributions seem to show no attempts whatsoever to resolve this issue, BarkingFish. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

That's somewhat unfair to BarkingFish. This post here is exactly an effort to deal with the situation. No, it isn't in the correct place, but xe's trying to sort things out as best as possible - which is to try and find people over here to look at things. Remember, at the time of the original post there was no indication to the poster as to what user or even which article(s) to look at.
Sister project links are not dealt with in (quite) the same fashion as all internal links; my interpretation of the relevant guideline is in a more suitable place - an article talk page. This ANI thread has served its usefulness and the content dispute should now be worked out over there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't just consider that to be "somewhat" unfair, I consider it to be very unfair. My contribution here, TenOfAllTrades, was an attempt to raise the concern with people who actually have the ability to review issues like this, since I don't have that facility to hand myself (I'm not an admin here), and I find your comments about my "demands" (which I wasn't, it was a request, which you're free to ignore), to be frankly insulting. This is my contribution to attempting to resolve the issue - as an administrator of Wikinews, I have no power whatsoever to use my position there to negotiate with individual users here over something which affects the project I work on. As for theWub saying that our project has become de rigeur for sniping at WP and its contributors, proof of such an allegation would be welcomed. If it's raised, it will be dealt with. BarkingFish 02:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec) That's an awfully charitable reading of BarkingFish's request. He wasn't looking for people over here to "look at things", he was asking us to shoot first and ask questions later — it's difficult to read his 'I'm not an editor, I'm an admin' declaration followed by a demand that we "[deal] with [the responsible editor] by whatever means are necessary" in any other way.

Based on his comments immediately above, it's obvious that if he did have an admin bit on enwiki, he would be misusing it right now to threaten the editor who removed the links. While I have not participated at Wikinews, I have had very...mixed...experiences in dealing with administrators on some of our other 'sister' projects (including Wikiversity and Commons). If BarkingFish believes that one must have the "power" of an admin's position (ha!) in order to discuss article content on Wikipedia, then Wikinews administrators obviously have a very different set of prerogatives and responsibilities from those enjoyed (ha! again) by admins on enwiki. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

@Barkingfish. You've edited on Wikpedia, you know that you discuss edits with other editors on article talk pages or on user talk pages. What you don't do is charge in here, state that you find "this behaviour to be totally unacceptable" and demand that Wikipedia administrators deal with someone "by whatever means are necessary." Especially over some links that may not be needed in an encyclopedic article. Don't you think that your behaviour might be a bit aggressive, over the top, and a poor reflection on the project that you represent? 86.159.92.13 (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Run around block

An IP user from T-Mobile has vandalized a Japanese earthquake page again. This person was IP blocked according to commentary at Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami#"Human beings disassembled"?. The user has shifted to another IP range, also from T-Mobile, now as 206.29.188.234 (talk · contribs).

I suppose another IP range block is in order, or perhaps block all T-Mobile addresses? 184.144.168.153 (talk) 13:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist (talk · contribs) has informed me a rangeblock has already been made. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs • Editor review) 13:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

He does not appear to be blocked, since 206.29.188.234 (talk · contribs) just edited from that IP address. 184.144.168.153 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The user has reappeared at 206.29.188.186 (talk · contribs) ... so the block range needs to be expanded, perhaps to all 206.29.188.xxx range. 184.144.168.153 (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Insertion of defamatory material

An IP user Special:Contributions/66.108.225.135 as made a very large number of consecutive edits refining and changing potentially defamatory material at Apta (Hasidic dynasty) [revision history of Apta (Hasidic dynasty)]. I would like to request an admin take a look at it, and consider if WP:REVDEL would be appropriate. Monty₈₄₅ 13:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on Knut

Eyes might be needed on the Knut (polar bear) page. It was reported by The AP that the famous polar bear (think back to 2007) has passed away today. - Neutralhomer • Talk • Coor. Online Amb'dor • 16:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed ban of User:Rosanacurso

I'd like to propose a ban of User:Rosanacurso so we can quickly revert his edits. He has been wardriving (please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rosanacurso and has 50+ blocked/tagged sockpuppets (who knows how many other unblocked and/or non-tagged socks). His socks primarily edit food and drink articles. Thoughts? --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 18:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

• I find this superfluous as the editor hasn't really made any significant contributions (most of their edits are to the sandbox) but I'll support. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

ELN could use a few extra eyes

I am increasingly concerned about some recent civility issues at WP:ELN and would really appreciate having a few extra admins watching Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Paraphilic_infantilism for a few days. The section has just been closed, but we have had something of an epidemic of WP:LASTWORD, so there's no guarantee that it will stay that way long enough to be archived.

In the best-case scenario, it will stay quiet, and you can write this note off as an overreaction. That is the outcome that I'm hoping for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but it's already been reopened here. I'm done with it personally since I get attacked constantly by this editor. More eyes would be appreciated since everyone except this editor feels the discussion has come to a conclusion. Thanks in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

As the main recipient of what I consider a lot of unwarranted hostility, I'm happy to comment if anyone is interested. I'm happier just to close what I see as an issue with an extremely obvious consensus, a whole lot of drama, and little else. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 21:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I reclosed the section because nothing good can come from more discussion about this issue. The editors agreed that the external links didn't belong so there is nothing more that needs to be said. --CrohnieGal^Talk 21:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point two things. First, as "this editor", I would have appreciated being notified about this discussion. The selective participation here echoes WhatamIdoing's sending personal invitations to specific editors[139][140], asking them to get involved in that EL discussion. Second, that there have been a number of incivilities and improprieties involved. Most recently, Crohnie deleted my comment[141] to try to secure her and WLU the WP:LASTWORD, while accusing me of "rude and uncivil"[142].

Please note that WhatamIdoing is not uninvolved in this discussion. This started as an edit war between her and myself, summarized here. WLU became involved. It could have ended there, but did not. My request to WLU not to involve other locations was deleted with the comment "or I can just delete this without reading it"[143]. From there, WLU spread the conflict onto four other pages (Paraphilic_infantilism, infantilism, Diaper_fetishism, and Adult_diaper) starting a number of edit wars (eg [144][145][146][147][148], including one with a bot[149]. He also created other messes and left them to other editors to fix, such as using a Wikipedia printout as an RS[150].BitterGrey (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

BitterGrey, I invite the ELN regulars and members of relevant WikiProjects to comment on discussions all the time. As in this case, I typically select victims volunteer editors for such notes based on the noticeboard's history statistics. You will discover that these editors' names are at the top of the list.

Also, I can't really imagine why you think that an essay I was invited to start out of a conversation at WT:MED has anything at all to do with WLU deleting an internet chat room and your personal website from an article that (1) isn't within WPMED's scope, (2) I've never edited and (3) I've never even read. It frankly sounds like a conspiracy theory.

I agree, however, that it was appallingly rude of you to repeatedly accuse Crohnie of "puppetlike foible[s]". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Why did you think regulars needed to be invited? If they really are monitoring that board, wouldn't they already be monitoring that board?

Since WhatamIdoing brought up that conversation at WikiProject Medicine, I'll explain how it also fits in here. WhatamIdoing's post included glowing praise for one editor who was being "chastised by a handful of (minority-view-holding) editors for not re-re-re-re-disclosing his 'conflict of interest' every single time he edits certain pages."[151]. This is a reference to discussions such as those at COI/N and ELN. In both those examples, WhatamIdoing was that editor's sole advocate. I was among the "handfull" of other editors in some of those debates. As I wrote, she isn't uninvolved here.

A neutral editor would have first commented about the accusation that I was misleading readers (ELNO#2), made by WLU[152][153][154][155] and later echoed by Crohnie[156]. Not only were these accusations made first, but are more serious than a mere foible. That foible was pointed out here[157]. BitterGrey (talk) 01:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody invited me, and anyway, I am sufficiently independent to disagree with whoever has invited me to a discussion. Yet I did not comment on ELNO#2 simply because it was not necessary for deciding the situation. We are not here to stroke people's egos, we are here to build an encyclopedia. And for the more professional among us this means coming straight to the point and not wasting time getting side-tracked.

Frankly, this is ridiculous. It's a clear case of ELNO#11 (which basically follows from ELNO#1 + WP:SPS), and in 3 weeks not a single editor argued for including your link. I have seen a lot of foul play and mobbing at Wikipedia, but this is not an instance of it. Hans Adler 01:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

"Why did you think regulars needed to be invited?"

Because they hadn't commented, and you wanted people that met your personal definition of "uninvolved" (i.e., had never opposed you in any dispute, ever) to comment. In my experience, most people don't jump into a very long and distinctly unpleasant conversation with a wikilawyering website owner who is insulting other participants and spewing conspiracy theories unless they've been directly encouraged to do so. Perhaps your experience is different. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't help but notice that a lot of people are saying unpleasant things here, but only one person is providing diffs.

@Hans Adler: I attempted a factual closure yesterday[158]. Apparently others weren't happy with it and wanted to argue more. BitterGrey (talk) 02:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru

After lying dormant for a fortnight, QuackGuru has returned to Talk:Pseudoscience and is again insisting on the addition of nonsense to the article (every pseudoscience is a health threat, apparently) based on a literal reading of a source that implicitly only claims to speak authoritatively about something else.

Last time this was reported by Ludwigs2, Sandstein blocked Ludwigs2 for reporting it, and now Arbcom is concerned with all aspects of the matter. I do not intend to become disruptive in any way, and I am doing my best not to explode and say anything that can be misunderstood that way, but can some admin please support me in my endeavour to stay calm by doing something about QG. It shouldn't be hard since the article is under pseudoscience sanctions.

In the four stages of competence model this user is very obviously at level 1 for competence in evaluating reliable sources (see how he argues against DGG, an academic librarian who has read the source in question, insisting only that he is right and DGG is wrong, but not giving any comprehensible reason [159]), and his continued insistence that everybody should follow his arguments, which everybody but himself can see are completely useless, makes it impossible to fix the actual sourcing problems -- now that we have all been reminded the protection is over. Hans Adler 20:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

For some background on QuackGuru, see WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_Enforcement_sanction_handling/Evidence#QuackGuru's pattern of tendentious editing.

Background of QuackGuru's current activity: His last edit to Pseudoscience was this. The main difference is visible in the first sentences:

1. "Some forms of pseudoscience such as superstitions and medical quackery can be serious threats to public health."
2. "Pseudoscience, superstitions, and quackery are serious issues that are a threat to public health."

Version 1 resulted from the attempt by another editor to replace QG's unreasonable text with something reasonable. Unfortunately it misused a source, but without QG's interference this problem should not be hard to fix. Version 2 is QG's version. It is almost literally from this source, but taken blatantly out of context since in the original context the statement is obviously only about health-related pseudoscience etc. Astrology and belief in ghosts may be serious issues (or maybe not), but no serious scholar would claim they are a threat to public health, or at least not without giving a very detailed explanation why. (Which this source does not do.) QuackGuru is now vehemently and in many places denying there is anything wrong with his version 2, while attacking me for reverting to version 1 (at a time when I was not aware it was not correctly sourced). Hans Adler 21:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a content dispute or a long-term editor behavior issue that will require an RfC. What can be done at ANI? Ocaasi (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a refusal to engage in meaningful conversation by an editor who always behaves that way. It's not a content dispute. And trying to push obvious nonsense to an article based on some pseudo-sourcing comes close enough to vandalism and WP:POINT violations. (Actually, he can't help behaving like that, but per WP:COMPETENCE that's not a sufficient excuse.) If pseudoscience arbitration enforcement can be used to block an editor who reports disruptive behaviour at ANI, then surely it can also be used to block QuackGuru. I would suggest giving him a stern warning first.

I am not starting an RfC because it is very likely that he will get extensive support from the many pseudosceptic editors who recognise him as an ally. If that happens the RfC will be derailed, and the only way to put it back on track would be to shout the pseudosceptics down and shut them up. If someone has to go that route things will get progressively more ugly. We don't want that (or at least I don't), so I prefer another solution.

Of course we can always do the QuackGuru 2 RfC, let it be derailed, and then run to Arbcom. But why keep me busy for such a predictable result? Just to keep me from doing mathematical research or writing new Wikipedia articles? See also: WP:BUREAUCRACY. Hans Adler 01:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

QuackGuru: as someone who is generally sympathetic to your point of view and thoroughly WP:INVOLVED but only peripherally involved in this particular flare up at this article, I would like to advise that you back off from that article for a while and concentrate on some non-controversial improvements to the encyclopedia. The same holds for everyone involved at the ArbCom, really, though this is just my personal point of view. The article will still be there when that wraps up, and maybe someone else will even have improved it. The writing for the other side essay has some good advice for improving the editing atmosphere at an article by exchanging WP:BATTLEGROUND for collaboration. It works best if everyone does it, but even applied unilaterally you can reap the benefits of crowding out inferior sourcing by focusing on the highest caliber material. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Eyes on Libya articles, please

War: what is it good for? Absolutely nothing with respect to vandalism yet, but eyes would be still be useful on Operation Odyssey Dawn, Libya, No-fly zone, and other related articles as the situation heats up. --NellieBly (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Undiscussed admin deletion and protection of Web 3.0 by Ruud Koot

Web 3.0 has come and gone over time, usually for POV and poor sourcing issues. However this is one of those topics within a developing field that almost inevitably will become WP:Notable at some time in the near future. In recent weeks it has returned and grown, in a manner that's as well ref'ed as most around here, and even avoiding a vanity spam that has afflicted these articles.

Just now, Ruud Koot has redirected it back to Web 2.0 and protected it. Undiscussed, unwarranted, mop abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

What an incredible display of WP:AGF. If you had bothered to ask, I could have have explained to you that article has been deleted on no less than 3 separate occasions and in its latest form was still mostly a copy of the section it now redirects back to. —Ruud 21:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion possibly, but why protect as well? Why no prior discussion? Admins are not arbiters of content, despite far too many of them thinking that this is so. Web 3.0 is very obviously a growing topic. It has been judged to not be notable in the past, but it would be strange to assume that it will not become clearly so in the future. Yet your unilateral protection of this topic excludes all of those lesser mortals who are not admins from any contribution to this area. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you looked at the log?</rhetorical> —Ruud 22:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The last activity was more than two years ago. I don't know what you're trying to prove with that log. Notability could have, and likely has, changed significantly since then. Silverseren^C 04:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

There were attempts in the past 2 weeks to recreate the article pasting content from Web 2.0, undoing the previous merge.[160] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 05:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

And yet, looking at the talk page, I can see that there was no attempt at discussion before the article was turned back into a redirect. Silverseren^C 05:58, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The article was unmerged by a very infrequent enwiki contributor who is a regular at Dutch wikipedia. Ruud explained the situation on restoring the redirect.[161] The user doesn't seem to have objected and as Ruud is also an nlwiki contributor, it's quite possible (I haven't tried to check) that they know each other from there. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:13, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We've all seen words like "inevitably will become WP:Notable" in countless AfD's. The answer is always the same. Write an article after it's notable, not before. Andy should understand this by now, 75.57.242.120 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I've never been too bothered about deletion before. However this involved protection too, preventing other GF editors recreating a notable article. It was also undiscussed, without the appropriate AfD that has been applied in the past. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Write the new article at WP:AI and when there's enough sources to establish notability, request unprotection at DRV. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not see why anyone should be required to assume good faith with the administrator actions of Ruud Koot, he has a history of abuse of the tools. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive660#Page moves and subsequent abusive move protections by Ruud Koot for what happened last time he decided protecting pages on his preferred versions. O Fenian (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what the issue is here. The article was deleted via AFD and then recreated and re-deleted multiple times. Salting is the absolutely usual and conventional response to that. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that we're supposed to work by consensus, not the whim of individual admins. If it had been through AfD so many times without salting, why should one person go against this? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So open a DRV about the salting and look for consensus about whether salting this multiply-recreated and deleted, contentious article was proper or not. It looks perfectly proper to me. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition to Andy Dingley, Administrators are not supposed to do things unilaterally if the action is likely to be contentious. Based on the previously cited example and this, I would suggest that if the original party thinks this is a systemic abuse of "Janitor's Closet Keys" to open a RFC/U on Rund and move forward with the DR process. Hasteur (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Is it worthwhile to point out this ANI section above that involves Ruud making an action and refusing to undue it even when multiple users bring up that s/he should? Silverseren^C 02:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The history of problems is cause for concern, IMHO, but there's no reason to continue this thread. It's not an issue. They salted a redirect with legitimate reason, and the user who brought it up here didn't previously discuss with Ruud. Non-issue. Swarm ^X 04:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see an issue of concern on Ruud's part there. This is one of the most heavily trafficked admin pages on the site, and days and days went by with who knows how many admins seeing that thread and not restoring talk page access, so Ruud's judgment was obviously not that bad (IMO it was good). I do see an issue of concern with Silver Seren's pointy bumping of that thread over several days, followed by several additional editors appearing out of nowhere to support restoring talk page access, followed by Silver Seren telling MrMan12321 "A lot of us would like to get your account unblocked"[162] when nobody on that thread supported unblocking (just restoration of talk page access). Silver Seren has not been in apparent user-talk communication with those other editors recently[163] so if "A lot of us would like to get your account unblocked" reflects Silver Seren's actual knowledge of other editors desires, that suggests some kind of off-wiki coordination took place. Not good. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 07:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
    • I just made that assumption based on the ANI section above, where at least one user specifically stated their dislike of the block in the first place. I have had no communication with other users in any fashion. In response to your accusations, might I not question your own steadfast backing of admin Ruud both in the above ANI section and this section? And also the fact that you joined a mere week and a half ago and started posting in complicated areas quite quickly, such as ARBCOM, ANI, In the News, and various Reference Desk sections? Silverseren^C 07:56, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I accept your explanation per AGF even though I still don't see where anyone in the thread expressed dislike of the block (just the talk page access removal and the "ban" template), unless you mean Sonia's post which I interpreted as verbal irony. Ruud is an extremely good contributor though admittedly a bit rouge as an admin. I probably shouldn't encourage that in the current climate, but it seems to me that his actions in these two incidents are justifiable and that others are going out of their way to attack him, making themselves enablers of crappy editing in the process, so I felt I had to speak up for him. Obviously I didn't just join a week and a half ago.[164] 75.57.242.120 (talk) 08:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: I don't think there was any resolution to my complaint, and I can't find the (or don't have the level to access the archives of this section)

I made a complaint: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#This_user_appears_to_be_.22hounding_me..22

And nothing has been resoved from what I can so far see on your page...the document simply goes into the archives. Perhaps this page is simply a page for my opponents to attack me...

I'm not even sure if I have the access level to see a archived page? Where is it? What happens if the issue is not resolved? Is this how you greet all new editors here?

I've tried to do what I can, now perhaps you might do your part in informing me on what is going on...

My complaints are still listed on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gharr#3rr they have not gone away.

(Gharr (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC))

As noted in the header, any topic without comment for 48 hours is automatically archived. While in a few cases this may be premature, most of the time it means there has been sufficient comment (some times no comment may be sufficient) so it's not worth pursuing the matter further, or at least not at ANI. The archives are near the top of the page right next to the table of contents (on the right). There is also a search box clearly shown at the top of the page although because our search algorithm can sometimes be a bit slow you may not always find what you want if it's only recently been archived (it didn't work for me). If you don't find it in the searchbox or you otherwise know it's recently been archived then checking out the most recent archive or in a few case the one before will do. In this specific case the most recent archive does indeed work, it's at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive681#This user appears to be "hounding me.".

I would note there were several problems with your original post. Do remember if you want people to help you, you yourself should make an effort to ask for help in a way which doesn't cause unnecessary problems for others. 1) You did not notify the person you were complaining about. The header clearly says you should. (While this was rectified by someone else, they should not have needed to do so.) There are few good reasons for not doing so, the only one I can think of of the top of my head is if you've been banned from a user's talk page by the community or have voluntarily agreed not to post there after being asked (or otherwise to resolve a dispute). But even in that case you should clearly specify you didn't follow the requirements explaining why and asking someone to do it for you. 2) Several people already mentioned this directly or indirectly and I myself encountered when I first saw your original thread a while back. No one can really tell what your complaint is because you're directing us to your very, very, very long talk page and none of us want to try and work it out. It's possible if you summarise your complaint you may get better help. But I should warn you as others have already said from what we have seen there's a strong risk this is going to WP:BOOMERANG. So I would personally just drop it taking the advice people have already given on board.

Nil Einne (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Rastamouse-ting

This editor appears in need of admin intervention, after removing a section from WQA with edit summary whining fool stirs yet expects to go unchallenged!. The editor's talk page, along with numerous personal attacks shown by edit summaries in the contribs, make it so clear to me that interactions would be unproductive that I am simply bringing the issue here rather than attempting discussion. I will give notification of this section. Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed. Based upon that diff, and the declarations on their user page, "fuck off" [165] and "I hope Wikipedia's many thousands of fights continue it's what these self righteous tossers want" [166], and clear personal attack [167] I suggest an indefinite block, until the user can demonstrate understanding of basic Wikipedia civility requirements.  Chzz  ►  04:48, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

User:99.59.87.102

Would someone take a look at the edit history of this IP, please. He or she is adding unsourced information to infoboxes, or changing what's there without providing a source. Most problematic is the unsourced addition of religions. They also like to add or change cause of death and generally make unnecessary edits or ones that don't improve the article. I've posted several times on their talk page, but there's been no response. I'm not sure if their edits rise to the level of "disruptive", but the unwillingness to communicate seems like a problem. Maybe a nudge from an admin might get them to respond. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles

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

---

Blackash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Slowart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have had a long drawn out dispute regarding the Tree shaping (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. Various forms of dispute resolution have been tried up to MedCom, and various editors have given of their time to attempt to resolve the issue, but it continues to drag on. It has been suggested on the COI noticeboard that a Topic Ban might now be appropriate. A voluntary Topic Ban would not work as Blackash has stated she won't agree. Articles involved in the ban would include Tree shaping, Axel Erlandson, Arthur Wiechula, John Krubsack and Expo 2005. There may be others. SilkTork *^YES! 00:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support and add Grafting and Richard Reames please.Slowart (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've listed for Formal meditation twice, the last time Slowart didn't agree. If Slowart would agree to go to Formal meditation I'm willing to go. Blackash have a chat 05:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons given at the COI noticeboard. I agree with Slowart that the ban should include the Grafting and Richard Reames articles as well, in fact all articles related to tree shaping. I think the topic ban should go ahead even if there is also an effort at mediation, since mediations often fail. In the lucky event of the mediation being successful, it will be easy to get the ban lifted. The turmoil at these articles should not continue, and a topic ban is a milder option than blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for three editors, but allow comments I have been semi-following the Tree shaping issue since noticing it at a noticeboard in June 2010, and have found myself in agreement with Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs)—we think there has been too much effort devoted to minimizing use of the term "arborsculpture" in the article. As I recall, Martin Hogbin and I are the main contributors to the talk page who have no commercial interest in the topic. One editor (Slowart, named above) apparently has a commercial interest in "arborsculpture" and has favored mentioning that term as an "also called" in the lead (diff), while two other editors are very keen that "arborsculpture" not be used in the lead: Sydney Bluegum (talk · contribs) (diff1, diff2) and Blackash (named above) (diff). Many more such diffs over months are available. I support a topic ban for Slowart and Blackash and Sydney Bluegum: there is little point in applying a ban to only two of these editors. In a normal topic ban, the editors must completely avoid the topic. However, in this case I suggest that each be permitted to make suggestions on article talk pages, although they should be asked to not comment frequently or repetitively. These editors can make useful suggestions or point out errors, but an article topic ban should be enacted because the editors have unduly focused on the question of how "arborsculpture" is mentioned in the article—off-wiki interests seem the most plausible explanation for the vigor with which this matter has been pursued. Johnuniq (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment/Question Johnuniq I noticed you have pointed to where I've supported an editor removing alternative names from the lead (my reasoning), yet you don't point out I later offer a comprise that puts alternative names (inculding arborsculpture) back into the lead diff. You also don't mention that Slowart removed a chunk of cited content about his own methods and then refused to talk. Why didn't you also point this out? Blackash have a chat 15:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

• I would suggest it is because Johnuniq is showing examples of editors violating WP practices - which is rather the point of commenting at ANI - rather than instances of compliance. If this were a matter of having the named editors (including you) banned from the site, your question would have relevance. Further, the tone and inference of your question indicates a possible symptom of the alleged interaction issues. Makes my decision easier. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Questions @ LessHeard vanU

1. An editor who removes referenced/cited content about themselves and then won’t discuss their edit, are not violating WP practices?
2. Whether someone is to be banned from the site as a whole or only part of the site it still is banning. I would have believed that the editor’s overall behavior and looking at their diffs in context would be what guilds the decision to ban in either case. Are you suggesting that the editor's overall behavior/diffs in context don't count when it comes to topic banning? Blackash have a chat 06:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

On your question #2: If the problems are related to a single area, then the editor's behavior in that single area is all that matters. An editor can be a perfect angel 99% of the time, and still get topic-banned from the 1% where he or she misbehaves. Behaving well in one area does not give an editor immunity in another. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my question. My edits and behavior on this topic has been as I stated below. I edit, talk giving reasons, and offer or except comprises. Any edit that may be considered a potential COI I gone to noticeboards and asked outside editors' views. It seems that because I've followed WP policy in regards potential COI I am to be banned as it is causing other editors too much grief, not because my editing/behavior is inappropriate. Please note most of the time outside editors agree with my view. Blackash have a chat 04:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support This is ridiculous on all sides. Phearson (talk) 20:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support article ban for all three named editors, but allow edits to talkpages - with a view that if good faith dispute resolution process are (re)started then this ban can be revisited sooner rather than later. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support article ban but permit talk page edits per what LessHeardvanU says above. I believe that both Blackash as well as Slowart have self-declared their COI on the topic and should be permitted the assumption of good faith. --rgpk (comment) 22:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support It seems the only way forward. Sydney Bluegum is clearly an SPA (see contribs) and should be included in the ban. The question is, 'Then what?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support For Blackash and Slowart for reasons stated above and obvious Conflicts of Interest. Abstain for Sydney Bluegum as his support of Blackash seems like a content issue not a CoI issue to me. However I have not been taking part in the discussion for about six months so I leave it up to others who have been directly involved more recently to decide on the best course of action as far as he is concerned. Colincbn (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Sydney's contribs. This is clearly an SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The expertise of these editors (blackash and slowart being some of the foremost practitioners in the US and australia) slightly outweighs the constant arguing over the name. Over the last 2 years the quality and detail of the article has improved drastically, with these two doing the vast majority of the edits. The mediation committee needs to get their act together and actually send out a mediator. AfD hero (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeThis is not a simple problem, it like a game of chest. By banning me all that is happening is the players from one side are being removed leaving the lobby group for Arborsculpture. Of course Slowart is willing be banned as he still has players in the game. As has been stated on the talk page this group of editors are so hostile to anyone with a diffing view that most editors go elsewhere to edit. The result will be tree shaping and surrounding articles will become heavily weighted towards on their stated goal.
  Google Arborsculpture, it all leads to Richard Reames/Slowart. In spite Richard’s claims, Arborsculpture is not the accepted name of the art and that is why Slowart removed his methods and image of his results his bending method. And now IPs keep coming in and removing Instant tree shaping section as well.
  Comment Apart form that I believe it not right to ban me when I’ll added valuable content to the main article, I’ve always being willing to discuss content, offered or excepted comprises. Any edit I thought may have been considered pushing my view I’ve talked first, then asked at the appropriate notice board and even when been given the go ahead to completely remove the word Arborsculpture from the article I didn’t. The reason I was given to accept a voluntary ban was because editors where feeling too much grief. I’ve not been uncivil and edited in good faith and learn from my mistakes. I’ve been told this doesn’t’ matter if this is true it seems bad behavior is rewarded because topic banning appears to be the easy answer. Blackash have a chat 23:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No Blackash this is not a game of chess, there are no "sides" and we are not "players". This comment shows that you feel there is a way to "win for your side". But editting to win is not compatable with editing to help make WP better. This is the definition of a Conflict of Interest. The fact is I do not care about tree shaping or arborsculpture at all. I have never done it or even seen it in person and I know no one who has. I simply want to help make WP a better more complete encyclopedia. This is the one sole reason anyone should edit here. Colincbn (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I got involved with that page several years back through a third opinion request (before I was sysopped) and it was exceedingly difficult to get anything done. I'm not entirely surprised that this is still going on, but an edit war that long has to be put to rest. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. I vaguely remember having offered a third opinion, like HelloAnnyong, on one of the disputes that Blackash and Slowart were having two or more years ago. They're clearly still at it from entrenched positions and won't desist voluntarily. – Athaenara ✉ 01:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I posted about fifteen times to the tree shaping talkboard and also to the WP:NPOVN in 2010 for a few months ending in August. There was no resolution then and I do not think there is any plan to find resolution. This issue has distracted me and a lot of other good editors. I feel that all Wikipedians have a duty to compromise as they must to minimize time spent on talk pages and maximize the time spent contributing to articles. There were good, friendly debates on how to present the Wikipedia articles related to this subject but with these two editors participating in the discussion I do not feel that the debates are likely to end. Perhaps other users associated with this topic should also cease editing. I would have supported a topic ban 6 months ago and if the issue is still hot then the reasonable response is a topic ban. There could still be mediation if the parties want to arrange it but if this happens then I think the topic of mediation ought to be the conditions under which the topic ban is removed after a year. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support topic ban on anything in the mainspace related to tree-shaping for Slowart and Blackash. As this has been a long-term dispute with edit-warring issues, I believe that a long-term topic ban is proportional. As endlessly arguing with each other is also disruptive, I would also be willing to support restricting them each to a single tree-shaping-related comment on any talk page or noticeboard per day, although perhaps that's an issue for another day.
  I have not yet formed an opinion about Sydney Bluegum. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at Sydney's contribs. This is clearly an SPA. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think it would be more productive to ban these editors from any name-related edits or discussion, since this is the only real point of contention, but allow them to continue to contribute other content. AfD hero (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the two should be permanently banned from making any edits relating to the subject name or any section having a commercial connection, such as lists of practitioners of the art. Clearly they are both experts on the subject, whose views we should welcome but I think a short total ban might be useful while editors with no commercial interest try to sort things out a bit. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hogin, you may not be commercial involved but as Bluerasberry stated you are not a neutral editor on this issue. A fine example is your last edit diff on tree shaping where you removed referenced/cited content. Please note the edit he was reverting diff had only added the word "The".

Martin made a conscious decision to add or remove the rest their edit.Blackash have a chat 03:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mediation

I've asked Martin Hogin to agree to mediation with me. For more details go to Tree shaping talk page. Blackash have a chat 05:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that you have been proposing mediation since 2008 (diff). Many of your edits have been excellent, and this 2008 comment provides a very reasonable point of view (it appears that certain practitioners use tree shaping methods they believe are different from those of the person who coined the term "arborsculpture", and those practitioners object to having their work associated with that term). Nevertheless, independent editors need to take control of the articles since it is not satisfactory to have them dominated by those with a conflict of interest. As recently as a week ago you were removing "arborsculpture" from the lead of the article which suggests a "take no prisoners" approach that is not helpful on Wikipedia. Mediation is not required—the editors with a COI regarding terminology simply need to undertake to not make edits regarding such terminology. Instead, make proposals on the talk page and let uninvolved editors respond (yes, that might take a long time, and it might lead to unsatisfactory results, but it would be better than the advocacy and ownership now demonstrated). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, I am perfectly willing to assist in any form of dispute resolution process as a neutral editor with no commercial interest in this subject. On the other hand, you must stop making edits like this one [168] in which you added the proprietary name used by your own business for the art. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin, when Slowart puts his own word into the lead you didn't comment to him about his COI. You now have twice supported Slowart's removal of cited content. Once voicing support on the talk page, the other time you made conscious decision to mirror Slowart removal of referenced/cited content. You have yet to explain why. This is not the behavior of a neutral editor. It is because of your support for the word arborsculpture and Reames/Slowart edits, that I've asked you to go to meditation. Please go to tree shaping talk page and list the issues you would like to discuss in meditation and agree there to formal meditation. I don't want to go the trouble of listing it again only to have you not reply to the listing wasting the meditations' time and mine, as happen last time I listed and Slowart didn't reply. Blackash have a chat 01:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am happy to participate in formal mediation but have, as yet, not received any official notification on the subject. There is no requirement to list the issues I want to discuss in advance. In fact there is only one such issue, editors with a potential COI. As I say below, this might be a good case for arbitration of we can find no other way forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I have already stated why I haven't listed yet above your comment. When listing a formal meditation there is a section "Issues to be mediated". Would you please list the issues you have. I'm guessing from your talk page that spam is one, by your edits that the methods on the page are other and going by your comment I'm also guess which names are in the lead is also an issue. But when I file I don't want to be guessing what you are thinking. So please go to the tree shaping talk page and list what are the issues. Thanks for being open to mediation. Blackash have a chat 11:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

You are the one proposing mediation, I have just said that I am happy to participate. If you start the process stating what issues you wish to be mediated, any editor is free to add their own. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin I'll list on Friday as I don't have the time until then. Feel free to list for mediation if you want or if you have the time. Blackash have a chat 08:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Bear in mind that you may be banned from this topic. It might be better to see how you feel about the article after that ban (if it happens) expires. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin I’m ready to list, but you seem unsure. Are you still willing to go ahead with formal meditation. Blackash have a chat 12:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep asking me this question? I have made clear that I am willing to participate in any dispute resolution process. You are proposing formal mediation and it is up to you to decide what issues you want mediated the propose this formally. If it is accepted then the mediators will ask all editors if the wish to be involved. As you may be getting a topic ban I suggest that it would be better for you to wait but it is entirely up to you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Martin, listing now. I didn't want to go the trouble of listing it again only to have you not reply to the listing wasting the meditations' time and mine. So thank you for again confirming. [169] Blackash have a chat 13:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic ban again

Oppose I don't think a topic ban would work as there are more editors than just Slowart and Blackash involved. It is not that hard to have another account running as some editors do. A topic ban would not effect me at all as I came to wiki as an end user to get info. I got involved in this conflict as Blackash was the only editor providing useful information in the article while other editors were pulling her edits down. On the talk page, other editors just dont answer or talk about behaviour rather than content.This has been ongoing. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Only Slowart and Blackash have a known commercial interest in this subject. That is what this is all about. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Topic Ban: Mediate title - it would be ridiculous to stop two agreed experts from editing the articles. I can however see a case for a consnsus being made by uninvolved editors as to which term is best, and then restrictions put on the editing so as to endorse that view only. Egg Centric 15:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not planing on contributing any more unless Blackash goes unchecked in describing my work, removing, redefining or watering down the word arborsculpture. Check my edit history please, I proposed topic ban for myself and Blackash as I don't need these endless battles, and to be honest, the subject deserves better. Yes the title issue should be revisited but keep me out of it please. Slowart (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment There is no established name yet [170] the discussion that lead to this wording [171]. Wikipedia describes not prescribes. Me and my life partner at Pooktre don't care what the name of the article is as long the title not linked to a method or leads to one artist. So Pooktre and Arborsculpture are both out as the title. Google Pooktre it leads to us google Arborsculpture it leads to Richard Reames. If you are interested here is a link to a page with the alternative names suggested for the title with references and quotes. Blackash have a chat 09:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Another COI edit

Blackash has just made this [172]. Whether it is sourced or not is irrelevant, editors should not be adding proprietary names for the art used by their own businesses to this article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Pooktre is not registered or trademarked, its a word Pete and I created to name our own art. Different editors have put pooktre into the lead and SilkTork stated pooktre has also become generic. I suggested this change on the talk page close to two weeks ago. diff Martin I'm not a mind reader, if you had an issue with the my suggested comprise for the alternative names you should have spoke up. Blackash have a chat 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Blackash, the argument is not about whether Pooktre should be in the lead it is about whether you should be the one to put it there (or restore it). Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How about full page protection

With topic ban it is my understanding that an editor would watch the articles. There have been comments as to this conflict tying up editors time.This seems to be an issue. On the COI noticeboard EdJohnston suggested full page protection. I feel this is a valid outcome as the conflicts are centered on Tree Shaping. Page protection would free up editors to work on other topics. If this were to go ahead the article needs to have the three methods in place when it is locked. As the article is now with Tree training, arborsculpture, and pooktre, I feel this is fair. As Tree training was suggested by multiple editors as the title for the article, it is reasonable for it to go in the lead first. Sydney Bluegum (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether desirable or not, that's not going to happen—as "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", pages are only protected for the amount of time required to prevent disruption. If particular editors repeatedly edit against consensus or Wikipedia's principles, processes such as the one being discussed here are undertaken, and problematic editors end up being blocked or topic banned (with blocks for violations). Johnuniq (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We need a topic ban for all WP:SPA editors and all those with a potential COI. The remaining editors can then discuss the best way to deal with the commercially sensitive issues in the article in a fair and impartial way. Once agreement has been reached and the necessary changes made the other editors should be allowed back, on the strict condition that they make no edits within a defined area.

I think this would be a good case for arbitration, as the main issues are with editor conduct rather than content in itself. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So the fact you decided to remove cited content with no discussion is not relevant? I think it highly relevant Blackash have a chat 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as I have already explained, the reason that I reverted was that the edit was made by an editor with a potential COI. You do not seem to understand what this means. Both you and Slowart have a commercial interest in this subject that potentially conflicts with your editing here. You should both refrain from making edits that involve the name of the art or current practitioners of it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

No you said, you reverted an IP,comment diff of Martin's revert. Going by your reasoning above you should have also reverted the 3 IPs who had mirrored Slowart's edits removing cite content, but you didn't.Blackash have a chat 08:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support full page protection The tree shaping article as it stands at the moment has had multiple outside editors help shape it, though my checking different points on noticeboards. Which seems to be why I'm up for topic ban. No-one is saying tree shaping article is a mess.

I think the best solution is to do a full page protection of the article for 6-12 months. That way the article is not left with only the pro arborsculpture group. Who have done:-

1. Have a stated goal of changing the title to arborsuclpture.
2. To suggest editing the article for a WP:POINT diff to help achive their goal.
3. Have already edited the article to give undue weight to Arborsculpture when they were requesting the article title be change back to arborsuclpture. For more detail
4. Multiple editors have commented to various pro arborsculpture editors about them being uncivil and/or rude, sometimes to the point of driving away neutral outside editors.
5. Are willing to support removal of cited content [173] and diff. In the second example there has been no discussion as to why.
6. When it comes to answering content related policy questions they mostly don't. Some recent examples

Note how I created points or ask questions and they are not addressed. [174] This Archive of the talk page should give a sense of the way discussions go this one is about the title [175] and this is good example of their style of argument [176]. Now times that by 5 or 7 editors who state I have COI (with no back up and other editors like SilkTork have stated I don't have COI) and you have some idea of what I've been dealing with.

As one of the issues is, this conflict is taking up to much of other editors time. A full page lock would be the best solution, as this would free up other editors. If the page was fully locked, I would be fine with not bringing things up on the talk page or noticeboards. Though I would like to reply to treads others start. I would continue to edit fortnightly on orphaned articles. There is good reason that Slowart seems eager to be topic banned. Quote edit summary "Topic ban please" diff Blackash have a chat 10:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Full protection is not going to be enabled for anything like six months, let alone a year. Wikipedia has far more controversial articles which survive without full protection. In the end this is a relatively minor naming dispute which only gives the impression of being significantly problematic because of the number of editors with COI involved in it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• It is extremely likely that the battle about "arborsculpture" has been waged on the Internet since 2008 or earlier—see northey reams pooktre arborsculpture for examples; Blackash has declared "I am Becky Northey co-founder of Pooktre with a potential COI" a number of times (example). Wikipedia cannot allow those with an external agenda to decide what terminology is used in an article. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note I didn't suggest or ask for the arborsculpture article be moved or what the new name should be. [177]. This is where there was more discussion after the move [178] As to the google link Johnuniq put up, Bluerasberry addressed this when Colincbn brought this same issue up at the NPOV noticeboard. "[179] Bluerasberry quote "As to the links to user:blackash posting to other websites, I see nothing wrong with this and I am not sure why you think this is bad. Blackash's posting on the off-wiki message boards about arborsculpture meets WP:CANVASS because she is making an off-site RfC without pushing a particular view, without soliciting people likely to take her side, without soliciting people who are unlikely to be interested (she posted on relevant boards), and by getting a message to a group of people who might not otherwise know about Wikipedia (perhaps older gardeners who might not use Wikipedia much). Wikipedia needs more editors and I see what she did as great advertising to direct traffic to Wikipedia, and I see no way for this to lead to financial gain for anyone." reply link

As to listing for meditation Colincbn was going to list on the 23rd of Sep 2010 as there had been a consensus to on the talk page link but by 28th he hadn't so I ask him on his talk page and then I listed on the 6 Oct 2010 Blackash have a chat 08:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I did not suggest there is anything wrong with promoting your work. Nor am I suggesting a canvassing problem. What I am saying is the bleeding obvious: you have a COI and have used many Internet forums to promote your work and your POV. And now you are using articles on Wikipedia to do the same, and that has to stop—you should no longer be permitted to make edits that concern your clear COI. The Google search link shows you have conducted a campaign since at least 2008, and you will never be convinced by discussion or mediation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:23, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If I was trying to get the title change to Pooktre I would have a clear COI. But a practitioner discussing the overall name of a art form is only a potential COI if that. I'll state again, I don't care what the overall name of the art form is as long as it neutral. I would be willing to believe that I'm a tree trainer but like all other artists (with the exception of Richard Reames) in this field I don't believe I'm a arborsculptor. Blackash have a chat 11:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Full Protection - Not only is it not within the guideline of WP:FULL to protect a page because it gets vandalized, but if wikipedia fully protected pages because of vandalism or COI editing, then there wouldn't be too many unlocked pages to edit, now would there.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

  Thanks, but that is not the issue. The person suggesting page protection has no experience with Wikipedia other than with Tree shaping, and naturally the page is not going to be protected, as I explained above. The issue concerns the fact that Blackash in particular has a long-term interest in suppressing use of the term "arborsculpture", both off wiki (see my Google search link above at timestamp 03:20, 14 March), and on wiki. There is another frustrated editor with a COI (Slowart) who occasionally (over a long period) attempts to restore "arborsculpture" to the lead of the article, but Blackash spends more time dominating the article. The question raised at ANI is whether any editors should be topic banned (yes, of course at least the two editors with an acknowledged COI concerning the terminology should be topic banned). Johnuniq (talk) 21:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq. Pointing out online that arborsculpture is not the overall name or that it leads to Richard Reames is not suppressing. (Both points can be verified) Asking other editor's opinions on wiki how much weight Arborsculpture should be given in the article compared to it's references is also not suppressing. Johnuniq just what do you think my long term interest is? I haven't ever said that I have a COI about the overall name. As a practitioner discussing the overall name I only have a potential COI if that. Blackash have a chat 01:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Google search shows you have been arguing the case off-wiki since 2008, and it is not acceptable to continue the argument on-wiki. Your edits always end up by removing "arborsculpture" from the lead of the article, which coincidentally matches your off-wiki promotions of your business which uses different terminology. Eventually sufficient editors will choose to get involved in order to support the very reasonable request for a topic ban for at least the two editors with clear COI issues. Johnuniq (talk) 11:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

@Johnuniq Your understanding of COI is faulty like your claim that my edits always end up removing "arborsculpture" from the lead.

• My suggested compromise when arborsculpture wasn't in the lead diff Please note arborsculpture is one of the words in the compromise. My edit on the article putting the suggested compromise in place. [180] Please note arborsculpture is still in the lead.
• WP:COI Quote "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups." I can give diffs to multiple instances where I've put wikipedia polices first/above pooktre. Here are a few:
  • My request to speedy delete the pooktre article. [181]
  • Where I listed pooktre article for deletion [182]
  • Where I added citation needed to Pooktre in the Alternative names on Tree shaping. [183]
    • SilkTork's comment on COI is an interesting view on COI diff

My editing about the name of the art form is not a COI because I am not pushing/promoting to have my word Pooktre as the overall name of the art form. Blackash have a chat 14:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This listing is now showing the pro arborsculpture editors tactics and its starting to look like anywhere I've gone and requested for outside editors opinion on content for Tree shaping. They come in and fill the pages with rhetoric. Mostly these editors don't answer content related questions and they throw mud. I rebut with diffs because if I don't most editors would logically believe them. Blackash have a chat 14:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not pro, nor anti, arborsculpture. Nor am I pro/anti pooktre. I am simply pro Wikipedia. Colincbn (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support Subject Ban-including all editors porting ongoing partisan arguments into this forum, as all appear to be part of the problem. Allow TalkPage ad lib. .These are good editors facing our times as best they can- but this is a group who are apparently using the article to try to change the English language. Here in NoCalifornia there is neither "Arborsculpture" nor "Treeshaping". Disneyland has informed visitors for 60 years- the park's history is filled with magical topiaries- from promenades of Mickey Mouse ficus, to societies of anthropomorphic cacti, to gant electrified tree houses, &theyre all referred to as topiary. Not "Imagineered Sculptured Plants". With appreciation for WhatamIdoing's high-minded position elsewhere, and with respect to the volumes already written- this business offers high instruction about our resolution process- IE., it really doesnt work so well, does it? Barring "changes of heart", any *mutual* subject-banning is probly far more efficient- and ultimately most fair where any editor evidences intransigence.
B/c WP process inevitably gives 'first-strike' users a break. This has long been established within WP policy. This is exactly how WP:Edit wars are won according to the article: It pays to initiate an edit war. We've seen it pay well. Today we're seeing Israel admitting to training teams of paid WP article-seeders who'll cunningly insert pro-Zionist political content wherever possible. Why? Because it works. Because our policies give that "activism" a break. Dont look for "fair" in "resolution". It pays to start an edit war. And that's what this is, in effect.
But WP is a human system with other human faults. Our mediation process does not work. It relies on

1. Two open-minded, open- hearted adversaries and
2. a mediator able to make cogent contributions via some overall understanding of human nature as well as important technical, and any ancillary 'market' issues at stake, and then decide an authoritative yet non-binding resolution-

&How likely is that synergy? You can say "Good editors resolve disputes". Well, but not quite. I see "Good editors" who have no effect at all when there's more at stake than good editing. Apparently "good editors" also quick-delete spam and promotion.

Provided no cliques &/or puppets are involved- I suspect *mutual* WP:Topic bans of intransigents eventually results in fair articles [and Titles] overall, with less time spent re-hashing events. I'm usually for more gentleness, but WP articles should nOT become a primary resource for politics and gain. I do suggest all editors consider using mutual banning more frequently wherever intransigence is apparent. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 22:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Well said, although I'm innocent and therefor unworthy of your suspicions. Topiary at Disneyland really is topiary. Proceed with topic ban IMHO. Slowart (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Please be aware that we are not discussing who is "innocent" or otherwise. Discussions like this arise when normal talk page debate cannot resolve an issue (for example, there is a discussion below about whether "The Beatles" is preferable to "the Beatles"). No one is suggesting that an editor has done anything "wrong" in this case, other than it is totally impossible to achieve stability in the Tree shaping article because of the entrenched interests involved. If a topic ban were placed, it is likely that more arguments will occur, but they will be resolved in due course because they will be between experienced editors who only want what is right for Wikipedia, with no outside influence that may affect their judgment. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Hilarleo, I think it's important to remember that topiary is not the same thing as tree shaping. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, neither does your link refer to what most arborists call tree shaping. The term 'tree shaping' does not occur in that article at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

True, but I linked it because of its pictures, not because of the text. It shows the trees by Axel Erlandson, whose important contributions to the art form you will find described in the article at Tree shaping#Chronology_of_notable_practitioners.

The fact is that a welded metal frame stuffed with sphagnum moss and covered by little houseplants—which is modern topiary, shown at the Disney link—is simply not the same thing as weaving living tree trunks into a basket shape (the first image in the Gilroy Gardens link). If you actually look at the pictures, it's obvious that they are different things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Slowart, hello. I see I have may have engaged you- unlike others. Thank you.

btw, all- the topic here is a mutual editor Subject Ban. Revisiting previous disputes is essentially off-topic to this page. Please let's return any re-naming argument to where it is well-supported. Hilarleo ^Hey,L.E.O. 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I get the feeling this is going to end up burning out just like the three CoIs (one brought by Blackash herself). Where are the admins at ANI? Colincbn (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

@Colincbn I can only remember 2 COI: this 1, the 2nd that lead to here, I’ve searched and can’t find the 3th one. Please give a link. Blackash have a chat 12:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

How much longer?

Other than one of the editors up for topic banning there have been only two editors who oppose the ban. One of them is AfD Hero who was the one that changed the article name with no discussion,thus creating this wave of conflict, in the first place. The other prefers mediation, however that has been being attempted for over a year with no success. The time has come to make a solid decision about what to do. Do we allow commercially involved entities to edit articles for their own interests or do we stop it. Do we topic ban or capitulate? Hurry up and make a stand, this is why you were given the mop and bucket. The time of the volunteer editors that make this site work is valuable. (P.S. I had to restore this from the archives because even after all of this no admins are doing anything)Colincbn (talk) 03:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

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