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

User:Wasserman

This user has been made aware at least once previously that a number of editors take issue with his aggressive communication style. Personally I feel like some editors are far too thin-skinned about supposed incivility and have no particular opinion about the previous incident; I provide it only for informational purposes. Recently the editor has decided that there is an insidious conspiracy to eliminate the categorization of Jewish people as Jewish. Here he accuses User:William Allen Simpson of "rampant" and "blatant" censorship because that editor has nominated a number of "Jews by occupation" categories for deletion recently. In five CFDs from June 11 he copies and pastes substantially identical comments in which he accuses WASimpson of engaging in a "pathetic attempt to justify the continued censorship and eradication of ... Jewish categories" along with accusations that WASimpson and I are engaged in a conspiracy against Jewish-related categories. Wasserman has crossed a line here and while I don't know if a short chill-out block is in order here, at the very least the editor needs to be put on notice that hyperbolic and unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracies constitute a failure to assume good faith and constitute incivility. Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• In accessing the editor's page to advise him of this notice, I found this. User has a history of crying "censorship". Otto4711 (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I have been a participant to those discussions and as such have been able to form an opinion about Wassermann. He seems genuinly distressed by certain nominations for deletion connected with "Jewish". And it is true that quite a number of these have been tagged for deletion lately. And it may even be that William Allen Simpson (with whom I have an issue here on wp:ani) is trying to tag as many ethnicity related categories as he can, in accordance with what he thinks is the right thing to do. But accusing editors of conspiracy, in the way Wassermann does, that is a little out of line. Nevertheless, in view of the emotional issue involved and in view of the fact that we all have been created by G-d with a different way of expressing ourselves, and for some that way is more emotionally loaden than for others, I hope we can suffice with a verbal explanation to Wassermann of the proper way to behave in discussions. Debresser (talk) 23:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any proof of validity of this users claim of "censorship"? Triplestop (talk) 00:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not really. Debresser (talk) 02:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Ill-advised, maybe. Deletionism gone a few steps too far, perhaps. Countered by reliable sources, likely. But there is no evidence of censorship based on religion here, and problems with deletions at CfD are a rainbow assortment crossing categories based on all races, religions, creeds and national origins, including claims that it is impossible to determine race, religion, creed or national origin for anyone without resorting to original research. A reminder that WP:COOLDOWN, clearly specifies that "Blocks intended solely to 'cool down' an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect" and that such blocks should not be proposed as a solution. CfD is in desperate need of greater outside participation to help produce consensuses that are representative of the community as a whole, and all necessary efforts should be taken to bring User:Wassermann productively into the CfD fold, rather than trying to push out and away those who disagree with some CfD regulars. Alansohn (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• COOLDOWN also says that if an angry editor is being disruptive they may be blocked. Accusing editors of engaging in conspiracies is disruptive. This is not a question of "push[ing] out" an editor on the basis of disagreement; that is not even close to an accurate assessment of the situation. Otto4711 (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Wasserman has crossed a line here and while I don't know if a short chill-out block is in order here" are your words. Policy is very specific that cool-down blocks are prohibited. Alansohn (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oh for god's sake. COOLDOWN says that they "should not" be used, it does not say that they shall not or cannot be used. It is advising against their use, not prohibiting them. And of course my words also say that he's crossed a line into incivility and disruption and COOLDOWN specifically states that blocks for this sort of behaviour are appropriate. Does there really need to be this constant parsing of everything everyone says?

• Otto's (I assume its Otto's) comment above this one may be a clue as how he could have led Wasserman to feel upset and frustrated. Does anyone, other than Otto, believe that a guideline that says "x should not be used" means that "x may be used"?

• I had to censor one of Wassermann's sub pages. Is Jayjg still around, he has had interaction with this user? --Tom (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

from his user page it looks like jayjg blocked him repeatedly but he disappeared completely at the beginning of the judea/samaria arbcom case and hasn't returned since then. untwirl(talk) 16:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I had a look at that userpage a yesterday, and did not understand the reason for its "censorship". Clearly User:Wassermann is smart enough that conversation, perhaps by more than one editor, should be able to explain him what and why. Debresser (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

From the peanut gallery: I noticed this thread because of a whimsical "Recent changes" excursion a few hours ago. Some of Wassermann's recent edits do seem to be a source of concern on the basis of WP:BLP, because of the insertion of unsourced Jewish-related categories into biographies of living persons. He has in the past been blocked for exactly this sort of infraction. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Seconding this. See this and this, where there are no reliable sources saying these people are Jewish, and obvious BLP concern. He's had so many problems with this before, for which he has been blocked, that I can't imagine he's unaware that this is a problem. Recommend a block. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And upon investigation, I see that Category:Jewish Economists was deleted in 2007, and then Category:Jewish economists was deleted just 4 days ago. This looks like an attempt to recreate and repopulate a deleted category. (Not exactly the same category, but the same arguments apply.) – Quadell ^(talk) 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the majority of people in the category are not said to be Jewish in the article. This is a serious BLP problem. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

At a guess, Wasserman has used Catscan and/or AWB to intersect Category:Jewish Americans/Category:American Jews with Category:American economists (as the ones I looked at are also in the former, eg Kotlikoff was already in a Jewish category). It is something of an attempt to subvert the speedy deletion of Category:Jewish economists. Occuli (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, read his comment there. Sheesh. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

In a related note, I have come down on User:Epeefleche here about attacking the nominator rather than the nomination, with what I perceive to be a direct intimation of anti-Semitic bias. This followed Wassermann's allegation of the conspiracy on Otto's part. I'm not sure if Wassermann realized that could be a direct result of his careless word choice. I consider these actions to be on the other side of a line that cannot be crossed here. I won't weigh in on a block motion yet, but I'm certainly monitoring the situation with both these users. (I'm also not a fan of the words Otto has used in this discussion here and elsewhere, but that does absolutely nothing to justify the negative behavior on Wassermann and Epeefleche's parts.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Mike fails to point out: 1) that I raised the issue of a dishonest statement by the nominator, which I substantiated with references to the nominator's statements and the nominator's diffs -- Mike seems to both think that it is fine for the nominator to be dishonest, and a breach of Wiki guidelines for another editor to point out that dishonesty; 2) that all of the nominator's requests for deletions of categories of any religions/ethnicities/nationalities in those of his last 500 diffs related only to Jewish categories, though the proferred reason would have suggested that if the nominator was not singling out Jewish categories he would have been seeking deletion during that time of other religions/ethnicities/nationalities. I would also point out that incendiary language has been used by the nominator (calling others paranoid, etc.), but not by me. Mike has sought (both in his "come down" note and though comments of a person he invited to join the discussion) to chill my right make a legitate point as to a series of dishonest statements by the nominator. He has also sought to chill my right to ask a question as to motive. In both cases, with a heavy handed threat, completely innapropriate, of a block. I'm surprised, quite frankly, by what I consider to be heavy handed innapropriate behavior on his part.
• As to Wasserman, I'm not sure that use of the words "blatant" and "censorship" are punishable offences in this context. It seems more likely that the nominator's use of the word "paranoid" to describe Wasserman is more innapropriate than anything Wasserman wrote. As far as assuming good faith is involved, that is a presumption under Wikipedia:Assume good faith that can be rebutted by the nominator's and WAS's actions. The policy does not require editors to continue to assume good faith when there is evidence of bad faith. I would posit that when someone lies, that is such evidence, and when they seek to delete a dozen "Jewish" categories but not other categories of religions/ethnicities/nationalities -- using an argument that is not Jewish-specific, that may well also be evidence of good faith that rebuts the assumption of good faith.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• This page is not about a motion to block you, and it is most assuredly not about what I think is "fine" (which you have misrepresented, in a developing string of misrepresentations). My comment was about the possible effects of Wassermann throwing around anti-Jewish conspiracy allegations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf's conflict with User:Allstarecho becoming disruptive

So User:Damiens.rf doesn't seem to like User:Allstarecho, and it's spilling into a number of forums, and, I believe, becoming terribly disruptive. ASE wrote an article on Equality Mississippi, with potential COI problems as noted above, and Damiens.rf has been attacking that article -- I can't think of a more accurate term -- by adding a ridiculous number of fact tags (despite it already having Refimprove), removing the names of convicted murderers of ASE's friend, spuriously citing BLP, removing several sources because they mention "Mississippi Gay Lobby", not "Equality Mississippi" (despite the fact that the article says "The organization's original name was Mississippi Gay Lobby"), repeatedly removing information on offline sources (therefore making the copied PD text into plagiarism), adding {{pov-statement}} in many places (such as the word "historic" referring to a Supreme Court ruling), and many similar edits. Note that this is entirely tendentious editing; none of his many edits have actually improved the article. His few comments on the talk page have been brief and mainly sarcastic. Yes, there are legitimate COI problems in the article, and the sourcing can indeed be improved, but I don't believe Damiens.rf's edits have been good faith attempts to improve things. I believe they have been disruptive attempts to attack ASE.

Meanwhile, Damiens.rf has nominated Wikipedia:ASE and Wikipedia:ASTAR for deletion, and I am doubtful these were made in good faith. I strongly suspect the uncivil IP edit here and the notice here at ANI were done by Damiens.rf as well. Discussions like this one show Damiens.rf has had problems with stalking before, and has responded dismissively and sarcastically when asked about it. I have had unpleasant interactions with both Damiens.rf and AllStarEcho in the past, so it would be inappropriate for me to use (or threaten to use) admin abilities in this situation, but I wanted to bring the issue here to see what others think. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Damiens.rf on the two redirects. However, I'd say your characterization of his other edits is pretty spot on, and that this does seem to be a pattern with him. I'm not comfortable doing anything here either, but what kind of administrative action are you looking for? AniMate^draw 15:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf has also removed an OTRS link from the page several times. The mess of fact, citation, and "what" tags are continued to be added to the page. This is disruptive and Damiens.rf is not improving the article in anyway what-so-ever. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

And he's continuing to edit war on tag placement. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps his attention could be drawn to this ArbCom finding (currently passing) - "In appropriate instances, it is permissible to place a clean-up maintenance tag on an article in order to call attention to problems with the article. It is not, however, appropriate to place a tag on an article in order to further exacerbate a dispute." –xeno^talk 18:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I found this quite by accident and have encountered similar issues with User:Damiens.rf. After he nominated an image of a deceased legislator for deletion Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_9#Byron_M._Baer.jpg here, responses that addressed his issues appeared to have triggered a sequence of new FfDs for eight separate images I uploaded on eight separate occasions at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_June_12. I have no idea what triggered this outpouring of deletion requests and these deletion requests accounted for almost all of his Wikipedia edits that day. Any legitimate issues with these images were readily addressed and could have been addressed without resorting to deletion, but the greater issue here appears to be that User:Damiens.rf does appear to have launched these FfDs on a retaliatory basis, in apparent violation of WP:HARASS and WP:STALK. I thought it was just me, but this ANI report seems to make it clear that this is a larger problem on Damiens.rf's part that needs to be addressed through administrative action. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

What are the wikipedia rules, if any, about users creating "shortcut" pages that consist solely of redirects to their own talk page? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, see: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_May_27#Wikipedia:PEDRO Kingturtle (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Slightly different, as that was a redirect from an editor's name to a sub-page (that didn't even belong to them). A more accurate example would be Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 23#Wikipedia:GURCH, Wikipedia:EVULA, Wikipedia:ZN → User/User talk. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• The "harrassment by template" of Damiens.rf on the Equality Mississippi article and mass nomination for deletions of ASE continues. I wasn't going to suggest it, but since Damiens.rf isn't letting up in this template harrassment, a "chill" block might be necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Equality Mississippi currently has twelve templates on it, mostly {ref} and {fact} tags. The reason it's only twelve is that several have been removed. It makes the article quite difficult to actually read. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed three (two tags and a template). I figured it was more than 12 to be honest....but no matter what, it is far too many. One or two, we get the point....12 is overkill. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of removing tags, why don't you remove unsourced statements? --Damiens.rf 18:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Instead of littering the page with tags, why don't you source the unsourced statements? It's obvious why, but it just needed to be said. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As I explained back in May (when I unsuccessfully tried to fix the article without the use of tags), I didn't sourced the article myself because I couldn't find much information about that organization. But since we're at it, why don't you, as the creator and main editor, sourced the statements when writing the article? --Damiens.rf 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.sf did the right thing, and I would hope that more editors would do what is an unthankful task, that is, pointing out problem with articles and their sources, either by deleting content or by tagging problematic sections. Andrei Rublev (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A user can do the right thing, but if they do it in the wrong way it isn't helpful. Damiens.rf has been disruptive and antagonistic here. It's not okay. AniMate^draw 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

AniMate puts it well. Durova^Charge! 18:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I ask the tough question...what are we to do? Do we just let Damiens.rf run rampant over the article, make snide and sarcastic remarks on the talk pages and edit summaries (which has already upset one user) or do we do something....anything? Bad ideas included. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He's antagonizing ASE and being disruptive. He doesn't care if Equality Mississippi is improved. It's all about proving some kind of point. He's not listening to any one's advice today and it's rather obvious a block is necessary. (P.S. the people having aneurysms over his redirects need to step away from the computer...slowly...) APK (If You Wanna) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Then someone should block him, cause this is disruption at it's worst. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf and I have had a negative editing experience going on, I'm guessing, about 3 months now - ever since he went on an image deletion rampage that I disagreed with. Since then he's targeted me in several place.. images I have uploaded, shortcut redirects to my user page and talk page (he's nommed 3 of them at Misc. for Deletion just today), the article being discussed here and others in which he's felt the need and trolling on my talk page. It wouldn't surprise me one bit to find out that at least 1 of the 2 IP users in the thread just above this one, is him. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you write up a report with diffs to substantiate that? Agreeing with several posters above that the actions today are probably blockable. If this isn't a one-off then there's also a more serious problem. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I closed the Mfds; "bad-faith nom by user with a grudge against ASE. If someone feels strongly, pls re-nom and I suggest an admin topic-ban Damiens.rf from the discussion. (NAC)". To expand on that point, I think it would be fine for someone else to re-nom the pages for deletion if they truly believe that they should be deleted, but given Damiens.rf's history with ASE the well was rather poisoned and didn't appear to be done in good faith. Should someone re-nom the pages, I think it would be a good idea for Damiens.rf to be topicbanned from the discussion in order to avoid further problems. I believe what I did was within the realm of non-admin discretion for closing XfD's, as the close would best be described as "Keep inasmuch as the nomination was pointy and continuing a grudge, but there may be a valid concern here which someone without a grudge could raise with far less drama and enabling of ongoing interpersonal conflicts." //roux   19:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • And I boldly re-opened them. Bad faith nom or not, there are delete !votes there, let it run its course. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Which you should not have done, as you had already voted in the discussion. Please re-close and re-nom if you feel there is a goodfaith basis for nominating them. As someone without a grudge against ASE, you are probably more able to evaluate fairly whether they should be deleted, unlike Damiens.rf. //roux   19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Early closing a discussion with lots of delete !votes disenfranchises those good faith editors who believe in the deletion. Just let it run its course. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
        • • (edit conflict)Fruit from the poisoned tree. And I suggest you re-read what I wrote above, as it seems you didn't; re-nominating the pages without Damiens.rf's involvement is better for the project as a whole and ensures that those editors who had already commented may do so again as they wish. But since I don't particularly feel like getting into an argument with someone who clearly didn't bother reading what I had to say, have at it. You're completely missing the point that the nominations were obviously and purely further fueling of an interpersonal grudge, and we should not be enabling that. Apparently you think we should be, which I find perplexing at best. //roux   19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
            • That's not the point though, as I noted on the MfD page. I was once followed around by a pernicious little stalker here, but it turns out that one of the places where the boy blindly reverted my edits did have notability issues after all. The right issue can be raised by the wrong person sometimes. Tarc (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • • • Have faith that the closing admin will take the bad faith nom into account when they close. This is distracting from the larger problems. AniMate^draw 19:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
          • Indeed...There also wasn't that much participation from the nom either and the nom statement was short and to the point. –xeno^talk 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Note that Allstarecho has already recreated P:ASTAR which was speedily deleted just hours ago. Dismissing all of Damien.rf's actions as bad faith misses a critical element of why this ended up here in the first place. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I am thouroughly disgusted by this discussion here and at Equality Mississippi. In protest I will stop editing here. There is really no point in writing well-sourced and neutral articles on topics I am not personally involved in. Admins are apparently not willing to take steps against editors who abuse Wikipedia by creating vanity articles on their own organisation, and then revert everyone who dares to point out problems with this article. Not to mention the numerous copyright violations.

I guess that fits in the broader picture where editors who create fake articles (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deudonic_War) and attack other editors ([1]) are only blocked for a week and not for good. Good luck in attracting good editors, when in fact everything you do is to try your best to keep the bad editors. Andrei Rublev (talk) 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is interested in retaining counterproductive editors. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. Durova^Charge! 20:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I read through the previous ANI reports and each time the conclusion seems to have been that there were legitimate issues that were identified by Damien and that accusations of bad faith and other personal attacks were inappropriate. And here again, I see a lot of complaints in this discussion about his prolific use of fact tags (for example), but the alternative corrective action was simply to remove all the unsourced assertions. There is also a serious issue of COI and an ongoing problem of pushing and exceeding the limits of our policies for photos, copyright, etc.

I certainly understand the sensitivity felt when an editor sees their work subject to series of noms (it sucks when you're the one targeted). But I don't see any evidence of bad faith, and when there's a pattern of mistakes it shows up in the edit history, and sometimes another editor will investigate and take action.

Normally I'm a big supporter of editors going there separate ways, but in this case there does seem to be a number of problems that need to be addressed. That many of the articles involve politically sensitive issues should not be used as a cudgel to scare away good faith editors trying to appropriately enforce policies. If someone has a suggestion on a better way to handle the problems Damien has identified, they are free to suggest it. I certainly agree that delicacy hasn't been demonstrated in the handling of this matter, but Allstar hasn't responded with a high degree of civility and kid gloves either. I think we should focus on resolving the issues and sorting out which of the problems identified are legitimate and how to correct them, leaving the rest of the accusations out all together. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I have little positive interactions with Damiens.rf so will confine myself to making a generalized statement that others can take in as they please. I found their editing across a handful of biography articles and at least two list articles, all about murdered LGBT people - mostly transgender folks - chilling. The seemed to prefer deleting to sourcing and set about edit-warring even when sourcing was added. Even if they are making some valid points that sourcing is needed, content needs to be NPOV, etc. Making articles into battlegrounds and targeting any minority group seems like a really bad idea and makes editing sensistive subjects toxic. This is completely counter to civility policies. This is among the reasons editors burn out and leave and prosepctive editors turn away. In a volunteer community we should be quicker to find ways to work with others, not in opposition to them. -- Banjeboi 02:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no interest in the subject matter itself, but admins should be aware that regardless of subject or editor, Damiens.rf has a long history of overly aggressive editing practices on Wikipedia. While his base intentions may be good (AGF, after all), his overall style is very hostile and disruptive. Why should this be allowed to continue?

Please consider these past incidents when making a decision on how best to resolve this issue:

[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

Radiopathy •talk• 03:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Here's one more to look at: [8]. (The result—"both editors warned"—was unfortunate, I thought, because Allstarecho had done nothing to warrant being warned, while Damiens.rf had been making the same disruptive edit repeatedly, not technically in violation of 3RR but certainly in violation of its spirit). That incident—wherein Damiens.rf six times in four days, against consensus and without discussion, removed an image he himself had just nominated for deletion for the second time—was my introduction to Damiens.rf. This behavior was accompanied by various other unhelpful edits to Violence against LGBT persons, including much tagging and deleting. The whole episode, which lasted several days, left a bad taste in my mouth because I had been actively working to improve the article at the time, including adding sources, and found it difficult to carry on in the face of such massive disruption.

Since that time, I've noticed a troubling pattern to his edits of articles on topics related to violence against LGBT persons, such as the murder of Fred Martinez. On May 12, he nominated the Martinez article for deletion. It was deleted (erroneously, in my opinion, since it was well-sourced and clearly notable), but what I found particularly disturbing was Damiens's conduct with regard to two related articles:

1. Shaun Murphy (murderer) was a simple redirect page to Fred Martinez. Technically, since it redirected to a deleted article, it may have been appropriate to delete it. However, Damiens's stated rationale on May 20 for speedy deletion was "Link accuses someone of murdered (sic) and redirects to deleted article." The inconvenient fact was that it didn't accuse someone of murder; it simply took as its title the name of a convicted murderer, namely the murderer of Fred Martinez. The Martinez article was properly sourced to show the fact of Murphy's conviction, so Damiens's apparent implication that there was a BLP issue was completely unfounded. I'm all for assuming good faith, and I do so every time I interact with others on Wikipedia, but I cannot imagine that Damiens thought that the page should be deleted because its title contained the word "murderer". Of course, the on-wiki evidence that Shaun Murphy was in fact a murderer had been conveniently deleted—due to the efforts of none other than Damiens. Circular logic at its weirdest.
2. Also on May 20, Damiens made an edit to LGBT movements in the United States removing Fred Martinez's name from a short list of bias-related murder victims, saying in his edit summary that he was "removing martinez since it was a normal crime" (my emphasis). Of course, it was anything but a "normal" crime—numerous reliable sources reported that Shaun Murphy bragged about killing a "faggot"—but again, the on-wiki evidence for that was conveniently erased by Damiens's own hand.

In helping to establish a pattern, it also may be worth noting that Damiens placed a notability tag on Murder_of_Amanda_Milan last fall, and said in the edit summary, "I think this crime was not notable outside local news and lgbt circles". This seems to imply that topics of concern in "LGBT circles" (whatever those may be) are somehow not worthy of article space on Wikipedia.

I have had no recent interactions with Damiens.rf and am not especially asking for mops to be wielded here, but I have been extremely troubled by these (and other) edits he made last month, and I thought it would be as well to bring them to light here. Rivertorch (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to establish a pattern, look at his block log. Once he has something in his sights, he's single-minded in his pursuit of the issue. Therein lies the problem. Guettarda (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of single-minded, here's something new to consider: [9]. On the plus side, Damiens.rf is opening a discussion on the talk page rather than simply tagging or deleting. Problem is, it concerns a late friend of Allstarecho (see Equality Mississippi#Founding). It strikes me as bad form, at the very least, to be singling out this one item while this ANI thread is open. Maybe I'm wrong, but if I were in the midst of an adversarial encounter with another editor, I'd stay well away from any articles relating to that other editor's off-wiki life. Rivertorch (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense that Damiens.rf completely disengage from that article and Allstarecho broadly construed? There seems little good coming of this and Damiens.rf, IMHO, gives every impression of baiting. I would feel a bit stressed if an editor who had been hounding me now wanted to work through the murder of a friend of mine. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm beyond stressed about it. Especially more to see he's now taken the fight to a whole nother article. Until Equality Mississippi's closing, we gave an annual award to honor him - The Jamie Ray Tolbert Equality Award. I just don't know how to source that he and I were friends, that I spent days on end driving around Biloxi and Gulfport, Mississippi looking for him/his vehicle, that I was on the local radio and news doing interviews through tears... I mean, I can't simply call beyond the grave and ask him for a written statement that we were friends. What I do know is his death is what propelled me to get off my ass and start a gay rights organization in a state that had none. I think that's notable. unfortunately, I have no way of sourcing our friendship other than the original Equality Mississippi web site when it had the full history of the organization. I'm currently culling through the now defunct site via archives at Archive.org. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 05:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ASE, since you are using Archive.org, try looking on the local TV station websites of the stations you appeared on for a story link. They would have said in that story that you were his friend...and would be more than enough to source it. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have and so far nothing. I've found actual pages that notate our friendship but there's the issue of self sourcing.. using the organization's web site as a source has been another complaint by Damiens.rf. See The March 15, 2000 entry here from 2002 and here from 2004. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, Damiens has a history of using (or attempting to use) Wikipedia policy as a tool for bullying - it goes well beyond simple enforcement of Wikipedia ideals and is often rigidly (and contemptuously) targeted at one thing or person. Orderinchaos 06:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ASE, I think they are good sources and regardless of if they came from a group you ran, I think they should be added....or at least let everyone decide if they should be added on the talk page for consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Damiens.rf's new edit relates to the same incident that is being discussed on Equality Mississippi's talk page. Although I don't agree with the their method of doing things, I believe that they are actually well-intentioned. I was surprised to see that there is talk of banning them here, yet no one uninvolved has attempted to discuss the issue with them on their talk page. I have left them a note, but mediation certainly isn't my strength and I am, regrettably, involved in these issues now, so perhaps someone tactful and uninvolved would like to give it a shot? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The thread at User talk:Neutralhomer#Summit only further tells me that Damiens.rf has an agenda here.. whether it's driven because of me (the history has been shown), gay rights in general (that history of him has been spoken of as well) or the subject of the article, I don't know.. but him saying, "Mississippi State LGBT Summit" is a pompous name, and gives the reader an impression that Equality Mississippi is important. does not bode well for assuming good faith with his intentions. Statements like that make it seem as if he's trying to gut the article and then eventually take it to AfD, his final shot at me. I may be over-reacting but that's how it looks when combined with our obvious negative history. Pompous name of the summit? That was the official name of the annual summit. Based on his reasoning, a gay person shoudln't call themselves "gay" because that would be pompous.- ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This thread is a bit too long and complex for ANI. Suggest taking to user conduct RfC. With Delicious carbuncle's comments in mind, that would offer fair opportunity for feedback and adjustment if Damiens has been acting in good faith. Durova^Charge! 18:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, we have a large number of editors pointing out a pattern of uncivil behaviour by Damiens.rf targeting and bullying other editors. Seems rather straightforward. That they tiptoe on the line of using policy to harass only suggests contempt for the spirit of civilty policies. We don't work oppositional against other editors we find ways to work with editors with whom we disagree and d so civilly. That Damiens.rf has driven away the main contributor there and seems to be tagrgetting them and we now push this issue away to user RfC which has a history of being toothless? Seems to condone wikibullying. Is that what we want? I would be content for the moment if Damiens.rf was compelled to disengage from ASE fully, and possibly put on cvivilty patrol to protect the next target, until a user RfC runs its course. While I don't personally advocate user RfC's in this case it may help to collect all this information in one place so it isn't editor X vs. Damiens.rf but the collective concern about behaviours which seem counter to collegial editing. -- Banjeboi 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, you took it upon yourself to prematurely archive the thread about Allstarecho and the glory hole image shenigans. I started that thread to demonstrate that it isn't simply a question of one editor, Damiens.rf, being disruptive, but of two difficult editors colliding. Both Damiens.rf and Allstarecho have been editing Equality Mississippi today, but only Damiens.rf seems to be attempting to discuss their edits on the talk page. That article is a mess, I believe in large part because of Allstarecho's personal involvement with the subject matter. There are some very, uh, novel interpretations of WP policies on the talk page like the idea that it's ok to use only self-sourcing for claims about third-parties, or the idea that WP:BLP doesn't apply to convicted murders, or the idea that it is unnecessary to source the assertion that something is a "hate crime", or that it is unnecessary to declare Allstarecho's COI as founder of the organisation. I think I've accidentally wandered into a corner of WP where different rules apply. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And I think it's time for you, as well, to step away because every time I've seen your name, it's had something to do with me or an article which I have edited. What is your own reason for defending Damiens.rf's actions, and lack of, ? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I welcome anyone to scrutinize my actions in regards to that thread, which has only served to deflect from Damiens.rf's conduct, as well as anyone to visit that page and take in the spirit of collaboration being offered toward ASE. Their friend was abducted and murdered and pasrtly in response Equality Mississippi was founded. ASE was the executive director and instead of extending a wee bit of good faith that just maybe they know the history of their own group you and Damiens.rf are is hounding them. This seems the height of harassment. LGBT people are murdered in violent hate-crimes every week in the United States but Damiens.rf seems to want to do everything possible to mitigate that such events are on wikipedia, I find that distasteful no matter how you add it up. They really should disengage away from this article and likely ASE in general. Based on the comments above from quite a few editors the issue might not be a LGBT related issue, as I thought, but a general civility problem. Past ANI threads have apparently gone stale enough with no action. Perhaps it is time to address this ongoing issue with ASE just being the latest in a line of targets? -- Banjeboi 23:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I categorically reject any suggestion that I am "hounding" Allstarecho and I'd like you to strike that comment. While I don't agree with the aggressive methods used by Damiens.rf, I believe they are simply attempting to apply WP rules and guidelines. I don't think that this has anything whatsoever to do with LGBT-related issues or antipathy, but I haven't looked into their history. I don't believe I've had any interaction with them prior to a few days ago. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And yet your edit history shows you've had very little editing anywhere else but here, my talk page and in articles related since this all started a couple of days ago. I'd never even heard of you until a couple of days ago and you've been right there behind me every step I've taken since. Just saying... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 23:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What is it you're "just saying"? If you, too, are suggesting that I'm "hounding" you, please say so, rather than insinuate it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the comment but your tacit support of Damiens.rf plus your introduction of the glory hole non-issue deflecting from these harassment concerns suggest you do have an interest here as well. I have had many experiences with both Allstarecho and Damiens.rf. I am more than sceptical when I encounter anything from Damiens.rf and see this entire case of highlighting an issue with Damiens.rf's behaviours toward other editors which suggest a net loss for teh project as a whole. I look forward to the day when I see their name pop-up and all I think is someone doing good editing. For the record your involvement causes me a bit of concern but would likely be irrelevant if not following in the wake of Damien.rf's conduct. If you had only posted the glory hole bit it would have been dismissed rather quickly. -- Banjeboi 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, contrary to what I said above about never even hearing of Delicious carbuncle, it seems we did have a difference of opinion back on May 15th where I did a non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nuvola as no consensus and in which he undid my close, even though he had !voted to delete in the discussion. Sorry for not remembering who he was. So indeed, it's even clearer now why the user is suddenly so interested in me. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 07:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My interest in your contributions was sparked by the recent discussion here about your copyright violations. I'm sure I'm not the only editor who has been looking at your contributions since your questionable unblocking. You are welcome to believe that I am motivated by a seething fury over a minor disagreement a month ago, but that isn't the case. I am not a very prolific contributor to WP and am frequently distracted, so I tend to focus on one or two issues at a time or else I will lose track of things (thanks for reminding me to take that AfD to DRV). I am upset by the insinuations in this thread that I am wikistalking you and Benjiboi's thinly veiled implication that I am somehow anti-LGBT because I think WP policies shouldn't be ignored. Why are you attacking me instead of filing a user conduct RfC about Damiens.rf's actions if that is the issue here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll support that Delicious carbuncle is an editor who follows copyright violations, as I've run into them in other copyright-related discussions. I think that it is a stretch to think they would be holding a grudge because of one 'conflict' as described by you. I think that however reprehensible Damiens.rf's words are, I think you're way too close to the article subject and an incredibly good example of why we have COI guidelines. Syrthiss (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The COI issue is making task of fixing Equality Mississippi extremely frustrating. Every edit I do seems to be reverted, and when I take it to the talk page, the discussion never develops about the content, and goes down to personal comments and attacks (see Talk:Equality Mississippi#More reverts for the most recent). It's like they're trying to "win" the article ownership by exhausting our willingness to apply our most basic policies (like RS V and BLP). --Damiens.rf 16:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Back to the subject

Is there any interest in addressing what seems to be Damiens.rf's Wikihounding of Allstarecho? If so what? -- Banjeboi 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely. After this post where Damiens.rf actually says "that it's good for him that people believe he was a friend of a poor victm of terrible homophobic killers". GOOD? WTF! That shows how low Damiens.rf is willing to go to take a shot at ASE on something that is being rehashed all over again...the murder of one of ASE's friends. Damiens.rf actually has the balls and gull to say that it is good for people to believe ASE and his friend were really friends to, what...better ASE's cause? Who knows. Damiens.rf needs to be alot of things I can't say here, but what we can do it topic ban him from this article and anything ASE comes near. Also, Damiens.rf needs to get some damned sensitivity training (does Wikipedia offer that?) because when one says something like he said...the boy is obviously messed up in the head. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Insensitive? Yes. Valid? Afraid so -- that is grounds for a COI. I think he's wrong in claiming that numerous interviews mentioning their friendship isn't citeable, though.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I believe that accepting the phrase "Numerous television and radio interviews with Renaldo after Tolbert's disappearance noted they were friends" as a reliable and verifiable source may be a dangerous precedent. --Damiens.rf 17:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that it wasn't me who put that in there. I don't, however, feel I should have to provide some sort of source for a friendship. As can be seen from Archive.org's archives of the organization's web site, it can be sourced to that web site if it just has to be but sourcing a friendship certainly isn't necessary. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Am I correct in my understating that you were the author and main maintainer of the web site you want to use as a source? I believe it can be done as long as we use the wording you provided here[10]. --Damiens.rf 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Main maintainer in so much as I had to sign the check to pay the monthly hosting bill. I wasn't the only one that contributed content to the organization's web site however. But I guess you'd need a source for that statement as well... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 17:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, right. Was hazy on the exact wording -- I'd require at least one of those to be linked, but wouldn't stress about mentioning the others without specific cites.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as these "interviews" aren't simply videotaped version's of ASE repeating his statement, it would be surely ok. But at this point, maybe the best solution is to use ASE's suggested wording (see above). --Damiens.rf 17:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Intervention needed

Things have gotten waaaaay out of hand over on Talk:Equality Mississippi, with statements like "You should be blocked, banned, tarred, feathered, and sent to the gallows for the way you have acted". Can someone please stage an intervention before people get hurt? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

NeutralHomer blocked for 1 month. His previous gross incivility block was also 1 month, so if anybody wants to raise it higher than this, please, be my guest. I didn't block Damiens at this time, because none of the diffs I scrolled through approached that level.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Unblock requested. I'm unfamiliar with the circumstances leading to the block (beyond seeing the edit in question and agreeing that it was completely unacceptable) but I'd regard the unblock request as contrite and genuine. Disclaimer: Neutralhomer is an editor I've worked with and respect. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutralhomer has a rather lengthy block log for disruptive edits and incivility. While I am willing to AGF in that he sincerely intends to "behave" I am not sure his track record indicates he will be able to abide by his own word; I for one am unwilling to unblock. The level of incivility being displayed here is shocking and not a one-off accident - this user should know better by now and is demonstrating that they do not, best intentions aside. Shereth 16:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

His last block was over a year ago - March 2008. Just saying.. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 16:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

In light of his apology in his unblock request, I propose shortening the block to 24 hours. Remember the purpose here; to prevent further disruption. I think that his agreement and a day of cooling off (yes, I know) will be sufficient. Tan | 39 17:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A shortened block would be acceptable - 1 month is fairly long and it has been a while. Shereth 17:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Juliancolton has shortened it to 48 hours and NH has struck his comments via proxy. –xeno^talk 17:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Grr, that's the second time you beat me to it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Plagiarism, persistent attempts at promotion

Psikxas (talk · contribs) has for the past six weeks or so been persistently trying to use Wikipedia to promote a non-notable headlight bulb company called Kärheim. His initial attempt was a mainspace article, Karheim, which was speedy deleted for violation of NOTE and SOAP (with great difficulty; Psikxas & socks repeatedly removed SD notice — see SPI). Deleted article retrieved and moved by admin Jayron32 at Psikxas' request to his userspace. I objected at that time; no consensus for removal was reached. Psikxas moved the article text to his main userpage, which is its present location. Retrieving admin reiterated RS, CORP, and NOTE to user. User now bases notability claim on a plagiarised version of a copyrighted work evidently created for the purpose of promoting Kärheim: A new title page was added, the copyright notice was removed, and the name "Kärheim" was spliced into the text of the report. But although the plagiarised research is claimed to come from Aristotle Univerity of Thessaloniki in 2008, in fact it was done by the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York in 2001. Whoever plagiarized the report did not change the text referring to the experimentation having been carried out at facilities in Schenectady, New York — a strange location for a study carried out by a university in Greece. The legitimate, real version of the research is here on RPI's site. It can be read in HTML form here.

Did Psikxas him/herself commit the plagiarism? It's not possible for me to say with certainty, but it does seem to quack: Psikxas' username and usage of English (evidently as a second language) strongly suggest Greek as a first language, which accords with the location of the plagiarised document in the home directory of a user at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. The plagiarised study is also the only document in its directory, and its last-modified date, as of right now as I type this, accords with the time when it was placed as a reference in Headlamp (where I have removed it) and in the pseudo-article text at User:Psikxas (where, as a userpage, I don't feel I can touch it).

Psikxas' contrib history shows similar behaviour patterns in other articles, such as LAZER helmet (request for reinstatement here): persistent, evidently willful efforts to promote particular companies, interspersed (when questioned or confronted) with claims of ignorance, accusations of harrassment, and effusive thanks (e.g. here, here, here) to admins who grant Psikxas' requests. FTR, my reaction to this type of persistent apparent attempt at promotion, continued disregard for community standards, and evidently disingenuous behaviour would be similar no matter who would do it — registered editor or IP contributor alike. It looks more and more to me as though Psikxas is intent on damaging the project, and I'm not comfortable sitting back and letting him or her do so. Obviously there are fine lines between article ownership and article stewardship, but this latest plagiarism exceeds my ability to assume good faith on the part of Psikxas. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Scheinwerfermann, check here I3E.org to see how many articles are re-posted from other universities, maybe with some additions.Maybe now you doubt even for I3E, for sure you have a good reason for this, but anyone can find there articles reposted again and again, givven each time the references. Do they violate any policy you think? As far as i can see, the article has all the refferences, EVERYTHING, cause im very carefull after your vendeta as Jayron32 also mentioned User_talk:Jayron32#Plagiarism.

I dont know where you aim with all these lies, LIES, you find a scientific article, with all the references, and then you accuse the university of a practise common all over the world for many thesis? you know how the community in universities work? or you know and on purpose dont refer it? MAYBE... you doubt for the reliabilty of the university Aristotle_University? Just to know, this is one of the biggest universities, and when you graze sheeps in the mountain barbarian, Greek Aristotle had monuments and produced civilitazion for you-language and maths and so more! In what point you doubt? never are you tired to see you are wrong all the time? Maybe you get extra job for good admins, but.. a]the article has the references you mention and has the refferences you mention with additions, so stop lying. As fara as it has the old references, its acceptable . - b]its on the domain of this big university, have you any doubt of this too?? c] if you are so silly to believe anything else, report it to the international community,not wikipedia only, to the university, but please tell us here the reply you may get then, make us laugh.

Please stop. Thanks god, there is history in wikipedia, ANYONE can see that whenever i asked you a question, you NEVER replied. NEVER! But in order to tell lies and report anything i do, to continue your vedetta! ! ! you act instantly..isnt? This is your contribution? Maybe i cant use my english very well to defend myself and this admin is better in speaking, but any smart who read these can understand the truth.Bad faith, yes, now, im sure you act in bad faith. Your contributions show us anything different? im tired with this tone and vendetta of him, one admin maybe think he can cause more troubles here than he has the ability to solve.

As far the LAZER helmet you mention, again lying!! Didnt the article reported restored or not??See there my reply here), see my argument about other articles, then come back to tell us why you think other articles are more notable, and that sharp.gov.uk, if you insist that this site also doesnt proove anything. But we know your practise, here you never help, you never reply to questions, and by not telling the Whole truth (= its lieing this too, isnt? ), you try to fraude all the wikipedians here who maybe they dont know your vendetta, your bad faith of you promoting bulbs in many forums (google search for this admin to find everythin, i mentioned it to previous posts) , and you care so so much to make them change desicion. They dont know the full history but hope they can find it in all this mess. Hope they will find all my messages to you that you have deleted all this time..(again, hiding something isnt a lie?).You do every effort.Here is an example [[11]], okay, promote your products, make with your "power" as an admin whatever to block anything else Psikxas können Sie eine Google-Suche finden Sie Infos über die Firma, warum bin ich angeklagt? (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that "report" at [12] is obviously not just plagiarism, but serious fraud: plagiarism would be if it said the same things as the original, but it was faked to say something different – the original mentions the test was run on a different brand of lights. Scheinwerferman is right, we have no proof that the forger is the same person as the editor here, but the suggestion of a connection is certainly strong enough. (BTW, to put one concern to rest, I see no indication that the university on whose site the fake report is hosted has anything to do with it. It looks more like it's been put there by some student in their personal web space; no indication of an alleged academic author at auth.gr.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fut.Perf. can you tell us, which is this 'different' brand? try to respect at least, if you dont respect me cause you dont know me of course, the whole academic society. If something is posted in auth.gr, what you would say? Does it belong to one of its members or not? anyone.

pls, with a simple google search, look what you can find from this domain, something very common in universities all over the world, they use their domain to upload ([13] :

• [14]
• [15]
• [16]
• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20] Every university has the control of its members, can we judge and conclude something different?

please review the WHOLE conv between me and the admin. Take the time. Maybe, have you seen this ? Consider with google search how many times this admin promotes other brand in many forums, consider how insane he became when it proved that he was wrong by Miscellany for deletionof the article, imagine why he tries by all means to take revenge. Why?

Try to find everything and then judge. Review some links i posted here, review the department of electrical engineering (by the way, how you concluded that the university has nothing to do with it?) What you think is better? Knowing nothing, or know the half truth and then judge? Maybe admin is true i dont use my english very well, but this is for or against because i cant defend they way i could? Someone else here though uses bery well the language, and easily could spread the half truth, isnt?

At the time, i marked my article that its under investigation. In the past, i stopped my contribution. This bad admin will not stop, if he could, he would have banned me already. Is this a coincidence that an article restored after deletion and stayed intact more than 2 weeks, that was marked for deletion AGAIN User_talk:Psikxas few minutes after the admin here started this issue? Of course, nothing happened...but this avoid me to offer in wikipedia, and the impression givven is that i only cause troubles. because of one only article, because of infos everyone can find by googling —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC).

• Oh, just to add..try not to believe anything they say to you. Because someone told "its last-modified date, as of right now as I type this, accords with the time when it was placed as a reference in Headlamp (where I have removed it)" ..have you checked both dates? where this admin refers too? cant you see that submission date is different?? a full year! not few days! year! Anyway...ill wait for some serious reply, not from someone so credulous pls...Psikxas (talk) 01:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty criminal to me – Greek editor needed

From section Methods of the original paper [21]:

The HID system employed a Philips DS2 lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the HID headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 1. The halogen A system employed an H7 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen A headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 2. The halogen B system employed an H4 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen B headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 3. (my bold)

From section Methods of the plagiarised paper [22]:

The HID system employed a DS2 lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the HID headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 1. The halogen A system employed an H7 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen A headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 2. The halogen B system employed an H4 Philips lamp. The measured illuminance distribution for the halogen B headlamp system is shown as an isolux diagram in Figure 3.

The plagiarised paper does not show an author but claims to be from "Lighting Laboratory, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki". (This is strange, because the Lighting Laboratory is at National Technical University of Athens. [23].) It consists of:

• A new abstract replacing the original on. It says:

  An experimental field investigation is described below, based on a study of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York in 2001 that compared the off-axis visual performance of HID forward lighting systems with comparable halogen systems to determine the relative visual effects of HID lighting. [...] In this study three high quality current production European headlamp systems, Kärheim HID and two Philips halogen, are compared. (my bold)

• An almost exact copy of the plagiarised paper. The only difference that I have seen is the omission of Philips (see above) in a context where we would expect to read Kärheim if the original study had had the claimed scope of the plagiarised study.
• A sequence of slides added at the end. These are a variant of the conference slides presented by Constantinos A. Bouroussis and Frangiskos V. Topalis at the Balkan Light 2008 conference in Lubljana. [24]

I do not know if Scheinwerfermann got the date stamp of this file [25] wrong, as Psikxas claims. It currently says 13-Jun-2008 00:12, which is 1 year + 22 hours before Psikxas' edit [26] pointing to the document. I do know that it is trivial to change time stamps on Unix-based web servers such as this one. And I do observe that the creation time of the PDF file itself, which would be a bit harder to fake, is 18 June 2008, i.e. 5 days after this document was supposedly put on the web server.

Add to this Psikxas' very first edit [27] and it looks like a case for the relevant research institution's fraud department. Perhaps a Greek editor can contact the admin of of http://users.auth.gr ? The next question is whether we should notify Kärheim, Philips, or both. --Hans Adler 15:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Note, incidentally, that the fake report from the alleged (but apparently non-existent) Photometry Lab in Thessaloniki has also stolen the logo of the real Photometry Lab in Athens. The authors of the 2008 conference paper you mention above are apparently well-established researchers at the genuine Athens lab. – Personally, I don't much feel like bothering to mess with the real-life dimension here, fraud department and whatnot; let's just get rid of the disruptive editor, salt the pages and move on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User: Wuhwuzdat

Resolved

 – Wuhwuzdat pushed, responded, gently advised Toddst1 (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Sirs,

This gentleman has been very rude to me ever since I signed up for wikipedia, at first deleting everything I type, now searching me out and again threatening me. He has now used profanity.

The following threat was left on my talk page, I do not believe I have been a "bull in a china closet". Please Help

If you continue on your current course, acting like "a bull in a china shop", you may end up feeling unwelcome, in more places than just my talk page. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Your most recent postings have been deleted as well. I do believe you failed to take the hint when I told you to stay off my page previously, so let me put it in plain, ordinary RUDE English...FUCK OFF!!!!!! 23:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC) What part of FUCK OFF were you unable or unwilling to understand??? Feel free to answer me here, and NOT ON MY TALK PAGE! Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC) This is the latest post:

Isn't this baiting?

Please helpDfwaviator (talk) 00:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you just frustrated the *&%# out of him by WP:Hounding him on his talk page after engaging in the edit war that got you blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 00:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I do believe Toddst1 has summarized the situation quite admirably. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Left Wuhwuzdat a note on his talk page (though he appears to have gotten here just fine without it) about losin' his cool. Should be the end of it, eh? lifebaka++ 00:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to put things in context, Dfwaviator omitted an important line when he quoted me above. In context, the quote should be: "If you stop bashing every other editor you meet here, you may find that Wikipedia can be a nice place. If you continue on your current course, acting like "a bull in a china shop", you may end up feeling unwelcome, in more places than just my talk page." I was attempting to give him helpful advice. I shall refrain from trying to give this user any helpful advice in the future, as I feel he would continue his current course of disregarding anything I have said to him. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The user posted an essay on his talk page: User_talk:Dfwaviator#Chip_on_the_shoulder..... WhisperToMe (talk) 02:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin/User:Toddst1 shows this as resolved, it is anything but, and far from being resolved. As noted by numerous other editors Admin/User: Toddst1 is known to abuse his admin privleges, and in this case is encouraging another editor (with aspirations of being an administrator) to abuse and attempt to turn people off to Wikipedia unless they conform, and submit to their ideas and opinions. The editor user"Wuhwuzdat is not afraid to use profanity, and is in clear violation of WP:CIVIL, and this is not the first time. He/she did the same thing a couple of weeks ago, dropping the "F" bomb on a talk page at me. I respectfully request that a neutral Administrator look into this, and read my other complaint on this talk page and see that I am, in fact in good faith trying to correct a very bad article, written in poor taste, with non-factual information, not to mention information from copyrighted sources and simply leave it with the corrected facts. Thank you in advance for your assistance, and time. Also, considering the nature of the WP:CIVIL violation by user:Wuhwuzdat, a bit of a rest might be in order, and would not be punative, but constructive to allow a bit of a cooling off period, and allow me to have a good faith opportunity to contribute without constant reverts an threats from this user (Wuhwuzdat). Again, thank you. Dfwaviator (talk) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this thread is resolved, it was about a specific thing. If you want to start a thread about Tod's supposed abuse, then go ahead and do so, but I can guarantee you won't get far with it.

Secondly, the above constitutes a personal attack, which is, I'm sure you know, against policy here. Either back up your accusations with specific diffs, or withdraw the comment. I'm remarking this resolved.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Zicam

This is an article of current interest. The Food and Drug Administration just ordered the manufacturer of Zicam to stop marketing it due to health hazards. This is supposedly a homeopathic remedy, and some pro-homeopathic editors keep trying to tone down the article, changing "Product withdrawn from sale after warning letter from Food and Drug Administration" to "Criticism", for example. Please watch. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 16:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it's certainly not homeopathic in the real definition of the word, since homeopathic remedies have the "active" ingredient diluted to undetectable levels. Zicam is a natural or "naturopathic" remedy maybe. Thatcher 20:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• That's more of a content issue. One editor continues to try to tone down the FDA warnings. I quoted the actual FDA warning letter, which can be summarized as "stop selling it immediately or else". The story is all over the mainstream press. --John Nagle (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'd wondered why Zicam had such strong defenders on Wikipedia. It may be because Rush Limbaugh endorses and is sponsored by Zicam.[28]. He defended Zicam and attacked the FDA on his radio show yesterday.[29] A new anon is now trying to tone down the FDA warning. Protection isn't necessary at the moment, but please watch for the next few days. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have yet to see a nostrum so obscure that it lacks a single-purpose account to promote and defend it on Wikipedia, so I don't think we can blame Rush for the problem. At least Zicam is covered by actual reliable sources, making it much easier to deal with encyclopedically than, say, water ionizers, or Rife devices, or colloidal silver, or the Barnes Basal Temperature Test, or Wilson's syndrome, or pleomorphism, or live blood analysis... MastCell ^Talk 19:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User Krakatoa edit warring on Bobby Fischer and mislabeling edits

This editor has twice mislabeled his edits within a short time frame despite warnings that mislabeling edits is disruptive.

He is also engaging in edit warring on the Bobby Fischer article despite encouragements by other users to reach a consensus before adding material, I ask that this user be blocked for his disruptive behavior.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not deliberately mislabelled any edits. (Note that 194x144x90x118 cites no examples.) I did mistakenly refer to a revert of one of 194x144x90x118's edits as being a revert of an "anon" because I thought "194x144x90x118|194x144x90x118" was his IP address. I later realized that it was not, but was in fact his handle. This was an honest, and I believe inconsequential, mistake on my part. As for edit warring, 194x144x90x118, not I, is the one guilty of that. As you can see here, in the space of less than 9.5 hours 194x144x90x118 has made the same revert to Bobby Fischer (reverting first Philcha, then Brittle heaven, then me). This is a flagrant violation of WP:3RR.

Philcha, Brittle heaven, and I have all civilly and rationally addressed this dispute on the Talk page for the article. 194x144x90x118 is now the only one arguing his/her side of the issue. He/she has responded in an abusive and profane manner, keeps repeating the same points, and has made no effort to reach consensus. Here are some sample quotes from 194x144x90x118:

"If you were to invade my storage facility then you'd find guess what? An original copy of Mein Kampf printed in Germany in German but guess what I aint no fucking anti semite either and I don't even speak German so how could that be possibly relevant?"

"If Fischer was SO! antisemitic and against jews then he would have put a gun in his mouth and rid the world of the jewish that he saw in the mirror. Ok it's time that I dug up something which PROVES!!!! beyond the shadow of a doubt that fischer was in fact Not! antisemitic."

"Let me also say, I aint no expert on Fischer either, I did however have the honor of meeting the man and having a short conversation with him and I like many other people am a pretty good judge of character, hatefull bigoted people Do in fact exist but Fischer wasn't one of those people by a long shot, he may dislike certain things regarding Jewish culture and Jewish politics but he obviously didn't give a fuck if your great granddad was a jew or not cause how exactly would he have lived with himself if he did?" Krakatoa (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just like Krakatoa was mistaken about me being an anon he is also mistaken about me having violated any 3rr rule since that rule states "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances." As well as some other things but I'll repeat "more than three reverts" and he and the other stooges are also extremely wrong about that edit of his belonging on Wikipedia. He has twice mislabeled his edits, is engaging in edit warring instead of trying to reach a consensus and making false accusations. This user needs to be blocked.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I was mistaken about the 3RR rule, which is violated only by more than three reverts in 24 hours. 194x144x90x118 made three reverts in 9.5 hours, but has not violated this rule. My apologies. 194x144x90x118's reference to Philcha, Brittle heaven, and I as "stooges" is a further example of his abusive remarks, which violate WP:CIVIL. Krakatoa (talk) 21:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see these diffs 1! and 2! they show the disruptive behavior of editing a previous edit that has already been replied to, thereby making the discussion harder to follow. And also disrupting the timeline of this ANI thread.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

194x144x90x118 has now threatened me on my Talk page, demanding, "Withdraw your support for your own edit on the bobby fischer article and never show yourself anywhere near it again." He has stated, "one more revert or one more supporting comment on the talkpage will be taken as a rejection of this offer and will have consequences." (See below.) To say the least, I do not regard this user's threats against me as consistent with the spirit of Wikipedia. Editing disputes are supposed to be resolved through reason, not blackmail. These threats appear to violate Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Incidentally, I have about 15,000 edits, have been the editor primarily responsible for two Featured Articles, First-move advantage in chess and George H. D. Gossip, and have done more edits on Bobby Fischer than anyone else. Krakatoa (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Here are 194x144x90x118's statements on my Talk page, verbatim:

This is basically the deal, you were wrong, the consensus is against you, a larger consensus is going to form and the edit will not stand. I have also taken a look at other instances in your edit history and it seems that much of your work here on wikipedia has been somehow misguided. You have two options, A. Face a full review and scrutiny of your work here on wikipedia that will lead to other article changes that you've made being reverted or B. Withdraw your support for your own edit on the bobby fischer article and never show yourself anywhere near it again. I await your response.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that one more revert or one more supporting comment on the talkpage will be taken as a rejection of this offer and will have consequences.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I see from 194x144x90x118's Talk page that the above is par for the course for him/her, indeed even on the mild side by his/her lights. Most relevantly, 194x144x90x118 wrote the following at the bottom of his/her Talk page:

Man I was like thinking, "hmmm maybe it's a good idea to start taking one of my sons to chess lessons and such" but WOW I'm like engaged in this edit dispute with these total fucking morons over on the Bobby Fischer article and those fucking losers well they're obviously chess people and well how did they become this way? Perhaps Chess is dangerous and damaging.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Also I'd like to comment that I don't know this wikipedia stuff is addictive and time consuming and such and it's a real shame that one has to deal with such ignorant people while editing this online dictionary.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

To state the obvious, calling myself and other members of WikiProject Chess (he is evidently referring to Philcha and Brittle heaven) "fucking morons", "fucking losers", and "ignorant" is a flagrant violation of WP:No personal attacks. Krakatoa (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

comment I haven't followed the edits, but I am familiar with editors Krakatoa, Philcha, and Brittle Heaven, and they are all good editors in my opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 21:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone willing to bandy about phrases such as "fucking morons" is not prepared to work in a collaborative environment. 194x144x90x118, if you continue to talk about other editors this way, we shall block you from editing, no question. Cut it out. Participate here as a dignified adult, or don't participate here. Do not engage in personal attacks. You may consider this a final warning.

You may also be assured that if any other editor is talking about you in a similar manner, they will receive the same response. This is the kind of thing we don't put up with. Understand this.

Furthermore, if you find yourself arguing over whether you have or have not violated 3RR, then you're definitely edit-warring and you should definitely stop. The three-revert rule is not a privilege; it's a line you should get nowhere near. The point is to be the editor who is discussion-oriented, collaboration-oriented, and the first to stop reverting when you realize there's a dispute. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian race controversy

The administrator User:Hiberniantears has reverted and protected the article Ancient Egyptian race controversy. This in my opinion appears to be a violation of WP:PREFER.The administrator has reverted to a version that is four months old. Regular editors to the article had worked to build a consensus over the last four months, and within one day it has been reverted. A thread was posted on the fringe theories notice board Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. But user who posted this thread, Dbachmann, didn't make any notification on the Talk:Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy. So to our surprise, all of a sudden we have users reverting to a four month old version without even discussing on the talk page. [30]. I believe that such type of editing is inflammatory. We have not had edit warring on this article for two months and it has been resurrected by users who are not willing to reach a compromise and gain consensus. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

AGF, Wapondaponda. I am uninvolved in this article, and took action based only on my review of the thread at the Fringe Theories board, the ArbCom case, and the article history. I was operating off what I found in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann, which led me to restore the version I reverted to as it appeared approximate to the version mentioned in the case which Moreschi put in place. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith, but it is not helpful if an administrator reverts and protects an article. It just does not leave a good impression at all when there is a content dispute. There is no reason to believe that Moreschi's version is as good as any other version, he is an editor like the rest of us, and I will argue that we have proved him wrong. We have worked on this article for the last four months, we have not had edit warring, and the last time the article was protected was four months ago. Within one day Dbachmann makes some unilateral edits and the everything falls apart. I think it is pretty obvious who is causing trouble here. Wapondaponda (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous response, quite honestly. What you would have seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann is clear evidence that Dbachmann is an over-opinionated editor who has been sanctioned previously for making disruptive edits, including to this very article. Moreschi has not been involved in this article for a long time, and if you had read the Moreschi version you would have seen that it is seriously incomplete and in fact contains numerous tags calling for more info - which your protection now blocks us from adding. If you had Assumed Good Faith yourself, and actually read the latest version (i.e. excluding Dbachmann's damage) you would have noted that there is no unbalance in the content, the mainstream opinion is clearly stated in all sections, all content is closely referenced, and all content closely links to the title. Why did you instead revert the article to an arbitrary, seriously-incomplete and useless version, without engaging the many editors who actually worked on this article? Please unblock this article, re-instate the months of work that have built this article up since this deliberately-useless version, and instead block Dbachmann from making unilateral edits to this article without first achieving consensus. Wdford (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What is ridiculous is any claim of consensus. You seem to misinterpret a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The article has for months been an example of WP:SYN and not so subtle POV-pushing. Good action. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not a good action, because you know very well that protection is just temporary. There were no problems on the article until Dbachmann showed up. Of course WP:CCC applies to any article, but Dbachmann, just posted comments on the talk page and made unilateral decisions about content. There are several editors who don't and won't agree with this. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, User:Dbachmann "showed up" 4 years before the first edit ever to the current article, so your comment probably refers to some recent event. And if you think the article was fine in this version, you are very wrong. That article is not about the Ancient Egyptian race controversy, it is refighting it. It's full of original arguments and WP:SYN. It does contain very few sources about the controversy, but is a collection of otherwise unrelated facts that support one side or the other in the controversy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I felt the article was quite comprehensive. I didn't agree with everything, but that is the essence of compromise. If anyone wanted to know anything about the race of the Ancient Egyptians, it was found in that version. The current version is just a topic on Afrocentrism. A topic on which many contributors have little interest in. Furthermore, many reliable sources deal with the topic of the race of the Ancient Egyptians, in the same manner as the consensus version. The facts remain that there is a content dispute and there are ways to deal with content disputes, discussion and consensus building. Going behind the backs of other editors to get a particular version protected is somewhat disingenuous. Wapondaponda (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What is weird here is that an administrator reverts then protects a page! What kind of neutrality is that? I can understand if the administrator wants to protect (I may disagree, but I understand). But I fail to understand why the administrator reverts! --Lanternix (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears, I'll accept your justification for your actions however what your actions resulted in was fulfilling a deliberate attempt by Dbachmann to sabotage months of work by other editors on this page. I recommend that the user Dbachmann be permanently banned from the article and that it be unlocked so that we can continue to build on and refine an article that was showing alot of progress. AncientObserver (talk) 04:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a bad case of WP:WRONGVERSION. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Support the action by Hiberniantears to prevent this article being hijacked by POV-pushers. --Folantin (talk) 07:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hiberniantears action itself hijacked the article in favor of a biased POV. How do you justify reverting months of work on which the current editors have reached consensus in favor of an older version of the article which does an inferior job of addressing the topic? This is censorship. So far there has been no attempt at a civil discussion about the credibility of the material in the recent versions. Dbachmann came to the article started making disruptive edits without attempting to reach consensus with the other editors and has now sought the aid of Admins to do his dirty work once he realized that he could not have his way. AncientObserver (talk) 10:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Once upon a time, back in Wiki pre-history, this article was a section on the Afrocentrism article. It became obvious that it was uncontrollable, and it was spun off by an Afrocentrist editor (user:deeceevoice) to became a separate article. There Afrocentrists and White Supremacists, Arab-Egyptians, and anyone else with a racial axe to grind, battled incessantly over how white or black the Egyptians were - usually projecting modern Euro-American categories onto ancient peoples. The article became a complete and utter mess, with quotations from Herodotus intermingled with genetic studies, and with no sense of the changing contexts in which ideas about race developed and how this applies to the various modellings of 'race' in Egypt over history. The minimal version preferred by dab is one solution. The other (which was preferred by User:Zara1709) is to contextualise the debates clearly by showing how they emerge from race-politics and 'science' at various times. Unfortunately the "true believers" will not have either of these arguments, and the article invariably sinks into a morass of claims and counter-claims, competing pictures of "white looking" and "black looking" pharaohs etc. Paul B (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul, alot of progress have been made on this article. Attempts have been made to address all aspects of the history of this debate. There has been very little edit warring and a consensus was made on the direction the article would take. The latest action has set the page back not just in terms of material progress but intellectual maturity. The content of the article can be disputed in a civil manner on the discussion page. There is no justification for reverting months of progress because of the complaints of a certain editor who is clearly threatened by the material that has been presented. I agree with Wapondaponda, this action was uncalled for and needs to be corrected. AncientObserver (talk) 12:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the article has become gibberish. Let's look at just the opening sentences:

"The Race of the ancient Egyptians is a subject that has attracted some controversy within mainstream academia and the broader society. The ancient Egyptians depicted themselves as having a different appearance to the other nations around them. The modern mainstream opinion is that the ancient Egyptians were a mixed race, being neither black nor white as per current terminology."

Being neither black nor white does not make you a "mixed race"! What is "the broader society"? The is virtually no useful meaning to this phrase. Paul B (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be one of those things where there's a request for comment which does not get anything solved which is followed by a request for comment after another month or so which results in several users being banned from editing anything involving ancient Egypt. Is there a way we can cut out the middlemen here and simply allow the community to dole these things out, thereby preserving the content of Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) from point of view editors?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that an article was created with the title in reverse, and redirected to another page where editing can proceed, my guess is that we can't control the problem at the admin level. See: Controversy surrounding the race of the ancient Egyptians vs Ancient Egyptian race controversy. Forking seems to be one of the issues surrounding the problem. Hiberniantears (talk) 12:40, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ryulong's assessment. Let the editors police the article, only if there is excessive edit warring should middlemen intervene. Wapondaponda (talk) 03:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection Policy break

From WP:Protection policy:-

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators normally protect the current version [ ... ] Since protecting the most current version sometimes rewards edit warring by establishing a contentious revision, administrators may also revert to an old version of the page predating the edit war if such a clear point exists.

Speaking as someone who has experience in this field, I think that the administrative actions of Hiberniantears were clearly a good faith attempt to follow policy, and thus the original complaint is unfounded. If there are any other immediate issues, perhaps they could be discussed in a separate thread. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No such clear point exists. The version protected by Hibernantears is just as equally controversial. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Blueboar had previously reverted to the same version with a similar intent, so it's easy to see why Hiberniantears chose it. Wapondaponda, when you find yourself arguing that the wrong version of an article has have been protected, you are probably directing your energies in the wrong direction. You'd be better off spending your time on the article talk page, discussing what improvements should be made, with reference to reliable sources. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. My aim was not to reward any one group of editors with the correct version of the page. Instead, I looked at the ArbCom case, as well as the edit history to see which version, or relative example of a version, was being reverted to, and thus chose the February version because it does predate the sudden growth in the article which a casual reading revealed had very wide variance in subject matter from the February version. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel, the majority of people who regularly edit the article are in general agreement on the preferred version. Blueboar is not a regular editor to the article. His revert was based solely on the posting at the fringe theories noticeboard, the posting to which none of us regular editors were notified, ie Dbachmann did not post on talk page of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, that he had a thread on fringe theories noticeboard. He went behind our backs. We already have five pages of talk page archives on content, we don't need to re-discuss this. When the article was placed on probation there was a blocking spree of users and Moreshi took advantage to institute his "preferred version".These threats of blocks and other draconian measures basically scared away all editors to the article. In February a bunch of us editors who were not involved in that probation dispute started working on the article. We looked at what Moreshi had termed the "Afrocentrism meme" and we concluded that it was original research because we had clear evidence that scientists and scholars have been interested in the racial and ethnic origins of the Ancient Egyptians and a lot of this controversy had nothing to do with Afrocentrism. If you read the Descent of Man from 1871,Charles Darwin discusses the controversy, and yet he is not in any way connected to Afrocentrism. So our decision was to expand the subject to cover, anyone who has discussed the topic. This is clear in the talk pages archives. During these four months, Dbachmann had ample opportunity to share his views on the subject, I am sure he watches the page, he could have expressed his opinion at any time. Then one day in June, he unilaterally decides to revert four months of editing. Of course Administrators 99% of time back each other up, there is a little bit of old boys network, and Jimbo Wales has specifically said Admins shouldn't disagree with fellow admins, except in the most egregious cases. So I naturally expect a favoritism toward Dbachmann's opinions as opposed to us nobodies. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Immediate attention needed

Immediate attention is needed at Population history of Egypt and User:AncientObserver, who is reverting this article which is not about Afrocentrism or controversies to the preferred (massive, filled with fringy OR and SYNTH) version of Ancient Egyptian race controversy - he had previously moved the article to a new title, where he placed a draft of Ancient Egyptian race controversy, which was, again, the massive, fringy OR an SYNTH version. Weren't admins empowered to ban people who were disruptive from this entire topic area? Why are SPA's allowed to run roughshod? Hipocrite (talk) 12:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Dbachmann, User:AncientObserver has been blocked for 24 hours. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's not broken, don't try to fix it

There was no problem beforehand, and admin intervention was unnecessary. As I mentioned previously, there was no edit warring for at least two months and the last time the article was protected was four months ago. We regular editors have started to self police the article because we find admin intervention tends to unnecessarily raise temperatures. We recognize that the article is on probation and we always stress that the article is on probation when edit wars seem apparent. I think a lot of the editors involved exercise a lot of restraint when working on the article.There are some editors who don't like the subject and the content, but it's a controversy, we shouldn't expect everyone to love it. The article seems to always invariably converge on roughly the same content, which means that the content is actually a fair representation of the controversy. Whether the article is protected for a week or 3 months, when the period expires, editors will be prepared to restore the content. Administrators should not take sides in content disputes, because the admin may have no knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter. Rather administrators should enforce policy. My advice is if it's not broken, don't try to fix it. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Already Administrators have started blocking users, such as Ancientobserver, totally unnecessary controversy. There is no need to raise temperatures and get editors upset causing them to make errors. Let sleeping dogs lie. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The block is not punitive, but merely a means to temporarily stop disruptive editing. In this case, I protected a page in line with an ArbCom case, and when an editor created an alternative page in order to get around the page protection, then I blocked that editor for disrupting the page protection. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did what you had do. But this was after the horse had left the barn. My point is that these editors put a lot of work into researching these articles and trying to reach a consensus. If you simply revert four months of work, its not surprising that someone makes a mistake. In other words you may actually be causing editors to break the rules. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why some admins have a problem with this article at all? One disruptive editor (with a long history of disruptive editing) should not be allowed to undo months of genuine good faith edits - why then is this bad behavioiur being rewarded like this? A succession of admins have exercised their own POV here to censor valid and referenced information purely because they don't agree with the content - why is this allowed? This topic is of much general interest - Google it and see how much interest you find - so why should there not be an article which discusses the actual content itself? If certain admins think a particular sentence is SYNTH then point it out and let's fix it, but a general statement that the "whole article is full of SYNTH" is unhelpful at best and dishonest at worst. If there is any merit at all to the suggestion that this article "needs" to be about merely the history of the controversy rather than the substance thereof (and I see no such merit, but whatever) then why can there not be a complementary article that does focus on the substance of the controversy? It seems that whichever way we turn there stands some admin with an array of WP:WHATEVER-THE-HELL to block that avenue, all seemingly aimed at preventing the substance of the debate from being aired. Scientology has an article that dicusses in detail the substance of the viewpoint, as does Timewave Zero and many others. Why should this particular controversy be so ruthlessly suppressed? Wdford (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Editor mistakenly altering many birth/death cats

User:Johnpacklambert has again begun altering birth and death cats for hundreds of individuals, putting in specific birth or death year cats for individuals whose years of birth or death are unknown. See User_talk:Johnpacklambert#Please_stop for an earlier incidence of such behavior. Please ask this person to stop, and to roll back his mistaken edits. We are an encyclopedia, and if we have specific birth or death year cats for individuals whose years of birth or death are unknown, it undermines our credibility. Thank you for your attention to this. Badagnani (talk) 01:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Previous ANI thread at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive410#User_adding_thousands_of_many_improper_possibly_incorrect_year_of_birth_cats. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 01:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The previous discussion didn't seem to come to a definitive conclusion; I would say that there was a majority view that without sources determining dob/dod from key events in a subjects life was either OR or SYNTH, but was somewhat muddied by side issues. My feeling is that the practice should not be followed unless there is a definitive consensus - via RfC or similar - that it is appropriate to do so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Swancookie and buzznet generally

User:Swancookie, who had not edited for 10 months, reappeared Tuesday and reopened a set of edit wars regarding several minor league celebrities associated with buzznet.com and Clint Catalyst. Between Tuesday's and today's edits, User:Swancookie has:

• violated 3RR on the article Jessicka
• reinserted an obvious copyvio/imdb cut-and-paste on Christian Hejnal [31]
• reinserted an conspicuously inaccurate, obviously unsourced "discography" listing Hejnal as performing on all the releases by bands with which Hejnal was ever affiliated, even when he had no involvement in the releases [32]
• reinserted various BLP-violating texts where the sourcing is either conspicuously unreliable or the text does not match the sourcing [33] (blog sourced criticism of ex=boyfriend for supposedly copycatting his public image); [34] (similar issues)
• repeatedly reinserted various promotional quotations from consipicuously unreliable sources (including a Wikipedia mirror, an obvious fan-site, and a music retail site (emusic.com) -- the last being flagrantly inappropriate, since the quotation isn't even found on the emusic page, nor is any mention of the musician involved) [35] [36]

and on and on . . .

To cap these efforts, User:Swancookie then posted an attack on his/her talk page impugning the good faith of three users/admins, "Rickey, Big Daddy or Bali" who had been involved in resolving editing disputes on the Clint Catalyst and now-deleted Lenora Claire articles. two members of the same community of self-promoting would-be celebrities. "Rickey" is User:Ricky81682; "Big Daddy" is User:Bigdaddy1981, and "Bali" is User:Bali_ultimate. (There's also an attack on me, of course -- actually more than one.) The user then added a "helpme" template accompanied by a not so terribly subtle insinuation that the three other editors/admins and I were acting out of anti-"LGBT" bias, which, given the complete absence of any basis for the claim, should be treated as a major civility violation [37].

I don't think it's an accident that Swancookie's activities today follow in the wake of attacks by various anons and SPAs on those of us who've been trying to clean up a surprisingly large walled garden of mutual/self-promotion -- note, for example, the attacks on Bali ultimate by User:Fairness Is A virtue and the particularly nasty attacks on Ricky81682 by User:POVbattler. There's been a fair amount of sockpuppeting in this dispute, which has been going on since early April. It's virtually a trademark of the other side in this dispute to accuse everyone who tries to clean up this rat's nest of bias and COI, but, as every uninvolved editor who's commented has noted, the claims have been made in the complete and absolute absence of any supporting evidence.

Cleaning up BLP problems is one of Wikipedia's more thankless tasks (just check out my talk page, I still take flak for an edit that Jimbo Wales said I might well have been thanked for). And removing BLP-violating promotional material is an easy way to become a target, as these disputes and the Clint Catalyst affaire make clear. (Even though removing BLP-violating material, including RS-violating promotional material, is exempt from 3RR restrictions, I try to stick to the 3RR/24hr standard to avoid opening unnecessary avenues for disputes, although I occasionally slip from that timeline, like I may have tonight. But Swancookie's edits included copyvios and clear non-promotional BLP violations, which called for an immediate response.)

Therefore, given all of the above, I'm asking for a (standard-length) block on Swancookie for edit warring/3RR, BLP/RS violations, and the implied personal attacks on the three editors/admins not directly involved in tonight's dispute, attacks which were particularly uncalled for.

I'd also like to see some wider discussion of the underlying issues regarding the problems coming from buzznet. Buzznet is a social networking site that encourages feral narcissists, and its standard page templates encourage its users to use Wikipedia to promote themselves and their friends. For examples, note on this page [38], under the "Promote Clint Catalyst" headline, the link to Catalyst's "WikiPedia" page (towards the lower right); similarly here [39] (Lenora Claire) and here [40] (Jared Gold) and here [41] (Jessicka) . I stumbled into this mess a few months back by removing inappropriate external links from one buzznetter's article, and I've been harassed by partisans recruited through that site ever since -- as have the admins and other editors who became involved in resolving that dispute, and followups. We need to stop this nonsense before buzznet makes MyWikiBiz and other sorts of paid editing look benign. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ([[User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|talk]]) 02:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to try to not get into a long defensive diatribe here. There's a lot to say but I'd like to stay on topic. First and foremost neither article I edited has anything to do with Buzznet. The whole Buzznet tangent User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wrote has absolutely nothing to do with the articles I am editing. Neither Jessicka or Christian even have Buzznet accounts, I checked. I'm sorry but even mentioning Buzznet in this case is grasping at straws. There's no promoting of "Clint Catayst" either - the sections I was editing do not even mention that person.

"a music retail site (emusic.com)" The section is not a retail site it's a music review section. [42] removing section as I see the Scarling. review is not there. I will replace when it's re-added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swancookie (talk • contribs) 04:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Asking for a LGBT friendly editor/ admin. had nothing to do with you. I was going to ask them about something completely different. Is killing two birds with one stone against policy??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swancookie (talk • contribs) 04:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

All I am doing is re-adding sections that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz blanked when they clearly had proper references. I left some of his edits as they did make sense but re-added sections that I thought necessary with proper references .

I'll be the first to admit that I'm not as well versed to wikipidian policy as User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz but I am trying to strengthen articles not vandalism them in any way. Why call for a block? It's this type of behavior that is exacerbating some weird us against them mentality. New users are being bullied and talked down to by editors' like Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and some other editors who are very condescending and unhelpful.

I have not been recruited by anybody. I had worked on some these articles before and noticed some sections needed references. I also discovered that User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was spending a lot of time on certain articles and their edits were very aggressive. I investigated further by reading some of the comments made by other editors and decided to be bold an help edit. I was immediately scolded by this editor and now he is asking for a block just because we don't see eye to eye?

I did not personally attack anybody. All I asked is is to have an neutral administrator who was not one of the ones I mentioned as I believe that are all a little to close to this subject, might have a bias after dealing with other editors, and are not as patient with newer users as some other administrators might be.

I think you'll see the articles Jessicka & Christian Hejnal meet wiki standards. I am waiting for one reference link to be re-uploaded within the next 48 hours. [43] The rest of the reference links are solid. I in no way deserve a block because I don't agree with this very aggressive editor. Swancookie (talk) 04:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't edited the article in months, how can you have an issue with me? I haven't touched the other articles unless your issue is that I've messed with your work at Clint Catalyst from last August. Assuming good faith seems like an unclear concept to you. Just state what your issue is and we can discuss it. Also, before any admin listens to the COI complaints, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive193#COI_User:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz for our most recent round of accusations. Wanting reliable sources and keeping the article in accordance with WP:BLP is NOT a COI problem. This kind of stuff is why we have a COI problem, and the fact that it comes directly from the people who are the subjects of the article is just the kind of intimidation we really should not be having here. I've received emails from someone claiming to be one of the BLPs at issue and it's all the same kind of speculation that Hullaballoo and everyone who disagrees with adding details about his amazing beautiful wedding speeches and the like are all out to personally get him, because of some nefarious secret personal COI. I've noticed you've readded the name-dropping of who attended the wedding again at Jessicka here, along with a mountain of other content. I suggest someone semi-protect (or even fully protect) all those pages and we can start the cleaning process yet again. This kind of nonsense needs to end. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree this nonsense needs to end. I don't have an issue with you. I just wanted an admin. with a clear head/clean slate on this topic. I've read all of the nonsense, it's easily accessible. You don't need to edit an article to know what's going on. Please see my reasons above of why I wanted a new neutral party. I have no recourse here as you are an admin. and I'm just an editor. There's no reason to semi protect these articles as I'm not vandalizing them. I really think you are overreacting and making an example of me because you are frustrated with this situation. Swancookie (talk) 04:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you again: what is your issue with me that you want a "neutral" admin around? You cannot just go around saying you need someone new to review and not at least answer that question. So what exactly is going on that concerns you? You may as well respond here as anyone else is going to ask the same thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Also note that if you have a specific discussion on a talk page, you can always ask for third opinion. That might be more useful than simply asking for an outsider to get involved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So let's get this straight, Swancookie. You don't deny violating 3RR, you don't deny that you added back an obvious copyvio, you don't deny reinserting improperly sourced material, you don't deny that your editing violated WP:BLP and WP:RS the only thing you deny is that describing four other editors as biased and insinuating that their bias involves "LGBT issues." And now you demand the right to approve the admins who evaluate your behaviour. Your only substantive response is "Hey! Wolfowitz is a bad guy, leave me alone!" That's absolutely ridiculous, and a strong signal that you're not editing in good faith. You deserve the standard 3RR and civility bans here, and I don't see why you haven't already had them handed to you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've stopped editing (scrambled my password to avoid temptation) but am still looking at my talk page every day or so (habits are hard to break). What really prompted me to post is, wolfowitz and ricky are not getting any back up, this thread isn't even attracting any further comment from good users. The lack of backup from the wider community in dealing with the whole cabal of C-list celebrities and fanboys, their sockpuppets, their meatpuppets, the sockpuppets of their meatpuppets and their endless accusations/reversions/reinsertions of sources to buzznet, myspace and the like, is why i quit (among others). There is a whole culture here that, for some reason, coddles vandals, allows unacceptably sourced information to persist and tells users who have a grasp on and commitment to the core idea of wikipedia that they must either engage in endless, circular, illogical and fruitless conversations with users that have no interest in the encyclopedia and its broader interests or just give in, allow the promotional, unverifiable crap to remain. That's not only personally frustrating, but i increasingly came to see myself as a fool for engaging in this project; the project's stated goals are one thing, but in reality if fails them at a systemic level every day. My loss is no big deal -- users leave all the time, and i'm sure a few good users are picked up every day. But this is the environment that is being allowed to persist. This specific case is just one of an endless number of examples. Over time, people with a commitment to holding the line against this kind of garbage will give up, and myspaces takeover will be one step closer. Quoting some other user i saw somewhere, wikipedia is not supposed to be "jimbo's big bag 'o trivia" but that's what it looks like, more and more. (bali)24.185.240.180 (talk) 13:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hullaballoo you are not innocent in this mess no matter what wiki policy you spout. All you have to do is go on your talk page and see how you have upset other editors by your very aggressive behavior. You have certainly exacerbated this situation. I understand that cleaning up BLP problems is one of Wikipedia's more thankless tasks but in doing so be prepared to discuss why you made your edits especially with newer users whom may not completely understand wiki policy you are spouting at them. I'm not asking you to dumb it down but why not at least try to be civil?

I never said any editors including yourself had any LGBT bias. This is something you are making up and are using in order to get people to see me a vandal or manipulator. I am neither. I want to ask an admin. versed on that topic a question. (this question is separate from our issue) I am asking you to assume good faith that I am telling you the truth and stop accusing me. Please don't put words in my mouth I added back content that I thought strengthened these articles. This content had valid references attached. My only crime, not agreeing with you.

Yes, I believe that you have a bias. Sorry but I do. You edit any articles attached to/mentioning Jessicka or Christian in order to discredit them because you had some altercation with editor Xtian1313 who claims to be Christian Hejnal. I feel you are gaming the system. I feel you are editing these articles until you can get them to a state where they can be deleted for lack of content.

You can't even admit when you are wrong. The whole Buzznet rant above has nothing to do with the articles I am editing yet you lump them in because they might have a link on a website to Clint Catalyst. These people are musicians not C-list celebrities and I don't think they need to be lumped into category because they have some loose association with people I believe you have a bias against.

Understand this, I expect civility because I think that's what wikipedia is built on. I am not demanding anything. I am not threatening anybody. Rather then have any civil discussion about content with me (actually explaining why you made your edits) you spout wiki policy and come here requesting me to be blocked. That's civil?

Ricky, Like I said above. I don't have a problem with you specifically. I just feel it would be best in this case to have a different admin. to review this situation. It's not because I feel you are not capable or a decent administrator, I believe that your patience has been tested by other editors here and that perhaps some of your frustration on this situation may spill over when dealing my issues. Is that feasible enough of an explanation? I don't mean any disrespect it's just how I feel.

I was in the process of asking for a third opinion when Hullaballoo brought this issue here and asked for me to be blocked. Swancookie (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There's desperate promotion of fading C-list celebrities here. (That's very LA; anyone who's spent time in the LA club scene knows the type.) The Clint Catalyst article is full of links about the guy showing up at some club. I took out a few of those. The articles mentioned here could all use some trimming. When in doubt, go back to WP:BIO and look at what Wikipedia considers notable. --John Nagle (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I have spent time in the LA club scene and have not experienced what you are suggesting but hey different experiences, right? Just to be clear I am currently not editing the Clint Catalyst article. Is anybody associated with this person now a "buzznet junkie", Myspace celeb, c-list celebrity, or a LA scenester? This is the bias I'm speaking about. There's no reason to lump these articles together. I am editing articles of notable musicians / artists / producers whom are not C-list celebrities. I'll check out WP:BIO. Thanks John. Swancookie (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Below is an example of why I didn't want certain editors involved. HW is bringing the very editors I asked not to be involved while falsely accusing me of "insinuating that they have an anti-"LGBT" bias". I feel there's a high level of frustration and resentment dealing with certain articles that they feel are related to Clint Catalyst, buzznet, LA scenesters, Lenora Claire (the list is endless).....? I want to deal with a neutral third party from here on out. Swancookie (talk) 17:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal going forward

Swancookie, I think it would be more productive if you could simply say what you want. If you concern is that discussions for new editors are going to like Talk:Clint_Catalyst#Jessicka_and_Christian_Hejnal_wedding, well, that's going to happen until they learn what the standards are here. I personally would be nicer if one talk page alone didn't have three sections collapsed because of nothing but incivility and personal attacks. If you want to deal with a neutral focus, then that means following policy. Neutrality doesn't just mean including every single flattering thing in these article with a neutral description. To keep on driving away everyone who disagrees and demanding someone new come in and have to repeat the same arguments again and again is exactly why those articles are in terrible shape and why we get these divergent views. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I realize you are giving me an example of behavior here, but again that is the Clint Catalyst talk page and I am not editing that article - nor do I plan on exhibiting that behavior, I assure you. I do plan on being bold and finding references for articles I feel are being (how can I eloquently put this without upsetting anybody) toyed with because of a personal bias. Moving forward can we all please try to not lump these articles together just because certain editors believe them to be in same LA cliche outside of wikipedia?

I agree attacks here are not necessary but I feel as if (Catalyst) editors are responding negativity because calling people they might respect c- list celebrities, worthless scenesters, and buzz net causalities- it's simply rude and counter productive. Sadly, these editors are responding to condescending tones used within the talk pages and in doing so violating wikipedia policy which is also counter productive. A little tolerance and patience goes a long way? That's why I was asking (not demanding) a neutral third party - in order to diffuse an already out of hand situation. Understood?

I believe the articles I am editing aren't in terrible shape, quite the contrary. Again, I can't speak for the Catalyst article as I've mostly read the talk page arguments not the actual text on the article itself.

I'm glad I'm no longer being threatened with a block. I also assure you that I was in no way insinuating that any editor involved in this mess has LGBT bias, that would just be out of line, unwarranted, and just stupid on my part.

I'm glad we are moving on from here. Not sure what the policy is on ignoring certain editors who refuse to have any rational discussion with you but I'm going to try doing that from here on out.

Swancookie (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

"these editors are responding to condescending tones used within the talk pages and in doing so violating wikipedia policy which is also counter productive." Are you referring to me? I must say that I am surprised given that I haven't the slightest idea who you are and have never come across you before. Moreover, my only substantive involvement with any of the existing articles you mention has been an attempt to improve the structure of the Clint Catalyst article. And that (now obviously moot effort) was limited to discussion on the talk page. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

SallyFord

SallyFord (talk · contribs) is proving to be a contentious editor on many articles since her first edit in February 2009. First she shows up to the article of an anime podcast, Anime Pulse, calling for its deletion. While at first her edits were reasonable. Based on this statement where she makes some remarks about how Internet Archive Way Back Machine is unsuitable for a reference, she states that she hosts a rival podcast.[44] As time when on, she became more hostile towards the article, including removing content [45] and later adding a term to describe the podcast's hosts that could be taken as derogatory towards the hosts,[46][47], and removing references.[48][49]

She then moved on to other articles where she has repeatedly edit warred over content, including Amber MacArthur[50][51][52][53][54][55], People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals[56][57][58][59]3RR, and more recently on Honey in the Rock,[60][61][62][63]3RR warning, and Naruto Uzumaki.[64][65][66][67]3RR warning[68][69][70][71][72]

SallyFord also has made several comments and edit summaries that are hostile towards other editors she disagrees with and even several personal attacks. (Calling another editor's writing "shitty", civility warning. Calling another editor a "chicken butt", NPA warning. Declaring another editor has a COI without any evidence. Reasserting COI claim after the other editor refuted it. Reasserted COI claim after a second editor refuted it. Claims that the other editors are gaining up on her and referencing a mysterious "UpDog" policy. Claiming other editors are on power trips for opposing her edits, second reference to "UpDog" policy which she claims is a Wikipedia policy. Third reference to mysterious "UpDog" policy) --Farix (Talk) 03:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like you need a tissue. Cry much? Can I say that? Or a personal opinion is not allowed? Every edit I made has been refuted aggressively for no reason and I'm the guilty one? If anything, I was only retaliating from bullying from power tripping editors. If I can't make a simple edit without some miffed editor and his/her buddy unnecessarily cracking down on legit edits then there is something definitely wrong with Wikipedia. Just because you don't agree with an edit does not mean it is vandalism or an attack on you and you have to call in all your friends to threaten me. I did not call another editor a "chicken butt", it was a joke I heard that I pleasantly shared. And as far as hostility, let's review your hostility with me first. If I were you, I would withdraw these accusations unless you're squeaky clean yourself. And believe me you are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talk • contribs) 03:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything you just said is incivil. Please address what Farix has stated above: the diffs, the edit summary, your messages, and whatnots. And I do not see any thing wrong with Wikipedia right now. Piece of advise, do not compound your problem with judgment error. ax (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You really need to tone down the personal attacks, Sally. You're skating along the edge of block-on-sight, and I say that as someone who has never even edited a page that you have, besides this one. No "you need a tissue", "shitty writing", or anything like that. Got it? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Got it? Is this a threat? Please enough with the threats. Personal opinion does not equal incivil. I can't voice a personal opinion here? The reviewer just has to review Farx history to see the personal attacks against me - very simple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SallyFord (talk • contribs) 04:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, there is an indelible division between personal opinion versus insinuation and incivility. Secondly, you should have known by now the distinction between warning and threat. You have been warned on your talk pages several times using Wikipedia's warning template, the one that is used to every editor, and what we said above is not a threat. ax (talk) 04:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I second TheFarix's summary. Her edit warring was reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring‎#User:SallyFord reported by User:Collectonian (Result: more info) but as she technically has not done 4 reverts on the exact same issue, the report appears to be going no where (and the issues are expanding beyond just edit warring). Despite this new discussion, she has also continued edit warring at Naruto and using continued "snarky"-style edit summaries, such as "fixed some stuff. Please don't be offended" and "added a space. I hope this edit is okay and not offensive. Please let me know." Her responses here are typical of the responses received in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Need third opinion where the issue of her edits at Anime Pulse were first brought to wider consensus. For some reason, she also continues to refuse to sign any posts in discussions, despite numerous requests on her talk page to do so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

SallyFord apparently feels the need to hunt through the contribs and user pages those who disagree with her and attempt to vandalize and/or nitpick articles they work on. With the start of this thread, she began introducing factual errors to Blood+, an article noted on my user page as one I've worked on. It has been reverted three times, twice by myself, once by another editor, and she has received appropriate warnings, but continues ignoring them.[73] She has received through level 4 now, and still reverting[74][75] to a false version. As this thread would preclude an AIV warning, I've requested page protection, but this continued disruptiveness needs to be stopped, please. As noted above, this is the same disturbing behavior she displayed with TheFarix. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As Collectonian said above, SallyFord is now knowingly violating 3RR (currently at 5RR) after having been warned less than 24 hours ago not to violate the policy, all on an article she hadn't touched before Collectonian's report above. She seems to be trying to make a point here, and should be probably given a few hours to think it over. Dayewalker (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sally did the same thing at Honey in the Rock, which is why I originally called her contentious editing there as "retaliatory". The only reason she went to that article was because I have it listed on my userpage as and article I created. And this right after I reverted her edit removing reference on Anime Pulse and speedy tag on Geeknights. --(not quite in bed yet) Farix (Talk) 04:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've blocked SallyFord for 24 hours for edit warring at Blood+ (5 reverts before engaging at the talk page, followed by a 6th revert). I'm off to bed, so if consensus emerges to unblock any admin may feel free. –xeno^talk 04:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

  Note that Collectonian has made about 5 reverts as well, technically edit warring, but if this was borne of wikistalking as the above claims then a block may not be appropriate. I don't have the energy to figure that out so would hopefully another admin can take a look and decide. –xeno^talk 04:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My 5 cents, if the edit is considered vandalism, i.e. giving misinformation, a revert is warranted. Cartoon Network is being changed to Cartoon Network's Adult Swim, which is not politically correct because the latter is not a channel but a programming block. There is a concensus a long time ago that Cartoon Network is to be used. Ow, have a nice sleep Xeno! ax (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at it more closely, I'll decline to place a block on Collectonian but would advise them that they were treading close to the line - though, since SF was edit warring to introduce a red-link, it could arguably be considered vandalism. The stalking allegation is also a mitigating factor. –xeno^talk 05:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call, Xeno. It looks to me like an account that thrives on conflict and disruption, and who was more than willing to get in trouble if she was able to take other editors with her. For what it's worth, I was also trying to revert SF's edits and get her to stop and talk, but Collectonian beat me to it every time. I didn't want to say anything on C's talk page for fear of feeding the Ts. Dayewalker (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Advisement noted, and yes, I was considering it vandalism since it was a factual error and red linking. In other places she was making less than helpful edits, I avoided 3RR despite her edit warring, since she wasn't vandalizing just being contentious and annoying. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

As a technical note, Adult Swim is officially a separate network that shares a cable feed with Cartoon Network; the two were split on March 28, 2005, so that they could be treated separately for ratings purposes. Changing to Adult Swim may be justifiable, but changing to Cartoon Network's Adult Swim wouldn't be justifiable by any stretch of the imagination. Still, if consensus is to use CN instead of AS, then the links shouldn't be changed... rdfox 76 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

KrebMarkt's opinion: Sorry to join this late this discussion. I'm in France. I concur with Farix & Collectionian. As the discussion in Manga/Anime project went to nowhere [76], i don't feel restrained anymore to revert any dubious SallyFord (talk · contribs)'s edits. I won't call her an editor because she didn't prove herself as one so i would call her an user. As most grievances were already reported here, i want to emphasize That user repeated refusal to face her responsibility. She would either ignore other users comments or dodge the issue like she did it again here. That user modus operandis is to gnaw articles she doesn't like by adding unverified and/or orginal research information (Honey in the Rock), slanderous edit (Anime Pulse), reference blanking (Anime Pulse), abuse of CSD (Anime Pulse & Honey in the Rock). If someone doesn't like an article, he can send it to Afd however writing Afd is to much a bother for That user who prefer to undermine those article. That user has also the habit to hold grudge toward editors who opposed or contested her edits so it is warranted for those editors to stay alert for retaliation strikes. I personally view the series of disruptive edits in Naruto Uzumaki as the retaliation of Farix bringing her bad attitude issue to WP:ANIME discussion. When her power of nuisance waned in that article, she switched to Blood+. Keeping an eye on That user activity as a pure act of protection for the articles targeted by her retaliations. I really doubt That user can be reasoned all we can do is to have her restrained and put on watch. --KrebMarkt 06:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Edits like this one on her talk page definitely aren't helping her case. --Farix (Talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the light dawns. http://www.all-acronyms.com/UPDOG --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Croats

78.3.245.128 (talk · contribs) and 78.3.240.245 (talk · contribs) (likely the same person) have been removing from the article lead the part that says that Croats are South Slavic people. Their editing seems to be continuation of last-night addition of fringe theories [77] mentioning "Iranian theory" and "Gothic theory" of Croatian origin which have been discredited in scientific literature for ages, and still being discussed only in some nationalist circles. IP has been given full set of warning templates but doesn't seem to be eager to discuss their changes first at the talkpage before engaging into contentious edits. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please semi-protect the page? --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyone with expertise in Portals and categories

Gregbard (talk · contribs) has recently created at least two new portals, Portal:Social and political philosophy and Portal:Philosophy/Subportals and is busy changing and adding categories at a very rapid rate. His justification is at User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories. I found him at Uniformitarianism (science) where his edits were twice reverted by two different editors when he tried to rewrite the lead to make it fall in line with his pov on science and philosophy. Another editor has expressed a bit of unhappiness on his talk page. I'm concerned that he is making a very large number of changes in a very short period of time that may be problematical. Dougweller (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The "portals" and "theories" are two unrelated activities. I invite any questions about either of them. Does anyone have a particular complain other than "Uniformitarianism"? It is, in fact, a theory, btw. That is a more proper and neutral way to describe these things. Please do offer input on the whole concepts and theories organization. Be well (and don't overreact next time) Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My point there was about the way you handled it. Everyone is entitled to a pov, but you made a major change to the lead without discussion. I've seen uniformitarianism described as a philosophy, a theory, a null hypothesis, a creed, a principle, etc. I only raised the example because that's where I ran across you and you did, after all, do a major rewrite of the lead without discussion. Maybe that's just you being Bold. I don't think I'm over-reacting in asking for advice. I may be quite wrong, but I'm willing to be wrong about areas of Wikipedia I still don't know that much about. Dougweller (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I am less concerned about the portals than the categories. Gregbard has been doing many changes in advance of Cfd nominations that have then failed, like this this and this one. Unfortunately there seem to be few other editors in the area. He invites comment and collaboration but can be very bitey when others do comment - eg (not to me or Doug) here. Superior knowledge is often claimed, and a very high-handed approach taken. A consistent trend is to bring almost everything under his philosophy scheme; this time it is Category:Theories, which has expanded to cover most of science, religion, politics and the arts. Last year his Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Aesthetics tagged vast numbers of Visual arts articles (but not others), but seems to have done little else. I wouldn't mind so much if the "theory" initiative was restricted to grouping existing categories, but he is now making many changes to the contents and arrangements of categories further down the tree to match his grand scheme at User:Gregbard/Concepts and theories, which seems to include a good deal of OR to me. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Background information on Gregbard

Gregbard has also caused a lot of disruption around mathematics articles in the past. Normally he stays around mathematical logic, where we are all familiar with him. I think he has an ideology that every word that was ever used by a logic author has only one, very specific, very technical meaning, which is usually one given to it by a philosopher who wrote on mathematical logic. In the past (April last year) he has gone as far as spamming completely unrelated topics with an Easter egg link. This is how our article consistency (to which consistent redirects) started at the time:

In mathematical logic, a logical system is consistent if it does not contain a contradiction, or, more precisely, for no proposition φ is it the case that both φ and ¬φ are theorems of that system. [78]

On 17/18 April 2008 he created 200 links to consistent, sometimes in contexts where it is not reasonable to argue that this technical sense was meant, and sometimes also in literal quotations or inappropriately on disambiguation pages. [79] Some example snippets, starting with some of the most atrocious (note the link for "interpretation"):

• This is in the vicinity of the former Pelusian arm of the Nile and is thus still consistent with the traditional interpretation. [80]
• The first principle that all Web design should understand when they are creating an effective web based UCD is navigation aids that are clear and consistent. [81]
• those attitude objects which directly implicate personal consequences on the behalf of the individual are more likely to produce consistent behaviors (Crano, 1995). [82]
• NIEM was designed as a core set of building blocks that are used as a consistent baseline for creating exchange documents and transactions across government. [83]
• They found that the SNC meteorites possess chemical, isotopic, and petrologic features consistent with data available from Mars at the time [84]
• Under this approach the traditional models of modern financial economics can coexist alongside behavioral models in an intellectually consistent manner. [85]
• After some delay, the U.S. Administration accepted the amended Australian legislation as being consistent with implementation of the agreement. [86]
• believes that Herbert "develops the Spencerian idea of equal freedom to its logically consistent anarcho-capitalist end" as noted in a bibliography. [87]
• "The libertarian, if he is to be logically consistent, must urge zero crime, not a small amount of it." [88]
• Some libertarians argue that anarcho-capitalism is the only logically consistent form of libertarian belief. [89]
• Such a time frame is logically consistent with the aging of the series' characters between Half-Life and Half-Life 2. [90]
• Many do not believe that generic classification of musical styles is possible in any logically consistent way, and also argue that doing so sets limitations and boundaries that hinder the development of music. [91]
• Kardec also argues that what makes the spiritist doctrine reliable is that it is not self-contradictory: the elevated spirits, channeled by mediums of goodwill all gave the same message and this message is logically consistent both internally and with what Christ taught. [92]
• In the second stage he argues positively that the existence of God and the existence of evil are logically consistent. [93]
• The historical research behind the series overall is impressive, and for the most part, historic characters are given believable and logically consistent roles and personality characterizations consistent with the historical record. [94]

For his reactions to complaints, see complaints on his talk page and discussion at WikiProject Mathematics.

In July 2007 he started attacking the article Theorem. Here, over a period of almost 2 years but thankfully with a low intensity for most of the time, he has been pushing the eccentric POV that a theorem is primarily a precisely defined technical notion in logic. Against a large number of professional mathematicians, including several mathematical logicians. See Talk:Theorem for his occasional filibustering, and [95] for a related discussion with CRGreathouse.

Gregbard has been a long-term problem for some of the more serious areas covered by Wikipedia. Mathematics is relatively well represented on Wikipedia in terms of editor numbers, but I am worried about the time he is wasting for other editors and the damage he is doing in philosophy. Perhaps a mentor could help? --Hans Adler 18:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikidea, personal attacks and harassment

User Wikidea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently under community sanctions because of incivility. During last month he began to make some, in my view, disruptive and uncivil edits on talk pages. Here he accused editors for "screwing it up", making the edits that are "very, very, very dumb", and to one editor he said "I'm staggered by your bias, and lack of knowledge". After ten days he returned with comment how we are "still screwing up this page" and "giving into stupidity because I'm afraid you don't know better". He also seems to have something personally against me accusing me of "inserting rubbish into this encyclopedia" and "bring nothing". After his comment was removed and he was warned by other editor [96] he left this satirical comment on article's talk page.

I would appreciate if some administrator could have a look into this and maybe put me on the list of people to whom Wikidea is banned from interacting with or commenting on. -- Vision Thing -- 09:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Persistent, disruptive editing by User:Vision Thing, again

Replying to the above, you can see the latest page on Talk:Paul Krugman where I noted him doing the same as he always does: this was my response in support of him stopping continuing to mess around with the page: here; and then he asked me a straight forward question, "do you have something against me". When people ask me straight forward questions, I reply. I don't think that's wrong. Here's my first reply, and second reply. If he didn't want a reply, he should not have asked. If he didn't want criticism, he should not continue, persistently, disruptively to edit this encyclopedia.

But guess what, it's not only me who thinks this! Here was my last forced complaint on ANI. But surprise, there are stacks of others! I suggest those interested people do a search. Just three examples from the top of the list:

• Here's a complaint about pushing a POV on what appears to be his favourite topic of Anarcho-Capitalism.
• Here's a complaint about Vision Thing being the same user as a banned user
• Here's a complaint of him knowingly inserting false info on Herbert Simon.

And have a look at the extraordinary level of belligerent behaviour right through Talk:Economic freedom. As you can see, he is now messing around with the Paul Krugman article. I don't think he brings anything to this encyclopedia. On the contrary he aggravates people everywhere he goes. He has not made any positive contributions that I can see at all. I have called him a WP:Troll before, and whatever misunderstanding I have of that word, it is true that his behaviour is persistently disruptive. So I think he (and whatever sock puppets) should be removed. Wikidea 10:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing Wikipedia for over three years. Of course I had disputes with other editors over that time but they were all settled in a civilized way and I have never insulted anyone. Also, you are insulting not just me but other editors as well which indicates that there is a larger problem here. -- Vision Thing -- 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Basing myself on three (And likely four) diffs you have added i cannot say you are exactly innocent yourself. I see two cases of borderline civility behavior: [97] [98]. Then i see that you have openened an ANI topic about the same editor before: [99] 6 months ago - With all due respect, but do i see an example of hounding here? . And last i see this sarcasm towards Vision. [100]

I have been checking random edits for the both of you, and in all due rights i cannot say that either of you qualify as vandalsm or bad faith editors (At least on first sight). My conclusion would be that this is simply a dispute stretched out over multiple article's. Asking for an outright block based upon an unproven case that is a little under three years old is a bit over the top, don't you think? I would suggest trying to resolve this apparently long standing dispute trough WP:WQA, or in case you cannot agree on a non binding resolution, trough WP:DR. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You might have a point with wikihounding. According to the article's talk page history he had never made one comment before two days ago. And then he made 3 comments all directed against me personally and unrelated to the topic [101], [102], [103]. Here are my previous two reports on him that were followed by blocks and community sanctions: 1, 2. -- Vision Thing -- 08:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Account deletion request

Hi could you please help me out - somebody - by deleting my account User:JohnnyTurk888 as soon as possible as per the request on my Talk page. I have had enough of editing and would like the account deleted. Thanks, JohnnyTurk888 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.216.77 (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since the above message came from anon User:121.44.216.77, I would recommend not deleting that account (not that it can be done) and a checkuser be performed. Something's fishy. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have assumed good faith and shown the IP the template to use as they asked me on my talk page, but not knowing or ever interacting with the editor if Neutralhomer believes something is afoot then maybe caution should be observed. BigDunc^Talk 11:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It could be just someone who forgot to sign in. A red flag shot up for me when I seen this and the user has flipped to IP 118.208.216.120, which to me raises more red flags. Before the account is deleted, a checkuser should be performed just to make sure that the user is who they say they are. With new edits by both IPs and User:JohnnyTurk888, it shouldn't be hard. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:46, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it has been deleted already Avatar 06349 (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, still think it raised red flags, but I guess for someone it was OK. Carry on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

But...you can't delete accounts.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of trouble getting my account "vanished", I'm not signed in because I'm blocked, can you please help me out. I'm sure I'm doing something wrong procedurally, no idea what though, so I feel like a total fool who just wants my account deleted. Please do a technical check, I'm definitely the account owner and I want it shut as soon as possible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 12:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Par WP:RTV it requires an administrator/bureaucrat to truely vanish. However, as the RTV policy states: "Users in good standing may request to leave Wikipedia permanently". Seeing two blocks, and one being currently active, i would say that you are not leaving in good standing. Due to this i don't think you still have the right to vanish - see:The right to vanish might not be extended to users who have been abusive or disruptive, who left when they lost the trust of the community, or who have been banned. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• (ec)Looks like some may be incorrectly viewing User:JohnnyTurk888 which is not a registered account; the user seems to be referring to User:Johnnyturk888 which is blocked for a month and talk page protected and is probably why the user is using IPs. It was suggested on his talk page that he wait out his block and then request WP:RTV. --70.246.153.153 (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's User:Johnnyturk888. See also User_talk:Gwen_Gale#Hi_Gwen_Gale.2C_please_delete_my_account. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, I think my edits and conduct while not perfect has been impeccably polite and good natured. I hope I am indeed in good standing. I just wish to be deleted. If a "dev" can delete my account, I would ask to be vanished now, I can assure you I won't be changing my mind in 30 days, I want out. Specifically my edits have not been abusive, disruptive nor have I been banned unless that includes a block. I find it hard to comprehend why deleting the account should wait.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Diffing trough 20 or so random edits i won't oppose a vanish request - just in case someone interprets my above statement as an opposition to this request. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 13:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to reiterate Johnny - we cannot delete your account: it is a technical impossibility. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

But it says a "dev" can do this. If this could be put on an action list, even if not immediately possible, I would be most appreciative and will feel my efforts to terminate the association have not been in vain. I don't wish to be unreasoned about it at all, I just don't understand the tardiness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to indef block and RTV this user now if there's a consensus to do so. Otherwise, I've been wary of doing this for a user who today has 25 days left on a block, has edit warred over his talk page and has evaded the block with dynamic IPs. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I cannot thank you enough Gwen Gale, I really do appreciate this and I hope my request has not provided inconveniences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.167.101 (talk) 13:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• If you really are Johnnyturk888, I have unprotected your talk page. Log in to your account and post a request for a name change and RTV. You can choose a new name or have the bureaucrats pick one (usually "Renamed user 13" or some such). I won't get into what developers can or can't do by manually editing the database, as a legal and practical matter, accounts are never "deleted" but may be renamed. However, you should also be aware that even though your account will be renamed, all the talk pages you signed will still have your old signature, such as [104], and in the future the diff would show that "Renamed user 13" signed his name as "Johnnyturk888", so it will be quite easy for a determined person to figure out the name you used to have. "Vanishing" is an imperfect concept at best. Another alternative is simply to reset or scramble the password to your account, blank the user talk page, and stop editing. Whichever you choose, please be aware that it is not acceptable to simply create a new account and resume editing in order to avoid your past history. There is no technical means to prevent you from doing that, but if you are discovered, your accounts will be tied together and you will be held accountable for your past. Thatcher 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated Copyright Violations

New user User:Encyclopeter is introducing articles on Cemetaries and everyone has been substantial copies from the business website. The first article was fixed but user doesn't get it that plagarizing is NOT OK. The article in question now is Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (Coram, New York) Can an admin visit and try to get into users head that copyright vios are not tolerated. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

here's another tagged violition of copyrights. Queen of All saints CemeteryHell in a Bucket (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I managed to salvage one of his articles (Cemetery of the Holy Rood), but this one, as well as Queen of All saints Cemetery, which was previously deleted twice as Queen of All Saints Cemetery, had no salvageable content beyond the copyright violations. All three followed the same pattern: copy/paste from the cemetery's official site, copy/paste from various sections of Cemetery, and a bunch of unnecessary ELs. I find it odd that crat UninvitedCompany (talk · contribs) declined a G12 speedy on the grounds that the person asserted copyright ownership on the talk page. If there was OTRS correspondence which I have no visibility to, I'd greatly appreciate if this was disclosed. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (Coram, New York) he's written "Any copyright material belongs to the author of this page as well as the stated web site. Peter J Ryan, CCCE may be verified and contacted at: pryan@holyroodcemetery.org — Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

←Since he implies permission, I have converted the speedies to copyvio and advised him at his page how to verify. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but I see that another administrator has deleted one anyway. I'll point him to this conversation. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

So we still have conflict of interest problems too? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite likely. It's mentioned in the template on his page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

←(e/c) Notwithstanding all of that, I can't find any indication that Holy Sepulchre in Coram meets GNG. We managed to salvage Holy Rood on the grounds that it has several notable internments and some RS coverage. I find one notable internment for Holy Sepulchre, Edgar A. Sharp, and no RS coverage. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Queen of All saints Cemetery had no assertion of copyright on its talk page the way Holy Sepulchre does. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't need to. An assertion of permission is an assertion of permission. Incidentally, I presume you didn't notice that you were removing that assertion when you blanked the off-topic conversation, but it's important to allow on-topic material to remain. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my last comment was in response to your previous comment on the deletion of (I presume) the Queen of All Saints article by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs). To elaborate, I fail to see how Sarek should have known that Encyclopeter was asserting copyright on the Queen of All Saints article with a note on the Holy Sepulchre talk page. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

While I haven't accused Sarek of any wrongdoing, it said so in my edit summary: "permission asserted elsewhere; cp". I'm sure he simply overlooked it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't understand what you meant there until I read it again on the other article. If I hadn't speedied it as a copyvio, though, I would have as A7, so same effect. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't mean to be oblique. :) It took me a few extra minutes to finish communicating with the contributor because the template I left him had to be updated to reflect the licensing change. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

My main concerns can be handled on the talk page, but to go over the most serious after the copyright vio, the ads are not nuetral, they attempt to sell a catholic burial to you. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to write articles about a company you work for? I researched the individual with a google search.....and the ccce he cites is apparently.

Catholic Cemetery Conference (CCC) www.catholiccemeteryconference.org Member of the New York State Association of Cemeteries (NYSAC). www.nysac.com Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for there to be multiple issues with copied material, but if the contributor truly can verify his connection to the original source, then his placement of text here is not a copyright violation (though we must treat it as such until he does verify). You might want to proceed under the assumption that he can and will verify and address other issues in the same way that you would if the text were not pasted from elsewhere, but had been created specifically for Wikipedia. It is discouraged, but not forbidden to write articles about a company you work for, as long as it is done within policies & guidelines, per WP:COI and WP:FAQ/Organizations. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I try and AGF but there are times it gets strtched. I really despise non nuetral articles, takes awau from our credibility. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. :) I generally try not to mix up copyright matters with other matters, but it's not unusual for me to list an article at WP:COIN even if permission has been granted. In this case, I haven't even read the text. My focus was solely on your opening question about copyright vios. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming he does verify ownership of the copyright and release it, we still have issues of WP:N and WP:ADVERT. I can take a stab at writing the Holy Sepulchre article from scratch and with NPOV, the way I did with Holy Rood, but I doubt it will pass GNG. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

If it's not notable, an AfD might be appropriate. I've seen more than a few articles at CP up on AfD at the same time for general principles. Of course, if it's pure spam, it can also be deleted under WP:CSD#G11. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I salvaged one of his articles so I thought I'd give a shot at another. Talk:Holy Sepulchre Cemetery (Coram, New York)/Temp. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I tend to suspect that your version is more appropriate either way. If we don't get permission, his should be deleted and yours put in place. If we do, yours should probably be put on top until other issues are addressed in his text. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Shitipedia

Resolved

 – blocked indef by J.delanoy - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong page a person called User:Shitipedia is going around adding links to S&M sites. 41.245.176.115 (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)They have now been blocked, thanks, in future, users with innapropriate usernames can be reported at WP:UAA, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

SPA slow edit war

There's a SPA contributions engaging in a low-rate edit war on stevia. An old discussion is at Talk:Stevia#Promotional edit warring and the most recent altercation is Talk:Stevia#More promotional edit warring. He seems to be fairly new to Wikipedia, and unfamiliar with some concepts such as WP:AGF. His edit history focuses solely on mentioning a company called PureCircle, suggesting a conflict of interest. I have attempted to remain civil but for some reason this editor has threatened to jump right into arbitration rather than engage in discussion. I am puzzled by this, so I'm posting a heads-up here in case someone else is interested in weighing in. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Angusf27 (talk · contribs) was blocked for this behavior in January, but shows no signs of having altered his approach. Looie496 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Serial NLT offender it looks like

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 30 days. –xeno^talk 17:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Can some kind admin do the honours with this NLT breach? --WebHamster 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A 30 day block to a dynamic IP that made a single NLT post on May 18 and hasn't edited since? In any case it looks like this serial offender may have given up on being able to change the article. Looie496 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Mmm, I must have seen 18th and thought it was today. Reduced to time served , IP likely re-assigned. –xeno^talk 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:COI issues re plastic surgery articles

User:Bhalberg has made a series of edits that primarily seem to be related to promoting a particular plastic surgeon that either is the user or that the user has a close connection to. Even the relatively innocuous File:Dr. Dayan Rhinoplasty.jpg has a description of "Dr. Steven H. Dayan Board Certified Facial Plastic Surgeon http://www.drdayan.com See our rhinoplasty video featured on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ln4w9dOJK4". Other edits have been even more explicitly spammy, such as this one at Rhinoplasy which asks readers to click on a photo for more information. The pictures upload are useful and may well be relevant, but all seem to be done so as to promote the services of Dr. Dayan. Alansohn (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The image also has copyright/licensing issues, as it claims to have permission from the original owner but provides no evidence for that claim. Shereth 18:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Have tagged the rhinoplasty before and after for PUI: regardless of licensing it lacks model permission. Durova^Charge! 20:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a somewhat related discussion of "Private practice 'Before & After' shots" here, where after making a change one editor was contacted by a plastic surgeon who said he was "there first", and would appreciate it if the editor would leave his work alone. --CliffC (talk) 22:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, in principle there's no need to outright reject this material as long as the personality rights issues are properly addressed via OTRS and the hosting page description doesn't amount to blatant advertising. But a heavy-handed approach isn't welcome. Durova^Charge! 16:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Unresolved - 66.190.29.150

66.190.29.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 66.190.29.150 (talk · contribs) is edit-warring on several articles & the talk pages of those are full of PAs from him, mainly him accusing others of British POV pusshing. (The funniest one is on Slick tyre where rather than try to get the article's title changed he keeps changing 'tyre' to 'tire' within the article). His talk page is littered with warnings. He hasn't actually gone over 3RR yet, and I'm involved in one of the articles. Dougweller (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to add to this. He is continually posting at Talk:Amesbury Archer in a way that I would call spam more than anything else. I know enough about the subject to be able to work out that he clearly doesn't know anything about it. At the risk of making a personal attack (not my intent here, I just want to tell you how I see it) judging from his methods of ignoring questions raised on the talk page and trying to extend an argument, I think he's only here as a persistent vandal (or WP:troll), not to contribute anything meaningful to articles. This would seem to be backed up by the problems other editors are having with him. I have no intention to hide facts about the article and would only welcome its expansion in a logical and meaningful form, unfortunately his edits seem designed to antagonise other editors so that he can have an argument. His insistence that anyone disagreeing with him is pushing a British POV is totally nonsensical on an article about Ancient History, yet he's doing it. I'm happy to be open about the facts of the Amesbury Archer and have even incorporated some of his views into the article, but his offensive tone, continual PA's and questioning of other editors knowledge and motivations is pathetic. Even got me a bit annoyed for a moment. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The consistent personal attacks and offensive tone has become disruptive on several articles. He has continued posting personal attacks, I note, after a last warning to stop or else be blocked. I would suggest we carry through with that.

Note that the IP was blocked for 6 months in February 2008 as a sockpuppet of banned User:Ernham (see here. I don't know if that's still relevant, but I think it's worth mentioning. Pfainuk talk 20:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Ah yes, I've seen this one as well and had half a mind to raise it here. Clearly someone who knows wiki policies and only seems interested in trying to start pointless arguments. Sails close on 3RR but doesn't make the 4th edit. Bizarre, seems to set out to disrupt. Justin talk 22:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Definite intent to disrupt, I would say, based on attitude and approach. Language changes at Slick tyre ("It is not my problem the first person to start the wiki used the incorrect variant spelling"), removing properly cited material at Falkland Islands ("now like a pack of wild dogs people swarm to push a British POV"), several nasty attacks against Justin ("abusive, british POV pushing wiki stalker"), and so on. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I think he just likes arguing with people on talk pages. He'll ignore your questions and then accuse you of exactly what he's guilty of, constantly trying to get people to rise to his baits. At Amesbury Archer it looks to me as if he watched a BBC Timewatch program called Stonehenge Decoded (I think it was broadcast in the States with Carrie Fisher narrating it) and is basing all his arguments off of it, trying to come across as an expert. I can see from his comments that he knows very little beyond this, and I suspect the same is true at other articles he edits. It's amusing that one BBC article is Gods truth, but another is totally wrong because it disagrees - but only he is in a position to judge this for us. That alone shows his intent I think, and leads to his next ploy to start a fight - insulting everyone he can as quickly as possible Ranger Steve (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to get some sort of consensus here folks? It seems to me that if this user is merely a sockpuppet of an already banned user, then the logic of originally banning him still stands. Different account, same user. No change in ways either! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello folks. I notice this issue had been archived but was not reolved, so as per the instructions above I've reinstated it. Is there any chance an uninvolved admin could have a look into it? This guy did seem to push it too far after all, he's a sock puppet and kept overstepping the mark despite final warnings. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed he feels emboldened to return and try to restart old arguments see [105]

This needs more diffs. I looked through today's edits for this user and saw only positive contributions and civil discourse. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Consistency of editor interest suggests this really is User:Ernham, editing in spite of being banned in 2007. The original ban discussion is here. Ernham followed tennis and auto racing, and here we have the IP working on tennis articles and arguing about Slick tyres, which are used in racing. Note that no checkuser is required, since this is the same IP than Luna Santin blocked for six months as Ernham early in 2008. I suggest that a new 6-month block be imposed, and we agree to let Ernham ask for unbanning on the talk page of his registered account. His quarrelsome return to editing suggests that not all the original issues have gone away. EdJohnston (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree His contributions aren't positive, he seeks to start an argument, targeting controversial topics. His antics wast valuable editing time and needlessly create conflict. Justin talk 00:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly he has the whole anti-British thing going on that Ernham did. If the IP is a known venue for ban evasion, and if it is exhibiting that same behaviour, lets block it again for another few months if that is the case. Ban evasion is bad, mmkay? --Narson ~ Talk • 07:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree. His extremely discriminatory comments, insults, vandalism and disruption were reason enough to ban him several days ago and I really think the warnings should be stuck to. I imagine he'll be back again though... Ranger Steve (talk) 07:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Double Checking

I noticed this diff which basically retired User:Neurolysis using an IP. The edit summary says to email for confirmation if required. Probably all on the up and up, as Neuro hasn't been extremely active lately anyway. Just thought it best to bring it to attention to be on the safe side. — Ched :  ?  00:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yawn... :-) Tan | 39 00:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is Neurolysis. The IP geolocates to Irlam, Manchester, and Neurolysis is, AFAIK, from the general area, because he came to the Manchester Meetup a few months ago. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

ChildOfMidnight

Please deal with this in all due haste, please. ChildOfMidnight is re-introducing text lifted entirely from an AP story, with a few words changed here and there, but not enough to meet the threshold of originality. It's still copyright infringement even if you put "According to..." before it. (This reminds me of a Little Britain sketch where a Barbara Cartland parody used to pad her books out by out-and-out plaigarism). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Did you bring it to article talk or discuss it with the user? It doesn't appear he has even been notified of this thread. Law _{type! snype?} 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this requires administrator attention right now. The material inserted by ChildofMidnight clearly has copyright issues (e.g. compare the addition of "Johnson and St. HOPE agreed to repay half of the $847,000 in grant money they had received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007" to our article with "Johnson and St. HOPE ultimately agreed to repay half of $847,000 in grants they had received from AmeriCorps between 2004 and 2007" in this AP article), and that editor cannot simply re-instate that information without doing a much better job of paraphrasing/writing original text.

But I don't think this needed to come here - talk page discussion should have been able to clear this up but that has not happened so far. If ChildofMidnight continues to add this info as is we have a problem, but I'm guessing that the edit summary in this edit by Sceptre may have brought home the point to C of M that there are copyright issues here. I'll try to keep an eye on the situation over at Gerald Walpin firing but otherwise I think we can mark this resolved. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Action at this point is unnecessary - CoM will be topic banned from Obama-related topics (which this clearly is) sometime this evening, when a clerk closes the Obama arbitration case. Nathan ^T 02:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree. Action is clearly needed. Sceptre is in violation of edit warring and 3RR guidelines and his editing is disruptive and used to win a battle against policy instead of reaching a consensus. The article has been edited by numerous editors who added and reviewed the content, and he has no business making wholesale changes repeatedly without any discussion.

His first edit summary was misleading, he said the content wasn't attributed ("asserted") when it clearly was with both a citation AND a statement of where it was from, his second edit didn't even have an edit summary, and then he reverted again a third time. Sceptre never posted to the article discussion page, where one of the bits he removed is actually discussed.

I didn't add the content, but clearly it's attributed and well sourced. If someone wants to rework it they're welcome to it, but drive by POV pushing by an abusive editor who leaves edit summaries like this one [106] clearly isn't helpful. It verges on vandalism. Bigtimepeace, a frequent aider and abetter of this type of editing, left out the beginning of the sentence where it said: The "AP reported that...". But I'm sure it was a harmless oversight. He also missed the other bit that Sceptre removed that is discussed on the talk page where consensus is that it's reliably sourced. But nevermind. No one's perfect. Meanwhile another POV pusher, Tarc, is trying to have the whole article deleted. Such is the world we live in on Wikipedia. And yes, Arbcom has chosen to punish me. So much for NPOV. Oh well. Cheerios! ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The text is a clear copyright violation. Attribution and sourcing are not any sort of defense for copyright infringement, it's a defense for plagiarism. You need to understand the difference if you are going to make contributions here. DreamGuy (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes CoM I do believe that it should be deleted, but thankfully for all involved I don't get to decide things by fiat. :) The AfD is trending away from my point of view that the literal "controversy" of the firing is chiefly supported by non-reliable sources, while RS mainly report the incident of the firing itself sans Watergate-like overtones that some editors are looking for. But such is life in a collaborative editing environment, eh? Not to be (overly) snarky, but perhaps if you understood that better then you wouldn't be headed for a 6-month topic timeout. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The pith is, if you want to lift a sentence or two, ok, put it in quotes and give the source in the text along with a citation. If you want to lift more content than that, you must thoroughly rewrite it in your own words from beginning to end and still cite it to the source. A paraphrase stirred up by swapping out a few words along with a bit of jumbling here and there will not do, even if it's cited to the source. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Sofixit}} This is a collaborative encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The {{Sofixit}} reply isn't adequate here; it gives the impression that ChildofMidnight confuses matters that touch upon intellectual property law with minor formatting concerns. Durova^Charge! 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm sure I'm not the only one who possesses the capability to add quotation marks? Saying "The Associated Press reported that..." is also very strong attribution. My point was that it's best to improve the encyclopedia collaboratively and that we are all empowered to do so and to fix a problem when we see it rather than engage in needless dramatics. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

What people object to is when one editor habitually creates messes that other editors are required to clean up. If somebody tells you that you are doing something the wrong way, and multiple other editors concur, then you need to acknowledge their concerns and undertake to improve your editing. Jehochman ^Talk 17:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you even understand that what you did violates someone's copyright? This is not a matter of telling someone else to fix it. Shell ^babelfish 17:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I clean up messes all the time. My reversion of Sceptre's attack on content is just one example.

The idea that a sentence that says "The Associated Press reported..." and then describes what they reported is a copyright violations is an interesting assertion. I think those issues should be discussed on the wp:plagarism talk page.

I have attempted to do some fixing on the article. Generally I try to avoid those topics because the POV pushers are so hostile and nasty, and no admin or arbcom has been willing to do anything positive to help solve the problem (and many such as BigtimePeace actually contribute to it and reinforce the inappropriate behaviors).

If there are editors who want to beat me up go for my good work here that's up to them. But I'm very concerned that the editing process that Durova advocates amount to wp:snyth. I've tried to look throug hher article contributions to evaluate her approach, but I couldn't find very many articles and the one I found have offline sources. So maybe someone can point me to other articles or content she's written?

What's clear is that we have a group of non-article contributing editors who "patrol" our political content and attempt to enforce their personal point of view article content. This is a grotesque and unambiguous violation of our Neutral Point of View policy and it should be addressed. That Arbcom has failed to do so is a very bad reflection on them, but I'm well aware that the world and Wikipedia aren't perfect. Cheers! ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat at my talk page

Resolved

Abercrombie and Fitch "Brand Protection Team" left an interesting message on my talk page. Don't have much time right now to post specifics. Also here. Gotta go! --œ^™ 00:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User has been indef blocked. Tan | 39 00:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism of Robin Van Persie page

Sorry, don't know the right place to put this. Robin van Persie has been vandalised partially repaired, but the sections on his personal life and early life are still messed up. I'm not sure how to put it right without reverting the wrong edits. Can someone more experienced take a look? 92.234.8.173 (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC) Josh

Looks as though ThaKid555 has taken care of it. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Brain and microchip implants

This may be the wrong place, but I bring this problem here because the issues are a bit complex. As background, a relatively common symptom of schizophrenia is to develop a delusion that some sort of device is implanted in one's brain. People with this delusion often are very motivated to convince other people that it is true, and may go to extraordinary lengths to do so. We have such a situation right now at Brain implant and Microchip implant (human). The IP who is trying to link to his sad story seems to have a pretty wide range of addresses available, so the best approach might be to semi the two articles for at least a week, and see how things develop. Looie496 (talk) 01:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Would that or adding http://www.scribd.com/doc/16390476/Biotelemetry-Brain-Implants Biotelemetry Brain Implants - Documents to the blacklist be more useful? It's just a regex, we can add a specific page, right? I have a feeling he'd merely go to another page if we semi-protected it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt, I guess. If that doesn't work we can try something else. Looie496 (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It felt slightly premature but I went ahead and sprotected due to the nature of those documents. Blacklisting the links is probably a better alternative, however, because those documents are never going to be acceptable on any page of Wikipedia. Sarah 04:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's hard to say, but I have a feeling semi'ing might work better. There are a thousand other places to upload files, but there aren't many other Wikipedia articles that will be so attractive to this editor. Looie496 (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Child account with personal info

Can an admin look into User:Rayizcoolio's User page and see how it stands in accordance with WP:CHILD? Thanks, ThemFromSpace 02:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 has already deleted it. Looks like he's talking to himself, btw :) Chamal ^talk 02:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted per WP:CHILD and left warning about that page and the social networking on the talk page. I'm not sure about talking to myself 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 02:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I was talking about the kid. Chamal ^talk 02:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 04:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandal block request

Could someone temporarily block User:76.193.77.139, as they've made several obscene and racist edits in the past hour. Thanks VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a final warning, but vandalism seems to have stopped. You can use WP:AIV to get a quicker response! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll use WP:AIV in future (I didn't know about it).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem at Brand Hong Kong

A new user User:PMJ Regan keeps copy and pasting text from [107] to Brand Hong Kong, despite my explanations on his talk page that he cannot do this. Reverting his edits have proven futile as he just reverts back. I'm not sure what the next step is as I've never handled this before. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note that I hope explains things further. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Calling Sherlock Holmes (or anyone with a brain and integrity)

Relieve yourself, get some coffee and bare with me - I'll try to interject some humor so it isn't too boring.

Essentially, what we have here is the appearance meatpuppetry, canvassing, and a dollop of abuse. The short of it, as objectively as possible, is that a couple editors haven't read up on ownership (missing that link for years apparently), reverted until one of them violated the three revert rule, and, when called on it, they are magically saved by the dynamic duo Mysterio and Enigma (admins who then proceeded to ignore their faults, threaten me, and then disappear the crimes).

It's a story you've heard a million times before right? Well, perhaps, but in this case Mysterio (as well as both of the people involved in the content dispute with me) are friends on facebook. All three of them? Yes - all three (and several other admins who aren't currently involved in this dispute). And before I'm accused of being a stalker his facebook page is linked directly from his userpage.

But it gets "better," Enigma and Mysterio, who've never edited this article before (but magically appeared to save their friends) have a record of showing up in esoteric articles in order to save their friends.

And that is the short of it to help people get the jist of things without bias (feel free to put that in a "collapsible box"). Here is the long, boring, evidence-riddled timeline that will cause a bit of a stir considering some of the parties (again, I'm trying to keep his other admin facebook friends out of the dispute if possible).

1. Content dispute at Urban heat island (erased now), which I sought outside help for at the NPOV board [108] (no responses, but it describes that quite well)

2. Editor chastised me for misspelling his odd name, I replied with a bit of light humor, some questions about the terms of his restriction of those articles, and a furtherance of the content debate. His response was to delete my comment, which is a clear violation of wikipedia vandalism policy (claiming it was a "personal attack"). I restored it (3r not applying to me since he was committing vandalism), and he deleted it three times (violating 3r in addition to the vandalism) (diffs: [109][110][111])

3. At this point Mysterio appears, pointlessly archives the 2-3 other complaints over what I tried to remove (practically emptying the talk page [112]), archives my complaint [113], and then gives me a "talkin' to" [114] and curiously doesn't give his friend any warning for his 3r violation.

4. I also get a warning from his other friend Enigma [115] - an admin who also refuses to warn of the other editor's 3r violation.

5. Now, so I'm not accused of stalking, go to his user page, click on his facebook link, and then see these two friends - "Mysterio" and his buddy who apparently follows all the same articles (astute observers will notice several other admins in there as well). Also, "Enigma" cannot be proven to be present since he admittedly uses a pseudonym [116](like most of us).

6. Obviously that, while suspicious, is not completely damning, which is why, like with sockpuppet cases, we must look for patterns. Has "Mysterio" ever shown up at odd little articles, out of the blue, to defend Bill in the past? Yes - and when called on it at the time [117] his defense to the charge of collusion [118] was was that he had this esoteric article (which he had never edited) on his watchlist.

7. Has the pseudonymous "Enigma" engaged in similar behavior? Yes - like a bolt of lightning he comes to protect Bill on odd corners of wikipedia and, oddly enough, the same page as "Mysterio" and about 6 other facebook friends of Bill (if anyone wants diffs of Baley protecting other facebook friends of Bill then let me know - I consider it a separate issue and don't want to cause too much drama (as inevitable as it sometimes is).

And so, the question is, do these facts suggest off-wiki communication, canvassing or meatpuppetry? Abuse? Also, should the 6-month restriction that Bill had on editing these articles be reimplemented? (And on a side note, I'd appreciate it if Bill's fans (protectors of his page) declare themselves to keep things honest). If anyone wants to post more evidence of collusion then feel free - I thought this had gotten too long and thought this would be sufficient for any decision-making. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

TheGoodLocust, I believe you may need to go back and re-read All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten; I think there is a section in that book that tells the reader that name-words are important, and that calling people by other names is rude. First misspelling WMC's name twice, and then failing to heed his request that, if you don't want to (or are unable to) properly spell his full username, you refer to him as "WMC" is rude. Repeatedly calling him "Billy" is not just rude, it is taunting. As to the sudden attention to the page, it is no surprise, as it started bouncing up on Recent Changes because of the dispute; it is normal and natural that other editors and administrators will take an interest. I note that you compound your rudeness by referring to WMC as "Bill" in this very report. Stop it please, and refer to your colleague by the name he has chosen, or the alternative he has offered. Your own desires are irrelevant on this point. Risker (talk) 03:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Well "Risker," William's last name is oddly spelled - big deal if I missed an "l" a few a times. And last time I checked he didn't request not to be called Bill and even if he did that's his name - if he doesn't want to be called that then I suggest he change his username instead of resorting to vandalism. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of other names that WMC also didn't request that you not call him, too. WMC provided you with an alternative, one that he and others widely use within the project. If you cannot make the effort to either correctly spell his full username (which you could just copy and paste) or use his preferred alternate nickname, then it is you who is behaving uncollegially. Now you are implying that it's all his fault that you can't spell his name. You have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that there are technical alternatives to prevent misspellings of names. Risker (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Risker but I don't buy it. I made a stupid spelling mistake and he felt the need to bash me over the head with it and used that as an excuse to end the debate. Quite simply his "request" was obviously not a request at all - it was a power trip. Again, if he doesn't want to be called by his username then William should change his username to something else instead of trying to dominate other people. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The spelling mistake could be excused once, but the decision to call him "Billy" when he had proposed a simple-to-type alternative was unacceptable. We have hundreds, possibly thousands, of editors with more difficult to spell usernames. Your continued insistence in referring to an editor by a name he does not use to edit is unacceptable. It is not a power trip to insist that one be referred to by the name one chooses. It is, however, a power trip to continue to refuse to refer to a person by his name. Your continued argument on this point makes me wonder if your reference to other administrators as friends of Bill may not be entirely accidental. Risker (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you got me, his polite deletion of my post, on the grounds that part of it was playful in an attempt to lighten the mood was really classy on his part. I like that friends of Bill thing though - perhaps you could turn that fine eye for detail to this group of editors engaging in suspicious off-wiki communication. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You know, when multiple admins tell you not to refer to an editor a particular way, it really doesn't help you to make your case when you come on AN/I and keep on doing it. Asserting the existence of a cabal also doesn't help. Claiming that removing an accusation of "shoving their viewpoints onto the world" is vandalism doesn't help. Oh, and implying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is stupid or dishonest right in the title is both.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't assert the existence of a cabal - I simply flat out proved their off-wiki communication and odd behavior. Also, your dishonest portrayal of my removed edit, which I linked in the main post, is disturbing - I'd appreciate it if you redacted that attack. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree as above. With your attitude and seeming delight in prodding your enemies, it's absolutely no surprise there are other editors who take a look at your edits. Dayewalker (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am not adverse to investigating the possibility that friendships among admins leads to behavior that can be abusive to other editors and harmful to collegial editing. However, you need to read up on the doctrine of unclean hands. And whenever I see someone complaining "vandalism" because their talk page comment keeps getting removed, I immediately become suspicious. Thatcher 04:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

As to why my comment was removed it is good of you to be suspicious. But if you look at it then you'll find that another editor (who I believe disagreed with me on the subject) was so outraged at their behavior that he went and got another admin to look into it. So really, don't take my word for it that their behavior was questionable - go look at the reaction they got when others got involved.TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want your concerns taken seriously, don't bait, taunt, tease, bullyrag, tweak, poke, or deliberately annoy the people you are complaining about. It muddies the waters and gives you unclean hands. People also tend to be mindful of the adage that when you lie down with the dogs, you wake up with fleas. To pursue this successfully and attract the kind of help you want, your own behavior needs to be above reproach. And it would also help if your second example of inappropriate collusion was more recent than 3 years. Thatcher 04:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And again, the same can be said of the admin, who was accused, again by others, of doing the same to me with his pointless spelling nitpicking (along with days of endlessly reverting something he had no business doing). Are admins held to a higher standard, the same standard or lower? Also, the reason the example was old is because it shows their sudden interest in articles they've never before been engaged in - and to the benefit of He Who Shall Not be Named. Obviously, for such old users, it becomes harder to find unique esoteric articles as time goes on and if I pointed to anything at global warming then they'd just say its their "common interest" or something. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. If you behave with integrity, it will be easier to make a case that others have not. Your argument should be "I have behaved myself and they have not", not "They are just as bad as me." Thatcher 05:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Have I not behaved with integrity? I had a content dispute, I sought outside mediation (didn't get it) and was eventually blindsided by his friends on facebook. What exactly do you mean by integrity? TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

So you were terribly rude, got called on it and are asking for some kind of sanction because its mean for others to ask you to stop being a git? Or is it because they interacted on something several years ago? Please. Shell ^babelfish 04:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As to the content dispute: I decided to take a reasonably thorough look at the debate. It seems that TheGoodLocust pointed out a source that was reasonably academic and did take a look at the temperature difference. For now, I'm making the (possibly incorrect) assumption that the source is a digest of the paper it cites at the bottom, and is therefore very valid. The sentence that is refuted by the sentence that TheGoodLocust wishes to delete states, "A view often held by skeptics of global warming, is that much of the temperature increase seen in land based thermometers could be due to an increase in urbanisation and the siting of measurement stations in urban areas." However, the source he/she cites states that climatologists recognize these effects and therefore use rural temperature records. So while TheGoodLocust is correct in his/her characterization of concern over heat islands, the source actually bolsters the argument that the aforementioned assertation is incorrect by showing that researchers take active measures to avoid such bias in their measurements. I would therefore like to thank TheGoodLocust for bringing this research forward. I'll be changing the text of the article in question to reflect this research, I invite you all to scrutinize my edits, and I hope that current unpleasantness resolves itself rapidly. Awickert (talk) 05:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I thank you for your interest, but again I've been mischaracterized, I did not want to delete that sentence you just cited, but (I believe) the one after it. I had no major issues with the sentence you presented and indeed it is bolstered by my source - in fact, I'd planned to use it to update the article until I was chased off it. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You probably read my comment too quickly: "The sentence that is refuted by the sentence that TheGoodLocust wishes to delete" is the key. So no, I did not mischaracterize you.

To bring up your comment on my talk page (in order to keep things organized), I'm actually going off of the Hansen et al. paper that the NASA doc cites. While I did not read it especially thoroughly, I do not believe I have mischaracterized their study. You say that their corrections are not near perfect. However, they also say that the anomaly is small, so it's probably no big deal either way. You also mention that rural areas are more likely inland than coastal, so they are more likely measuring warmer areas when they measure rural regions as the ground truth. The former may be the case, but the latter is wrong. Inland areas generally have a higher temperature swing due to being away from the thermal buffer that is the ocean, and are often actually colder on average because of their higher elevation. In any case, I would hope (and expect) that Hansen and others would appropriately account for these when doing their corrections; if not, they're actually estimating too little warming. Finally, you mention "silly POV nonsense" with the issues I quoted in the last post being unmentioned in scientific papers. I haven't looked for any scientific source that does say this, so I can't say if there is any that does or doesn't. However, at least as far as I've read, the source that you bring up certainly doesn't say that there were overestimations due to the urban heat island effect by virtue of the fact that they acknowledge and correct for that effect and note that it is very small compared to the warming signal. Awickert (talk) 07:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Tgl has multiple problems, as a glance at his block log or talk page will show. His attempts to "interject some humor so it isn't too boring" during discussion backfire. I'm baffled as to why he things that trying to tell us what has happened in terms of "dynamic duo Mysterio and Enigma" is helpful. He makes far too many errors for me to correct them all, and they are sufficiently uninteresting that I'm not moved to try. If anyone in good standing cares to extract something meaningful from the above and wishes to ask me, I'd suggest you put it on my talk page as it gets busy here and I might miss it. The claims of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS are baseless, and (as I'm sure you've noticed) unsupported by diffs. I also don't understand why User:R._Baley is a friend of mine on facebook. He might be, I don't track those terribly carefully, but if Sherlock is indeed here please find him for me. For good measure, Tgl misunderstands 3RR, but that isn't unusul William M. Connolley (talk) 07:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my claims are completely baseless - nobody has ever noticed your "close" wiki-relationships with these people in the past and that obviously has nothing to do with your facebook communications. Oh, and I never claimed Baley was your facebook friend(impossible to prove either way since he uses a pseudonym) - just everyone else involved. I'm sure the 20% of obvious wiki-admins (more with pseudonyms?) as facebook friends is completely innocent and when you guys defend each other out of the blue it is just coincidence. And my claims are completely supported by diffs - I guess you didn't notice them in addition to the mistake you made about Baley. TheGoodLocust (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the issue at hand is, sarcasm surely won't help it. I try to unravel what's going on above, but I can't see why we have a dispute on our hands since it looks like you agree with my edits to the page, which go along with the source in being decidedly pro-AGW. My best guess is being overwhelmed with the jumping-in of admins and amigos and not quite understanding that the source didn't warrant removal of the scientific literature claim? (Though I do selfishly think that my changing of the claim from the source you pointed out made it better...). I think that simply more reading and compromise were necessary. So I guess I could sum up my confusion in:

1. Are we OK with the article as it stands now?
2. Are there outstanding issues with involved editors? (This may rest on TheGoodLocust's agreement or disagreement with my claim that the source didn't warrant removal of the sentence because it did not actually contradict it.) Awickert (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiracial American

It's my day for ANI, I guess. The purpose of this item is to relieve Dbachmann from the need to block somebody he has been in a dispute with. Antiedman (talk · contribs) has decided that Americans with ancestry from different European countries are multiracial, and that the article must have a POV tag until it includes this information. Unfortunately, no source has been provided to back this up, even after repeated requests and warnings that continuation of this behavior would lead to a block; instead Antiedman has edit-warred to include the tag. There are too many diffs to list, but see the Revision history of Multiracial American, Talk:Multiracial American, and User Talk:Antiedman for all the details. See also Antiedman's block log. I will notify the editor of this section. Looie496 (talk) 04:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC) These comments were struck by User:Antiedman here. Matty (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I will now leave the article Multiracial American alone as far as multiracial Americans of multiracial European decent are concerned and only provide useful & accurate information I learn about the subject.--Antiedman (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

On a semi-related note, could he plz stop continuing old arguments on the subject like he did on the Barak Obama page? Soxwon (talk) 04:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Will you leave the Barack Obama article and Talk pages alone, too, please? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Why would anyone do that? It's an unwritten law of petty disputes that any dispute, no matter how minor (or unrelated) it is, has to involve Mr. Obama's article. As well as the talk page, and anything remotely related to him. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive addition of {{orphan}} tags to {{surname}} pages etc

Postcard Cathy has been adding {{orphan}} tags to surname pages. The orphan tag generates the message "Please introduce links to this page from other articles related to it." The Surname page footer says "If an internal link intending to refer to a specific person led you to this page, you may wish to change that link by adding the person's given name(s) to their surname.", so they are clearly incompatible. Adding the orphan tag to these page just creates clutter and implies a problem where there is none. She has been asked several times to stop doing this, but continues, and reverts deletions of orphan tags, stating "(as long as article appears at http://toolserver.org/~jason/untagged_orphans.php it will be tagged orphan per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Orphan "pages that are orphans but aren't tagged")". The criteria at WP:Orphan have been amended, following discussion on the talk page, but she ignores this. I don't know whether a word from an Administrator asking her to desist from this disruptive activity would have any effect, but would be grateful for any help. Thanks. PamD (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm... for now, I've chimed in with my own two cents on PC's talk page. Will check back in tomorrow if I'm available. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC Concerns

I have been managing an RfC on terminology used to describe the Golan Heights, which was opened on 06/14/09. I am concerned that a person or persons may be trying to influence the outcome of the RfC by use of WP:Meat, WP:SPA, WP:SOCK, or WP:Canvass, as there are a high percentage of new accounts, IP addresses and apparant SPAs that are commenting in support of one particular viewpoint, all sharing similar word usage and/or feedback format. I may be wrong, but in interest of balance and fairness, I would like to request an administrator review the situation or at least give me some advice in how to proceed (or if I should at all). Thanks --Nsaum75 (talk) 07:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You're asking about the RfC at Talk:Golan Heights#RfC: Terminology in regards to the Golan Heights. After a reasonable time, why not ask for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion? Since admins know how to deal with AfDs that are canvassed off-site, this should be within their abilities. If you notice any inappropriate canvassing, add a comment in the discussion to provide diffs, so that the closer can check it out. Votes by single-purpose accounts are usually ignored in AfDs and this should probably be the case here. EdJohnston (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The odd preponderance of people using the non-standard Reply to RFC to begin their comments is certainly suspicious. As EdJohnston stated, though, administrators will take this into account when reading a discussion; there's not a whole lot of action that can be undertaken at this time. On the other hand, if you believe that a specific user/users are engaging in sockpuppetry, you might want to make a request at WP:SPI to look in to that further. Shereth 16:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Church House

It's getting late, so I'll let someone else figure out what to do - the buck stops where, you say? Anyway User:Addyjuly seems bent on creating an article on a (planned?) Jamaican tv show named Church House but keeps deleting the content already there (a dab page). I've restored the content, but someone should point the user in the right direction. The user's user page is AFAICT the plot summary of the show or a spin-off. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Fhue

This user has been pushing pro-environmental activist / anti-whaling POV and has developed a vendetta against me. I've tried to deal with him, but he refuses to get a clue. Now he's (slowly) canvassing against me. I'm at my wits end with this guy. — NRen2k5^(TALK), 11:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would love some diffs for this case, as i see around 400 edits on this topic in the last 500 edits. Randomly diffing trough the users edits i would say that most his edits are at least sourced - and from what i can see you had extensive discussions on the exact wording of the respective article's.

Basing myself on these diffs i would say that this is a content dispute rather then an ANI topic. Similarly, seeing Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Fhue_and_User:NRen2k5 i have to agree with the "tit-for-tat" comment BWilkins made over there. It seems that both of you are rather... fanatical in your own stance / perception and are therefor continously disagreeing about wording issues. This is quite visible when Fhue retracted his previous agreement to avoid the article and you for a week - but i hasten to add that i find it highly suspicious that this edit was made by an IP on the article in question, suddenly showing up on an disputed article after it has made no edit for three years.

I also took the liberty to inform Fhue about this ANI discussion by leaving a message on his talk page. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 12:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Sirius XM Radio COI

Resolved

Just posting it here for whatever.. if nothing needs to be done, then just ignore..

EmilyWSussman (talk · contribs) is an intern with Sirius Satellite Radio according to her edit here. She has been editing Sirius XM Radio and P.O.T.U.S. (Sirius XM). I've left a note on her talk page. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You mentioned it to her already, and pointed her at the policy. Nothing more we need to do now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

We'll keep an eye on it, thanks. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho, are you suggesting that editors should avoid editing articles about organizations with which they are intimately involved? I wholeheartedly agree. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I knew you'd be at this thread hounding me again. Don't forget that Equality Mississippi is a defunct business, unlike Sirius. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 14:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No one has accused me of violating WP:HOUND before when posting on ANI, which I do from time to time. Some editors may think my comment here was a cheap shot, but it certainly doesn't constitute "hounding" in any sense. The situation at Talk:Equality Mississippi has become toxic and the actual issue with the article aren't being addressed because people are too busy throwing insults and accusations at each other. The root of the problem, in my opinion, is your COI and lack of the perspective necessary to apply WP guidelines. If I can draw more eyes to the article, so much the better. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There's always a first time for everything, including WP:HOUND. The fact is, you've been, for a lack of better words, on my ass like white on rice for a few days now. But it's all good. I'm a big boy and can give just as good as I get. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if this is your intention, but your comment reads like a threat. I've previously explained my recent involvement with you and stated that I am not wikihounding you. I stopped participating at Talk:Equality Mississippi lest my actions be misunderstood. I doubt anyone cares to see us bicker here, so if you have genuine concerns about me, please voice them at an appropriate forum or stop making accusations. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

A threat? Never. And while you may have stopped editing at that one page, you made sure to come here and call me out. Again, that's the accusation I am lodging: stop wiki-hounding me. This thread was pretty much marked resolved but there you were, Johnny on the Spot when you saw my name. You're right, let's stop the bickering.. and the only way to do that is for you to leave me alone, fully. It's getting really creepy now. Disengage from me before my accusation escalates to a worse accusation. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 15:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Both of you, knock it off and take it to either of your talk pages. Marking resolved. Tan | 39 15:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I blocked User:Bigen182

FYI: Bigen182 (talk · contribs) has uploaded multiple images which are copyright violations, claiming falsely to have created them himself. When confronted by Dougweller (talk · contribs), he wouldn't discuss it. I have blocked him for two weeks, but I wouldn't object to an unblock if he understands the problem and agrees to stop. Previous discussion at User talk:Moonriddengirl#Bigen182. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

For blatant copyvio's I wouldn't mind an indef block. Garion96 (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also quite a few text copyvios. His hidden contributions aren't happy reading. There are quite a few other images he's uploaded that I think are copyvio but haven't yet done anything about. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I also wouldn't mind if someone changed it to an indef block. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through 20 or so images now and all have been pretty clear copyvios - I put some up for PUI because they may be old enough to be PD if we can ferret out the actual source. Bigen182 seems to claim everything as his own and has even had some transferred to commons. I'm going to change the block to indef; I don't see anything in his contribs that isn't a violation. Unless there's a darn good explanation forthcoming, we don't want that loose on the wiki. Shell ^babelfish 16:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Athenean

Continuous edit warring in different articles

Sarandë [[119]] [[120]] [[121]] history log: [[122]]

Cham Albanians [[123]] [[124]] [[125]]

Pelasgians [[126]] [[127]]

Gjirokaster unjustified removal of IPA: [[128]] [[129]]

removal of alternative names in various islands, nationalist POV-pushing: [[130]] [[131]] [[132]] [[133]] [[134]] [[135]] [[136]]

User was warned for edit-warring just a couple of hours before this edits [137] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarandioti (talk • contribs) 15:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

--Sarandioti (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Note: this is a continuation of a conflict outlined here. I'll leave someone else to comment on this one. haz (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really because most of these reverts/edits of athenean have nothing to do with the previous issue. Souliotes article was protected and athenean warned --Sarandioti (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The bad faith of this report speaks for itself. My edits are not edit-warring. The edits on Sarande are copyedits that improved the grammar and flow of the article, and they were reverted in knee-jerk fashion by Sarandioti [138] the minute his previous block for edit-warring expired. On Pelasgians I removed cruft that was subsequently removed by other users as well [139] [140] (the article had to be protected eventually [141]), whereas on the Greek islands my edits are in line with the consensus on those articles [142] [143] [144] [145]. Sarandioti is a relatively new national-advocacy SPA with an aggressive battleground mentality as evidenced on the thread WP:ANI#ARBMAC cluebat needed and on this one. He has already been blocked 3 times in as many weeks as he has been on wikipedia. He is angry at me and is now trying to get back at me any way he can, by using any diff he can get his hands on. After unsuccessfully reporting me at WP:AN3, he has come here to continue his vendetta. The level of disruption from this user in intolerable. Any help in dealing with him would be appreciated. If this helps, the admins EdJohnston, Nishkid64 and haz are already familiar with him, as is Future Perfect at Sunrise. --Athenean (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The admin on the edit-warring section told me to post my report here, so I reported it here. And your report (cluebat) was rejected. Nishkid btw was the one who reduced my block from one month to 3 days, so that shows a lot. Could you care to explain why you ahve removed alternative names from all these islands? And IPA from Albanian cities? And also please tell us why did you remove minority numbers and added that the greek minority in Sarande is "large" when out of 32,000 there are only about 3,000 greeks? My questions are reasonable, and you ahve been already been warned for edit-warring by the admin Yanissmarou. And in the 48 hours I was blocked you continued to edit-war or POV-push. So today I reported you. No anger or anything else you might think. --Sarandioti (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Please let an admin comment from now on, and dont disrupt my report. --Sarandioti (talk) 16:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your justification is edits from someone whose admin rights were removed because he was being favourable to greek editors?hmm...Again I do not wish to comment, I leave it to the admin, who will review this case.--Sarandioti (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Another questionable speedy deletion

In light of this archived discussion, I would like to request that Wilhelm Lautenbach be similarly recreated and submitted to a conventional AfD. Note that Stanislav Menshikov was kept after it went through the AfD process. --Leatherstocking (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Typically the proper place to contest deletions is at WP:DRV - is there a particular reason this one requires immediate administrator attention? Shereth 15:26, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Eh, before Shereth posted, I restored the article and started the AfD. The precedent set with this user with Stanislav Menshikov probably warrants it. However, if this should be at WP:DRV instead, or if some admin takes serious offense to this, I'm open for discussion. Tan | 39 15:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't object to it per se, I am just curious as to why this was appearing here at AN/I when there exists a process for contesting deletions. In fact, the proper first step would have been to contact the deleting administrator with any concerns about the deletion, and it does not appear the OP tried that. Shereth 15:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Walter Cronkite is dying (see citation below), article needs lock

Resolved

The Chicago Sun Times reported in June, 2009 that "Legendary CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite, 92, long known as the "Most Trusted Man in America," is gravely ill, according to multiple CBS News sources and published reports." http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/1629972,walter-cronkite-gravely-ill-061809.article

I think this is not the correct spot but I cannot find the Wikipedia:Padlock board. The instructions say "everything else > this board" so here goes.

Legendary US TV journalist Walter Cronkite is on his death bed according to news reports. Even his obituary has been re-written (like to say "Walter Cronkite died on _______, 2009"). But it is too tempting for vandals to say he is dead. This looks very bad if he is not dead, but declared dead. So can we put a limited padlock for anonymous IP users, maybe for a week or two?

Thank you.

User F203 (talk) 16:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You are looking for WP:RFPP to request page protection, but I can tell you it'd be declined at this point. There is no evidence of vandalism at the page at this time, and pre-emptive protection of a page is usually not undertaken. Shereth 16:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict, completely agree with Shereth. I would have declined this on RFPP. Tan | 39 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought of it more and agree that the way things are run now, vandalism must occur before padlocking. It is debatable whether this is a good thing, but that's the "law" now. User F203 (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Boldly created WP:PADLOCK to possibly help someone find RFPP in the future. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

IP: 68.48.205.152 removing redlinks, maintenance templates, etc

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

This is the second IP the editor has used, and the IP has a habit of going through pages to standardize whitespace (in itself, this is okay), and remove maintenance templates (stub tags, fact tags, {{plot}}, etc). I've templated him, and I also reached out with a personal message to explain it in more detail. The only response (so far) has been a blanking of the page. No edit summaries. At least that means they read it, right?

The IP goes at a rather high rate, so in the past I've had to do a LOT of cleanup (50+ pages). The IP is back to removing things. So far most of it has been whitespace, but here's an example of mass redlink removal, and here's an example of a fact tag removal. I haven't reverted either of these.

I'm not sure what should be done next. It isn't vandalism per se, and the IP-hopping makes it a little hard. Help? tedder (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I left a warning. I'll keep an eye on it. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Tedder: can you list a few other IPs used, so we have a sense of how big the subnet is? — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)