Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive627

Administrator BrownHairedGirl's badgering of User:Boleyn

There might be something going on with administrator User:BrownHairedGirl and her relentless attacks on User:Boleyn. It really is time someone looked at how badly this looks and get BrownHairedGirl to back down, go away, redirect her angers.

If User:Boleyn's edits really are a problem, the community can take care of her edits in the proper location. However, at this point, BrownHairedGirl's behaviour is a far bigger problem than Boleyn's edits, and BrownHairedGirl's behaviour appears to be escalating.

Last 250 User talk contribution of BHG

Please stop this. This is an encyclopedia, and User:Boleyn is not BHG's personal punching bag. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I tried to sift through some of the edits but wasn't sure what I was looking for or at. Do you think you can provide some specific examples? Basket of Puppies 03:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Boleyn could stop creating unsourced stubs? That would be a good first start. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 03:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression this was already discussed. Wasn't there some kind of restriction put in place, banning BHG from interacting with Bol?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I was wrong, they weren't.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a vendetta. Looking at the edits by BrownHairedGirl to User talk:Boleyn on 18 and 19 July, anyone would be struck by: the repeated hammering by multiple repetitive postings; the assumption of bad faith (repeated); the misuse of reference to an editing guideline by inaccurate reading; a blatant personal attack; misuse of an edit summary to back up the personal attack; disregard of the comments of three concerned outside opinions; lack of anything constructive to say, and interference with a thread that offered some way forward. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. I have gone to User talk:BrownHairedGirl and been met with nothing but combative self-justification. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Diff for personal attack? Exxolon (talk) 10:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here: "experienced but lazy editor", repeating a slur from the past, in fact. The same diff shows misdirection as to "verifiability", considering that much unsourced but verifiabkle material is in WP. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the point last time that calling an editor with over 100,000 edits "lazy" was disingenous at best. Exxolon (talk) 10:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And I stand by it as fair comment on the stub-creation work of an editor who repeatedly creates sub-stubs which require cleanup by others because they are either unreferenced, factually inaccurate, miscategorised, or misleading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an attempt to damage a reputation, rather than explain the situation properly, or move ahead on any front. Whatever is said below about Boleyn, and the stubs are not "ideal stubs" if people are wanting to make a point there, BHG has not established that Boleyn's edits violate policy, despite many arguments, and BHG's conduct has simply been outrageous in the past couple of days, violating several conduct policies. At minimum BHG should be told that, frankly, you are not treating Boleyn as a colleague, and therefore you are the wrong person to be addressing the issues here: posting carping messages to her talk page every few hours looks more like an attempt to drive an editor away than to resolve anything. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As noted below, if the ongoing creation of large numbers of sub-stubs which fail WP:CSD#A10 is not a problem, then let's have a community decision to that effect, and remove A10. If the creation of large numbers of unreferenced stubs is not a problem, then let's clarify the matter by adding an explicit statement to that effect in WP:V, and let's remove the section of WP:STUB which warns that wholly unreferenced stubs may be deleted.

You are entitled to your views, Charles, but your comments would be more likely to lead to a resolution if you acknowledged that their adoption would require significant changes to existing guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I really wasn't sure what to do about this, as it's been going on for a while. I was taking information on notable people from different Wikipedia articles, e.g. constituency articles, and collating it into a stub. I would then look for a reference and add it if possible. Since BHG started her campaign, I have gone back over most of the 700-odd articles I've created, seeing if I can add more to them, and I'm continuing to do this. I have merged my watchlists as this was the reason given by BHG for giving me an indefinite block, and now use the one log-in. I have also stopped creating stubs if I can't find a reference to go with the information I've found in existing, and usually very accurate, Wikipedia articles.

Even with references to the ODNB, some articles I've created have been nominated for speedy deletion by BHG on grounds of brevity, so referencing was presumably not the main problem for BHG. At the moment, she seems to check through all my contributions, looking for mistakes/things that could be improved and then sending me a long and usually rude message each time she spots something. I am trying to stop replying to her as I have answered all her points before, but the messages just keep coming, despite a recent ANI about her behaviour towards me. BHG is on here pretty much literally 24/7 and has made a great contribution to Wikipedia. Her time could be better spent returning to that than stalking and insulting other editors. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. The sort of content Boleyn has been creating like James Chaine is being attacked. Brown Haired Girl has persisted on tagging unversally accepted articles from the Oxford National Dictionary of Biography as non notable and even trying to speedy delete her efforts. To me is looks like petty victimization and deplorable behaviour from an admin. Nobody is obligated to add a single thing to wikipedia so to yell at somebody who is generating traditional, much needed content in whatever form is a little off. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Dr B, that comment on the DNB is simply untrue, and I wish you would stop repeating the same falsehood.

AFAIK, the only DNB-referenced article which I tagged for notability was Sir Henry Russell, 1st Baronet, and at the time it was not referenced to the DNB.

However, I have tagged several others for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A10, which is not related to notability.

As the James Chaine, it would be more helpful if you linked to the article as Boleyn created it, rather than the article after I and others had expanded and corrected it ... and if instead of hysterically saying that the article was "attacked", you noted that the concern I expressed to Boleyn was about the apparent unreliability of the source, a web-forum. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I can see now that the articles was unsourced at the time, it initially appeared you had tagged a ONDB article for deletion. May you are frustrated that Boleyn has created unreferenced stubs when you had asked her several times not to. this is a bit harsh. The stub wasn't that bad, it needed some sourcing and expansion that's all. There is also nothing major wrong with James Chaine starter article. It has some basic facts, established notability and requires minimum cleanup. Echoing what Black Kite says below, if Boleyn starts articles with sources and some content in a manner which is desirable to Brown Haired Girl and our guidelines then maybe BHG will back down and calm down. There are always two sides to every story. Boleyn can you ensure you reference your stubs to avoid future conflict? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 11:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dr B, for promptly accepting the correction. However, since many other editors are commenting on conduct, may I suggest that when you criticise another editor on the basis of something which you hadn't checked but which was demonstrably false, that a little bit of an apology is in order? And that it might be a nice idea to go back and strike out some of the other comments you have made which were also based on the same lack of checking? Just a suggestion, but since conduct seems to be a concern here, I think it's relevant.

Anyway, I'm glad that you can see the merits of Black Kite's suggestion. If Boleyn raises the quality of her stubs, then the problem is solved and I will be delighted to see more new stubs rather than frustrated to see so many more bad ones. In any case, as noted below, I have at this point documented the many problems well enough that there's no point in my drawing more of it to Boleyn's attention. Either she starts seeking help to improve her output (rather complaining that raising problems with her is "unnecessary"), in which case problem solved ... or she continues to ignore the problems, in which case I or someone else will eventually open an RFC. But at this point, it's quite clear that my notifying her of problems is an utterly futile exercise, so I will desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:19, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• There's an easy way to make the issue go away, and that's for Boleyn to stop creating unreferenced sub-stubs that often contain less information than is contained in other articles and/or fail WP:CSD#A10. As soon as she stops doing that, there will be no need for anyone to "badger" her to fix the issues she creates. Especially when given the subject matter that most of her articles are about, there should never be a problem with referencing them. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Copy-and-pasting comments I made earlier on BHG's talk page:

I don't think it's personal for BHG: I think the despair about Boleyn's editing is probably shared by other editors who regularly sort stubs or otherwise interact with Boleyn's work. For example yesterday, I came across this. In the course of one short stub this very experienced editor manages to (a) link Plowden to a dab page; (b) create a red-link for Baron Plowden (a later editor created a redirect which links back to this page, the only sensible place for this link to point - so there was no point making it a link in the first place); (c) create duplicate references to one source. She added this person to the Plowden dab page, with no dates or description. All this would be fine from a new editor, but this massively experienced editor should not be leaving so many loose ends for other people to tidy up. (Yes, I got hooked and spent too much time yesterday creating not only Plowden, Shropshire but also Bridget Plowden). She obviously does a huge amount of work on Wikipedia, but I and BHG, and probably other editors too, wish she would improve the quality of her work even if at the expense of some of the quantity. PamD (talk) 07:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

And I've just noticed that she added Category:Barons in the Peerage of England which I think is only for early titles - I'm not an expert in this area, but I think more recent titles are at Category:Barons in the Peerage of the United Kingdom, and a note there says to use Category:Life peers instead for such people. PamD (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Response from BHG

Boleyn's comment that "I really wasn't sure what to do about this" is at very best disingenuous, because she knows exactly what to do about it. She should stop creating:

1. pointless sub-stubs, which do nothing but duplicate some of the content of an existing article, and are therefore speedy-deletable per WP:CSD#A10
2. shorts stubs which despite their brevity are full of problems and require cleanup even if they are not expanded, because they are one or more of: wholly unreferenced; factually inaccurate; misleading; referenced to an unreliable source; miscategorised.

She's quite right that I have better things to do with my time than pointing out the errors in her contributions (such as completing a draft list of MPs elected in 1832, in which I am experimenting with a new format that probably doesn't quite work). However, as well as creating new content myself, I also routinely monitor a series of categories of other articles in the areas I edit (esp UK MPs), to look for anything that needs correction or cleanup. At this point, by overwhelming majority of newly-created or newly-expanded articles in that area requiring cleanup are the large numbers of sub-standard sub-stubs created by Boleyn. I am not the only editor to have identified this problem (see comments on my talk from Choess and PamD). I raise the issues with Boleyn precisely because I have better things to do with my time than to cleanup articles created at high speed by an editor who prioritises quantity over quality.

This is NOT stalking. WP:HOUND says clearly: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." That's what's happening here: related problems are occurring on multiple articles.

The messages have kept on coming because the problems have continued to recur. For example, despite the problems having been raised by me a month ago, and discussed at ANI, Boleyn created over the weekend two new wholly unreferenced stubs: 1& 2.

User:IP69.226.103.13 is quite right to point out that "this is an encyclopedia", because that's the core of the matter here. Wikipedia is not a blog or myspace: it's an encyclopedia, whose purpose is to publish verifiable, reliably-sourced information for readers.

That's why articles which waste the reader's time by adding nothing at all to the content of the articles from which they are linked are and speedy-deletable: they are pointless, and waste the reader's time.

That's why articles which are wholly unreferenced are tagged as such, because they do not meet our most basic quality standards, which readers have a right to expect that we editors will strive to uphold.

That's why articles which assert untruths or mislead the reader are problematic, because we create this encyclopedia for the readers.

And that's why I routinely use RelatedChanges to monitor a series of categories of articles in the areas I edit, to look for new articles and for potentially problematic changes. In the course of reviewing those categs a month ago, I found several article created by Boleyn, which led me to review her contribs and find that they were the tip of a large iceberg, so I made this post raising the problem with her. Her lack of response and her continued creation of factually untrue stubs (such as James Christopher Flynn, comment here) led that situation to escalate to an ANI thread in which there was widespread concern about Boleyn's make-work sub-stubs.

After that, I took a break from monitoring her work, but when I checked again I found serious problems continuing. Since then Boleyn has repeatedly defended one-liners-pasted-from-a-dab-page by saying that anyone else is free to expand them ... and when factual and other errors in the stubs she creates are pointed out, she insists that she doesn't want to know about the problems. If she doesn't see the problems herself, and doesn't want to be informed about them, then how is she either going to correct the errors or avoid repeating them?

There has indeed been some progress since I started trying to tackle this, but the fact that even after four weeks of scrutiny, she was still creating wholly unreferenced new stub articles over the weekend (1& 2) shows how far there is to go.

That's why I have ceased to assume good faith wrt Boleyn. Per WP:AGF, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence".

I think it's also important to correct some of the untruths being stated by a few editors on Boleyn's talk page. For example, my concern about one-sentence articles referenced to the DNB is not (except in one case) notability, but the fact that they are waste of reader's time, but create a pointless blue-link from an existing article yet say less about the topic than that other article does. That's why WP:CSD#A10 exists (and no, AFAIK I had no hand in the creation of A10).

At this point, I'm quite satisfied that my notes to Boleyn about her latest additions document very well how her contributions fall below the standards of quality required for an encyclopedia, so I do not intend to add any more. The problem is clearly documented, and at this point a community decision of some sort is required.

As far as I can see, there are two issues for the community to decide

A) Is it acceptable for Boleyn to churn out large numbers of new articles which either add nothing to existing articles, or have persistent failings of quality (unreferenced, factually inaccurate, referenced to unreliable sources)

B) When an editor creates hundreds of abysmal sub-stubs, apparently prioritising quantity (see her articles-I-created counter) over quality, should other editors:

1. ignore the mess, and leave readers to be misled by untruths or have their time wasted by following link to articles where the two major facts asserted are untruejust a bare factoid lifted from a list; or
2. devote huge amounts of time on each of these rapidly-created sub-stubs: checking the references which the creator didn't bother to check, then correcting the errors and misleading statements, and say nothing to the editor concerned
3. Inform the editor of the problems in the hope that they will try to avoid such errors in future.

This is a serious issue. Boleyn creates so many stubs, so full of problems, that another editor could easily spend many hours every day doing nothing but clean up the newly-created stubs of this one contributor. My understanding has always been that every editor takes responsibility for the quality of what they add to wikipedia, and has a duty of care not to introduce factual errors or mislead readers. If I am mistaken in that, then I'd like to be directed to the relevant policy or guidelines, or to see some policy or guideline created out of this discussion which clearly states that editors are free to churn out large qauntities of sub-standard new articles, and should not be reproached for this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You fail to appreciate, it seems, that your chucking your weight around and insulting another editor is damaging (concretely, in real time) to Wikipedia, while substandard stubs have always been with us, and always will. I support the idea that your conduct (including use of admin tools) would properly be examined in a conduct RfC. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles, you seem to have been consistent in your view that the creation of large quantities of sub-standard content, despite many concerns expressed by multiple editors and explained in detail, is not a conduct issue which needs to be addressed, and you have repeatedly criticised me for invoking WP:CSD#A10. At this point we need to see whether or not there is a consensus of uninvolved editors to support your view that WP:CSD#A10 should be ignored wrt Boleyn's articles which meet A10, and that it is inappropriate to criticise another editor for consistently creating sub-standard content and for denouncing posts explaining her errors as "unnecessary".

At this point I dunno which way this will go. As above, I thought that the over-riding purpose of editing here was to build an encyclopedia, and that contributions which did not meet our quality standards were problematic. It may turn out that the consensus takes your very different view, in which case so be it; but if that's the case, it's a very big issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Here we go. It is not true that anyone who advocates against onsite harassment is commenting on anything else. You misrepresent what I wrote on User talk:Boleyn, which related only to stubs I have personally sorted through. You attack me for calling you on your bullying approach, which would rather make my point. You misdirect, systematically, from your own violations of basic principles, such as AGF, NPA and a collegiate approach. Even if there is a serious issue here on content, that provides not a scrap of justification for the line you are taking. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's the core of the issue to be decided here. When an editor repeatedly creates sub-standard content in large quantities, you believe that it is wickedly inappropriate for another editor to point out the problems: e.g. in this thread, where you object to me drawing Boleyn's attention to yet another wholly unreferenced stub.

My idea of a collegiate approach to editing would have been for you to examine ways of encouraging Boleyn to stop doing that, rather than to simply criticise the messenger. As a matter of conduct, your insistence on ignoring the content problem and instead looking for ways to criticise my attempts to solve the problem is not a collegiate approach and fails to AGF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You forget, I think, that at User talk:Boleyn#Just a thought I made a good, solid suggestion, to which you added a nitpick, plus a reiteration of your assumption of bad faith in Boleyn. You had no business in there carping and adding to your invective on that page. You can clearly type fast, but higher standards are required of admins. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, Charles, I didn't forget that I had commented there. It seems to be you that forgot that I specifically supported the principle of what you suggested, and that I replied not to you, but to Boleyn, who had misprepresented my position ... and to clarify that I would not object to her creating DNB stubs, and that if they contained "a few sentences, referenced to the DNB, and checked to endure that the facts stand up ... that's fine".

However, you are right that I do not at this point AGF wrt to Boleyn on this issue, and I won't repeat my explanation above of why AGF is not required in such situations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You forget that you dragged a spoiler right across someone else's suggestion that would actually address the issue? Looks very like an assumption of "ownership" of the issue right there, and that view of mine seems to be reinforced by comments elsewhere in the thread that you might consider an RfC on Boleyn. The issue here and now is your conduct, in fact. The end does not justify the means, and for Wikipedians to say that it does is short-sighted in the extreme, denying nearly a decade of building a community to be proud of. The issue of "good faith" clearly removes from you the right to interact with Boleyn on this matter, doesn't it? No amount of intransigence on your part changes that: call people names and deny that they are working for the common good (a position flatly contradicted by others here) and you necessarily have to back off and let others clear up the mess at the personal level you have created. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles, you made an apparently constructive suggestion, Boleyn's reply indicated that she thought it was probably doomed because I'd object, and I responded to clarify what I did and didn't object to, leaving the path clear for your idea. If that's a spoiler, I'm a banana and you're a milkshake. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

(I'm moving this down as it might have been missed due to BHG's lengthy post just below it)

BHG should consider alternative ways of handling this. Regardless of the merits of her stance, it's coming across as a personal crusade/vendetta. Suggestions :-

1. Open a user conduct RFC and get wider community input on Boleyn's editing style and stub creation
2. If BHG feels Boleyn's edits require any admin attention or action, report here for a neutral admin to evaluate and act if required.
3. If there is an appropiate Wikiproject devoted to stubs, let them as a group take a look at Boleyn's edits and come up with evaluations/proposals.
4. If BHG feels that experienced editors should be held to higher standards on stub articles - propose this policy through the correct channels.

Additional suggestions welcomed. Exxolon (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If, as BHG suggests, there is a broad body of opinion with similar concerns about Boleyn's edits, it shouldn't be that hard for BHG to find a proxy in dealing with Boleyn. This sort of minimum cut-out might allow for a more reasoned and problem-solving approach; and would deal with the current fracas. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many editors who identify problems such as this simply don't want to put the time into tackling it, so although there are several other editors who share my concerns (some of whom have already posted in this thread), that doesn't mean that they are likely to commit the effort to setting up an RFC or whatever.

I will be winding down my own editing over the next few days, before going away (and offline) for about 5 weeks, so I don't intend myself to open an RFC at this point. (It would be unfair to set it up and then vanish)

At this point, the points I have documented on Boleyn's talk page are quite sufficient to provide ample evidence that there is a problem and that attempts have been made to resolve it, which provides the basis for an RFC. As noted above, I do not intend to continue for now the time-consuming process of documenting them all ... but if when I return in September, I find that Boleyn is still creating the same sort of substandard new pages, I will see if I can find time to gather the new evidence and add it to the existing bundle to open an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• No experienced editor should be creating uncited stubs. Doing so is nothing but trouble, that is what I expect from new accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Very true. As Black Kite mentioned above, the problems would go away if Boleyn started citing articles appropriately. It's not difficult. It's not a race to create as many new articles as possible. I agree that it's definitely a problem, and I think BHG's efforts to clear this up have been responded to badly, which has naturally caused her frustration. I think an RFC is in order, as people are clearly divided over the issue. Aiken ♫ 12:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I see BHG as being in a bit of a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. She's got a problem with Boleyn's articles, seeing them as a diffuse web of useless, unsourced and frequently inaccurate microstubs. From what I've seen, this perception of the stub is accurate at least a high percentage of the time. BHG's taken it upon herself to clean up or repair the mess, continually following Boleyn around begging and demanding that they show some restraint and responsibility. This, coupled with the fact that the job is apparently too big for anyone else to even think about attempting, can make it look as though BHG is on some sort of anti-Boleyn harassment campaign. Getting snippy obviously just reinforces that perception. But I think that going "pretty please with sugar on top" would have even less effect in stemming the crapflood. In any case, I think it's obvious that an editor introducing inaccuracies into Wikipedia that take much longer to repair than they do to perpetrate is far more problematic than the manners of the person telling them to stop.Reyk _YO! 13:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Rediscovering the wheel, isn't it, to say that admins can behave as they goddam please as long as they don't keep a cool head? I though we'd nailed that one around 2004. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that, and you know it. Please stop twisting and misrepresenting the words of others; it isn't the first time you've done that on this thread. Reyk _YO! 00:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Where to from here?

Seems a few people have some bugs up their asses, but there isn't really anything here that demands admin action. The best course would be a WP:WQA or WP:RFC, rather than clogging up ANI with "yes you did/no I didn't" posts. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, given that it says in WP:HOUND that If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions, it's rather important to discuss exactly what has been happening. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what WQA or RFC are for. Unless its clear hounding, ANI can't do a damn thing with it. And this isn't clear, as both sides have some disruptive behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please read the bit in WP:WPA that makes it clear that they are complete forbidden, no matter what the other party has done. And then tell me why there is any need to dicker about this. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm Yes, harassment is forbidden. But I don't see that this is clear harassment. It's a behavioral issue on both sides. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be taking an indefinite wikibreak as I just can't take any more of this. This has recently started to feel like a job I'm not doing well enough, rather than me volunteering my time because I enjoyed it and thought it was important. I have spent many hours, especially over the last few days, going back over articles I created and adding to them, but as far as I'm aware I broke no policy in creating short stubs. I apologise for any and all mistakes I have made in my editing, but as I've said before, I spend many hours a day editing and there will be some errors found, especially if someone checks every edit I make - I believe the amount to have been exaggerated. I may pop back on to look at messages but am unlikely to edit for a while, and will see if I think I still have anything to contribute to the project. Thanks for all the support I've received over the last two and a half years, particularly in recent weeks. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No, please, disregard the rather callous comments by a few above who apparently are not prepared to hold an admin to basic standards. Instead discuss with Dr. Blofeld and me a way ahead that will be more fruitful, ignoring if you can the personalia that have been aimed at you. I uphold the view that you did not break policy, and have been harassed. The appropriate policy is cited above, and it looks like three strikes against BHG to me, at least. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's advisable for both users to take a non-permanent break, and that both users should read all of the following.

With respect to BHG, even during difficult situations, admins are expected to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another, and to engage in proper conduct. That requirement is not optional purely because one becomes involved in a dispute and is technically not permitted to use their tools in that dispute; it applies because that's part of the responsibilities that come with becoming an administrator (or any other position of trust on Wikipedia). Remember that it would be counterproductive if an user felt that the only way they can contribute is through new accounts so that their content will not continue to be subjected to an unusually high level of scrutiny. I appreciate the concern about the quality of content that is being generated, but know yourself, and take breaks when you find you cannot maintain the standard of behavior that is expected.

With respect to Boleyn, clearly the perceived conduct issues and approach can overwhelm any user - especially when it either appears or feels like an user is consistently trying to find fault with whatever you do. Similarly, you should also remember that where an user appears or feels that their concerns about your approach or content are not being heard, not responding to the comments is hardly going to deescalate the situation either. If necessary, slow down or take breaks; chances are that it will help both you and the project.

I think everyone would like it if both users constructive contributions are retained particularly as both users want to or have in some way (tried) to improve the project. But sometimes, it is better both for the individual and for the project that they take a temporary break when things are going too out of control (too much to handle) or things are getting out of perspective. When it is taken in appropriate circumstances (like here), this can be the best form of dispute resolution - better than a solution that any editor, admin, community or a bureaucratic committee can provide. It's also a preferrable option to a WQA or a RfC in this case. Come back refreshed after you've both taken enough time off; work on the issues that others have identified with your approaches (even if this means talking with others or working with others to address these), and finally, continue helping the project - that's all we want, and that's what the project will benefit from. My 2 cents anyway. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I just say quickly here that

1. it is not, and has not been, either my aim or desire for Boleyn to stop editing wikipedia, and I would encourage her not to quit. All I have sought is for her take some steps to acknowledge and learn from problems identified. I have more than once suggested several ways in which she could do that (e.g. mentorship, engaging with concerns when they are raised, creating new articles in userspace and seeking a check before they go to mainspace), and I hope that when she returns after her break, she will find some way of seeking assistance from other editors so that she an do this without raising concerns.
2. For myself, I will be taking a summer break from next week, and have in any case already committed to staying clear of Boleyn other than possibly than to raise an RFC if problems persist on my return.
3. One of the issues revealed by this discussion has been a divergence of views about the applicability of existing clearly-worded guidelines on the sort of content creation in which Boleyn has engaged. One of the factors which escalated this dispute was the intervention of editors who appear to me to reject clearly-worded relevant guidelines such as WP:STUB#Basic information and WP:CSD#A10, although they seem sincere in their readings. I suggest that a review of both those guidelines is now needed to test the degree to which they still reflect consensus, hopefully leading to some sort of clarification one way or another, particularly with regard to the distinction between the welcoming assistance we should give to new editors learning the ropes and the different issues which I (and several other contributors to this thread) believe are raised by experienced editors who create many new stubs.

There is a lot more which I could say on this topic, and I will say them if Charles Matthews or anyone else wants to pursue the matter further ... but in the spirit of ncmvocalist's posting I will leave them be for now in the hope that everyone can move on. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say once again it is WP:AGF which is central to this. Boleyn was doing what she thought was right for the encyclopedia and didn't see a problem with small, unreferenced stubs. Brown Haired Girl took Boleyn's continued unsourced articles as an insult so proceeded to harass her and tried to make her to get the message and not to create more without a source or content. Above all I'd say a solution could be found where everybody is happy; it largely comes down to referencing and some levelof basic starter content. If Boleyn can take heed of the guidelines and BHG's concerns and generate articles even if shortish stubs with proper sourcing, (that means more than just a bare URL) and she is happy to do so I'm sure BHG, if she is really keen on wikipedia development, does not really want Boleyn to leave, and has some level of decency, then I think she would not continue to go on at Boleyn and stalk her articles. Take some time away from wikipedia Boleyn but I think it is unnecessary to depart from wikipedia when its obivous its something you enjoy. The key is to edit in a way you and other people are happy with. I do believe the extent of the mistakes she has made are highly exaggerated. and that overall the content she has added to the site is encyclopedic and can be built upon. The worst thing I think is the fact that one of the editors in this debate (not Brown Haired Girl) added more fuel to the fire by prodding and sending ANOTHER deletion warning to Boleyn, as if she didn't get the message which I thought was particularly cruel and unwarratned. The article, Arthur Ingram has since been expanded and is awaiting DYK. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:23, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

So an unsourced, one line, biography stub was PRODded as unsourced, and as a result the article has had sources and information added to it and has now been nominated for DYK? That certainly sounds like a positive outcome to me. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

While we have some users feverishly creating minimalistic, unreferenced articles, we have other users feverishly marking minimalistic, unreferenced articles for deletion (particularly due to BLP concerns). And I'm not talking about BHG, either. I think there is actually a project dedicated to rubbing out unreferenced BLP's. So what are the rules? Is it valid to add unreferenced articles? Technically speaking, isn't any unreferenced stub essentially "original research" if it lacks a reference? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Just dropping in a comment here in the middle, responding to the above comment. Three things. One -- In April, due to BLP concerns, there was indeed a project to delete BLPs that, after notice, lacked even one ref. That sounds like a "camel" of a solution -- a compromise that was not perfect, but was an improvement to what was then a disturbingly high number of non-reference BLPs. Second -- my own practice is to not add a sentence of prose without adding a footnote. Third -- the AfD policy does not require that there be refs in the article, or that there be refs in the article that reflect notability, but just that they exist. So, in an AfD discussion, it is not uncommon for the nom to say -- hey, well if those sources exist, you have to put them in the article for me to agree to a "keep", and for the older (if not wiser) hands to respond ... that's not how it works. Of course, the good souls go about putting the refs in the articles. When those editors come up for admin (and that's not infrequently a subtext), they of course almost invariably receive my support.

Bottom line -- our policies, for better or worse, allow for unreferenced prose. If questioned, however, refs must be supplied. Or the material is (after how long? not sure there is a standard) deleted. Is this a good approach? It may be a "perfection is the enemy of the good approach". I should point out that as to lists, some editors believe that they should (though they generally don't) have a ref for each entry. Which is of course curious, given how it is inconsistent with cats -- which can't of course have refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to Dr Blofeld above, I'll repeat that I didn't want Boleyn to leave, and don't want her to leave. I do think that having Boleyn staying and creating good stubs would be the ideal outcome. I'm pleased to see other editors (including Dr B) now taking up the baton of advising her on how to achieve that, and I'm even more pleased to see that she seems to have moved on a long way from telling them to go fix it themselves if they want to.

I also think that Baseball Bugs is right to raise the issue of a wider problem wrt to the role of stubs. Wikipedia's priorities have changed over the years, and it does seem that some very divergent views on the role of stubs have currency in difft corners of wikipedia. This really does need some attention as a systemic issue, rather just leaving individual disputes to be resolved on a piecemeal compromise basis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Which being translated means that you at last realise that your attacks on Boleyn are founded in no policy as such (as I have said all along) but in an opinion you hold of what policy should say (as we all realised quite some time ago). I think we do need to discuss with you why you exaggerate the harm done by stubs, when they are not unreferenced BLP (which [[WP:V}} singles out prominently) but may contain unattributed material (which is not particularly desirable but not always subject to the first para of WP:V as is clear to anyone who actually reads it), or of the seed type that may duplicate material already in an article but allow for expansion of a topic. The latter type may be subject to CSD A10, but really shouldn't when there is a clear case for expansion. The difference between may and must is key in understanding where the growth points are: it is much more likely that Wikipedia is harmed by having too few stubs to expand, than too many. (None of this excuses any aspect of your behaviour, naturally. Those who dismiss it or accept your self-excusing version of a display of petulant aggression with gross exaggerations and "tendentiousness" are, I would say in your style, conniving in harassment.) Charles Matthews (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles, considering that you have repeatedly criticised my conduct, that level of vituperation from you doesn't help your case.

I am trying here to seek a win-win outcome to all of this, so I don't intend to intend to discuss these points with you while you are ranting ... but I'll just note that you grotsequely misrepresent my position in a number of respects. I do not "realise that your attacks on Boleyn are founded in no policy as such", and it would be helpful for you not to put words in my mouth; what I do acknowledge is that it has become clear that some clear and well-established guidelines are not supported by a number of editors, and I don't know how widespread that dissent is, which is why I suggest a wider review. In an appropriate forum I will be quite happy to expand in much greater detail on the problems of bad stubs, with plenty of evidence to support that, but I'm not going to bother trying to do that when you simply shout about "exaggeration" rather than looking for some evidence, and when you try to misrepresent my position as being opposed to stubs per se. If anyone is inclined to take that comment of yours at face value, then I urge them to take a look at my own article-creation over the last 4½ years of editing here: the number of stubs I have created probably runs into the thousands. There are external tools which help in finding such articles, though it takes them a long time to process my contribs list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• We had proposals in place the last time around to deal with this. They were quite reasonable, though people were worried about Boleyn being restricted in unreasonable ways and BHG didn't think those restirctions went far enough. All that said, I don't understand why WP:STICK isn't invoked here. If there is a serious problem, there is no reason why BHG needs to be fixing it. Let others try. It seems to have become a pretty clear case of badgering. Badgering with good motives, but badgering none-the-less. Hobit (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe let the deletionist projects find them and deal with them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
    • (hi Bugs!) comment - Where's the RfC? We're out of behavioral territory here (which is what administrators are supposed to be enforcing), and probably out of most policy space - most content policies govern what is suitable for individual articles, whereas this is a meta-question of setting policy: should we be creating placeholders / sub-stubs en masse for notable historical people based on biography databases, or should we wait for people to create viable articles? The content issue is similar to a number of historical debates: articles for all models of cell phones? articles for every town and geographic feature in the world? articles for x-y relations, where x and y is the set of all countries in the world? The result is sometimes yes, sometimes no, depending on the circumstances... it's best to have a prior discussion before any mass creation or mass deletion of content, rather than making content decisions like this through the tenacity of individual editors or the success of their complaints about one another. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
      • RFC for what? Deletions of BLP's with no sources? I don't recall, but probably discussed on the BLP talk page. My point overall, though, is this: If you create an article, of any size, it can't be from thin air. It has to have a source. But if there's no reference given, then what is the source? The creator's recollection of something? Maybe that's OK for a given isolated article. They could start to create it and come back with references. But if you're mass-loading stubs, you have to be getting them from somewhere. Where? And why isn't in the article? And if it is, What's the problem? Ya follow? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I, personally, would request that Bugs stop going up other people's asses.

Seriously, man, that's sick. HalfShadow 01:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's way too Freudian. I think he was channeling LC when he posed that question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Supporting Bugs's point about sourcing, recent comment by Boleyn confirmed what I suspected, that she was sourcing the content from existing wikipedia articles and then looking for external refs to back up some of the article. That's an understandable approach, but it's dangerous, because it leads to the replication of errors ... and it's important to remind editors doing this that wikipedia is not a reliable source.

Here's an illustration of the danger, which I just encountered a few minutes ago whilst building a draft list of 1832 MPs: in the list of MPs for Winchester, William Bingham Baring is listed as a Tory, and the same label appears in his article. But a little scrutiny shows that in neither case is the party affiliation explicitly referenced, and F. W. S. Craig's British parliamentary election results 1832–1885 shows that Baring was elected a Liberal/Whig for Winchester in 1832 and 1835, but as a Conservative MP for North Staffordshire from 1837-41, and for Thetford from 1841 to 1848. I know exactly how that sort of error arises, through a good faith but mistaken assumption that if he was a Conservative in the 1840s, he must also have been so in 1832 ... but party-switching was much more common then, making such assumptions dangerous. This sort of mistake can linger for years in under-scrutinised articles on relatively obscure MPs, and even tho Baring was more notable than most MPs, rising briefly to ministerial office, it has remained in the article on him since this edit in Sept 2009, and in the Winchester article since this edit in Nov 2008.

Both edits were good faith mistake by an experienced and careful editor, but it illustrates the dangers of relying on existing wikipedia articles as a source. Rapid-fire-creation of stubs based solely on existing articles not only replicates existing glitches such as these, but risks compounding them with further misunderstandings of various subtleties: the chinese whispers syndrome of content degrading as it is passed on down the line. That's why the use of reliable sources is not just an adornment to be added later, but is supposed to be the basis for adding new content. When that sort of error is made in an uncategorised sub-stub on an obscure back-bencher, it can linger for years; even well-linked and categorised articles on backbenchers often get only a dozen or so hits per month, and a surprising number of stubs which I created four years ago on 20th-century backbench MPs have seen no substantive content changes since then. The high error rate in Boleyn's sub-stubs on MPs is likely to persist for a looong time unless checked, and there is a very limited number of editors with access to the scarce reference books required to check these points for obscure mid-19th-century MPs. With this sort of obscure topic, the sort-it-out-later approach to sourcing just doesn't work ... and we have over 700 articles created in this way by Boleyn. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I do think from a process perspective it's better to get a community consensus (or point to a prior one) than to tackle this as a solo administrator. I know we already have WP:V, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, and also WP:CIRCULAR. Has anyone ever written an essay to the tune of "don't mass-create articles based on a single source"? - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The thing that has surprised me in all of this has been that when we already have WP:V, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:CSD#A10, WP:STUB#Basic stub etc, there seems to be a view in some quarters that we do not have a prior consensus on this. I have been very surprised to be accused by a few editors of pursuing a novel interpretation of existing guidelines. I accept at this point that a wider discussion is needed to settle this issue, but now that Boleyn has confirmed what was apparent already, viz. that she was creating sub-stub articles without reference to any external source, I think we could usefully start by clarifying whether existing guidelines do (as I believe) explicitly and clearly deprecate that ... and if they don't already, whether they should be amended to provide more clarity one way or another.

It seems to me that the question you pose could be broken down into two parts: a) whether multiple stubs should be created solely on the basis of existing wikipedia articles, and b) whether and in what circumstances a single external source can be used in that way. (Personally, I think I would be in favour of A but opposed to B if it were to impede, for example, the use of the DNB as the basis for creating stubs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

More light, less heat please

I've noticed several comments in this discussion that get very close to crossing the line here. I understand that tempers are high, but let's back down a bit on the incendiary rhetoric. Let's DISCUSS what the problem is, and how to fix it. If necessary, let's go to a RfC, but I'm hopeful that the participants will agree to discuss, and not accuse. SirFozzie (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Boleyn should be given mentorship by an admin who can coach them through the etiquette of acceptable article creation. BHG should try and keep her distance from Boleyn because its obvious she dislikes her editing style and so cannot be neutral in new situations. Furthermore BHG needs to bring up her concerns about stub creation elsewhere and also about CSD#A10. To prevent such reports in the future both users need to make use of the help available in terms of neutral administrators, third opinions and mediation. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly BHG should undertake (a) to avoid Boleyn, not to make personal attacks on her under any circumstances, not to employ admin tools against her under any circumstances, not to repeat the allegations of bad faith and "laziness" (absurd) in any circumstances; (b) to respect interventions by third parties in this matter, rather than ignoring them; (c) not to deflect from the conduct issues into theorising about what should be going on with stub formation. All this could be done quite simply as a voluntary self-restriction. Of course I should also like to see responsiveness to informal mediation, a complete cessation of the accusations that anyone who is try to mediate is somehow a proponent of "low-quality additions" to the encyclopedia, an appropriate apology to Boleyn, and a change in the apparent attitude that BHG has some sort of veto in all arrangements or proposals to do with Boleyn as editor. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see pigs fly, personally. I think you should see by now that there's no call (outside yourself) to enforce such restrictions on BHG. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remind both parties of the statement I made at the top of the section please? SirFozzie (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The primary parties (Boelyn and BrownHairedGirl) will be taking a break (which is incidentally in line with the advice I provided earlier rather than as a result of that advice), so at least for now, all conduct concerns are on hold. Everyone else here who has an opinion is simply going to be restating their opinions over and over, but nothing is going to change about those opinions. If there are concerns about stubs and the relevant deletion criteria, discussion should occur at (or be moved to) those policy/guideline pages. Other than that, this discussion is hold, and I don't think that keeping this thread open is going to accomplish anything useful in such circumstances. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Epeefleche

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In May I raised an incident here where I was running into opposition when deleting unsourced items from Lists of Jews. While I was supported here by a large majority of editors, I ran into very vocal opposition from a small minority of editors, including Epeefleche (talk · contribs), who insisted that inline citations were not required for every item, and that one should not delete unsourced items, only tag them. The AN/I discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive613#Wikidemon, WP:V and WP:BLP.

The issue spilled over onto other pages, including onto the WP:RS/N board, where Epeefleche asserted that at least one of the GAs I had written was "poorly worded" and lacked footnotes, and asked "How would Jay feel if an editor came along and deleted all of them, and all similar sentences in all FAs and GAs he worked on? Rather than tag them?"[1] I pointed out that everything in the article was cited, and that "Footnotes sometimes cover two or three sentences in a row, or even a whole paragraph. This is the standard way of writing good articles; one does not repeat the same footnote at the end of successive sentences."[2] However, he now insisted that a citation at the end of a paragraph wasn't good enough, that every single sentence in every single article needed an inline citation, and stated rather ominously "You really have to stop being lazy, and start adding refs, or else assume your material will be tagged or deleted."

Since then, I have slowly been tagging unsourced entries on the List of Jews in sports (and in some case, deleting unverifiable ones). Epeefleche, in turn, has been providing sources for some of these tagged items, but under protest; last month, for example, he again protested having to cite the list, claimed "the articles that you wrote themselves fail to properly ref each sentence."[3], and later stated "I also challenge you to attribute all items in the articles you created."[4]

Today I noticed that dozens of the sources in the article were merely to the name of a book, not to any specific page in the book where the information could be found, so I tagged them with {{page required}} tags. "Retribution" was rather swift; later in the day, he suddenly started editing an article I had written and recently submitted for Good Article Review. Whenever a citation covered an entire paragraph, or more than one sentence, he added various spurious {{fact}} and {{by whom}} tags to cited material, 16 tags in all. When I removed them as spurious, and warned him I would be taking him to AN/I if he continued, he restored them, and then continued to edit the article, including adding dubious sources that were literally poor copies of reliable sources already in the article (see Talk:Congregation Beth Jacob Ohev Sholom#Emunah magazine source/Matzav.com). On the Talk: page of the article he insisted that every single sentence in the article needed to be sourced, and opened his first section with the rather threatening title "Improving citations; Bar to promotion to GA until addressed". While pretending that he was simply trying to fix my "failures to agree to follow wiki guidelines here" and "poor editing" so that the article could achieve GA status, he was obviously actually trying to disrupt that nomination. I invited him to confirm what I said about citations at the Talk:FAC page, which he did not do. I, however, did, and there they (unsurprisingly) agreed with me: Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Are citations required at the end of every sentence?

He has now yet again tagged statements which are cited at the end of the paragraphs they are in.[5] Can I get some relief from this harassment? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a little off the track, but I wonder if both you and Epeefleche would mind weighing on the discussion about sourcing, farther up the page:[6] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont really want to get involved and but I must say that I've also experienced some of this from Epeefleche. During an AfD where I nominated IDF Tick Tock for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDF Tick Tock which led to this discussion between him and another editor. The he was engaged in the following debates with User:L-l-CLK-l-l at [7] and me at [8]. The jist of my issue with the user was that he was appear to suggest that myself and User:L-I-CLK-l-l where somehow less qualified to give a POV or that our POV was less valid due to our age. I mentioned that his behaviour was patronising and that I felt an apology was owed as I felt it was uncivil to disrespect others on the grounds of age discrimination. The response was to go on the offensive. I just feel that in light of what has been written above I should make the incident known to admin. I must note that the user has made lots of good contributions to many articles but in light of my experience, L-I-CLK-l-l and Jayjg's run-ins with these editors perhaps Epeefleche is a little heavy handed. Note also that he went out of his way to find an article in poor state that I am attributed: James Wright (music producer) and nommed it for deletion but missing out the step which places the discussion template on the article and then tried nominating the page for speedy deletion. I don't know if it was deliberate or not, Possibly in retaliation as suggested above. (its not even an article I edit, instead I merely moved it from its old name). --Lil-unique1 (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Jay asked me out of band to take a look at this.

In the game of WP:OWN vs WP:STALK, who loses? We all do...

This is complicated, and without breaking WP:AGF it's not clear if either party actually has less than impure motives here, nor without staring at diffs for another hour is it clear if either is more precisely right on the sourcing / citing issue.

What is clear is that the two parties involved are not getting along, and the article is becoming a battleground for that conflict.

Epeefleche - I don't want to "blame you" here, but it's an article he started, and your participation there, even if well intentioned, seems to be becoming something unrelated to the content. Would you consent to moving on to other articles, or at least finding someone else you trust on source citations to help on this and restrict yourself to the talk page there for a while?

Jay - Do remember WP:OWN. If a neutral citations expert can be found, or at least one who isn't Epeefleche, please take their inputs seriously.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Violations by User:Jayjg of wp:own, wp:admin, and wp:civil, and wp:agf

• Some facts:

1. Jay had a difference of view with half a dozen editors, including me, between two and three months ago. He claims that is the proximate cause of a wikipedia MOS dispute he is having with me today. It isn't. At least on my part.
2. His claim isn't simply wrong. It's nonsensical. In that discussion, half a dozen editors criticized Jay strongly for his deleting on a mass basis, rather than tagging, text he felt should have citations. These included Equazcion, Baseball Bugs, Wikidemon, Rich Farmbrough, and Greg. Jay was deleting text. Even when there was every reason to expect (which he never denied) that he knew the information he was deleting was true. He was encouraged to instead tag the text (or even move it to the talk page). He never expressed any appreciation of their concern.
3. Note: While Jay was mass-deleting information, failed to take any constructive steps to improve the article.
4. Oddly, Jay now claims that because months ago I suggested he should tag (rather than delete) certain content, my tagging (note – tagging, not deleting) unreferenced content months later, on a wholly unrelated article, is somehow retribution. That makes zero sense.
5. Even more peculiar: Jay and I had a great deal of contact over the past three months. We made dozens of edits at articles in overlapping fashion, and had a number of talk page discussions. Almost all of his editing involved him tagging text. Almost all of my editing involved me supplying the refs he called for. All without incident.
6. Now to today's events. I was making myriad improvements to an article. Fixing all manner of errors. The article, for example, mentioned only one of the two names of the institution it describes. A rather fundamental piece of information missing. I supplied the other name. The article violated a number of wikipedia MOS rules, wp:overlink (badly), grammar rules, ce rules, MOSNUM, mixed tenses, used "who" when it should have used "whom", used "until recently" which is not appropriate, said a living person was known as x (without saying "know by whom"), etc. I fixed nearly all of these errors myself. I supplied new, appropriate text. I supplied new refs. All my editing was geared to improving the article.
7. I also pointed out that I felt that some sentences should have refs, using the fact tag. I didn't, however, delete one word of "his" material (Jay's approach). Even when unsourced.
8. Jay's reaction? He expressed ownership of the article. He threatened me. Writing: "if you screw around like this with one other article I've written, it's straight to WP:AN/I". Violating wp:civil. Violating wp:admin, which requires that he model proper behavior. And he deleted the tags.
9. He did not discuss the matter on the article talk page.
10. In the face of Jay's hostility and reversions, I brought the citation issue to the article talk page. There, I explained at length the common sense reason for refs to be supplied; especially, as we are seeking GA status for the article. I emphasized how this is especially the case with quotes. I quoted for Jay the relevant guidance: "Wikipedia:Verifiability says: "All quotations and any material challenged ... should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." And furthermore: "You should always add a citation when quoting published material.... The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation... or after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation." This couldn't possibly be clearer. I suggested that, to make it easy, we work together and address those instances where there were quotations, but not refs.
11. I asked Jay to please stop being uncivil with me, being hostile, and edit warring.
12. Some of his response was: "And what exactly would you know about writing FAs and GAs? I've written 13, how many have you written?" [The answer was that I've worked on a number of FAs and GAs; possibly more than he has. But the real answer is that his question was a completely inappropriate response to my pointing out the guideline that required refs for sentences with quotes.]
13. I reiterated my above points. And closed with: "Let's work together to resolve this dispute about the article, and improve it to GA status".
14. In response, Jay brought this AN/I against me.
15. Jay's threats, behavior, edit warring, and retaliatory AN/I with regard to an MOS dispute are, IMHO, violations of wp:civil, wp:own, wp:agf, and wp:admin. And whatever guidance that I am missing, that covers bullying and using AN/I for an MOS dispute (one in which, as the above guideline quote demonstrates, Jay is without question wrong as to references for quotes), in an effort to bully and cow other editors into not speaking up. I would appreciate it if his behavior were reviewed in this regard.

--Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, not really credible. You didn't like my tagging the refs you (I assume) added, so you ended up at an article which I created, and was almost the sole editor, one which I had just taken for GA review. How was it, exactly, that you found that article anyway? Are you really trying to claim it had nothing to do with the fact that I wrote it? You also threatened to start tagging statements in articles I'd written,[9] even though it has been explained to you that they were properly cited, and you went ahead and did so.[10] You suddenly claim you are interested in bringing the article to GA status, and are showing me what will stop the article from attaining it, but apparently have never actually been through that process (much less the FA process) before, much less having written a GA or FA. Why the sudden, new interest in bringing this specific article to GA status? Also, if you really only wanted the sentences with "quotations" cited, why did you tag all those sentences that had no quotations? And why didn't you just duplicate the citations yourself, since you knew they were at the end of the next sentence or end of the paragraph? And finally, I've been all over the Talk: page of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Completely absurd. You have been tagging articles I work on for many weeks. Dozens and dozens of tags. Perhaps hundreds. I've done nothing more than dutifully supply refs where you have left tags. For weeks. In the vast majority of cases, they haven't even been to material I added.

It's frankly absurd that you suggest that once you passed some threshold of tagging – what was it? ... 300 tags? ... 7 weeks of tagging every other day? – that suddenly I would completely reverse course. And exact "retribution" by editing an article, improving it greatly, fixing all manner of errors, and requesting that the article comply with the requirement that sentences with quotes have a ref in the sentence itself. Utterly absurd.

And as to the talk page, you threatened me in an edit summary, and called the article your article in an edit summary, and completely ignored the article talk page until I started discourse there.

And then as you had threatened you brought this wholly baseless AN/I. About an MOS dispute, no less. Where you are without question completely wrong on the merits – something you seem to have an aversion to ever admitting. But read the guideline; I will quote it for you a third time, as you keep on ignoring it -- this is the entire basis of our dispute that triggered your AN/I ... the guidelines says:

The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation... or after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation.

That couldn't be clearer. Your reaction when I quoted it to you? You brought this AN/I.

You also continue to have an illusion, which your raise here yet again, that you are uber-special and your opinion is one that others must bend to because you have worked on one dozen FAs/GAs. As I told you before, I've done so as well. So what? But more to the point – your trotting that out as a reaction to me quoting the guidance suggests that you misunderstand the issue. "Jay" does not get a "whatever I says goes" card if he works on 12 more, or 5 more, or 2 more FAs than the next editor. That's not the way it works. What matters is adherence to the guidelines. Which, as to refs in quotes, are indubitably clear. Your response to my quoting the guideline to you ... of ignoring the guidelines and saying "mine is bigger" ... is completely off-base.

You are IMHO doing a less than commendable job in adhering to your obligations under wp:admin. I'm troubled by the thought of how you might be treating our newbie editors, and how many of them we will lose if you take this haughty un-admin-like approach with them.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this article. I brought it to GA. A few hours after a GA reviewer agreed to review it, you start tagging it, and adding inconsistent citation styles and dubious sources. Now the GA reviewer has suspended his review. Well, that really helped the GA process. As for "my obligations under wp:admin", you're an experienced editor, with over 40,000 edits, so you well know that I neither used my admin tools, nor even threatened to use them. So, that dog won't hunt. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have some experience with wp:admin. Including discussing wp:admin at arbitration with regard to the behavior of an admin. So I'm well aware that wp:admin does not only apply to abuse of admin tools. I'm frankly surprised that you are not aware of that. Some of the relevant language of wp:admin is as follows:

Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner.... [and] to follow Wikipedia policies ... sustained or serious disruption of Wikipedia is incompatible with the status of administrator, and consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators should especially strive to model appropriate standards of courtesy and civility .... Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner or have lost the trust or confidence of the community may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for ... Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring... etc) ... Repeated/consistent poor judgment.

--Epeefleche (talk) 08:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're the guy who recently told me that removing material that violated WP:BLP was "abusing [my] powers", after I stated it was an administrative duty.[11] I don't think you are a good judge of when people are or are not complying with wp:admin. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've got to say that jayjg's account looks correct here. Epeefleche's account of the previous action is completely inaccurate, and ignores that many people could see nothing wrong with what jayjg had been doing (removing unsourced entries from lists). Epeefleche is completely wrong in their interpretation of the MOS - their latest point is talking about quotations, not general prose. (WP:CITE says " If the material is particularly contentious, the citation may be added within a sentence, but adding it to the end of the sentence or paragraph is usually sufficient.") Jayjg has been working on these 'List of Jews' articles for a while now, and there is not evidence that he went there to follow Epeefleche. It seems pretty clear however that Epeefleche only went to this article by following jayjg, and proceeded to tag-bomb the article, with spurious citation needed tags. Quantpole (talk) 07:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And since he did it just after the GA review started, the GA review has now been scuttled. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer gave the fact that this AN/I is taking place as the reason for delaying the review. I, of course, was not the one who brought this AN/I, so Jay's above suggestion that the GA review was scuttled because of me is perhaps somewhat less than accurate. Nor was it really scuttled; rather it was put on hold while the AN/I is still being discussed. But for the referencing issue, IMHO the article is now in GA-shape.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

An article can't pass GA if it's unstable, or has unreliable sources, or uses inconsistent citation styles. For example, if someone slaps 16 {{fact}} and {{by whom}} tags on an article just after it starts GA review, and adds sources of dubious reliability, and cites them using completely different styles, that's going to disqualify it. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Quant--hello again. I think what I said was completely accurate. Half a dozen editors, who supplied most of the discussion, said in "long" what I said in "short". Others largely weighed in with "there should be refs", which begs the question. But the discussion is linked to, for interested parties to refer to. As to my discussion of MOS--perhaps you misunderstand. In my edits and talk page discussion that immediately preceded Jay bringing this AN/I, I focused (and invited him to join me in focusing on) solely those instances where there were quotations. Jay's reaction? He told me that he had worked on 12 FAs and GAs, suggested I hadn't worked on as many (likely, false, but that's besides the point), and followed up on his threat by bringing this AN/I. Now, if your are focusing on the facts, and not just supporting Jay, I would hope that you will say ... "Gosh, you're right ... I apologize, retract what I said, and say the opposite". I'll be interested in your reaction. BTW--if you look at my edit history, the articles that I work on, the articles that I worked on that day, you will note a strong connection to the article in question.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe jayjg didn't react in the best manner, but you barge into an article in a very combative manner, writing long screeds, which are largely wrong. I see nothing in your recent contributions that linked to this article, so how exactly did you come across it? Your actions and manner in dealing with this were making it a battleground from the start. Quantpole (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm ... I fixed perhaps two dozen MOS violations, grammar errors, spelling errors, etc., while supplying new info that touched on the basic--such as the name of institution the article describes. Barged in? Combative? You're tossing around characterizations, without substance. But the point of the matter is I've been a productive contributor to the article. And Jay brought this to AN/I because I suggested enforcement of the rule requiring that refs be supplied in sentences that have quotes. That's a bit beyond Jay "didn't react in the best manner".

As to how I come across the article, as you will note from my DYKs and articles created and my 46,000 edits of 7,600 articles, this article deals with both Jewish topics and New York topics, which you can see from my edit history is a crossroads of some of my top areas of interest. I've edited other NY and Brooklyn synagogue articles before, including another one today I believe before I touched this one ... the Union Temple article. I believe I went from that article to the Category: Synagogues in Brooklyn, thought of editing East Midwood (which I believe I edited before), it seemed in good shape, went back to the category and turned to another synagogue with which I was familiar (there are only a dozen in that cat) ... this one ... and edited away. So -- that's the answer to your question.

As to your characterization, i's completely false. Is it your prior relationship with me or with Jay that would have you so dramatically mischaracterize the facts? Anyone can see, from the edit history and from the talk page, that I have been civil with Jay, and he has been -- from the outset -- threatening and completely uncivil, and now brought this AN/I against me in reaction to me quoting him the rule that supported my edits.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no prior 'relationship' with either you or jayjg. The only previous interaction I can think of with you is here, and when the 'List of Jews' articles got discussed at ANI last time. Insinuating that I have some history or grudge is manifestly incorrect. You are welcome to disagree with my opinion on the matter at hand but can you keep your ponderings as to my motivation out of it. The only reason I looked at this was because I was aware of the previous discussions regarding the list articles, and saw your misrepresentation of what happened. Indeed anyone can look at the talkpage, and see your heavy handed approach, misinterpretation of policy and what I can only think as baiting behaviour (inserting spurious citation needed tags, and saying that it would not meet GA until your hoops had been jumped through). There may be a reasonable explanation of how you came across the page, but it certainly has the appearance of you following jayjg to it, and your approach once there has been far from collaborative. Quantpole (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If people wish to judge who has been "civil" with whom, they might want to read this recent Talk: page interchange:Talk:List of Jews in sports#Owners, coaches, sportcasters in the article but not in inclusion criterion. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Balderdash. Everything I said was accurate. The policy requiring a ref in or at the end of a sentence that contains a quote is not a gray one--it is perfectly clear. And your misrepresenting it as a misinterpretation of policy is bewildering. It says that plainly. The citation should be placed either directly after the quotation... or after a sentence or phrase that introduces the quotation. How in the world you view a plain reading of that as a "misinterpretation" boggles the mind. So we know your mis-statment is not due to bad faith. And we know further that it is not due to biases against me (for the incident you cite to above), or for Jay. What is left? Because the language is indubitably clear.

An article should conform with MOS before it meets GA. How you interpret that as "jumping through my hoops" leaves me (nearly) speechless. This is wikipedia 101. It's not my hoop. It's the guideline. Which is clear. "Spurious" citation tags? Ridiculous. The sentence is clear. This feels like the big lie technique. I wasn't collaborative? Nonsense. Did you look through all my fixes, of perhaps two dozen errors, that were bars to it being a GA-level article? That's not disruptive behavior, my friend -- that is proper editing, improving the article, and helping it reach GA status. Precisely the opposite. My pointing out the MOS? That's not disruptive behavior either. It's the way we get an article to GA. "Far from collaborative"? You have it backwards. Jay was the one leveling threats, uncalled for, and not opening up discussion on the talk page. I was the one who opened up discussion on the talk page discussion. That's collaborative. I quoted the MOS rule for him. That's collaborative. He replied by telling me how many GAs he had worked on, and asserting (incorrectly, likely) that I had worked on fewer ... You think he is the collaborative one? Forgive me if that made me wonder as to the reason for your mis-characterizations, one tripping over the other. And your failure, when I pointed out your misunderstanding above, to say "oh, in that case, you were quoting the MOS correctly, and were in the right, and I apologize for incorrectly maligning you". You have this all backwards.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You added 16 citation needed tags (I believe). In some places you split paragraphs and then inserted a tag, rather than add the citation yourself. There were only 2 or 3 places where there were quotes, and even those it seems clear to me that the quote is from the book that is being summarised. Those two or three may be worth discussing, but the rest were entirely overboard and heavy handed. That's it from me for now, there is little point us carrying on in circles, and I would rather other people have a look and contribute. Quantpole (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I added tags. (BTW, Jay himself--as I'm sure he will be happy to tell you--has added perhaps hundreds of tags to articles I've worked on these past few weeks ... and I've not complained, simply calmly filled in refs wherever he applied tags, so in the scheme of things 16 (if that is what it was) is not a cause for alarm or at all heavy-handed). I discussed with Jay the rationale behind the refs, in a discussion I opened on the talk page. I then limited myself to the clear violations vis-a-vis the sentences with quotes, where the MOS without question requires refs either in the sentence or at the end of it. That's where the discussion stood. His response? To tell me how many GAs he had worked on. And bring this AN/I. The only thing at issue at that point in time were those sentences where we had a clear direction from the MOS.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have not worked on any of these articles but I find many of Epeefleche's edits bizarre. For example this: she changed Torah Umesorah – National Society for Hebrew Day Schools to Torah Umesorah–National Society for Hebrew Day Schools. Now, if MOS really compells us to change the hyphen (which seems odd in an encyclopedia where the #1 rule is ignore all rules), isn't the solution to ifx the hyphen in the title of the article being refered to? Here we have a paragraph on one specific topic (a hostile relationship between two men) with a citation at the end, but epeefleche felt the need to stick in the middle a tag asking for a citation. In fact, she seems to do this a lot, adding "citation needed" tags in the middle of paragraphs that already have tags.

I do not think that Epeefleche's edits are all bad and even think sometimes that she really just wants to improve articles, but some of these edits are hard to explain, except that they all involve calling into question in some way Jayjg's work. Now, none of us are perfect and all of us do work that can be improved upon but in my experience Jayjg is an impecable researcher, this is one person who really takes our content policies seriously and strives to write serious well-researched articles. I do not know why Epeefleche is on this vendetta against Jayjg but it is the only thing that I see that explains this pattern of editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• SLR -- don't you think this is going a bit off track? Are we really going to discuss the fact that MOS:EMDASH states: "Do not space em dashes"? And that you find that bizarre? Or that you find bizarre that when I first sought to comply with MOS:EMDASH, the edit gave me a red result, and as my computer was slow the faster fix was to fix the article (as I wanted it to pass GA) than to worry about the greater world of wikipedia, and not get to my next meeting? Would you find it bizarre to learn that I've received the "don't space em dashes" comment in GA reviews in the past, citing MOS? And that what I was doing was in the interest of the article passing GA review? Perhaps you would even be surprised to learn that personally, I prefer the look of spaced em dashes, and often fail to space them in talk page discussion, and that the only reason that I conformed it was to hue to MOS. Would you be surprised to know that I in no way thought that that edit was calling into question Jay's work (did he really write the underlying article? I had no idea -- nor would I have thought that the case). But that it was all about improving the article, per MOS, which is what GA reviewers happily refer to in my experience? (and no, they are not generally keen on the "ignore all rules" response to their request that MOS be complied with). And if you have really looked through my edits on that article, you have seen a host of MOS errors, grammar errors, spelling errors, etc., that I fixed (not knowing who made them). That is all geared to making it a better article. BTW -- I don't expect, that for some tens of thousands of edits now -- I've added any sentence with a quote that was bereft of a ref. That happens to comport with MOS as well. I think that this entire discussion of dashes is, quite frankly, silly. Are you taking me to task for conforming with MOS? As to whether Jay is a great researcher, I'm sure he is. That's not been a question. But I fear this conversation is straying far afield.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Greg L

Tags can be used two different ways on Wikipedia. They can be used to alert the community to a ‘sleeper’ of a problem with an article that should, in one editor’s opinion, be improved. These are typically used by editors who lack sufficient understanding of the subject material to resolve the situation them self. In edit wars, tags can also be used as “neener-neener” graffiti to frustrate editors who are laboring on articles. We’ve all had this happen.

These two editors have now encountered each other in the alleyways many, many times. It strikes me that Jayjg rather enjoys driving along, planting little flags that say “This lawn needs fertilizer” and “This lawn is too mossy”. It seems too that Jayjg rather enjoys it when Epeefleche takes offense and tries to stand in front of Jayig’s car in opposition since that provides Jayig an opportunity to run over Epeefleche’s toes.

In short, this is an edit war between two editors who don’t like each other. That much is clear. Either we have an attitude transplant or we separate the editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment where cooperation is required for the good of the project. It is clear that it is exceedingly easy for an editor to slap an article with a tag; doing so creates an attendant time-consuming duty on what we might call “shepherding editors”, who care about certain articles and who therefore want to have *clean* articles free of tags. Shepherding editors must (*sigh*) and address each tag as it comes along. It is clear that Epeefleche is the shepherding editor on these Jewish-related lists and has been willing to step up to the plate and do the heavy lifting.

It would be very nice if, instead of tagging articles, Jayig might instead volunteer to do some of the time-consuming duties of better citing entries in these Jewish-related lists. Perhaps, if he had to devote that much effort, he might lose interest in these Jewish-related articles. Or, perhaps not; the project as a whole would greatly benefit from having two shepherding editors hell-bent on ensuring these lists are accurate. If a time investment of that magnitude is not so palatable, then I wonder if Jayig would alternatively be willing to walk away from the Jewish-related articles so far as tags and deletions go; there are plenty of other editors who are capable of using tags when they see shortcomings and are at an utter loss as to how they might solve it on their own. Greg L (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. That last paragraph is really a challenge and a solicitation to Jayig. Can you edit in either of the two alternative fashions I suggested? I would appreciate a response. Greg L (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(*sound of crickets chirping*)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concern: Request for fake third-party websites

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-sKy, an astute editor noticed that the page's author has requested fake third-party websites to make a topic look notable. There seem to be lots of issues here. How to handle this? — Timneu22 · talk 12:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not much we can do. I don't suppose it happens much. The advantage is that such requests are likely to be discovered by wikipedians and cause us to take a long hard look at the article in question. We're more likely to identify bs if people post like this than if they simply fill the article with invalid sources that are never reviewed.--Scott Mac 12:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that any deletion discussion would result in people checking the references to make sure they were reliable (i.e. not plasterboard mockups), I agree that this doesn't need special treatment in general. In this particular case, where the author has already been found out, it's even less likely to escape scrutiny. I have notified the user of this thread, though. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, unless he gets his fake pages hosted by reliable organisations (e.g. on hte NYtimes pages) editors will easily see that the pages are indeed fake, hence not reliable, hence of no relevance to the notability issue. Arnoutf (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a bid on the request: "I am User:SqueakBox on wikipedia with over 50,000 edits to my name..." (User is already notified of this thread.) MER-C 14:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• SqueakBox has apparently previously written a Wikipedia article for payment [12] [13]. Not immediately obvious who the artist was, so don't know if there's a problem with the article - it might be an impeccably sourced offering on a notable artist that just didn't have an article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like it's Mario Zampedroni. The dates (The bid was on March 18 and the article created on March 19) and the fact it's an Italian artist fit perfectly. Now, how notable does that article look to other people? The phrase I'm reaching for already is "borderline". Black Kite (t) (c) 14:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I was thinking more along the lines of this, actually... NW (Talk) 14:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed. The only thing close to a claim of notability there is the six art prizes, and for all we know, that just means he was voted the top artist in his high school class. If not A7, I see a Snow AFD delete in that article's future. As to the original topic, the requester obviously doesn't understand Wikipedia's rules for reliability. He can pay to fake any website he wants, it wont be notable, and he can't fake real coverage in reliable sources. Resolute 14:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • And the six art prizes aren't referenced, apart from that it doesn't actually make a claim of notability. The one third party reference is just a listing and I can't find any decent 3rd party sources that aren't similar. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
          • ...and it's gone. That really wasn't a clever idea by a seasoned contributor. I wonder if he does refunds? Black Kite (t) (c) 14:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, OrangeMike has zoomed in with A7. Might have been better to leave it for a few minutes if a debate on SqueakBox was going to follow, but if those who saw it confirm it was A7, I suppose that's good. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• [14] sounds like those art prizes were just for coming top of the class.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • ...and that was the only (possibly) 3rd party ref in the article, and to be honest it looks user-generated as well. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I was going to drop SqueakBox a note suggesting that it would be prudent to withdraw that bid immediately. But I didn't find the article that Black Kite found above, and in light of recent events was wary that this might be someone impersonating SqueakBox outside of Wikipedia. (It's already happened, after all.) The assumption of good faith leads to the conclusion that SqueakBox simply mechanically bids on everything that contains the keyword "Wikipedia", and hadn't paid too close attention to the tender. (It's not even a request for a Wikipedia article, notice.) This would be reinforced by SqueakBox taking immediate action, as soon as xe becomes aware of this, to withdraw any bids for writing fake articles. I hope (and indeed expect) that we will see exactly this happen. Uncle G (talk) 15:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It appears that Squeakbox has also won a bid for another undisclosed article. It may be better for him to come clean about this one as well (he also has outstanding bids for 3 other projects). Black Kite (t) (c) 15:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It has been discussed before on the editor's talk page. [15] Anthony (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, and given that he said "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing" ... Black Kite (t) (c) 15:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • It might be the case that bidders have no control over whether the projects they bid upon are made public. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
          • Indeed; in which case he needs to make the other article (if it is a Wikipedia article) which he has won the bid for public. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
            • The other bid was for Roozz, which has already been taken care of. ThemFromSpace 16:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Thank you for that confirmation. That statement there, as well as my own experience of SqueakBox, supports my hope that SqueakBox's immediate actions, upon learning of this, will be to reject any requests for fake articles. In fact, based upon past experience, I fully expect xem to do so in quite strong terms. ☺ So let's see. Uncle G (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunately solicitation such as this isn't too uncommon. Our best defense is vigilance and we need to point it out whenever we spot it. As regards SqueakBox, I've spoken with him about this in the past and he has given his word that he will edit within our guidelines. Since that time I haven't seen any disingenuous editing coming from him, although I have found it odd that he continues to bid on freelance jobs. I suppose we can't prevent him from doing so, as long as he abides by our guidelines when on our site. ThemFromSpace 15:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• freelancer.com is absolutely acrawl with bids from employers to create Wikipedia articles. As an impoverished freelance writer myself, I admit I'm both fascinated and nauseated by the idea that people are doing this and getting away with it. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • No problem with that, I would say, if the work is 100% policy compliant. If a really notable person wants some experienced editor writing a neutral, sourced article on him and gives some money to an editor for that, good, it doesn't harm anyone. Of course the case discussed here is an entirely different thing. --Cyclopia^talk 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I agree with Cyclopia; if the creator of an article abides by our policies (npov, verifiability, notability and so on), then the fact he got paid is a non-issue for me. On the other hand, an editor who wrote article not abiding by our guidelines would be a problematic user, even if he did that gratis et amore dei. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Isn't it time that one or the other of the proposals at WP:PAID were formalised, if this is so commonplace? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 16:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I think it's happening all the time. How many companies aren't tarting up their pages? What responsible PR agency would neglect a client's page? WP:N and other policies are all that is needed. Anthony (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It's happening, if the comments about the employee's manager are true, in the section of this page immediately below this one. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The spammer even identifies himself by name while explaining that his spam has been deleted and his manager is angry at him; but in this case, the spammer is apparently an employee, not a hireling. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• SqueakBox has withdrawn from the bid. See also what xe wrote on this matter. Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Asterisk schools

There's a disturbing trend here. Look at my recent move log; three articles by three different people were about schools where the article title started with an asterisk. I don't think this is coincidence. Are these sock puppets? Maybe there's a page creation template wrong somewhere? What the heck is this? — Timneu22 · talk 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• It could be an attempt to make it come to the top in an alphanumeric list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• (ec)Without venturing a guess on the broader question, my best guess is the asterisk comes from opening the edit window of the school district list here Comal Independent School District and copy/pasting from the bulleted list.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I also thought it was for some alpha list, but this isn't really AAA Taxis, is it? I like cube lurker's thought, but man I hope this stops soon! — Timneu22 · talk 18:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • (ec) Since nobody has asked either of the three editors, I can only guess, but two of the accounts were created in the same minute and the third one a short while later, and all three schools are in the same area of Texas. Could this be some sort of "computer summer camp"? —DoRD (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Something like it, I'd guess, as all are real names that a quick Google search shows to be employees of the ISD. Would either CSD as COI experiments or redirect back to the ISD article and slap COI notices on all five of them (two haven't made articles yet). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 19:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Also, WP:PRECISION isn't needed on these titles. Should I move them again? (Note that I don't have move-and-delete rights, so it's annoying for me to do it.) — Timneu22 · talk 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• this edit seems to provide the explanation for what occurred. Uncle G (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well done! There still may be a COI problem here, but I'm not sure it's horrible. These articles aren't promotional, and like most school articles they are lifetime stubs. — Timneu22 · talk 19:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • There might be a copyright problem here. It would be worthwhile identifying what WWW site was being referred to in this edit. Show me that the text has been swiped from someone else's copyrighted non-GFDL work and copied wholesale into Wikipedia, and I'll zap them. Uncle G (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • The copyright violation removed in that edit was taken from http://www.comalisd.org, specifically [16]. That same site is being provided as an external link in these new articles, and they don't appear to be copyvios to me. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Thank you for the pointer. There's a parallel page on that WWW site for Rahe Bulverde Elementary (Bulverde), it turns out, and the text of that article was lifted wholesale from it. Uncle G (talk) 23:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • (ec) As for AF's comment, the district website shows that each of the people are teachers at the schools they edited. As elementary and middle schools aren't inherently notable, I suppose the articles should be deleted and the redlinks removed from the ISD article. —DoRD (talk) 19:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not against deletion, but A7 doesn't apply to schools. Should these be bulk-AfD'd? — Timneu22 · talk 19:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd PROD the whole lot, but if someone wants to speedy them, they'll hear no arguments from me. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
        • I've {{prod}}ed them. TFOWR 20:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it was overlooked, I went ahead and notified all three about this thread. —DoRD (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Golan heights is not occupied‎

Resolved

 – Blocked by Edgar181 (talk · contribs). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please block Golan heights is not occupied‎ (talk · contribs · count)? This troll is obviously the same individual as User:Golan heights is our (talk · contribs · count) which was itself blocked for block evasion. This troll has now gone and vandalised Belfast but has curiously not edited Golan Heights in this incarnation, only its talk page.

And no, I've not notified the user's talk page. If you look at the edit history, it will be obvious why a bit of quick squashing is needed rather than giving them more chance to troll.

There's something a bit odd with the bad English and the behaviour, it may be worth a Check user in the longer term to see whether this user is really someone else.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've indef blocked for the trolling, but having a checkuser take a look might be a good idea too. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Administration action needed to stop an AFD edit war

Resolved

 – No edit war, just a very, very bad closure that was swiftly and correctly reverted HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Entirely uninvolved admin here agreeing with HJ's {{resolved}} tag. —DoRD (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell is voting to delete this so closing this ANI thread is a huge conflict of interest. Wikipedia can't be corrupt like this. MVOO (talk) 00:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it is resolved. If you don't think that HJ Mitchell's resolvetion isn't valid, then consider this my own resolve. (X! · talk)  · @084  ·  01:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The AFD was concluded as no consensus. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArticles_for_deletion%2FDick_Cheney%27s_health&action=historysubmit&diff=374611126&oldid=374611081

Maybe there was an off-wiki effort because the no consensus closure was removed and a flood of delete votes poured in. Whatever happened, people are edit warring to remove the original decision and keep the 7 day AFD open. This kind of anarchy is no good.

I read the AFD rules carefully and there is no rule that says AFDs can be re-open. It says that AFD disputes are sent to Deletion Review.

So an administrator should seal the oil leak and shut down the AFD to it's original conclusion, i.e. no consensus. If you don't like it, deletion review.

I personally believe it is not a no consensus but a keep because the article, Health of Dick Cheny, meets WP:GNG because it there is significant coverage year after year, the coverage is reliable, the sources are ironclad like CNN, it is independent of the coverage (the sources of his heart attack is not dickcheney.com). Just because the article is not perfectly written does not mean it gets deleted. Otherwise 70% of Wikipedia gets deleted. MVOO (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a mistatement of the actual situation. Yes User:RN, closed the AfD then changed his mind about the closing and reopened it himself[17] and noted so himself[18]. You then came in, voted keep[19] and then tried to close the AfD as no-consensus[20]. This is a blatant violation of policy as you should never, ever close an AfD that you yourself have voiced an opinion in, nor is it appropriate for you to try to do a non-admin closure on an AfD that an administrator choose to allow more time for comments. Nor is anyone edit warring over it. A different admin, User:Courcelles, reverted your very inappropriate attempt to close it which goes against the guidelines of Non-admin closure.[21] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. As would nay administrator in their right mind, especially when the editor attempting to force the discussion to a halt at their preferred point is the creator of the article that is the subject of the AfD! Admins are perfectly within their rights to change their mind about their own actions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Courcelles is against the article and wants it deleted. So he is complaining and reverting my implemention of the original closure. HJMitchell is citing something but despite my request, refuses to show the policy which permits it. On the other hand, I showed him the policy that deletion review is the place for disputes with the original AFD closure. The original closure was done by an admin and was no consensus. MVOO (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I noted, and I am totally neutral in this, the administrator who closed it also reverted his closure which he IS allowed to do. It is "your" article, you !voted in the AfD, and you had absolutely no business trying to close it again. At most, you should have asked the RH if he was ready to reconsider closing it, but your obviously biased attempts to save "your article" are not helping anything at all, and very likely to lead you to getting blocked for disruptiveness. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite policy that re-opening AFDs are allowed. I read it and it said that if you don't like it, go to deletion review. I am merely upholding the original decision. MVOO (talk) 00:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was so polite that I didn't even vote in the AFD. The people who are disruptive are HJMitchell who closed this ANI thread and he also wants to delete the article. Please inform him that his actions are bad. I did not try to save the article because I tried to be very neutral and not edit it or vote for it until AFD closure. Then it was closed as a no-consensus before the shannigans started. MVOO (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, read the first sentence of Wikipedia:Undeletion policy#Deletion review. An admin can change their mind. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I will, thanks. MVOO (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry, but my diff above shows clearly that you did vote in the AfD immediately before trying to close. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 00:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, please do not strike someone else's comments, for it is considered rude, and try to avoid edits such as this, that will only get you blocked. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if it is rude but it is wrong to close a thread to stop discussion. HJMitchell wants the article deleted and when I said it is against process, the correct thing to do would be discussion, not closing the thread. Please do not show favoritism by threatening me but not threatening HJMitchell for conflicts of interest and trying to win a debate by closing the discussion. MVOO (talk) 00:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh.... all that happened is that I closed it, asked for a second opinion just to be sure, after which I reversed my decision - within an hour. That's it. No drama, cabals etc. involved. Ryan Norton 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Alright, I don't have much to say about this, as I voted, I obviously couldn't close the AfD, but I did revert MVOO's close, as it is obviously inappropriate for someone to vote, and minutes later close the discussion. (I did this before I noticed he had created the article.) Deletion process says that a non-admin close may be reverted by any administrator, and was justified both by the contentious nature of this AFD and MVOO's clear conflict of interest. It needs a truly impartial admin to close the discussion, and then it can go to DRV if desired; RN was perfectly within his rights to revert his own closure. Courcelles (talk) 00:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested outcome

This is a huge mess. The best outcome (which pleases nobody) would be for RN to state that his re-opening the AFD opened a huge can of worms and to defuse it, he should restore his original decision. He could then remind others that AFDs can go to deletion review but that would prolong the fight. Instead, the other editors can try to improve the article for a week or two and then after a normal period (see other articles to gauge), a 2nd AFD could be submitted. These suggestions are to calm the situation. I would judge that resolution as fair even though I actually favor something else. MVOO (talk) 01:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, that is not the "best outcome", it is the outcome you personally prefer because you want the article kept. His reopening it was perfectly normal and acceptable, and it did not open a "huge can of worms", he simply decided to allow more time for opinions (in essence relisting it). You are the only one upset by it, for presumably obvious reasons because new comers to the discussion are clearly leaning it towards delete. A second AfD is not needed, nor is DRV. These suggestions do not "calm the situation" as, again, the only upset party is you because your article is still in a "fight". The best outcome would be for you to calm down already and stop trying to assign any wrong doing to the reopening of the AfD. It was done within policy and seems acceptable to everyone but you, the article creator. It would be prudent for you to drop the stick, stop claiming hysteria/fighting/massive edit warring where, in fact, there is none, and simply allow the AfD to continue on its course. Also cease making these unnecessary attacks on a variety of other editors trying to claim some "cabal" or conspiracy to get the thing deleted. Everything was done to policy except your attempt to close an AfD you are personally involved with and had voted with, an action you still have yet to either acknowledge nor apologize for. It would have been polite of you to mention that you also went to Jim Wales to ask him to save your article[22] (and to tell him of his ANI thread). In either case, it appears the AfD has now been closed by a completely neutral admin who deleted the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 01:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

People hate the word "cabal" but the fact is very clear. One of the administrators who voted "delete" then wrote to another administrator asking him to take care of it. That person (Tim Song) then promptly deleted the article. Only Tim Song was asked. Courcelles clearly knew who to ask to have the article taken down. Who gives a shit about Dick Cheney's heart attack in Wikipedia (or some stupid TV episode or obscure author or tiny high school)? What is worse then that is this whole mess shows how there is a lack of transparency and order in Wikipedia. Please can say "step back" but the really wise would learn that an admin can be heavy handed and not do things honorably in Wikipedia but take that attitude in life and you might get bit in the arse. Unless you become the head of a little fiefdom, like a city zoning head, and then you only have to worry about the mayor. MVOO (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

To add, the "flood" of votes most likely came because you posted about it here, FAR more people watch this page then participate actively in the AFD discussions, so drawing attention to the AFD got a lot of people who normally may of never seen it to vote. — raekyT 01:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I never saw the AfD till MVOO brought it here. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

From a glance it looks like in the time between the reopening and this thread the AFD got 3 deletes and 1 keep (MVOO), afterwards it got another 4 delete votes. As I said on Jimbo's talk page, if you don't like it do what you kept stating should be done here...take it to deletion review. Mauler90 _talk 01:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It's stick-dropping/stop-dead-horse-beating/let-it-go time. (X! · talk)  · @120  ·  01:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:NLT block on a corporate spammer

User:InformationNC is an admitted COI account for an employee of Cedar Fair Entertainment Company (NYSE:FUN). A new spam article of his was deleted, and he demanded that it be restored (his manager is very upset!) or he will sue us. I gave him his second no-spam warning (he'd already gotten one for multiple edits to the company's article), and blocked him under WP:NLT. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Right on. Toddst1 (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you felt like being sassy, you could have told him to go the manager of our complaints department, Helen Wait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This looks like just a hoax attempt rather than corporate spam as such. Neither of the two new theme parks the account created articles on appear on Google anywhere, including Cedar Fair's own site, and a new Cedar Fair park would certainly be big news covered by media outlets if it were real. In any case, a legal threat is a legal threat, so good block. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued unrelenting personal attacks by Sweetpoet

Resolved

 – Sweetpoet blocked indefinitely by Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Mauler90 _talk 02:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

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

As one can simply see by checking this user's block log, and their talk page, they have a history of personally attacking others. They continue to do so even as I type this report. I am reporting this user as an uninvolved user. I was alerted to them when as I have an Dougweller's talk page on my watchlist, and noticed them post there with a long insulting screed calling Doug an idiot, stupid, insane, a creep, dopey, a stalker, a troll... the list goes on. This needs to end now.

Now, as this user has been blocked several times for the same, as noted above, something like a week-long block may be needed. Perhaps longer, as they don't show any understanding that what they have done, and continue to do is wrong, or any remorse regarding it. They indeed show no signs of stopping.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• User notified.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As a slight, further note, apparently this user was given a 'last chance' to get their unacceptable behavior under control. Seeing as how they haven't, and from further messages that they do not care for our policies, here, I propose an indefinite block for this user, given their history and willful disregard for our policy on such personal attacks.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

and I never WILL stop, as long as I'm provoked by RELENTLESS IDIOTS AND STALKER-TROLLS, such as yourself....as I made it clear to a number of editors and Admins that I SIMPLY DON'T CARE ANYMORE REALLY.... And also...this matter on my talk page was ALREADY REPORTED and discussed.... And they said to just leave it alone. You decided to chime in like a creep and give me your self-righteous (and inaccurate) lectures... I pointed out that user talk pages are NOT exactly the same as any other page, and verbatim WP policy that a user has a right to remove or retain anything he wants on his own user page. Maybe you need informing.......I DON'T CARE ABOUT THIS NONSENSE.....BLOCKS......UPTIGHT PSCYHOTIC STALKER-ISH EDITORS.....SLOPPY ADMINS.....AND ARTICLES REALLY. For real... So block away... I have more time for other things. But this is the thing.....when nutballs like Novaseminary, Glarfaklas (or whatever his name is), and now this Daed Head creepazoid, come to me and harass me with garbage, I'm only human.....and I'll tell them off for it. WP policy or no.....cuz as I said, I'VE HAD IT WITH THE BS......and I don't really care much anymore. peace out....Sweetpoet (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest your insult caling me a stalker and a troll. Such, as explained, is strictly against policy. If you don't like our rules here, the door is on your left. Otherwise, continue to insult me. It is only another nail in your coffin.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

ok, you're extremely slow... (as well as an obvious stalker and troll) How's that for an insult? And again I care nothing about blocks at this point. I kinda made that clear... and I'm sure it'll happen anyway. Cuz it's obvious that no Admin will see your harassing of me on my talk page all the time, and will only focus uptightly on my name-calling. Not caring one iota what is provoking it. I'm telling you Doug and Ed.....NOVASEMINARY IS PURE POISON.

So what you're doing now is only provoking and goading me to go off further to get me blocked. I know it...... You're probably some MEAT PUPPET for that psycho Novaseminary. And I'll say this one more time (to you and to Admins out there who don't see full scopes of things many times)....I...DON'T....CARE....ABOUT...GETTING...BLOCKED...REALLY.

WP has some pluses, no doubt, but it has too many annoyances, maniacs, nit-pickers, morons, and weasels, and demoralizing types....to deal with anymore..Sweetpoet (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(xpost to ANI and user talk pages)

Daedalus969, you're correct that he's crossed the line in terms of comment contents violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL - however, you also could have disengaged from this at any time, and have instead continued to provoke him. I don't think you intentionally baited him, but that's the end result. Please disengage.

Sweetpoet, you've crossed the line in your interactions with Daedalus. Please immediately stop insulting him and others here. You aren't allowed to tell him off in this manner. Please review WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. We expect you to act like an adult and to treat other Wikipedia participants with respect. They are human beings, too.

If you are not willing to do so, and won't tone down your interactions with other users, please walk away from Wikipedia rather than force us to block you indefinitely for abusing people. That's not a desirable outcome, but ongoing abuse is not OK either.

This is up to you. Hopefully you can edit in a constructive and civil and collaborative manner in the future.

To both of you: for the next 48 hrs, I am placing a temporary and limited interaction ban on you two. Do not comment on each other's talk pages or elsewhere on Wikipedia in any manner. Please think very carefully about any responses you make on ANI in this thread.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, wow, Q.E.D., this editor needs to be blocked now. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Would recommend a 1 month block for User:Sweetpoet, definitely over the line. Mauler90 _talk 00:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I don't think Daedalus intentionally baited him but the effect ended up being similar. Giving one final chance to back down is IMHO appropriate. Another admin can of course do what you will given what evidence you see here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Sweetpoet's interaction with dαlus was not the only inappropriate personal attack Sweetpoet made within the last several hours. In response to my proposal to merge Separated brethren into Unitatis Redintegratio, Sweetpoet again devolved into personal attacks similar to, though nowhere near as egregious as, those discussed in the last report and in this report. Here is the diff (note that he says I am "unstable", "change (my) mind on a whim, and can't be trusted"). How many more chances should Sweetpoet get? He has made inappropriate attacks right here in this report, for goodness sakes. Rather than take the chance to back downb, he seems to have gone the other way. Novaseminary (talk) 01:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Toddst1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked Sweetpoet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely, with talk page access revoked. I agree, this was getting too far, regardless of what Daedalus969 did or baited. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Marking this resolved then. Mauler90 _talk 02:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Strange goings on with Eliteimp and 90.207.76.207

Resolved

 – Editor blocked 1 week, clearly a member of WP:BITECLUB SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

As I'm involved then I can't use my prodigious admin powers, so I am bringing this here.

Yesterday, I was involved in a discussion over inclusion or exclusion of negative but sourced information on a BLP. I was in favour of including it, which article this was is by-the-by. Following this an IP user (90.207.76.207) tried to get me to intervene at Brian McGinlay, where there was also a dispute over some negative details (diff). I declined to do so as I felt it was improper canvassing; I may not have been as polite as I could have been, but I'm not interested in being toyed with. The IP responded by citing WP:BITE and calling me a "fool" (diff; I was obviously shocked by this and I gave them an NPA warning, which they blanked, as is their right. I wondered whether anyone familiar enough with Wikipedia to cite WP:BITE can be said to be a newcomer, and then I blanked the section on my talk page as I considered my involvement in this matter to be at an end.

Today, User:Eliteimp undid my section blanking and berated me with the edit summary "rp", which is a standard abbreviation for "reply". This is odd as I had not previously addressed Eliteimp. Then the IP replaced Eliteimp's signature with their own. At the BLP noticeboard, they have blamed a "shared computer" (oh, that old excuse: Wikipedia:My little brother did it). Off2riorob and Tmorton166 both kindly commented on how both the IP and Eliteimp are active on the BLP noticeboard, and how the IP has been attacking other users. Note that at Talk:Rangers F.C. the IP recently supported Eliteimp's position, and the times of the edits by the IP match the peak of editing by Eliteimp.

I think the IP is only here for disruption and that it is the sockpuppet of Eliteimp, or else Eliteimp's account is compromised. I have not opened an SPI as I think this so clearly passes the duck test, and also because the issue is not only sockpuppetry. Fences&Windows 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, support Fences and windows comments. Strange goings on indeed, loudly quacking and uncivil to boot. Off2riorob (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Some extra background. I ran into this user over edits to Hugh Dallas, Gordon Strachan and Brian McGinlay; he/she was adding material with inappropriate wording & unsourced allegations. We had a fairly polite spat over the content and I asked for outside help from DGG because I was unsure of the best approach (and if I was even correct in my actions). On his advice I took some of the issues to BLP/N which is where Off2riorob become involved. After that petered out things seemed fine for a bit till yesterday an IP was back making similar additons & rollbacks which then extended to other BLP cases I have been trying to help with. It has not concerned me up till now - the use is addign some good content/sources and, to my mind, is just a bit over-zealous in wanting to add allegations of BLP articles. But with the addition of these edits by Eliteimp I am less sure the user is acting in good faith. One final comment: at the time when I asked DGG for help (in good faith) the IP user was a bit put out by it - citing (IIRC) WP:CANVAS. I responded by telling him I would encourage him to bring in other uninvolved editors to provide a wider consensus - this may be what prompted the message to Fences. Uh, hope that is helpful. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support Block - The contribs of IP and Eliteimp have a similar language and style, and same preoccupation with UK football. Passes the WP:DUCK test. Support block for edit warring, personal attacks, and sock puppeting. LK (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree this new found information regarding the IP user and User:Eliteimp is very very strange. The IP has used various addresses in the past couple of weeks User talk:90.194.100.16, User talk:194.80.49.252, User talk:155.136.80.35, User talk:90.197.236.12, User talk:90.197.224.58. Ranging from referenced additions to blatent vandalism. And is certainly not a new user.

I did find it odd that someone who has taken such an interest in Wikipedia all of a sudden has not created a user account (are they trying to hide something or not let users track their additions) and in these differing addresses the person is somehow using the same computer as User:Eliteimp? Odd. Monkeymanman (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Block We are far to patient with these trolls. There is a clear pattern of disruption here. Block Eliteimp until/unless we get a promise of civility, and a no-contact agreement. Block the trolling IP's outright and give them the standard offer. I am not for punitive blocks, but we have to stop problem editors in their tracks, put them on the right track, or block them. --Adam in MO Talk 23:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• I'd agree with a block. (It seemed to me a little odd when it was questioned whether I was biased over a sport I care nothing about & people I never heard of.) Personally , I consider the repeated additions of the negative material clear evidence of malicious editing, the very sort of thing BLP policy was designed to prevent. Normally I'd favor a final warning in this, except that the insistence on continuing the additions gives no indication of possible improvement DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Block - Either a lengthy one or indef. Abusive and disruptive. Jusdafax 13:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Fyodor7

Resolved

 – whacked a mole Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello all. "New user" Cosmas Indii (talk · contribs · count) made some posts today; he is clearly the same individual as CosmasIndi and therefore the indef blocked sockpuppeteer Fyodor7. I shan't be blocking the account myself due to my dealings with Fyodor, would someone else do the honors?--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged him as a suspected sock, since I can't actually block him, and notified him of the ANI discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

edit request

Resolved

(I can't use an {{editrequested}} because the talk page is also fully-protected)

In User:Moulton, please replace link #6:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Moulton

with a link to the request just before it was archived

• Request to Arbcom to consider unbanning/unblocking

The user himself updated the link at the time[23], but the update got lost in later edits[24]. Note that I use my own wording, not Moulton's wording. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have merely added the permanent link alongside the existing link, and used the edit summary to link back to here. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 17:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wittsun topic ban

Resolved

 – Wording of topic ban clarified to properly reflect community consensus. User has been notified of change. No further admin action required. N419BH 14:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wittsun (talk · contribs) is subject to a six month topic ban: "Wittsun is banned from editing any article, including talk pages, broadly related to race, ethnicity or religion for a period of 6 months." See Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. He was given a warning about this yesterday [25] and today has edited at WP:AN#Did we drop the ball on this? saying "Wikipedia has a problem.. but it is the exact opposite as the one stated by Horowitz & Co.David Horowitz" - the discussion is directly related to race, ethnicity or religion. As I've been involved with him before I don't want to be the first to block him, but this is too much and suggests that he isn't taking the ban seriously. I'll notify him now. Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to wikilawyer, but the editing restriction refers to article and article's talk pages; I'm not sure the present wording includes AN and ANI... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I misread that (probably under the assumption that we don't want this on any talk pages). I read it as talk pages in general, which I think must have been the intention. Otherwise he could be over at BLPN making the sort of comments that got him banned, for instance. Dougweller (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't misunderstand me please, I supported and support a topic ban regarding all edits, but I don't think it would be fair to block him, this time. I'd rephrase the restriction, so that it matches the original consensus and let Wittsun off the hook, for this one time. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The original discussion called for a topic ban on "all ... edits relating to race, ethnicity, and religion", Black Kite may have simply not realized that the way he wrote it into Wikipedia:Editing restrictions allowed more than the proposed topic ban would have. –xeno^talk 13:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I can see the way I wrote it provides a bit of wiggle room which he's exploited. I will rephrase the wording on his talk page and inform him. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well this is a bit awkward...I spotted this and fixed it during maintenance, and was on my way to Black Kite's talk to let him know about what has changed...but it seems this was spotted earlier. I think the only thing left to do is notify the subject of the restriction about the change in the wording, and that any future edits would result in enforcement of the restriction. But I don't think anything can be done about the presently reported violation due to this difference in understanding of how far the restriction extends. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this particular one should not be enforced due to the discrepancy that was created. I've removed it from the WP:AN thread though - it is holding up the archiving of the stale thread. –xeno^talk 14:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::Except that we now know that he is testing the limits and is editing in the same way that got him banned. That should be taken into account if and when he violates the ban. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've rephrased on his talkpage in the simplest way I can so that it covers all possibilities. Let me know if I've missed something. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the only thing is that you've now removed "articles" and just made it "edits". It would be the height of wikilawyering to try to say that one could edit an article on the banned subject area as long as the edit didn't concern the banned subject area per se, but it might make sense to pick that nit while we're here. –xeno^talk 14:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely any edit on, say, a religious article would be an edit related to religion, though? Unless it's (thinks of an example) a spelling correction, but in that case ... would it be worth tightening up even more, do you think? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be fine as is, but probably wouldn't hurt to clarify that it's both edits about, and edits to articles, on the topic ban area. –xeno^talk 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ultimatums

Just wanted to ask, are you allowed to issue ultimatums on Wikipedia such as in the style of "if you don't do this within X hours, I'm going to do XXX"? I've come across one and it seemed bordering on blackmail to me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If XXX is a form of disruption, let us know specifics and a block will be forthcoming. If you want to maintain confidentiality, use email. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Here we have such an example of that. It seems to me that thats a threat with rude language to blank a page without any real active provocation. The ultimatum offered seemed completly unwarrented considering the article is quite new. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk)

Well, technically, per WP:BURDEN you should provide reliable sources to back up your claims; while I agree the other user could have used a different tone, if you want a bit of info in an article, you should source it. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand that but I'm limited with time at the moment. Surely just because of that, it doesn't excuse making ultimatums in that tone which could be considered by a few as blackmail. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, but unsourced statements can be removed at any time (and, clearly, readded at any time, provided you can cite a source), so I don't really consider that as blackmail. If you have little time at the moment, my only suggestion would be to accept their removal and then take your time to source them when you do have time. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite straightforward. The C of E has created an unverified list, and refused to provide sources, or provided sources that do not source the claims made. I removed entries which were unsourced, some of which I believe to be completely untrue, and was reverted without an edit summary or providing sources. Instead of edit warring, I gave the editor 24 hours notice of my intent to once again bring the article inline with policy. Wikipedia:Burden seems alien to The C of E. I should also add that since he has once again added references which do not source the claims made despite requests not to do so, a request for comment for disruptive editing will be forthcoming. If you read the rest of the talk page, you will see my tone is caused by this editor's constant stalling, footdragging and timewasting. O Fenian (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Issuing a set-time ultimatum in that tone of language seemed unwarrented. It looks to me like you're threatening to attack an editors edits that they've spent a lot of time on just because of certain additions which are rather self-evident. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this was a little harsh but basically OF seems to be in the right. What admin action were you looking for in posting here? --John (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was looking for clarification on if there was any Wikipedia policy on ultimatums. I see that maybe his comments should be looked at according to WP:CIVIL. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

What was your reason C of E when you replaced without edit summary the good faith removal of uncited content to the article? Off2riorob (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Well my feeling was that given time I could have got it sourced when I get the time but as my user page says my computer at home is broken and I'm about to go on holiday soon so my feeling was that if they were all left where they were I could pick up on it when i return, with possibly some other editors helping out on that. But needless to say, I know I should have maybe explained to him why I was doing it but I've had many disputes with him over many things and I had the feeling that there would be little reasoning with him due to his hardheld views. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no issues with the comment by O Fenian. They would have been entitled to immediately revert, as they were not verifiable. Consider his comment notice of intent while offering you a good faith chance to act. gonads³ 20:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes but did it really have to be in such an agressive/threatning tone? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So it seems that XXX = "enforce WP:BURDEN" in this case. So it's not so much an ultimatum as a statement that you're being given a bit more time to provide sources than policy actually requires. The phrase "quit while you're ahead" comes to mind. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Would your response to his have been the same had you considered his in good faith? gonads³ 20:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It would have still seemed rather strong to me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that a more appropriate venue for this would be WP:WQA... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please also notify the user (in future) that you brought this discussion here. Thanks. gonads³ 20:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problems with OF's edits and I think that CofE's complaints here are without merit. OF would have been perfectly justified in removing unreferenced material on sight, with no grace period and no warnings. Nsk92 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is just great. Football. Northern Ireland. Loaded questions on AN/I. Edit warring. Threats of edit warring. And two editors whose account names are derived from opposing affiliations in The Troubles. Are the two of you going for some sort of record as to how many perennial Wikipedia disputes you can manage to roll into one? Perhaps you could find a team in Gdansk/Danzig, or start arguing about Taiwan/China, or mention President Obama, too. Honestly!

If the two of you want to find yourselves sanctioned under just about every long-standing ArbCom remedy there is, you can. You're going about it in pretty much the right way. But it seems somewhat daft to do so, to me.

C of E, just find and cite decent sources, will you? You know how to pluck things out of an edit history, or a talk page, when you've got sources for them actually in hand. O Fenian, you've been blocked for edit warring under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles once already. You know exactly where what you've threatened to do leads, and you know that threatening to edit war once per 24 hours will be considered as simply gaming the system.

And where, enquiring minds want to know, are all of the baseball, cycling, and basketball teams, such as Tau Ceramica and Caja San Fernando Sevilla? There's a whole world outside of Ireland and football, you know. ☺ If the two of you focussed on stuff that was a little less close to home, perhaps you'd collaborate better. Uncle G (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Issue is now moot as, this has occurred. gonads³ —Preceding undated comment added 20:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC).

So let me get this straight. I remove unsourced information, some of which I believe to be untrue. I am instantly reverted. Other people on here say I would have been entitled to revert. But even before they said that, I did not edit war but instead went to the talk page and gave 24 hours notice of my intent to remove the information. Nowhere did I say I would remove it at any point after that 24 hours, I only said I would remove it once. Yet I am still being accused of edit warring or threatening to edit war?! O Fenian (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Ayahuasca

I don’t know if this is the right place for this, but here goes. There have been a number of edits by similar IPs on Ayahuasca adding a link that appears to be self promotion, such as here[26] and here[27]. Despite warnings on the users’ talk pages and a message on the discussion page of the main article, the edits continue without comment. I don’t want to keep reverting it because it may be construed as edit warring, and I’m not sure this constitutes vandalism per se. Is there anything that can be done? A dullard (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bah, spam, I hates it. I've semi'd the article for three days. I'm happy to be reverted, trouted, etc, but this seemed the easiest approach short of a rangeblock (which I am too stupid to manage...) TFOWR 21:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Joshuaingram

Requesting intervention to prevent edit war and assistance in the removal of BLP violation from Talk:Beck University. User:Joshuaingram made degrogatory remarks about BLP Keith Olbermann (name mispelled and unsourced label of progressive) on Talk:Beck University. I requested user redact their remarks, and was told no. I removed the remarks myself, and the user reverted. I would like this BLP issues resolved, and don't wish to enter into an edit war to do so. Akerans (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't the BLP noticeboard be a better location for this? I don't see anything requiring administrator action here. Mauler90 _talk 23:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Already posted there, and did not receive help. Wasn't sure where I needed to be to resolve this. Should I re-post this there? Akerans (talk) 23:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. He seems to be more poking fun at those who follow Olbermann than attacking Olbermann himself. This is hardly an urgent BLP problem. You probably got no response at BLPN because you're making a mountain out of a molehill. Fences&Windows 00:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Akerans (talk) 01:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

user:AJona1992

I don't know if I am right but the recent edits by user AJona1992 (talk · contribs) sounds like a comprised account 1, 2, 3. All started when my wachtlist started showing robot Adding, robot Adding, robot Adding. After I saw the page [[Bo:Selena]], and who were the creator, I left a message on his talkpage, he aswered me practically go away, I am INVINCIBLE. After a global sysop left a message after delete all his recent stubs he only contested I don't give a fuck. After a vandalic harassment on my talkpage, because it is vandalism, I left a warning he again responded cry in another place and his last action was another personal attack. I dont know why this user were not blocked after he was tagged twice as a sockpuppeter (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of AJona1992). This user must be stopped because for reasons I cannot understand he is feeling invincible. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What this user does on other language Wikipedias is not our concern. Sure he should be civil, but you were pretty confrontational and have no right to instruct him not to start stubs on Selena on other Wikipedias. He was blocked already for sockpuppetry; a single incident of socking does not deserve an indef block. Fences&Windows 00:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

He socked on June, after his block expired he socked again. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tbhotch, why did you rollback his userpage back (and his edits) to May 4, 2010? Mike Allen 01:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Because I forget that all is reverted, I'll fix it in a moment. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 01:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok I am sorry I didn't want it to have gone this way, it's just she's my idol and I feel like this place has way too many rules and it gets annoying becuz I try my best on Selena related articles, I mean I do make mistakes I'm human but you was coming at me too hard, esp she is gone and I do feel hurt, and she died when I was barely 3, but she's been in my family way b4 I was born and I am grateful that my family shared Selena with me, again I am sorry but it's hard when you guys come and talk to me about that whole bot thing, becuz there's no rules against it, I have contacted several editors to translate and we are going to work on it together and promote those pages into GA and FA status, hopefully lolz. But yea I'm sorry. AJona1992 (talk) 01:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For his apologizes here and on his talkpage seems like jona would not do the same in the future. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 02:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Tendentiousness on Akins

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hours by SheffieldSteel. -- Mauler90 _talk 03:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday I left a third opinion on Talk:Akins. Basically the issue was that one editor, Wyvren (talk · contribs), was removing verifiable, sourced text from the article that stated that the name of the clan could be attributed to English origin (rather than Scottish). We just completed a discussion about whether or not the source used was considered reliable, and even though Wyvren more or less agreed that it was okay to use, that's still not enough. Further, two other editors - the initial other person in the 3O and another outsider - agreed that the source was acceptable to use.

Wyvren is, in my opinion, a tendentious editor. I'm almost certain that they're a conflict of interest with the article; Akins Clan Member Crest Badge.JPG was uploaded by them (from their own work) following a discussion about the inclusion of the family tartan and crests. I had explained that the threshold for inclusion for Wikipedia is verifiability, to which they responded in this edit that "Wikipedia can be used as a tool for spreading misinformation, or for presenting a biased point of view". Then, after I expounded a bit on how verifiability works, they wrote that: "When someone without any viable interest in the article comes in and starts tampering with facts simply becauase they can, or because they have (for whatever reason) a grudge against the subject of the article; then I will endeavor to see to it that their efforts are thwarted as far as possible so that the useful, beneficial and factual cointent remains standing and unmolested by vandalism." If that's not tendentious editing, I don't know what is.

I'm sort of at a loss as to how to proceed here, hence the post. Based on the talk page there, this has been going on for several weeks, and it probably shouldn't continue on. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add that the reason I have constantly had to revert the article is because the user Brianann has an obvious bias against the subject of the article and is seeking to denigrate the subject by presenting an erroneous point of view by selectively citing questionable statements in his sources. I have made every effort to include as much reliable and authoratative information as possible which includes the sources cited by Brianann but does not present them in a way so that they will be purposely misconscrued as Brianann has done. I would like to ask that the version of the article that I have reverted be given full protection status to prevent further vandalization by Brianann and others. --Wyvren (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Wyvren for 31 hours for edit warring. When dispute resolution steps (such as WP:3O) are being followed, one should not continue to edit war against the provider of the third opinion. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A good block of an editor who typifies WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Anyone who disagrees with him is of course wrong. Dougweller (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, good block; though this is a short term remedy for what I think is likely to be a long term problem. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

Resolved

 – User:Nicole cutexv blocked indefinitely by Dougweller. -- Mauler90 _talk 03:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Nicole cutexv and User:Nicole cute08. User that have been blocked due to repetitive action of inserting and creating "Tricia Santos" article created a sock and continues to do his actions. Obviously passed ducking due to name and continuous editting of "Tricia Santos" related articles. The actress is merely a contestant in a show with no projects except of being a guest on talkshows. The user also continous to create unsourced images of Tricia Santos: File:TriciaS.jpg, File:Tricia.jpg. Please block the user before prolonging the vandalism. The longer the user stays, the more vandalism is needed to revert. --TwelveOz (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, I've protected one Santos redirect, another Admin has protected Tricia Santos. Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Fans are getting annoying these days --TwelveOz (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring across multiple accounts-sockpuppetry

Multiple sockpuppets currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts made on Goguryeo, complete with personal attacks on me for requiring English sources per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources.

Very similar edits are being made by three users:

• Banchanseoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Goguryeohistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Stopcyberbullying (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It appears the same user is using all three accounts.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please take this to →WP:SPI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:28, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked all three indef for socking, edit warring, and all around general disruptive editing. (X! · talk)  · @308  ·  06:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

RomaC. Referring to good-faith edits as "vandalism"

User notified

On July 19, RomaC (talk · contribs) referred to this edit as vandalism and posted an intimidating comment on the user’s page to that effect[28]. I would have let it slide but he did the same thing to me here. Back then, I was encouraged by two editors [29] [30] to file a complaint for incivility against RomaC but I was inclined not to. I regret not doing so because he keeps on engaging in the same behavior – that is, referring to edits not to his liking as vandalism. I am requesting that the editor be sanctioned for referring to good-faith edits that don’t comport with his view, as vandalism. I note that I was guilty of the same offense when I referred to section blanking as vandalism and that was partly the reason why I was blocked for one day (along with violating a 1R restriction)[31]. I ask that a sanction be imposed on RomaC. When editors are called “vandals” it fosters hostility and mistrust and is not conducive to collaborative editing.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The initial edit might be bordering on a POV edit. (It isn't because Hamas actually is classified as a terrorist organization by some countries, so if you say it that way, it defeinitely isn't POV). However, it isn't vandalism either way, it's a good faith edit. Roma may have confused POV with vandalism there. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

RomaC has too broad a definition of vandalism, that much is clear. However, a template warning is obviously not an "intimidating message". In fact, you went over to his talk page and did the same thing, rather than discussing what constitutes vandalism. Like before, I have to wonder why you run over to ANI when you aren't even involved in the dispute. Is Hope&Act3 not capable of dealing with this him/herself?--Atlan (talk) 17:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I most certainly am involved in the dispute because he did the exact same thing to me as noted above.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And incidentally, RomaC's response to me was to imply that I was a Sock and this is the second time he's done so.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A warning left to you on May 6 makes you involved in a warning left on a different user's talk page more than 2 months later? That's not involved. The 2 template warnings he left have nothing to do with each other. It can illustrate a pattern in his behavior (barely), but not your involvement.--Atlan (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently RomaC's response to you came on 25 June. Now I believe you're just cherry picking diffs to suit your case, as all the dates are so far apart.--Atlan (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This was his response [32] and that was today.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think vandalism warning template 1 refers to edits as unconstructive so as to avoid any issue about good faith, but because the editor was already previously warned for vandalism by cluebot, TW suggested template 2 for it and that directly refers to it as vandalism by default. Seems like a mistake if anything, which comes back to the point that I don't see why or how this should have been escalated here straight away, and I certainly don't see a need for sanctions. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

He has twice referred to me as a sock[33][34]and has twice referred to good-faith edits as vandalism--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

(e.c.) @Atlan: you're missing the discussion from where Jiujitsuguy learned of the abusive warning of RomaC to me and where I was saying that I meant to wait a few days before reporting him -I'm not the rushing to war type- and studying the proper procedure for that. Now I'm glad that he did learn about it so that now we all know that RomaC is in the habit of delivering this kind of aggressive messages I'm thus even more so ready to ask for sanctions against him (can that be considered as a proper formal request for sanctions?) it's so unpleasant to have to come to that, hopefully RomaC will accept to change his ways

@Jiujitsuguy: thanks for initiating the report and for letting me know, have all of you a good day, Hope&Act3! (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@Ncmvocalist: Are you refering to my encounter with Cluebot? that was a 'false positive' you can probably find my answer to it, where ever it is, I wish its owner wd think of some way of returning a decent word acknowledging the mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hope&Act3! (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Two and a half years after the big ArbCom case on Israel-Palestine articles, I don't see any signs that there has been any improvement in the area. We still have a set of editors that seem to always find themselves in the middle of some Israel-Palestine squabble (and then drag the dispute to one of our lovely noticeboards). Perhaps they should just be categorically ignored and left to fighting their trivial proxy wars. But, as these types of threads get increasingly tiresome, I think it's time for either another ArbCom case or serious implementations of the sanctions from the first one. -- tariqabjotu 18:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Jiujitsuguy, there's a difference between the accusation "you are a sock" and the question "have you edited with another account?". He was just asking, because he didn't understand why he received a warning from you for something on someone else's talk page. You basically accuse RomaC of assuming bad faith in this thread, but are doing the same thing yourself. Typical pot kettle black situation and nothing that requires any kind of sanctions.--Atlan (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: What's with the canvassing for this thread? You've send invitations to join this thread to Cptnono and No More Mr Nice Guy, who have absolutely nothing to do with this. Have you read WP:CANVASS?--Atlan (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not canvasing. The editor notified only the editors they mentioned in this thread. Please see above what Jiujitsuguy wrote: "I was encouraged by two editors [35] [36] to file a complaint for incivility against RomaC".--Mbz1 (talk) 20:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, 2 users who left a supporting message over 2 months ago, how kind to let them know he used 2 diffs by them in this thread. Use a diff and it's not canvassing, I'll remember that one.--Atlan (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• The edits RomaC reverted were not vandalism, and it might have been a good idea if Romac is to apologize to the editor. And with this I would mark it as resolved, if nobody minds. If somebody minds, please do remove the template. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

well thanks but I've been waiting for them until today and I'll gladly consider the incident resolved once I receive them, since RomaC has not given the slightest hint of such an intention I'm not optimistic, I'll put the template back if that comes to happen, thanks again for your opinion, Hope&Act3! (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my diff shows that I encouraged JJG to keep a eye out since RomaC was falling into some bad habits. Regardless, don't call edits vandalism when you simply don;t agree with them and find they are contentious. It isn't that hard.Cptnono (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Fred Barnes and Karl Rove

So we have the Daily Caller (a reliable source) quoting Spencer Ackerman (another relaible source) that we should call Rove and Barnes racists, yet editors keep edit warring against it. We need to prepare this 2010's Climategate. Once the focus turns to who leaked the emails, we don't want another mess for ARBCOM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.45.78 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

.... what? Give us some context if you want admin assistance. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe this diff explains it.[37] The IP wants you to stop people from reverting him when he changes the lead of the Fred Barnes article to: "Fred Barnes is a racist." Similar edits to Karl Rove.[38]. Personally I might recomend different admin action.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

That IP hasn't edited either article, but anyone who inserts "X is a racist" into any BLP lead needs an immediate clue-by-four. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the offending comments. If this persists, we can semi-protect the page. Fences&Windows 01:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• The daily caller a reliable source....Well there's my laugh for the day. Protonk (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

On going POV pushing, complete disregard for policy/rationality by User:AlexanderPar

I've been engaged in an editorial dispute for some weeks now with this editor. This dispute covers two articles, Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran and Stoning. I normally wouldn't bring a content dispute to ANI, but I've posted an RFC, I've messaged specific users, and I've posted at WP:Content noticeboard, but no one seems to care enough to take any action. The dispute is over whether or not the Iranian Penal Code includes stoning as a punishment for adultery. We have multiple reliable sources[39][40], including Al Jazeera[41] (thus establishing that this is not just Western propaganda) saying that it is indeed a part of Iranian law. We have no sources contradicting this. We do not even have a claim of sources contradicting this. The only argument against this is that Iranian law is based on Sharia, and Sharia includes stoning, which is still not a contradiction. I have explained this to Alexander, but he insists on reverting on the grounds of two mutually exclusive positions on the two articles:

• For Stoning, his "rationale" is that he is adhering to the "results of the RFC"[42] when I have explained that not only was there no consensus to the RFC, but the votes he is supposedly counting do not take either side on the matter and simply recommend topics for discussion.[43] I also restated what I believe to be a completely unambiguous objective application of policy, specifically that we mention what every reliable source says. His response was to demand that I respect the decision of the RFC[44], even after I specifically asked any editors who disagreed with me and agreed with him speak up, and received no response.[45]
• For Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran, his "rationale" is that there is "no consensus"[46] when there is another editor, Noleander who has specifically commented that we need to accept that stoning is part of the Iranian penal code and move on.[47]

In other words, when the votes are against him, he claims "there is no consensus" or "wikipedia is not a democracy"[48], and when he can convince himself the votes are in his favor, he demands that I "respect the results of the RFC". But the irrationality doesn't stop there.

This is just the most recent example. At the beginning of the dispute, as he literally accused me of censorship while he was deleting information cited to reliable sources.[49] In that same edit, he accuses me of "misrepresenting sources" when I was quoting them nearly verbatim (would have been verbatim if not for copyright laws). He has also, for the same edit of mine, accused me of "original research" for again, quoting the sources nearly word for word, while providing no sources to back any of his claims or edits.[50]

I've seen this editor behave the same way before, a couple years ago he and several other editors came to the page and edit warred over tags citing supposed unaddressed issues in the talk page's archives and refused to repeat what they were, or where they were. He only backed down when he was outnumbered by reverting editors Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran#Multiple_tags_2.

I know ideally Wikipedia should not be a WP:BATTLEGROUND, but I don't see where discussion can get me with an editor who is so shamelessly irrational. Can someone please take some action here? Bad faith prevails when good faith editors fail to act... AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

About a week ago, I made some changes to the stoning page, in order to make it more neutral and accurate in tone and style. The changes were reverted within seconds by AzureFury who has a history of disruption on Wikipedia. (He has over 10 blocks to his name) After a series of back and forth reverts, there was a RFC filled, and every editor who responded to the RFC, opposed AzureFury's desired changes.[51] Unhappy with the RFC result and the input of the neutral editors, AzureFury resorted to making personal attacks against the respondents to the RFC and myself, while reverting the page without a consensus, and canvassing users who had prior history with him, to support his position. When I noticed this, I left AzureFury a warning about canvassing partisan editors. He removed my warning as "vandalism". [52] He also tempered with my comments on article's talk page. [53] The two editors who had responded to the RFC, both were very upset with AzureFury's bullying and rude and uncivil behavior and left him a warning about it. [54] These editors later left the discussion, having been fed up with AzureFury's antics. [55] Having managed to bully away the neutral editors who commented on the RFC, AzureFury has continued to revert the page, trying to impose his version against consensus and in an aggressive manner since. Yesterday, I requested protection for these pages, so that the issues can be resolved through dispute resolution in due time. However, both AzureFury and I were blocked instead by an admin for edit-warring. AzureFury, though, re-reverted the very same page for which he was blocked [56], within minutes of expiration of his block.[57]. I have refused to give up and let AzureFury have his way , as a matter of principle that Wikipedia is a cooperative project, and one loud, rude and disruptive editor can not WP:OWN a page and bully away all those who oppose him. AlexanderPar (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Since no-one wants to touch this hot iron and FWIW, both pages are now on my watchlist, and I will report any subsequent edit-warring I observe immediately. Cheers! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And both blocked, again, this time for a week. They got off very lightly with their last twenty-four-hour blocks, and it's clear they do not intend to stop anytime soon. -- tariqabjotu 08:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia newbie, would it be fair of me to say that AzureFury seems to be generally a bit of a bully in terms of his editorial style? I've seen a few talk pages where he states something along the lines of "it's been decided, it's like this...". If Wikipedia *wants* to have individual editors pushing others away from "their" pages, it looks like it's getting just that...

In good faith but horrible in practice

I found this user talk page, User talk:Mrluke485, disturbing. Everything this guy does is PROD'd, AFD'd, or CSD'd. It doesn't seem like a vandal, but just someone who needs serious userfication. Is there something that can be done here? I have not notified the user of this discussion yet; maybe this is a one-and-done conversation here, and I'm in error. — Timneu22 · talk 12:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy should be adopted or mentored, or, at the very least, he needs someone who takes the time to explain our policies (especially, WP:N). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And some idea about creating wikilinks. Hard to believe that a page would look like this after a user has been here for four+ months. — Timneu22 · talk 12:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I've issued a wakeup call. Let's see whether anything comes of it. Uncle G (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

His reply seems a bit combative. — Timneu22 · talk 16:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to respond to this earlier but the power went out... Anyway, the reply in that diff is not very hopeful so I've followed up Uncle G's post. This could be a case of WP:COMPETENCE, but we'll see. EyeSerene^talk 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the wake up call by Uncle G, user has created 4 more articles of questionable notability, including one deleted by afd a few days ago. He's so prolific that I've edited his talk page as frequently as my own. Personally I think that after this amount of time and this many warnings (58 kb page, virtual all to do with deletion), a user should have gotten the message by now. Christopher Connor (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reminds me of the issue with User:Boleyn. Could we fashion some kind of editing restriction or mentorship? Require that his creations go through WP:AFC? Fences&Windows 01:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As this topic seems like it may keep going I have notified the user in question. Mauler90 _talk 03:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mauler90. I've now had a short but civil exchange on my talk page and I'm slightly more hopeful that something like Fences and windows' suggestion might be worth trying. I've suggested they develop articles in a sandbox and get them looked at before going into mainspace. EyeSerene^talk 12:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

inaccuracies in article Malaysia#Etymology

Requesting intervention on going POV, I've been engaged in an editorial dispute for this article because simply upholding wikipedia's rules of accuracy, Is there someone will check this ? 125.163.38.239 (talk) 07:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the discussion was had on the talkpage. Go there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the talk page is ongoing now.  Chzz  ►  14:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Rapid block of User:Kyp ltd needed

User:Kyp ltd is creating a large number of articles on companies in South Korea; most or all of them appear to be speedy deletable under G11. S/he's created more than 20 in the past 30 minutes. I think we may want to at least temporarily block this person to get them to pay attention and have a look at WP:N. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment User has not created a new page in about 15 minutes. Also fixed the user links in the title. Mauler90 _talk 05:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd put my finger on http://www.kyp.com/home.aspx -- a marketing firm, or some other stunt like that... Reported at WP:UAA Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

All articles created have been mass deleted. I will monitor for recreation of the articles without modification. User has not been blocked. --mboverload@ 06:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:UAA seems to have a small backlog at the moment, will probably be blocked at that point. Mauler90 _talk 06:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It is fairly clear that this account/company's presence on Wikipedia is solely for promotion and hence blocked as such. –MuZemike 06:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Intent appears to be irrelevant per WP:CORPNAME, as IMHO it should be, though this is under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Username policy. – ukexpat (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Epic web browser

This page has been created multiple times under different names, and deleted each time: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epic (web browser) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epic browser and now it exists again: Epic(Web Browser). Maybe this browser is in fact notable, but no one has shown that it is. Can we do something here? I'd like to get one copy of the page userfied somewhere and let someone work on it. I'm not sure if these are all WP:SOCKs but creating the same page repeatedly is getting old. Not sure exactly what to do. — Timneu22 · talk 16:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've G4-ed it on the grounds that the AfD was quite recent. Earlier today, in fact. Timneu22, give me a second or two and I'll userfy it for you. It looks like it could be notable, just isn't right now. TFOWR 17:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. About userfying... Mmmm. On whose userpage (I don't want it!)? — Timneu22 · talk 17:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Too late! User:Timneu22/Epic web browser - sorry! I did note in my edit summary that you weren't the author... TFOWR 17:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You jerk! Haha... I just moved it to that guy's page. No prob. — Timneu22 · talk 17:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If by "jerk" you mean "idiot who can't read"... guilty as charged! Thanks for tidying up after me... ;-) TFOWR 17:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I like that idea actually, next time I decline a speedy tag I might conspicuously userfy it to the person who tagged it... ;) ~ mazca ^talk 17:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Wooblz!

Wooblz! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a long history of uploading coprighted images and oversize fair use images. This was brought here before [58] and here we are again with a deleted derivative work violation, an (oversized) modified album cover as an infobox image without any rationale, and uploading another oversized album cover over a more reasonably sized one [59]. I could link every warning this user has been given, but it would only be repetive, it's all in their talk page history and they have been given more than enough warnings. Given that the last warnings were ignored, I request than an admin use a technical measure to prevent them from continuing to upload copyright violations.--Terrillja _talk 01:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Here (admins only) is a list of his delete edits to filespace. I haven't taken a look at his talk page or any of the uploads in detail yet so I'm not yet corroborating the above. I'll poke around and see what might be needed. Protonk (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• ok. A cursory look at the deleted images in his uploads shows most of them are in the past (i.e. earlier than April of this year). I won't disagree with the statement that he consistently uploads files larger than our policy allows even when smaller versions have been added to a file page and he has been asked not to do so. However I have a strong opinion that our file size guidance is woefully overbroad. There is no reason why we shouldn't have a 640x480 px image of an album cover as an image. Our file isn't competing with any intended use for the album cover--the commercial purpose of the album cover is to sell albums, not to sell itself. If we had a high-rez version of Tennis Girl, that would be inappropriate, as we would be competing with the expected commercial use for the non-free content. As it stands I'm willing to be pretty lenient when dealing with a user who uploads files with the expectation that they not look like shit. He has also been mentioned before on ANI, by you actually. I'm going back to check his talk page history now. If he's been warned using actual english (and not bot/template spam) I might suggest looking into a final warning. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Final warned here and here, and warned about oversized images here (by an admin). At some point if users keep ignoring warnings, there has to be some consequence. I don't think that 600x600 is a reasonable file size, given that they will have to be rescaled to fit in an infobox and are clearly still of reusable commercial quality.--Terrillja _talk 04:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Resuable for what? Again, the album cover is art, someone paid for it to be commissioned and thought long and hard about the design (not usually...but I digress), but its purpose isn't to sell album covers. A 40MB .tiff image would obviously be inappropriate for us to host, but having an image size such that the resulting scaled image doesn't look like garbage should factor in to our decision making. And scaling isn't just cropping. If the original image is small, the density on the resulting page will be small as well. And I saw your warning. I mean has anyone actually taken the time to explain specifically what is wrong with an image, why and what our reasoning behind the rules are? As though this user was a human? Protonk (talk) 04:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's not discuss the ins and outs of image policy here. This user's practices concerning images are clearly not in line with our guidelines. The fact that templates were used doesn't mean they can be ignored. I have sent a personal message to this user in the past and it was seemingly ignored. Sfan00 IMG left a personal message about copyright requirements here, but according to this he was still uploading problem images. As per the previous ANI post about this user he was warned for copy paste moves, which he recently did again with Ian Watkins (Lostprophets). I warned him for this here +personal message. I don't get the recent fuss people are making about users being able to get away ignoring with warnings just because a template was used. Rehevkor ✉ 17:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• It isn't the contours of policy which are important. I'm simply reporting my disinclination to block or support a block for violations of a policy which I believe to be overbroad and asinine. As for the demand for non-templated warnings, ask yourself why we don't generally tolerate templating established users? Then ask how many of those reasons apply also to any user. I use my fair share of templates and I understand the NPP/RCP volunteers have to work through a tremendous volume of edits, but template messages are little more than background noise at best for the recipient. At worst they confuse or infuriate users and serve us, the established users doing the templating, largely as wickets which must be passed through before an account may be blocked for misbehavior. All that said, the last naughty thing this user has done was to upload a file larger than what one editor felt NFCC 3.a allows (and the same editor resized the file so it was smaller than the default displayed size in {{Infobox single}}). Should the user continue to upload non-free content without appropriate fair use rationales etc. then I can fully accept a recommendation that they be blocked in order to prevent future mess. But right now I can't support a decision to undertake some "technical measure" to prevent the user from editing. Protonk (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree a block probably isn't the most productive move at this point. But his problematic editing should be noted, and the user encouraged to engage in discussion and/or address these issues. I see the editor was informed of this discussion, but has not yet chimed in. In fact his edits outside of file and article space are near non existent. Rehevkor ✉ 00:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be all for discussion, but I can't find anywhere that the editor has ever tried to discuss anything whatsoever. They just blank their talkpage to remove all the warnings that they get on a regular basis and go on doing the same thing. If I thought that they would benefit from discussion, I'd be all for it, but they have ignored every request of mine for discussion about their edits, nonsensical redirects, etc. At some point, one has to question if having a user here is a net benefit or loss. Oversize pictures, that is somewhat subjective, but copyvios, not providing sources, derivative work violations, they are pretty cut and dried. Trying to have a discussion with someone who seems unwilling to talk seems to be useless given that editors have tried to do so in the past and the behavior has clearly not changed at all. We block long term vandals who have sporadic but repetitive vandalism, I don't see how image problems and pagemove issues are any different. --Terrillja _talk 01:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that the user is still active and has ignored the request to come here and explain himself, is any action going to be taken or are we just going to sit on our hands and let it slide?--Terrillja _talk 19:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

International_Federation_of_Technical_Analysts

Received OTRS for it. Before restoring could someone make sure though that it's NPOV enough to keep it?--DieBuche (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is largely a copyvio of http://www.ifta.org/ along with the "history" and "mission" subpages there and it was deleted as such. —DoRD (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But OTRS means they received permission to use it under a CC compatible license. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Even when you have permission to use material found on another website, you still can't just copy and paste the contents of that site to make a Wikipedia article. It's not a copyvio, but it's still plagiarism. And it's a crummy, lazy excuse for article writing. Also, you need something besides the fact that they have a site to establish notability. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually you can - if OTRS permission has been received to release the material under a compatible license we can use it. However the text still has to meet our core principles and text written by the organisation itself is likely to be seriously POV. Exxolon (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

ticket:2010062010000904 is a proper permission from them, they release the text into Public Domain, so feel free to either restore or not, i personally don't really care--DieBuche (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:PSI12 legal threat

Resolved

 – 17:58, July 22, 2010 Georgewilliamherbert blocked PSI12 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite. Mauler90 _talk 01:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The user mentioned above made a direct legal threat towards me on my talk page: "To avoid confrontation within a legal realm, please refrain from reverting to the incorrect biography". This is in regards to a conflict of interest on the Angela McGlowan article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barts1a (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User was blocked indefinitely. No further action necessary. Mauler90 _talk 01:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

There's now an IP reverting to the save version [60] -- ۩ Mask 04:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked for a week. Please flag if there are any more. Until PSI12 responds to the legal threat block on his talk page, he cannot edit otherwise... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor making sterile reverts in a disruptive manner

Unresolved

 – Article full-protected for 3 days.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Carthage44 (talk · contribs) seems to think he owns the article Wisconsin Badgers football. I have attempted to add a notable former Badgers football player (who holds a team record) to a list of notable players at that article, with Carthage44 repeatedly reverting me with dubious edit summaries. I attempted to initiate a discussion on the talk page, with the result being Carthage44 making the claim that his particular record "isn't important" and that the player isn't notable because "ask any real fan as I am" [61]. I was considering asking for a third-opinon when another editor chimed in, basically agreeing with my reasoning [62], and asking Carthage44 to explain his criteria for this list. Carthage44 ignored this request, has not provided any such rationale, had stopped communicating and simply reverted my inclusion again, parroting one of my own edit summaries [63] in a mocking manner. I have asked Carthage44 repeatedly to explain rationally why this former player shouldn't be included, both at the talk page and in my edit summaries, and he hasn't been able to give me or anyone else a single objective reason. Instead, he keeps saying he is a "real fan" and that the person I'm adding simply "Isn't notable" (which isn't the case). As such, it appears Carthage44 is violating WP:OWN and has no real reasoning or logical criteria for this unreferenced list except that he likes it the way it is and seems determined to keep reverting it to his preferred version. Note: I will be away from the computer for a couple hours. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that the User has had edit war notices addressed to them by several users, and Burpleson has notified them of this ANI discussion, and their response is to remove the notices and continue to edit war without discussion. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Bryan Jurewicz certainly seems notable enough. Though no US football expert be I. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 05:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I'm particularly surprised to find Carthage44 here again. He definitely doesn't play well with others, and isn't fond of using talk pages either. AniMate 06:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the gist of my complaint here. If Carthage could present some actual coherent reason to not include this person in this list I would be fine with it. As of now he seems totally unwilling to discuss it and is continuing to edit war (causing the article to be protected). As more people come to the talk page and seem to agree with me, he seems to become more obstinate. I'm not complaining about actual content, but the behavior being displayed in this dispute. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban and rangeblock of abusive user

User:Yattum who has been indefinitely blocked is an abusive troll who has consistently been reverting my edits. He has threatened to take legal action against me as I have been reverting his anonymous edits (after his indefinite block). In addition, he has wiki-stalked me and has engaged in extremely offensive personal attacks such as this. He has then posted defamatory material on numerous user pages such as this, this and this. In addition, a sockpuppet of his launched a frivolous SPI investigation into me. As such, given that this user is extremely abusive, I was wondering if a) the community would consider a ban against the user and b) a rangeblock to prevent further account creation and disruption. Vedant (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ban requests should be taken to WP:AN. As for a rangeblock, you're going to want to contact a Checkuser to see if one is even viable - if Yattum's using a large range (generally anything bigger than a /20) or abusing open proxies, rangeblocks won't be practicable. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 07:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

His range should be 88.106.0.0/16 which is ofcourse 2^16 (or 65,536) values. If preferrable, I can move this entire discussion to WP:AN or just leave this here and create a separate thread at WP:AN. Vedant (talk) 07:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's fine for the rangeblock discussion, but that range is too big and too busy to be blocking for long enough to be useful. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The most I could narrow it down to was 88.106.64.0/18 per this. That will still represent $2^{14}$ or 16,384 separate values though the range contribution tool reveals that most of those edits are made by the sockmaster. Vedant (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I just rangeblocked the /16 for a week; if someone is confident that narrowing to the /18 is more appropriate, please feel free to revise the block accordingly. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ricky81682 & sock (again)

Resolved

 – ip was banned thx --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

68.171.235.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding the sock tag to User:Ricky81682's talk page - again :) I assume it is the same person. I can't rememeber what the outcome of that discussion was but he also edited WP:SOCK to "support" the tagging ;) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 16:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And I thought nobody cared! Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Suspiciously like a banned user

Currently

[64] [65] [66]

Classic Jeff Merkey.

History [67] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Observant1234 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And what is your main account?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty curious myself... Jmlk17 21:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or have we been getting an abundance of these suspicious "here are edits from a banned user" lately? There must be a convention going on where these guys meet to make us waste time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just you, I've noticed them as well. Although for the moment, I can't remember who it was.. some person that was soliciting sex or something.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

user is harrassing me in afd discussion.

dear sirs, some person is constantly putting a SPA tag on my account signature when I participate in a discussion. I keep removing it and he keeps putting it back on knowing that single purpose accounts have no official policy. The-magicJack (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The SPA tag seems eminently justifiable, according to your contribution history. Leave it there, and other editors will make their own judgements. See WP:SPA. There is no justification for an administrator to take any action against either of the editors who identified you as an SPA, but they might decide to take action on your edit-warring. David Biddulph (talk) 13:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) There is nothing harassing about it. You meet the definition of a "single purpose account". Tagging you as such is in keeping with accepted AfD practices. I would suggest simply leaving it in place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You are a SPA, the tag describes that to anyone reading the AFD. I am more interested in why you removed the AFD tag from the article and tried to mark it as "kept" when you know this is not the case. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)But so far, your only edits have been to keep the Transformice article up. You are a SPA. The tag is not harassment, it there because consensus in an AfD is not a matter of voting, but discussion. In fact, you've been disrupting the AfD, multiple times, even using outright false edit summeries. Looks like you shot yourself in the foot, here. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are, I think, two issues here:

1. Adding the {{SPA}} tag is entirely reasonable, and The-magicJack should just ignore it (i.e. do not remove it). This essay has more details. While it is just an essay, it does reflect a widespread practice at AfDs. Of particular relevance is this paragraph: The SPA tag may be used to visually highlight that a participant in a multi-user discussion has made few or no other types of contribution. However a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight regardless of any tag.
2. The second issue is how we, as a community, treat new editors in general, and SPAs in particular. I'd prefer to see new editors welcomed, and for experienced editors to avoid using sterile templates to explain norms and policies. I'll have a (non-templated!) chat with the other editor (Andyjsmith (talk · contribs)). Note that I'm not saying that Andyjsmith has done anything wrong; merely that I believe that there may be better ways to handle situations like this.

TFOWR 13:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a discussion is needed with Andy, consdering The-magicJack seems to have made his first edit by deprodding the article, and before he was ever tagged as an SPA, he removed the AfD notice[68], removed the AfD closed template and falsely claimed it was closed as "speedy keep"[69], and removed it from the AfD page for the day[70] - all indications to me that he is neither new nor acting in good faith. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As a note, he has again removed the tag (twice)[71] and has now violated WP:3RR; he has also declared he will remake the article if it is deleted[72] and to "expect people to be coming in here to save this article " to [73] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Too late ;-) My view is that - obviously - The-magicJack should not remove the SPA tag, and - obviously - they should not recreate an article deleted as a result of an AfD (heck, I'll block 'em myself if they try that nonsense). However, welcoming, personalised notes are often more effective in these matters. No criticism of Andy, and I've stressed that he's done nothing wrong. TFOWR 13:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Would anyone here think it would be against WP:AGF if I filed a SPI? We've really only got three editors working for the Transformice article, one is clearly the IP of the article creator, and those two accounts seemed to have quit now that The-magicJack is around. All three are pretty hostile to the idea of this article being deleted and show signs of WP:OWN. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, meanwhile Transforsock has been reported to ANI for blocking as a clearly vandalism only account. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not at all. Unless you can point me towards compelling evidence of WP:DUCKery, in which case I'll save SPI the bother by performing a few DUCK-blocks... TFOWR 13:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Shortly after The-magicJack's said statement, the AfD and article were vandalized[74][75] under the heading of "Pickbothmanlol" by Transforsock (talk · contribs) -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 13:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Ack, everything's moving too fast, already filed. Main thing that was suspicious to me was the dates Leonardo777 started editing and 99.231.201.18 started, then 99.231.201.18 quit and The-magicJack took up. 99.231.201.18 and The-magicJack show signs of WP:OWN, which is something more you'd expect from Leonardo777. Maybe not a quack, but something smells like poultry. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What is SPI? The-magicJack (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you Leonardo777? Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI=sockpuppet investigation. Basically, it's a little unusual for a brand spankin new account to first remove a prod tag, then go to an AFD, or even know what the word "tag" means. Have you ever had another account here, Jack? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

... and the "relist" tag seems a bit obscure for a newbie, too. David Biddulph (talk) 14:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 14:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would disagree with TFOWR that "there may be better ways to handle situations like this". The-magicJack's first edit was questionable - "Rejected PROD due to established academic nobility" - but since the prod couldn't then be reinstated an AfD was the only course of action, and almost every one of The-magicJack's edits from that point on has been deliberately disruptive. The paraphernalia of prods, AfDs, SPA tags and so on has been set up to maintain a reasoned and polite process of examining poor quality articles, and there's an escalating series of user warnings to make sure that people don't get bitten. Frankly, given the obvious competence of The-magicJack's editing it's clear he's not a newbie and knows the rules full well (for example altering the AfD log, and raising this discussion at ANI). Under the circumstances he's been handled in a civilised manner by myself and everyone else - nothing much more than "tut tut my dear chap!" andy (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think somebody here (Yeah, I know who) is trying to have some fun in trying to frame The-magicJack. I would most welcome someone who is a CheckUserer to run a check on Transforsock and NGxTombstone (talk · contribs) and see what comes up. –MuZemike 15:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't bother including Transforsock in the SPI I filed, behavior isn't like the others. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Anyone who calls AFD "VfD" has been around here since at least 2005, when VFD became AFD. You might want to take note of User:Willpower101/Transformice, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I remember VfD. I remember BJAODN. I remember Esperanza. I remember WP:AMA and the related hullaballoo. I remember many things... and yet I'm just a humble random anon... 80.135.29.44 (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

And once again WP:AGF gets shoved back up where the sun don't shine :( –MuZemike 04:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Frokonti

Resolved

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

This account was blocked in 2005 for vandalism. I'm not an admin and therefore don't have access to deleted contributions, but judging from the talk page notice it appears that this account was used today to create an attack page at User:Frokonti ([76]). I first reported this at AIV but my report was removed by the bot since the account is already blocked. Please check the block settings on this account. Thanks. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. The offensive content has been around since 2007, but was just recently noticed, apparently. Jclemens (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I realized that possibility shortly after I posted. Thanks for confirming! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I stumbled across that user page and found it inappropriate, so I tagged it for speedy deletion even though it was quite old. Sorry for causing any confusion. Peacock (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Suspicious behavior at Leland Yee again

Leland Yee's article has had COI issues going on for a long time. I noted this at COIN here but essentially two "new" editors, User:Hookahsmoker and User:Salerachel, are just beyond suspicious to me. They have been adding very sophisticated accomplishments and awards sections [77][78], removing controversies[79], with Hookahsmoker's first edits being to keep a cleaner version of the article for his user page [where the "new" awards language came from] (which got some help). I want to block those two until I get some explanation (as I've worn out any good-faith as what's going on) but I'm too involved to want to get into it. At the very least, can I get some more experienced eyes to keep watch on a seriously problematic politician's article? If people think semi-protection is the solution, it wasn't a long-term answer in March 2009 when last tried. Also, please, someone else inform them, I'm tired of watching that article getting "cleaned" up every few months and I probably won't be nice about the notice. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, note that most of the additions are, if not direct copy-and-pastes, but substantially similar with, language at Yee's official website. Again, AGF is waning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Both users notified [80] [81]. Mauler90 _talk 03:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Didn't do much good at the COIN board either. Instead, we got some more socks try to mess with the actual notices. If there's no response from either of them, I'm going to remove all the language as copyright violations (or just as terribly POV nonsense) and really start being drastic on the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

BWAA. Nobody cares! This will truly be a fun campaign season. I can't wait to work on the GOP candidates' pages! Yee's got some opinions on them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.172.216.135 (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Er. You want to block new editor coz you don't like them? WP:BITE, WP:AGF. Hookahsmoker removed some frankly ridiculous language in one of their edits: "In 2008, in a surprising twist of events...". You should be thanking them for removing POV editorialising. How about talking to editors before opening noticeboard threads? There's no recent talk page comments either. Come on, you know how Wikipedia works. Fences&Windows 01:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. All we're doing is removing all the controversies and replacing the article with his website. Nothing wrong with that. You've been trying to stop us for years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.134.112.123 (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

IP trolling isn't helping. Fences&Windows 18:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the article. Been like this for years. My good faith tends to wane when an editor's first edit is to create a cleaned-up version of the article on their user page, including a brand-new section word-for-word from the politician's personal website. Maybe I'm crazy but given that every negative section has just been removed, there's an odd coincidence of IP users removing negative information and "new" users adding in positive stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh, screw it, I don't care anymore. If IP editors are going to keep removing negative information, "new" editors are going to keep on adding in positive information (directly from the politician's website, as they've been doing since 2006) with concrete evidence at one point it came from his offices, and nobody ever, ever responds to any questions, let them have the article. I think we're up to 3 COIN discussions, at least that many ANI discussions and not one word from a single one of those editors short of idiotic bragging nonsense like that (or threats like this). It's not like I'm even from that area nor care about Senator Yee. Off my watchlist now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ignore this. I'll drop it. The editor deserves good faith from me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You say I've made sophisticated edits like its a bad thing. None of the edits to Yee's actual wiki have been in any way biased. Stop harassing me with these requests, noticeboards. I don't know or care who these IP editors are. I am in no way affiliated with them. Please notify me when I actually violate wikipedia policy. Enough of these suspicious "thought" crime, conspiracy theories. Thanks. User:Hookahsmoker (talk) 09:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User asks for it, look for SOCKs?

I'd have to think that this user is a sock of someone else, and created this account out of anger (see the one page created). Is there a way to check if this person is a sock, and to block the puppet master? Is it worth it? — Timneu22 · talk 18:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You would want to file and SPI or request a Checkuser. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Though, that name appears to be a WP:UAA violation as well. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, but can I do a sock puppet investigation if I don't know any other users? Is that what checkuser is for? And UAA already handled. — Timneu22 · talk 18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User has already been banned, though I have to confess the article title cracked me up. Mauler90 _talk 18:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the kinds of stuff you run across looking at the NewPages. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

But my question is not about this user as much as another user; surely it seems this user was pissed, probably during a dispute as another user. Shouldn't the real user be punished? How can two users be correlated? — Timneu22 · talk 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You would either have to go to SPI or request a CU just like Hazardous Matt said; but my guess is the real user will probably get himself blocked pretty quickly anyway if this is the way he acts. Heck he may have already been blocked, that might be what this was about! Mauler90 _talk 19:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser is not for fishing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Besides...  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Checkuser#"Fishing". This is not fishing. On SPI we call this a sleeper check. I checked and I found some other accounts that I've now blocked. --Deskana (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Gah, should check to see what really happened instead of looking at what others say... NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going off what anyone else said, Desk; the original report looked like a fishing expedition.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible spam / malware

I received a message from an IP on my talk page alerting me to another IP adding possible malware links. I haven't followed up on those links for that reason. The IP that first contacted me has a few warnings in the history (and a few recent issues, discussed on my talk page), but seems legitimate. The suspect IP is User:24.218.178.242 and the entire edit history since 2008 appears to be radio station (maybe TV) edits. The recent edits are suspicious to say the least. Exercise caution when reviewing (i.e. from a secure linux box)--the IP has suggested that these links may have viruses. Shadowjams (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Out of an abundance of caution I've rolledback all of those edits, largely because they appear implausibly legitimate. Would someone with expertise and caution (probably not a windows machine or a windows browser allowing scripts) please review those domain links, and if they're illegitimate, please forward them to the blacklist. In addition, someone should probably review the remainder of those edits to make sure there aren't any that remain. There were a few that had been edited since this IP, and the IP had some edits to similar articles dating prior to this issue. Shadowjams (talk) 08:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The edits appear to be good faith to me, though I am not an expert and would welcome a 2nd/3rd/4th opinion. The streaming weblinks trigger an automatic download of a PLS (file format) file, which in the four cases I checked appeared benign. It is possible that just the download triggered an AV program; perhaps the IP can point us to the specific diff? The IP has done other edits that appear clearly in good faith as well, though I understand that the malware link issue calls for an abundance of caution. VQuakr (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding largely to the IP, who I will acknowledge has some warnings (apparently an aol IP; possibly a more established editor on a temp IP; see my talk for the full discussion). I've had no interaction with the reporting IP. That said, I find it highly curious the suspect IP has done only radio/tv station edits, and the recent storm of IP edits that all serve to add a link to a single domain. PLS file formats are playlist files. I'm not sure any of those are appropriate on wiki. PLS files have also been an attack vector for some media players. I'm not willing to call any particular download edits like this malicious without having examined them, but out of caution I think it's appropriate to question this kind of massive (well over 50) changes like this without any explanation. I think the IP that contacted me originally raised a good point. Shadowjams (talk) 09:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Note that the domain being added is hardly an under-the-table operation. I think diligence and caution are absolutely prudent, but the possible alienation of a good faith editor should be considered as well. As for the general question of whether there is any reason to directly link to .pls files from Wiki, I simply have no idea if there has been any discussion on the topic before. VQuakr (talk) 09:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point–I agree with you. I don't have the resources available right now to review those files and I think that caution is probably best for now. I have no problem with someone undoing my edits if everything checks out. I replied to the other IP at that help link and notified them of this ANI. Hopefully others will comment. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not know that .pls links could contain Malware. I should view this as a valuable piece of information to help keep my PC clean. YES, I am very much into Radio and broadcasting, as you can tell that the history does indicate much editing of articles. But it does not seem like I am very well liked in the Wikipedia community so I guess I should refrain from ever editing any pages anymore. Perhaps I just lack control in my life so when I found a website that allowed me to edit things around I just went all crazy and did a lot of editing. I can take a hint very well and it seems as though security is escorting me out, so to speak. I will continue to consult Wikipedia heavily for information on things but I guess editing things is not my job. Especially when I heard that I might have introduced Malware into some pages, I figured that it was time to pull the plug. Just please don't tell me that everything I had ever done in Wikipedia was bad because that would hurt my feelings. Of course, I am not angry. I am more shocked than anything and I was quite sad when I read about the lack of legitimacy in my updating and sort of embarrassed when I noticed that you could track my behavior in my history of editing of pages. I was also not happy when I heard about that Malware stuff. That's pretty uncool. Well, you continue to have a nice day and carry on, despite all that damage and destruction I have caused. I know you wish I never showed up like that bat out of hell making a mess of things but none of us knew how out of hand things would get, nor did I ever have an understanding of what Wikipedia is all about. I will still continue to consult Wikipedia a lot. I guess if I ever tried editing anything anymore in Wikipedia, I would be sorry but I don't know what I would do without the website whenever I want to learn about things. Hopefully, there's no way I could be barred from being able to even access the website. I sound angry but I am just very bad at expressing myself appropriately. I am more shocked and embarrassed than anything else and I guess I am a bit sad, as my feelings are being hurt and I tend to take things personally a lot. I sure hope those Malware issues are not anything serious. If they are, I guess I am in an awful lot of trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.178.242 (talk) 09:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

now, it could be that my avg reconized that link as malware due to the link doing an automatic dl. if it is not malware that would be cool. but i do know or at least it was policy not to have links that were auto dl. you are right on one respect about me. years ago i was an rc patroller. 63.3.3.2 (talk) 09:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody please block IP vandal

Resolved

 – blocked already

[82] [83] Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Citadel Broadcasting Websites and Malware

I have been visiting the websites of various radio stations that are owned by Citadel Broadcasting and I have noticed a great deal of pop-up windows that my latest version of Norton Antivirus has been working feverishly to close up. Although it seems as though this Malware issue is a pervasive issue for all the Citadel Broadcasting radio station websites, this problem persists all throughout their websites and seems to intensify with the Listen Live links. I was unaware that .pls files could be infected and thought that direct linking to the Listen Live feeds (i.e. the direct .pls links) could bypass any Malware issues. Meanwhile, I will simply inform Wikipedia that Citadel Broadcasting has, indeed, rolled out a brand new streaming plan and all their stations that have been streaming online have changed their Listen Live links. I will leave it up to Wikipedia users who are somewhat more talented than myself to insert the updates to the Listen Live links. Information on all the stations can be found at this webpage. The Listen Live links should all look similar to this Listen Live link that I have taken from the website of WXLO. But there are no guarantees that these Listen Live links (or anything that is on any of the websites for any of the Citadel Broadcasting radio stations, for that matter) are not infected with Malware. I stopped trusting the websites from this company. If you feel I am being too paranoid, then you are probably right. The threat of Malware on a PC could could make anyone over-cautious, I guess. 24.218.178.242 (talk) 15:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

List of bhangra bands

Can someone take a look at List of bhangra bands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as well as the user Noxiousnews (talk · contribs)?

The user has been repeatedly reverting to the version they prefer while claiming "the information is being sourced from cassette covers and bands themselves", has not engaged in a discussion that was started at Talk:List of bhangra bands#uncited information and redlinks, and has continued without discussion beyond a fourth warning on their user talk page.

Both Gogo Dodo (talk · contribs) and myself have been involved with the user and the article. As Noxiousnews is refusing to engage in discussion on the dispute despite multiple warnings, I was tempted to block the user - but chose not to do so as I'm involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Had a look at it, seems pretty clearly disruptive. I've blocked for 3 days. Shimeru 17:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian SPA's Team-warring on various articles

I am getting pretty frustrated of accounts whose contribs logs show 90% Jesus-promoting edits tag-teaming on Jesus-related articles. For example: [84]. ReaverFlash and Ari89 are aggressive to the point of ridiculousness in pushing religious slant. The majority of sources they add are Christian theologians and Evangelicals. They revert every attempt to identify some of these sources to the reader. They mass-delete referenced text that doesn't promote their view. They are not their to build to consensus , and they will revert every edit I make. They will canvass from other articles [85], and they will (probably) follow me around to other articles to revert me there. (I say "probably" because it is very plausible that they just have every single Jesus article in their watchlist). So what, exactly, are editors supposed to do against tag-team editing and the most fervent bias known to Man? Please do not tell me it is possible to build consensus that the existence of a real Jesus is controversial with a group of Evangelical Christian editors. Of course, I supposed what's really going to happen is that this plea for help is going to be ignored, I am going to be unable to edit the article, and I am going to get fed up and blocked again. Thanks for the help. Noloop (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the two editors of this discussion. Basket of Puppies 06:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to discussing proposed changes in the talk page. Both me and noloop, as well as Ari, among others, have discussed this on the talk page. Noloop's assumption that I and other editors are POV pushers makes collaboration extremely difficult: [86] His characterization of sources as propoganda is also problematic: [87] especially since I'm fairly sure E.P. Sanders is Jewish, and not Christian per his edit. Flash 06:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's quite difficult to discuss the articles with someone who hostilely labels everyone else as Christian fundamentalists and "a group of Evangelical Christian editors". That kind of propaganda and argumentum ad hominem will accomplish nothing. But I guess that's the kind of tactics you resort to, when all other arguments have dried up. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 07:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that for a week all editors editing in this area edit only in the Israel-Palestinian area, and vice versa. And if that goes well, we extend the experiment.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what Rose and RF said about Noloop's accusations of Christian POV pushing. Here's an example, where Noloop implies that Christian scholars can't be trusted to be unbiased, and therefore must be "outed" in any Wiki article having anything to do with Jesus. I provided a huge amount of quotes correcting his misunderstanding, but I guess he missed it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Shit. This likes more of this "Jesus didn't exist" tinfoilhat POV-pushing. I've a research background in Biblical studies (I don't edit articles because of the nutters who do) - I studied with very liberal scholarship and indeed atheists. None of them, no textbook, no serious academic monograph, even engages with this nonsense. Seven years of my studies and it was never mentioned once - yet every Jesus article on Wikipedia wants to present it as a valid and notable view. It's a bit like insisting we put "alleged" before each mention of the Moon Landings, and list the conspiracy nutters along with scientists and historians of NASA. This is a minor and unscientific theory pushed by hard atheists with no scholarly credentials, or peer review whatsoever - it probably merits its own article (since we have articles on most quack theories here) and maybe perhaps the odd "see also" on articles on the Historical Jesus (although even that's pushing it). This is the type of silliness that chases serious editors (like me) a million miles away from contributing to such articles. Anyone pushing this should not be editing this field. --Scott Mac 10:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It has its own article: Christ myth theory. Anthony (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Which sums it up nicely: "the BBC's Today programme once asked N. T. Wright if he would appear on-air to debate Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy concerning the thesis of their book The Jesus Mysteries. Wright, whom Newsweek once deemed "perhaps the world's leading New Testament scholar",[125] declined, saying that "this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese."--Scott Mac 11:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It would help the credibility of these articles if editors could cite, wherever possible (and it usually is with historical Jesus stuff), sources who are historians rather than biblical scholars, and avoid priests and known Christians. Not that there is anything wrong with Christian historians . But if the same point can be made using known atheist or even CMT proponents, well, we wouldn't be here now. And we won't be back here every month until someone finds the video of the sermon on the mount. Anthony (talk) 11:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's another quote that shows how silly the CMT is:

What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this. (Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007)

And, Anthony, your "video" comment had me ROFLMAO!!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the claim/theory that Jesus, historically, never existed is not worth much credit in an article about the historical figure :) unless of course it can be backed up... which it can't. On the other hand, as I commented on the article talk page, it seems logical to include references to the consensus from a broad range of scholars, just to avoid such headaches :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 11:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Bill the Cat 7: Your quote by a professor who is convinced the historical Jesus existed does not show that CMT is silly. It mainly shows there is an ongoing debate in which both sides have serious problems in accepting each others arguments on face value. Naming it silly based on this one interview would actually support the feeling of Noloop that (s)he is fighting an uphill battle against editors who simply discredit any sources that do not align with their belief..

@Tmorton166, of course the problem with finding support for the non-existence of things is that it is impossible to find (see e.g. Russell's teapot. The Christ Myth people do not look for backing of their claim of non-existence, but take the position that non-existence should be default unless proven otherwise. With that start they scrutinise proof of Christs existence. As such their efforts are extremely valuable, because if they succeed in eliminating all current evidence of existence this will prompt believers in the existence of Christ to look for newer and better evidence; and if they find arguments they cannot disprove this will strengthen the case for a historical Jesus very much. Again naming this as silly or irrelevant may give the view of a POV. Let's keep this discussion on the facts. Arnoutf (talk) 11:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf, I just dumped a whole bunch of quotes (by both Christians and atheists) on your talk page that clearly demonstrate that the CMT is not simply rejected, it is rejected with contempt by essentially all of academia. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding that only a few Christian scholars are the only scholars who reject the CMT. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Arnoutf, the "Christ Myth" theory is separate, if related, to an article discussing historical research/evidence into christ. My last girlfriend was a religious history student so I read pretty extensively on these topics; there is a pretty broad consensus that a historical figure Jesus exists (dispute over who he was and what he did is also broad :)) amongst the relevant scholars. I'm simply arguing that it cannot hurt to comprehensively source the fact that there is consensus so that the casual reader is able to see it does exist (rather than rely on a single source). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

let's not overdo this, my main point is that calling some POV "silly" is not going to help cool down the debate . I am aware that at the moment the vast majority of scholars are convinced of a historical Jesus, and that attention to Christ myth theories is undue with our current knowledge base. Arnoutf (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I do agree :) I don't think I ever called it silly. My only argument is that it seems fair to back up that statement with more than one source - particularly if the sources could be broad/varied & respected --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Anthony. "Biblical Scholars" are (in the main) historians who specialise in first century history and texts. So, I'm not sure what you are wanting. You are right that a quote from a Christian preacher or apologist may attract suspicion, but we're talking often about secular academics appointed by liberal arts institutions. If you are going to look at whether such people go to church, then I think we've got a problem. There are certainly atheist among such people, but again finding a quote is difficult. I mean, you find me a quote by a leading astrologer to refute the theory that the moon is made of green cheese? As I say, these types of demands are exactly the problem. I've got a PHD in this field, but I will not edit any such articles because some agenda pusher with a Jesus-was-a-man-from-mars theory comes along and demands I interact with his crazy marginal nonsense.--Scott Mac 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Scott. I meant the branch of theology of that name. I know that the religious affiliation of a genuine scholar doesn't matter. I'm suggesting Ari and Bill choose, when they have a choice, sources whose ideology is not going to leave any doubt about their neutrality. Bill can cite 2 or 3 CMT proponents who say unequivocally CMT is very fringe/held in contempt by the mainstream. If the articles cited those scholars, this thread (and countless others) wouldn't be happening. Anthony (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

SM said, ...I will not edit any such articles because some agenda pusher with a Jesus-was-a-man-from-mars theory comes along and demands I interact with his crazy marginal nonsense. Then I strongly recommend against doing anything on the Christ myth theory page. You would be surrounded by POV-pushers who have attempted, and are still attempting as we speak, to raise the CMT from a crazy-ass fringe theory to one of being a respectable minority theory. And reasonable people like Anthony, who made some excellent contributions, were the exception, not the rule. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban for Noloop?

If anything the editor who started this thread, User:Noloop needs to see some sanctions for continued disruption. This is the upteenth disruptive thread he's started in the last few days revolving around this issue and his own beliefs which amount to a fringe theory -- Christ myth theory. He just came off a block for edit warring on one of the related entries and immediately he ran back to Jesus, Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus and on to community boards like this one to complain and waste more of everyone's time. People who are sympathetic to him to some degree asked him to cool it on his talk page, but that apparently had no effect. Enough is enough. A topic ban seems to be in order.Griswaldo (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can feel the frustration of Noloop as putting critical notes on religious articles tends to be extremely difficult because these articles tend to be guarded by believers. Nevertheless that does not make the behaviour acceptable. So I tend to agree a topic ban would be well suited WP:OUCH. Arnoutf (talk) 12:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to feel frustration, then try editing the Christ myth theory page to say it's a fringe theory!!

Don't think this is necessary yet. Noloop is not just - not even mostly from what I've seen - advancing a Jesus=Myth position. He/she is also making some very valid points about sourcing (see my comments below), because this is an area which it is almost impossible to approach without a personal viewpoint that lies in the emotional spectrum rather than the scientific, both for editors and sources.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, he doesn't seem to be advancing it yet. However, he is implying it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's a rather biased position to take Elen. What makes this subject matter particularly difficult to study in a dispassionate manner? Every time editors make these types of proclamations about human behavior based on their own intuitions they're discrediting the social sciences. I get it (please read the next sentence facetiously). In the hard sciences we have real neutral experts but when you start talking about literature and history its just opinion, and when you start talking about human behavior and human emotions everyone is an expert. I happen to disagree with that and I happen to believe that unless there is valid evidence to back the type of assertion you have made (in good faith I have no doubt) then its just one editors opinion. Let's stop assuming we're all psychologists here who have done detailed studies of the correlation between religion affiliation, emotion and academic bias. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ho Griswaldo. I disagree with you here. First of all, natural scientists are as biased (if not more because they think it does not influence them) as social scientists (see for example an editorial in Nature a few years ago where the editor acknowledged that Nature had rejected breakthrough papers of many (later) Nobel laureates because they were unacceptable to the beliefs of the reviewers). Secondly I agree social scientists (at least good ones) are trained to keep track of their own beliefs, how this may influence their vision on events and how to separate fact from opinion. However, Wikipedia editors are in majority not scientists, neither natural nor social. And I do agree with Elen of the Roads that the majority of editors take their personal POV with them in these discussions. Arnoutf (talk) 13:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Arnouft my whole point was that I do not think this academic context is any more biased than the natural sciences but I believe Elen was saying that this one was indeed inherently more open to bias in her comment -- "because this is an area which it is almost impossible to approach without a personal viewpoint that lies in the emotional spectrum rather than the scientific, both for editors and sources." Hence my disagreement with her. I also agree that Wikipedia editors are not social scientists which is what bothers me about statements they consistently make about human behavior and psychology as if they are up to speed on the relevant literature when they are clearly not and simply commenting based on their own opinions. No one is unbiased, we had this discussion already, but there are better ways to know how bias plays out in human practice than simply to make assumptions. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I thought it was merely an observation of human nature. It's been a premise of the meta theory of science for some time that even apparently 'pure' scientific theories are always affected by the viewpoint or belief of the proponent. The normal way one conducts any scholarly work (thesis, experiment, archaeological excavation) is to advance a theory and see if the evidence supports the theory, not to assemble a pile of evidence and then attempt to sift a theory out of it. All I'm saying is that for most editors and scholars, where something like Jesus is concerned, the theory they choose to advance is based on their viewpoint - their meta-interpretation of the object of enquiry. There's nothing wrong with that. WP:NPOV does not require that editors have no point of view, nor does it require that sources have no point of view. It does require that one recognise where there are conflicting points of view, and take care to adequately reflect them in articles. There are a lot of conflicting points of view over Jesus, and in many cases the conflicting points of view arise from well defined meta-interpretations held by those advancing the views.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Unless there is a correlation between a specific "meta-interpretation" and types of scholarly conclusions we should be very weary of this kind discussion. It is one thing to recognize the general principle that we are all biased, or that "scientific theories are always affected by the viewpoint or belief of the proponent" and it is quite another to make insinuations about specific viewpoints and specific conclusions. As I've pointed out elsewhere there appears to be no significant correlation between holding the mainstream viewpoint about the historicity of Jesus and personal religious affiliation. It would be highly misleading to mention the religious affiliation of scholars who take this stance because it would suggest a meaningful correlation where there is none. What you mention generally can be tested in specific situations giving us much better understandings of how bias might actually play out in certain situations. Until we have good evidence we should not be insinuating bias based on such general principles.Griswaldo (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not intending to insinuate bias. Just observing that this is a topic where views are frequently contentious, and one source may not be adequate to support a position that an apparently contentious view is in fact mainstream.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with a topic ban. Noloop's edit-warring, complaints to ANI and POV-pushing are disruptive. I noticed the same behavior on Anti-Americanism, although that article has far fewer editors involved. TFD (talk) 13:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

I think it is fairly clear that there is a mainstream consensus among scholars studying the historical Jesus that there was some chap in Galilee underpinning the whole edifice. On the other hand, there has been an extended attempt (Talk:Historical_Jesus#Minimum_historical_facts) by one of the editors listed in the intitial complaint to argue on the basis of one source that there is a consensus among ALL (Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Venusian) scholars studying the historical Jesus that (among other things) :-

• he proclaimed the kingdom of God and warned of a looming catastrophe in Israel;
• he insisted on a radicalized ethic of love;
• he selected a group of twelve to symbolize a renewed Israel;

In this case, there was an insistence on one side that the list was being rejected because the source was Christian and therefore considered not reliable, whereas in fact the issue was that there was only one source, and therefore it was the view that this was mainstream that was queried, not the validity of the source itself. From the perspective of this discussion, one can see why allegations of being a Christian SPA are being hurled - and the other side is hurling allegations of anti-christian bias. It would help if everyone could stop hurling (I recommend Pepto-Bismol) and agree that this is an area where there are A LOT of mainstream viewpoints. Focusing on that - and the fairly slender consensus in the mainstream - would make it easier to identify fringe viewpoints without falling into accusations of pro- or anti- anything.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen, if there are legitimate gripes to be had then Noloop has pretty much sabotaged his own credibility in making them at this point, and that is a shame, but its true. Noloop tried to insert the Christ myth theory into the second paragraph of Historical Jesus. That's starting in the fourth sentence of the lead of that entry. As I pointed out in the last disruptive thread he started here on ANI, Noloop has also made statements that are only a hair separated from the Christ myth there. See my comment to Cyclopia at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ari89:_Repeated_bad_faith.2C_personal_remarks.2C_etc.. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that everyone is moving to extreme positions. Unfortunately, I agree that if Noloop is moving faster that everyone else s/he is the one going to end up topic banned. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen, there is a clear bias in what you just presented above. For example, you are stating that a reliable academic in the field is not able to provide a consensus statement because they are a Christian. Good for you if you personally disagree with the consensus of scholarship, but that is no reason to out of hand dismiss Christian sources. To again repeat the WP policy on academic consensus:

"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources. Editors should avoid original research especially with regard to making blanket statements based on novel syntheses of disparate material. The reliable source needs to claim there is a consensus, rather than the Wikipedia editor. For example, even if every reliable source states that the sky is blue, it would be improper synthesis to write that there is a scientific consensus that the sky is blue, unless sources cited also make such a claim (e.g. a reliable source states, "consensus is that" or "the literature shows that" the sky is blue)."[88]

I fail to see the exclusion clause regarding Christian scholars or those that disagree with Elen of the Roads. --13:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While not wishing to rehash the argument here - you have this one source that says that ALL scholars in the field agree that Jesus "proclaimed the Kingdom of God". That seems very unlikely, given that it is couched in specifically Christian language (indeed, it is a piece of Christian 'shorthand') that is unlikely to be used by a scholar not from a Christian background. But when asked to provide more sources, you tried to turn it into an argument about anti-christian bias, rather than a request for more sources, and tried to argue that questioning the POV of a source was equivalent to questioning the reliability of a source - which it plainly isn't if you read WP:NPOV, which recognises that reliable sources may represent multiple mainstream viewpoints. It is this behaviour which is leading to accusations that you are a Christian SPA, and while I think that is unreasonable, I cannot agree that there is no issue with your behaviour.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said, we go for verifiability not what Elen of the Roads personally believes. Your argument here (other than innuendo against myself) is your own personal doubts about the acceptance of Jesus' kingdom preaching. When we test your personal opinion we find out that it is factually wrong. James Dunn writes that "The centrality of the kingdom of God (basileia tou theou) in Jesus' preaching is one of the least disputable, or disputed, facts about Jesus." (Dunn, Jesus Remembered p.383) --Ari (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "Kingdom of God" is a wide-spread first-century Jewish shorthand, used by many contemporary with Jesus. Just to quibble.--Scott Mac 13:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God' is Christian shorthand. It was the fact that 'Kingdom of God' requires unpacking because it has a Christian meaning that is different to that Jewish shorthand (and subtly different in the different denominations of Christianity. I think I said at the time that you'd have to first write a book defining the term) that made me want to see another source that supported the contention that ALL scholars agreed that Jesus 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God'. If the source had said all scholars agreed that Jesus 'made statements relating to the Jewish belief in the Kingdom of God', it might not have been so contentious, although even so, a number of scholars do not believe that either Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, or that his disciples believed he was the Messiah. On that basis, it was my opinion that there would be numbers who would not sign up to 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God'. WP:V and WP:NPOV both agree that the thing to do where a statement is contentious is to get more sources. Had more sources been forthcoming to support the position, I would of course have accepted this as the mainstream view.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"it was my opinion that there would be numbers who would not sign up to 'proclaimed the Kingdom of God'." Yes, your opinion. And your opinion does not trump verifiable sources as Wikipedia is about verifiability (yes, actually read the policy you link to.) That you view your personal opinion as superior to reliable sources is completely ridiculous. --Ari (talk) 14:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You're still not getting it, are you. I'm not saying my view is superior to reliable sources. I'm not even saying your source isn't reliable. I'm just saying your source isn't reflecting the mainstream view (even though it says that it is). I am entitled to do that. If I think something looks hinky, I am entitled to ask for more sources. In the case of contentious views, more sources are better. If only one source exists, a contentious view cannot be regarded as mainstream. In this case, others in the debate found sources which did not support your source, which supported a much more limited consensus, or which did not venture to state what consensus if any there might be (other than perhaps the assumed 'the man existed'). That's how Wikipedia works. Someone says - that looks odd/wrong/suspect/like it needs sources. Can you provide more sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your personal opinion disagrees with the source. Your personal opinion has no place on Wikipedia, while reliable sources do. Your personal opinion was that the source was incorrect because you do not believe most scholars believe Jesus preached the Kingdom. Even when I entertained your attempt at granting your personal opinion supremacy over published sources, it turns out that they were wrong. I note you have constantly refused to deal with WP policies, including those extracted for your convenience.

Furthermore, all the information on what most scholars believe in the article is backed up by multiple sources so your personal distaste for Dickson and pov complaint is pointless --Ari (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's nicely disingenuous. I think anyone reading the thread can see how the debate actually went, and anyone reading the lede can see that it doesn't say what the starting statement was. Better sourcing has shown that the starting statements made on the talk page needed to be tempered before making it into the article. I'll say it again. THAT IS HOW WIKIPEDIA WORKS. Nothing to do with my opinion or your beliefs. More sources are the way to go.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, you have (again) resorted to calling me a liar. Your personal opinion against the source was not just shown to be incorrect, but your personal opinion is meaningless in trumping reliable consensus statements. You don't have a clue what you are arguing about. --Ari (talk) 15:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As Tank Girl put it "I win!" Really, do stop it with the twisting other people's words. You did it on the talkpage as well. I'm not calling you a liar. You're just putting the best possible gloss you can on an argument that you lost -you said one source was sufficient, but it's evidently better with more. So Wikipedia wins, because more sources are always better, I win, because there are more sources, even you win because there are more sources. Remember, more sources is the way to go. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And I thought this could not get any more pathetic. (1) "More sources" - there are five or so other sources in the article backing up what other scholars believe. As I have said before, you haven't a clue what you are arguing about. (2) One reliable source on a consensus statement is sufficient. Try reading wp:rs on consensus statements. The fact that you see this as a game of "I win" where you don't hesitate to repeatedly call other editors dishonest is pathetic. Your personal opinion about the "mainstream" such as with the Kingdom preaching were wrong, deal with it. --Ari (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, seeing as you've amended the PA (yes, I did see it) I'll leave you to have the last word. Like I said, other people can read and come to their own conclusions. :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari is correct—one RS source on a consensus statement is sufficient. Here's the specific part of WP:RS that speaks about academic consensus. Additional statements can be added, throughout the article as well as in a FAQ, but only one is necessary. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I emphasised that multiple times but, sadly, it fell on deaf ears. I even extracted the entire section on multiple occasions but received the same rhetoric. The editors have either not read wp:RS or the source provided. Which one I am not sure, but what is certainly clear is they haven't read a word I have said! --Ari (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I had the last word something like 24hours ago as it is evident that you haven't the faintest idea what I have been talking about for the past 234238402843 comments. But if it makes you sleep better at night calling me dishonest I wish you all the best :) --Ari (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I have not called you dishonest even once. And didn't your mother tell you a million times not to exaggerate. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You only said I was intentionally repeatedly misrepresenting everything, right? Massive difference. I wonder when you are finally going to come to the realisation that (1) not once I advocated copying the Dickson list into the article; (2) the Dickson citation has been in the article all along with multiple other references and (3) that the citation meets the requirements for consensus statements per wp:rs. And this is without having to revisit the issue that academic consensus statements > your personal opinion. --Ari (talk) 16:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Great, now Ari's mom is being brought into the discussion. What's next? Allegations that he's anti-Semitic, followed up by implications of pedophilia for good measure? Hey, why not go for broke and throw in Nazi too? LOL. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And yeah more evidence for Godwins law. Arnoutf (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Bill: Way to completely ignore what Elen was actually saying in your mad dash to play the "victim card" on behalf of your fellow histrionic POV pusher. The fact is that using a Christian source as evidence of such-and-such being a "commonly accepted mainstream view" is no better than citing www.yankees-rule-red-sox-drool.com for a statement that the Yankees are the greatest baseball team of all time. It doesn't matter if the source is correct or not. In this case, the perception of a conflict of interest is just as damning as an actual conflict of interest, and it undermines the credibility of whatever fact one's trying to transmit. Badger Drink (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

...grandma is lying in the gutter

Speaking of Pepto-Bismol...a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away), I used to do shots of whiskey. These days, the only shots I'm doing are of Pepto-Bismol. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sympathises. Stick to editing articles on Dry glue or High shear mixers and save yourself an(other) ulcer.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops! Forgot to sign previous comment. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

What, no smiley-face? Badger Drink (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few points

• I have no strong opinion on whether there is a historic basis for Jesus. There is a historic city of Troy and and mythic one, probably a historic King Arthur and a legendary one, and so on. There can certainly be a historic basis for Jesus--in addition to the myth (obviously, I'm not a Christian). I've said this repeatedly, and all the editors who say otherwise know damn well that I've said it repeatedly. They are misrepresenting my position.
• However, these articles are full of sources who are Christian theologians and Evangelicals asserting there is no dispute at all the Jesus really existed. That has been my objection. My objection has mostly not been to remove the sources, but simply to identify non-neutral sources as such. When I've added notable sources who dispute the existence of a historic Jesus, the text is mass-deleted. Maybe there is a widespread view that it is a "consensus" that Jesus really existed because any referenced text to the contrary is immediately deleted.
• Most of the editors above demanding I be banned from Jesus-related articles, for trying to identify theological sources to the reader, are Christian SPA's. They edit almost no articles other than Christian ones and with no POV other than promoting their religion.
• Example from Talk:Jesus. This is the bio of one of the sources used for a factual claim:

"Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984)[1] was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. ... Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more fundamentalist Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.....Schaeffer popularized, in the modern context, a conservative Puritan and Reformed perspective." [6]

This is the allegedly neutral source for the claim "scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life." I didn't try to delete the source (although that's clearly defensible). I just tried to explicitly identify the source for the reader.[89] It was immediately reverted. In Talk, Antique Rose — Drop me a line tendentiously denies that the text above supports describing the source Evangelical and fundamentalist. [90]

• I believe all these concerns of mine are supported by Wikipedian principles. If I am wrong,, then I should be banned, because I really don't understand how things are supposed to work and can't edit within the rules.

Noloop (talk) 15:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, Noloop, you should be banned merely for your refusal to acknowledge facts (as Cyclopia does below). See I didn't hear that. You said above, "...these articles are full of sources who are Christian theologians and Evangelicals asserting there is no dispute at all the Jesus really existed." WRONG!! I pointed you to abundant sources that quite frankly contradict your assertions clearly and conclusively. Are there Christian scholars too? Sure. But there are also non-Christian, even atheist, scholars that concur. And to keep asserting that "I have no strong opinion on whether there is a historic basis for Jesus" just brings to mind this line from Shakespeare, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks", meaning this. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to itself examine the evidence that a historical Jesus actually existed, the article on the historical Jesus should include sources that have examined the evidence. Quite a number of the cited sources start from an axiomatic premise that Jesus must have existed, or that his existence is not up for debate, or they simply do not start from that point (eg starting from "what evidence is there that he was born in Nazareth", rather than "what evidence is there that he was born"). Without wishing to embrace the whole Christ Myth thing - which has descended to ridiculous levels in some areas - there ought to be cited sources that address the evidence for his existence in a scholarly way.Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. There is a definite problem, for example, in Talk:Historicity of Jesus. All I am trying to argue is that if a consensus exists (which I believe is true), we should nonetheless indicate the background of the scholars, make it clear that the consensus exists across the spectrum of backgrounds, exactly to swipe away reasonable doubts of cherrypicking biased sources. I am meeting unexplicable resistance for that, something that in theory should reinforce their position. User:Griswaldo for example denies the very possibility of religious bias in the study of the historical Jesus, a position which looks naive, at best, from me. I have even suggested that, on the opposite side, if we talk of Bertrand Russell support to the Christ myth theory, it is reasonable context to make it explicit the atheist position of Russell. It seems to me that a number of editors refuse a priori that such information should be disclosed, a baffling proposition. --Cyclopia^talk 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh please. I do not "deny the very possibility of religious bias". There is absolutely no evidence that there is a correlation between such bias and the position that Jesus was a historical figure. By all signs the baseline position that he was an historical figure cuts through religious bias. There are all kinds of biases in every field of study but we don't go around insinuating specific biases. We discuss such biases if there is good reason for doing so. Good reason for doing so is not based on our own assumptions but on other reliable sources. This is why I stated else where that we leave it up to academic communities to sort out biases -- that is to identify them and to discuss their relevance. This is how we should treat any subject per WP:V and WP:NOR. Cyclopia has provided various comments by biblical scholars about historical biases in Biblical studies and the historical hegemonies of patriarchy and Christianity in biblical studies. That's wonderful, but none of the sources discuss Christian bias in terms of the question in hand. In fact previously Cyclopia provided sources that negated the notion that such a bias exists in the present day. His sources point out that there was a theological bias at the turn of the 20th Century but that this bias is non-existent today. It is getting very frustrating to read all these distortions. The fact is that a fringe minority question the basic foundation of historicity of Jesus, and religious affiliation appears to be pretty irrelevant within the mainstream group of scholars who are not part of this fringe group. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

By all signs the baseline position that he was an historical figure cuts through religious bias. : Exactly. Why do you refuse to make this explicit by providing sources with different backgrounds all agreeing? --Cyclopia^talk 17:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Using Christian pastors to represent the consensus of historians is foolish. Allowed if they are widely respected historians, sure, but foolish, when there are atheist historians just as credible, who are not going to generate this perpetual nonsense. I'm not advocating any particular change in text, just the citation. Why won't editors agree to sources that will stabilize these articles? Anthony (talk) 16:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that some of these sources are historians who happen to be pastors. I think that's what's tripping up this whole debate. And what's getting people upset with Noloop. Insisting that you must dismiss sources that happen to be Christian is like dismissing Jewish scholars from articles discussing the Holocaust. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

While we should accept sources who "are historians who happen to be pastors" we should be extremely cautious about accepting sources who are pastors who claim to be historians. The holocaust comparison is not flying here (if ever), as we are no longer talking about all Christian scholar but specifically about those who are also pastors. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• How many times do I have to say this? I am not DISMISSING theologians as sources. I am IDENTIFYING them as sources. When theolgians are used as sources for factual claims, I want that CLARIFIED for the reader. In this entire debate, I think I've tried to remove one source, and it was a non-notable person who is the head of a MEDIA company dedicated to (his words) "promoting" Christianity.
• They do not "happen" to be Christian when they are writing on whether Jesus existed. Christians are biased on whether Jesus existed. Is that really disputed? The existence of Jesus is not analogous to the Holocaust. A better analogy would be to question the near-exclusive use of jewish scholars when discussing whether God gave Israel to the Jews. Noloop (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• @HandThatFeeds, for every priest- or pastor-historian cited in these articles, there is an atheist- or agnostic-historian just as notable and authoritative, saying the same thing. Why won't editors agree to use atheist or agnostic sources when they are available? We (most of us) get the point: Nothing wrong with genuine scholarship from Christians, per se. But for our sake (look at the time consumed on this crap), if you have a source that is not out of a seminary, use it. Anthony (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• That is a fair consideration for those editing the article. Cut down on the BS by making sure that you cite non-Christians whenever possible. Don't cut the Christians out but just add extra references to non-Christian sources. If it helps to keep people like Noloop from doing this then its a great idea.Griswaldo (talk) 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's exactly what I am trying to convince you since a couple of days ago. Good to know that you agree now. --Cyclopia^talk 17:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• OK, fair enough, but what we have been arguing about, I think at this point in a pretty silly fashion but maybe you are less self-deprecating than I am, is whether or not they need to be attributed inline as Christian, etc. Anyway I need to stop the senseless bickering over this. Time for me to move on. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Please avoid referring to the religious affiliations of genuine scholars in the article, because it actually is irrelevant. Use it on the talk page, if necessary. Anthony (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• It is not irrelevant at all. It is relevant context. Scholars do not live in a vacuum, a Christian priest will have a definitely different perspective on Jesus than a Jew, or an atheist. --Cyclopia^talk 21:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, while I can agree with favoring secular sources, there is no reason to exclude "religious" sources. And I seriously object to in-line identification of the sources religion or heritage. We don't identify scholars of works on the Civil rights movement by color, do we? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This time grandma IS lying in the gutter

Noloop just tried this edit. Fortunately, Cyclopia caught it and reverted. Is is time to vote for a ban/block yet? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to explain exactly what is the problem with material that is 1) referenced, 2) related to the historical Jesus in an article on the historical Jesus, 3) based on reliable, notable sources, 4) based on non-religious sources in an article that suffers from a shortage of non-religious sources, 5) placed where the context is the consensus (or not) of theories on the existence historical Jesus....? And, why exactly I should be banned for placing such material in the article? It is telling that you will start a section calling for a ban, but you have never started a section to discuss the content. Noloop (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You mean other than it is blatantly false? Did you miss this entire thread? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, the problem is that it is overwhelmingly considered a fringe theory. It should be discussed as such. Putting it in the lead violates WP:UNDUE. --Cyclopia^talk 19:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Document that with neutral, reliable sources. Until that is done, mass deleting referenced material based on content is POV-pushing vandalism. Noloop (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

In the edit you made, you used this reference for Bertrand Russell. It says very clearly that Russell's statement was incredible and it lists a few reasons of why. That's a plain misuse of a source. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to argue that it's not a fringe theory? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, sorry but you are completely and utterly wrong bringing in Christ Myth theory to that page; regardless of any merits of the theory. It documents solely historical records/reconstruction of Jesus as a historical figure. It is like adding elements of that page to the Christ Myth page :) which, clearly, is not required. See also links are fine --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

At this point, what I am seriously arguing is that nobody has documented it meets the definition of fringe theory. I can certainly believe that it is a minority theory, and an extremely unpopular one, but neither of those features make something fringe. As for "Christ Myth theory" as far as I can tell, that's just a POV fork. Theories that challenge historicity are immediately classified as "Christ myth theory" and moved to a different article. A violation of Wikipedian principles. Obviously legitimate scholarly theories that Jesus is not historical are part of the topic of historical Jesus. Noloop (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's definitions, WP:FRINGE applies to minority, extremely unpopular theories. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be covered at Historical Jesus#Criticism as myth (which links to the main Christ Myth theory page). Anything more (especially a full paragraph in the lede) strikes me as giving undue weight to a fringe theory. Maybe a slight expansion of the section I listed but I am not convinced that is necessary. Mauler90 _talk 23:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, the correct place to discuss those theories/research is on the relevant page with criticism (as there already is) on the other pages. I don't see how this is even contentious! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 08:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Typical example of objectionable editing

Here is a typical example of the sourcing in these articles. Wanting to disclose and limit it is proposed as grounds for banning me. Consider this paragraph from Jesus [91]

"The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death.[119] A great majority of biblical scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus.[120][121][122][123][124]" (emphasis added)

• 119 is just a Web site called "http://www.rationalchristianity.net" It is non-neutral, and also not reliable. There doesn't even seem to be an author for the page.
• 120 is "Dr Robert E. Van Voorst a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, ... received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College ... his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary ... his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary "
• 121 is published by Trinity Press (sounds secular, huh), and the author is a theologian [92]
• 122 is something called Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered, published by eerdmans.com an exclusively religious publisher [93]
• 123 is a book called An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic, by a publisher that self-describes as "seeking to educate, nurture, and equip men and women to live and work as Christians"
• 124 is Marcus Borg, A Vision of the Christian Life, who states: "God is real. The Christian life is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ. It can and will change your life."[94]

Historical articles are supposed to be based on peer-reviewed research. All of these article are shot through with "research" that is Evangelical and proselytizing. If objecting to that is ban-worthy, then ban me. Noloop (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree with Noloop on this -this is a clearly biased collection. 119 should be removed on sight, and 123 and 124 are problematic as well. 120,121,122 don't know, but should be put together with other sources from other backgrounds. That said, Noloop, editors gave a multiplicity of sources about the consensus on the existence of Jesus on the various talk pages. --Cyclopia^talk 19:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Does no one even bother to find out what the overwhelming majority of scholars think? I don't know how often I need to post this, but I guess if I post it enough, someone will take the time to inform themselves. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point. This has nothing to do with what is actually the consensus, but with the sources used to document it in the article. The information may be OK but the sources used there are not. Since you collected a lot of sources in your FAQ, you can take outstanding ones from across the spectrum and substitute them to the ones currently present. --Cyclopia^talk 21:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cyclopia here. There is no reason to have poor quality sources in this article.Griswaldo (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also agree, I highly doubt there is a lack of sources out there. 119 should be removed and probably 123 and 124 as well. If possible it would be best to either replace the other ones with better sources or supplement them with some good reliable sources. Mauler90 _talk 00:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Topic Ban 2

Proposal Topic ban User:Noloop from all pages related to Jesus and the Historicity of Jesus.

• Agree To a topic ban for Noloop from all entries related to Jesus. Whatever the legitimacy of the more general debate going on here I think one thing is clear. Noloop is being disruptive.Griswaldo (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree per Griswaldo. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree. While Noloop behaviour is concerning, I doubt a full topic ban so soon would help. I would appreciate an "half-ban", on the lines of "Noloop is required to propose changes on the talk pages and discuss them there, and edit on the article only when absolutely certain that consensus between editors is reached on his edits". Despite all the noise, he also gave some useful input and seems to act in good faith. We could try that, and see if it helps. --Cyclopia^talk 17:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Some kind of article probation of a sort? Do you want to draft an alternate proposal of a sentence or two and put it below? I think this might be a fair compromise depending on what you're thinking.Griswaldo (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Given that he has ignored the abundant references I, and others, have provided, I don't think it will do any good. But, I'm open-minded. What do you have in mind? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Disagree - This whole thing seems like a gigantic content dispute to me. I don't see why Noloop can't add the sourced content he tried to add (as discussed under the heading a couple spots above). It doesn't immediately strike me, as a third-party with no dog in this fight, as pushing a POV or disruptive, it actually looks like interesting, scientific material to me. Kindzmarauli (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• What you describe as "interesting scientific material" is a fringe theory -- Christ myth theory. I'm sorry you didn't realize this but that's a fact.Griswaldo (talk) 19:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose pretty much per Kindzmarauli. This seems a very complex content dispute that should be sorted out through mediation and not by simply topic banning someone. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The historicity of the figure of Jesus is open to debate - banning someone who wants to add reliable sources that discuss this looks very much like religious censorship. This isn't Conservapedia. Asking for sources from genuine scholars rather than Christian evangelicals seems reasonable! Sure, you can mention that Christian apologists believe that Jesus was an historical figure, but it's the academic view that should hold weight in articles. As for the Christ myth theory, surely Wikipedia isn't presenting the events in the Gospels as fact, is it? And are Thomas L. Thompson and George Albert Wells fringe theorists, or are they rather academics? I rather think it is the latter. Their ideas might be inconvenient for Christians, but that doesn't make their arguments at all "tin-foil hat". Fences&Windows 19:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose As this thread evolved it became clear that all parties here go way beyond what we would like to see. Noloop seems to be in the minority position who demands to see more evidence for the actual existence of Christ, but on the other side editors are pushing their POV that Christ not only existed but conducted indeed (historically) a lot of things attributed to him. I think all involved editors should probably stay away from these articles for a few weeks to cool down, but singling out Noloop is too harsh. Arnoutf (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Most of the points have been made above, but most importantly there is considerable academic opinion that questions the historicity of Jesus and it is legitimate to note this appropriate articles. Frankly I find it worrying that a ban or limitations should even be suggested.--SabreBD (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• It was suggested because it is usually thought to be disruptive when people try shoving fringe theories into the leads of legitimate entries. Apparently you all don't think it's a fringe theory. That's news to me.Griswaldo (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• oppose - disclosure, I found a link to this on the fringe theories notice board, where such issues usually start. This is a good faith content dispute with name calling. EVERYONE needs to do better both with sourceing and clearly keeping to the edits and material and not each other. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

comment -- These debates have been ongoing for years I'm sure, but the reason why several noticeboards have been clogged up with this nonsense, and two separate threads at AN/I have been started in the the last couple of days is because User:Noloop has initiated them. I do not think that everyone who believes the Christ myth theory should be topic banned like this, I simply thought that Noloop was unable to handle editing in this environment given the ridiculous amount of clutter he's managed to initiate so far. See:

• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#If_a_majority_.28or_all.29_of_the_sources_for_factual_claims_about_Jesus_are_Christian.2C_is_it_proper_to_mention_that.3F
• Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Are_there_guidelines_for_conflict_of_interest_among_sources.3F
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#Ari89:_Repeated_bad_faith.2C_personal_remarks.2C_etc.

He was also blocked recently for edit warring on one of these pages, and went directly back to it, even making the same warring edit, as soon as the block expired.Griswaldo (talk) 20:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose and as mentioned above, seek mediation Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Mediation only works if both parties agree. I don't see that happening here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Partially oppose - I don't think a topic ban is necessary at this point but I would support that Noloop be required to take it to the talk page first (per Cyclopia). Frankly I don't think mediation would work at all. Mauler90 _talk 22:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• Definite oppose Support proposal for RfC.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fences&Windows. It is very much open to debate, and you dont solve a debate by topic banning those in the other camp. -- ۩ Mask 23:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Racepacket (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Return to original topic

My original concern is that it will never be possible to reach a consensus on these articles. The reasons should be apparent. A consensus process will never work for an even-handed approach to the world's most dominant religious belief (remember, Muslims believe in Jesus). I think the most blatant illustration of the will to win with sheer popularity was when Ari89 canvassed editors from Jesus to oppose my perspective on Historical Jesus (nobody else seems to care much about it, but I found it disturbing). So, what happens when the consensus simply doesn't support Wikipedia's principles on an article? Noloop (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues in the last couple of days that intertwine. I try to summarize most of them (my POV on them included).

1. Christ myth theory material in the lead of Historical Jesus. While genuine doubts can be raised on the reliability and neutrality of the sources actually used in the article, it seems that reliable sources from different backgrounds do, indeed, prove that the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory (that is an unpopular, extremly minoritary position in the academia) and as such it does not belong to the lead.
2. Qualifying the author's religious/cultural background where relevant. In my opinion, "relevant" = 1)the author has a public role in a religious context, e.g. it is a priest, rabbi, spokesman for a religious/atheist organization, theologian etc. and/or 2)the topic at stake is directly related with such religious contexts (e.g. while nobody, as far as I know, thinks of Julius Caesar as their Lord and Saviour, and as such the religious background of scholars on Caesar is probably irrelevant, belonging or not to Christianity,Islam,Judaism,Western secularism is inextricable from the viewpoints on Jesus).
3. Canvassing on Talk:Jesus -I would tend to dismiss that, after all it is not like Talk:Jesus is watched only by religious editors. However caution should be always used.
4. Overall bias (on whatever side) of editors on religious articles and potential to skew consensus against WP:NPOV. This is a very complex and delicate issue, which is not likely to have a definite "solution". I'd say that the first thing is for all editors to be honest in declaring their own background and POVs, so that everyone knows where each other stands, and in WP:AGF as much as possible with each other.

I think we should split the discussion about each one of these points separately to extricate them. --Cyclopia^talk 01:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure disclosing one's POV or background vis-a-vis a religious topic is necessarily going to help anything. The very religious and the radically atheist editors tend to make it pretty apparent what they believe, and those editors tend to make up their own minds about what you believe if you don't fall into one of those categories. I highly doubt that the POV warriors on either side would take me seriously if I disclosed my own background so why bother.Griswaldo (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I ignore your bickering, Noloop, yet you cannot help bringing me up in everything you say. The fact that mainstream academia does not agree with your perspective is not my problem so do take the grudge somewhere else. The reason I believe no one but you has concern with your accusation of inappropriate canvassing is because only you seemed to see me stating "all input appreciated" on the exact same issue on a directly related page per wp:canvassing as a conspiracy "to oppose my perspective". --Ari (talk) 04:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Move it to an RfC

I propose that this entire discussion be closed and moved to an RfC as it appears to be a content disupte that just happens to have a fair bit of bickering going on. I cannot see any need for administrator intervention here. What this needs is a venue where debates and arguments can take place, but I don't think AN/I is the place for that. Kindzmarauli (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

• Agree. --Cyclopia^talk 12:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree . Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - Starting an Rfc seems for the best, as this ANI issue has reached WP:TLDR. Jusdafax 12:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree: WP:TLDR, taking up half of ANI (As Xeno says, this board is for problems requiring immediate admin attention, not long drawn out discussions. N419BH 13:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Some firm policing by a Zen Buddhist admin might be required, but there is so much circular logic going on here that it needs more space to explore it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Mauler90 _talk 21:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree Sheesh, I know something about this topic, & I'm baffled about exactly what people are fighting over. "Jesus Christ is a myth"? No credible expert on the topic argues this; the simplest solution is to accept that beneath of all of the stories & theology there was a real person. Instead the argument is over whether the Historical Jesus was only a human, or some kind of incarnation of God. Someone wants an article on the theory? Well, I guess since we have an article on the theory than Sir Francis Bacon wrote Shakespeare's plays, we might as well have an article on this topic. Beyond that, it's all a matter of proper emphasis, playing nicely with one another, & remembering that we are here to write an encyclopedia not to prove one's peculiar interpretation of things is the truth. Hash out a consensus about how Wikipedia should handle this belief in an RfC & then come back here if that doesn't provide a solution. -- llywrch (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

  Let me explain the problem. The problem is that there are some people in Wiki-land that want to elevate the Christ myth theory (CMT), which is the idea that Jesus is completely fictional to a minority, but respectable position. The fact of the matter, however, is that it is viewed with contempt by virtually all scholars. Actually, I don't think that there are any scholars with a PHD in the relevant field that currently teach at accredited universities that give the CMT any credence, but I may be wrong on that—there may be one hiding somewhere. That the CMT is not only rejected by scholars but also treated with contempt can be seen here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  I understood that part, thank you. Where it started to confuse me was who these "some people in Wiki-land" were. I thought I knew who the players were on each side until halfway thru it seemed that people changed sides. Had I been able to keep better track of who was say what, I would have invoked the little-known policy WP:DO NOT ANNOY THE WIKIDRAGONS & a bunch of people would have been blocked for a very long time. But moving this to an RfC ought to do the trick, & require a lot less effort from me. -- llywrch (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

  There really is scant evidence though, and that is where this all bubbles up from. It rests on secondhand sources and hearsay. Dawkins has touched on this in a couple of his BBC documentaries, not so much that he didn't exist, but that we cant know because we dont know much of anything about the time period. I find this quote wholly appropriate, because it illustrates the problem without calling it out because there's also no evidence to call it out:

"We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything."

-Dr. David Noel Freedman (Bible Review magazine, Dec. 1993, p.34)

And that is from someone with a PhD in an applicable field (and a minister) who is quite aware of the problem. Now imagine this view applied to something that's not a sacred cow, and you see why it gets people riled up. -- ۩ Mask 04:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite. And there is somewhat of an issue that, whereas if you take some bad science like Polywater, the evidence against it is from scientists pointing to scientific first principles, experimental evidence or what have you. Not from scientists promoting Uniwater. This is where the argument about the religious beliefs of the sources comes in - there is a suggestion that most of the sources saying 'rubbish, of course Jesus existed' are taking that as an a priori position. There is thus a sense in some quarters that these are the wrong people to be asking 'is this a fringe theory', and the right people would be those who are examining the evidence and asking 'can we safely assume that there was a real person'. Is there a significant possibility of other explanations.Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is "scant" evidence, then let reliable sources say so, and they can be detailed in the proper context (article). Right now, the few people who are saying so are not experts in the field. And the very, very few people who do have the necessary credentials are viewed by the mainstream with contempt—and they actually acknowledge the contempt mainstream scholarship has for them. Also, I think you misunderstood the quote by Freedman. All he is saying is that we don't have the ability to, in a sense, call witnesses before a jury (since they are long dead). Nor do we have videos, pictures, or audio recordings either. All we have are their writings (which at times requires textual critics to piece together), as well as writings from people who were around in the same general era.

@Elen, that you have brought up religious beliefs indicates that you haven't had the time and/or the inclination to read this list, which includes a number of well-known atheists (such as Bart Ehrman). remember, we are only talking about the mere existence of a normal man (i.e., sans miracles, claims of godhood, etc.). At any rate, it looks like this topic is going nowhere fast...yet again. Too bad. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest you read what I wrote again. I am making an observation about the thinking of some of the people posting in this thread. I have not actually said anything about the actual position taken by any source - although I would point out that llywrch's piece below does show how a source can present as if they are taking the axiomatic position that Jesus exists, even if they are not ("accepting the fact that there actually was someone with his name ... is the simplest theory"). In his case, he goes on with other - and very interesting evidence - but many see no need to do that, which is why some people (in this thread - for clarity) say that those are the wrong people to ask.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

And as I wrote above, the players keep changing sides. Sheesh, while there is very little evidence on the existence of the Historical Jesus, the same can be said about many people throughout history. (For example, one of the major sources about the life of Alexander the Great was written centuries after he died.) However, as I wrote above, accepting the fact that there actually was someone with his name who caused a stir in what is now Israel & was executed by crucifixion, is the simplest theory to handle all of the facts. One of which is that there is able documentation about this guy named James living in Jerusalem between AD 30-60 who was commonly accepted to be Jesus' brother. An odd thing to do is Jesus was only a myth; I'd probably be ignored & face a few psych holds if I claimed to be the brother of a fictional person like Caillou. Now while some would claim that this is only a claim made after there was wide acceptance that Jesus did exist, the funny thing is that starting in the 4th century the Church made a systematic effort to make him an unperson; it would appear that his existence & role as a leader in the early Church conflicted with the emerging dogmas of the virgin birth & the immaculate conception. In other words, a piece of evidence many who believe in the existence of Jesus wish did not exist proves he does. And failing to account for evidence like this makes everyone involved look rather foolish -- Wikipedia: No original research notwithstanding. (That policy was not intended to exclude content which commonsense would otherwise include, but simply to encourage using expert opinion to explain its value. Otherwise the cranks & troublemakers would have a field day abusing it with arguments to exclude information they don't agree with.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support - Even the suggestion to move to an RfC is descending into a discussion about historical jesus. This really needs to be moved to the proper venue. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This is obviously the wrong venue for this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Agree I'd oppose a ban, but this is fine. Dougweller (talk) 08:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop blocked and desires to quit wikipedia

The RFC might not be necessary at this point given the latest developments. See User_talk:Noloop#I_Quit. After Noloop filed a 3RR on User:Ari he was himself immediately blocked for continuing to edit war. He has now decided to quit Wikipedia. I still think that it is abundantly clear that Noloop needs some help to edit productively in these areas, if that is possible. It is a shame that the thread devolved into a discussion of a fringe theory as opposed to a discussion of editor behavior, but it also a shame that no one was willing to propose other remedies, instead suggesting simply to shovel the issue to RFC. Maybe mentorship would help if Noloop decides he's not going to quit after all?Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The issues raised are independent of the editor involved and the lack of consensus shown on the talk page is evident. I've begun drafting an RFC for the article, but if you're more advanced in the creation of one then I am, by all means take the lead. -- ۩ Mask 21:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Fresh eyes requested

User:Vitorvicentevalente persists in re-adding a speedy deletion request to Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vitorvicentevalente despite the fact that I have already declined it. His proper venue is WP:PROD or more appropriately, WP:CFD. He is also blanking User talk:70.181.189.126 an IP talk page which has been alleged to be a sockpuppet. I have advised the editor making these accusations to raise an SPI but meanwhile I believe the status quo should prevail as it is not up to users to remove such accusations. Third-party opinions welcome. I am about to notify this editor. Rodhullandemu 16:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

These two "admin" have had problems with me in the past, which proves to be WP: POINT. I don't admit to accuse me without evidence, so if they want request a checkuser. Vítor&R (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The category doesn't seem to fit the criteria for WP:CSD#C1, and once a speedy request has been denied it shouldn't me made again. Take it to WP:CFD. If the originator of the allegation (or someone else) doesn't produce an SPI case in the near future, the category will no doubt get deleted. Favonian (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the tag to the IP's page. The category is no longer empty. The tag should not be removed from the IP talk page by the user himself. Vítor&R, I understand why this distresses you, if you feel that the concerns are not valid, but removing the tag is not the means to address it. It makes it look as though you are trying to disguise something. An administrator has tagged this IP, which accords with policy. If you feel that the accusation is made in bad faith, see Wikipedia:Administrators for steps you might take. That said, referring to the requisite ANI notice placed on your talk page as "vandalism" may give the impression that you are not yourself assuming good faith. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't assume good faith when they are accusing me without proof. It was the same as I begin to speak Portuguese knowing that you do not understand anything, assume bad faith. This isn't my home wiki, and I had promised not edit here anymore, but the image of the article Love the Way You Lie is referenced and I don't understand why is removed. If the file don't meet the criteria should be eliminated or not? Instead of doing his job, the user prefers to make accusations without evidence. I've been out all day, as evidenced by my contributions. Vítor&R (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The content question isn't really at issue here. I do not know if his concerns about your edits are valid, but evidently he feels they are. In situations like this, it's really helpful to remain calm and focus on defending yourself against the charge. User:Rodhullandemu has requested that the editor making these accusations raise a sockpuppet investigation. If he does, you will have the opportunity to explain there why you feel his concerns are misplaced. If he does not do so in good time, it may be necessary to invite further review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:07, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a small comment about the original post, I don't think Categories are eligible for WP:PROD. I could be mistaken though.--Rockfang (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

I was going to add my own report about this user, but seeing that one is already open, I will add to this. Vitor has already been blocked 5 times, more than once for edit warring. In the past couple of weeks, he has repeatedly added an image to the article Love the Way You Lie which had questionable sources. Although being removed by more than one editor, he continued to undo edits and war over song genres: [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]

I requested that Vitor use the article's Talk Page to discuss his edits, as more than one person was questioning the validity of the image, as well as the genres: [108]. Shortly after, IP 70.181.189.126 made edits which completely restored Vitor's preferred version [109]. Upon checking the IPs edit history, and noticing a similarity in Rihanna and R&B-related articles, I placed a suspected sock tag on the IP's page, as well as a warning: [110]. This tag and warning were removed by Vitor, as well as a request for deletion of the category (which he claims was "empty", since he removed the suspected sock tag, see links above), along with an angry demand on my Talk Page [111] and a follow-up comment to "stop nagging and leave him in peace" [112].

This is also not the first time Vitor has been suspected of sockpuppetry, as shown here.

A scan through Vitor's Talk Page history clearly shows a dismissive and uncivil attitude (evidenced by many of his edit summaries):[113], and, for anyone who cares to read some of the past dramas that occurred when he was blocked and/or confronted in the past, there is quite a lot to read, although it is not an easy task as Vitor blanks and undoes his Talk Page whenever communication is left there. This to me does not seem like someone interested in working well with others, and who immediately becomes enraged if anyone dares to question his methods. A very recent example of his incivility can be found on Rodhullandemu's own Talk Page: here. - eo (talk) 18:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The lack of civility appointed by you, which frankly don't matter to me, is no reason to accuse me of being a sock of IP. Moreover, I am not the first nor the last to remove the warnings from my talk page, and this is not my home wiki, so what's the point? I don't admit to that user that takes hours to respond to cases of accusations that he do, accuse me without any clear evidence. I want proof! Prove that I'm interacting with the IP, if you can! Vítor&R (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The evidence presented by this user is reason enough for a sock investigation, civility concerns aside. An IP showing up out of nowhere, to support you in an edit war is evidence of sock puppetry, whether you like it or not. Removing the userpage tag only shows that you have something to hide; one also wonders why 'an IP that you have never interacted with before' would have their userpage on your watchlist.

Lastly, Vit, you are not the one that decides which evidence backs up what, since you are the one being accused. If you really are innocent, you have nothing to worry about.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't treat me in any way and limit yourself to comment the case. I have nothing to hide, I only don't want to see my name involved in suspicious done by an incompetent administrator. And for your information, I'm going to write in Portuguese after this comment. Vítor&R (talk) 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm treating you how I treat all suspected sockmasters and socks with suspicious behavior. Removing a sock tag from 'an IP you have had no dealings with' is suspicious. As said, if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about. In the meantime, if you continue to disruptively remove the sock tag, all it will do is show admins they can block you on behavioral evidence; CU won't even be needed, and will likely be declined per policy regarding CU. Also, do not call admins incompetent. Such is disruptive editing, and strictly against policy. Lastly, please communicate in english, this is the english wikipedia, and refusing to do so when you clearly can can be disruptive. It comes off as if you're trying to make it difficult for us.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Não quero saber o quão difícil é para vocês comunicar em português, é a minha língua materna e é essa mesmo que vou utilizar, estou farto de escrever em inglês, e para nada. Eu não me interessa como você trata os outros, aqui trata-me com respeito, não o conheço de lado nenhum para me tratar como quiser. Não tenho nada a esconder, mas tenho todo o direito a não querer o meu nome envolvido nestas "tolices", e é para isso mesmo que abri o pedido. Vítor&R (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're trying to be disruptive, you're succeeding. I would recommend you stop.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comentando agora, não me importa em nada que tenham essa opinião a meu respeito, não tenciono fazer "amigos" aqui. Apenas quero que este caso seja resolvido, e a minha inocência, posta em causa por quem foi, seja provada. Além disso, já abri o pedido que está à espera de avaliação. Vítor&R (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Translation, for anyone wondering.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• I remembered now .... What is the country's IP suspect? USA? Of course it is the United States, and I live in Portugal! Vítor&R (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it couldn't be a meatpuppet.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You and your theories that no one wants to know... Prove that. Vítor&R (talk) 21:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The evidence already exists in this thread, behavioral is proof enough. Lastly, speak for yourself, and not others. Obviously people do care, as otherwise there would not be a thread here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The only person who is interested are you, making accusations without proof, nothing here is proof that I know or edit with that IP. Vítor&R (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, do not act like you know the interests of others, when you are clearly not them. Secondly, there is plenty proof in this thread, simply claiming there isn't doesn't work around here. When you are accused, unless you provide a very good reason to explain the edits, your 'word' is typically not taken. I've dealt with sockmasters who have lied through their teeth until the very end, where CU confirmed abuse.

Now, discussing this here is pointless, the only thing you are doing now is claiming to know the feelings of others when you do not, and claiming the evidence presented here is meaningless, when it is not. You aren't going to convince anyone of anything by continuously stating there is no evidence. There is nothing more to be gained here by you, so instead of repeating the same things over and over again, why don't you respond on the SPI when it is filed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, realize one thing, your opinion for me is zero, and others are others. I never edited with that IP, nor could I live in another country far away from him, and I don't admit allegations of a user like you, without any evidence. What is here are a lot of edits I did, and apparently the IP also preferred that version of the article. Never edited into articles such as B.o.B. as IP or have interest in such artists. And dispense your advice and opinions that are worth nothing here. I'm innocent, end of story. Vítor&R (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, you need to realize one thing. I don't care about your opinion of myself, and you are not the one that decides the opinions of others, only yourself, so stop claiming you know them when you do not. The existence of this report shows that they do indeed care. Again, there is plenty evidence, simply claiming there isn't doesn't change the fact that there is.

You don't get to decide whose opinions are worth what here, only your own. I for one have been investigating sockpuppets for quite some time, and this to me looks like meatpuppetry. Meatpuppets are accounts created by friends of the master, to aid the master in their wars. What you construe as evidence against puppetry is actually for it: if the IP had not edited anything related to the article, this is evidence, as there is no way they could have found it otherwise. This, plus the content and timing of the edits is evidence of puppetry, whether you like it or not.

Again, if you are innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Going on an on about how my opinions hold no water, and that there is no evidence here is rather suspicious behavior for someone who will be found as 'innocent'.

Think hard before you post here again, and do not act like you know the thoughts of others, or like you control the weight of arguments of others.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, you need to realize one thing, I dont' want to know anything of what you have to tell me, talk only to the rest of the community. But who wants to know what this is for you? Do you think your word is worth more than mine? Well, no! Never! I don't know the IP nor do I intend to know who is behind it, and just want to prove my innocence and I wanted my name out of these unfortunate allegations. It is very easy to talk, but if your name was involved, what I do not admired, was not so calm. I want you and your advice to go where you want, I don't want to know, your conversation is pointless. Vítor&R (talk) 21:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, do not call my argument without weight, and again, do not do so of others. On the case of 'worth', our words are the same in weight, but in sock cases, when there is clear evidence of abuse, and even confirmed past abuse, your word regarding such is indeed less, unless you provide a good reason that explains and debunks the evidence explained in this thread; you haven't. The only thing you have said is 'no evidence exists', despite quite clear evidence to the contrary. Simply denying it has no weight, you have to provide a better reason than that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I say whatever I want, you not yet realized it? I'm sick of your theories... It's within the rules, and there is no clear evidence, there is rather a boring person trying to accuse me, which is a clear WP: POINT. Vítor&R (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, no, you cannot. Go have a read of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, two policies you've violated several times today. There is nothing pointy about my edits, and indeed, your edits are crossing into being disruptive. Stop campaigning for my block, and stop calling me a conspiracy theorist.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hum... let me see... No. Vítor&R (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Enough

Everyone involved here needs to remember our core guideline Assume Good Faith. Also, our policy on civility, our policy against making personal attacks, and to some extent our guideline about not biting newcomers (on ANI specifically, not to the encyclopedia overall in this case).

Vitor - Please do not insult admins or other editors, and please don't use Portugese anymore. That violates our policy against disruptive editing. We ask that editors treat each other with respect, and the community with respect. That means dealing with situations, even stressful ones like being accused of sockpuppetry or other misbehavior, in a reasonable and civil manner. When people start getting angry and blustering, and making borderline insults or disruptive behavior like responding in other languages, then it degrades the entire environment around a discussion and makes it harder to discern what is really going on and calm situations down or resolve them.

Daedalus - Is there more evidence here than the recent edit reversion incident? The IP is clearly in California, and the editor is quite likely Portugese (though they could possibly be Portugese or a Portugese language speaker in California). There does seem to be some topic interest area similarity, but without a geographical alignment or more than a couple of revert-to someone else's version incidents that's usually not enough to pass the Duck Test. People do revert to someone else's version from time to time. There are a number of other IPs who edit that article, and Rhianna related articles in general. One could potentially make a case that this is the same person, but I'm not really convinced right now. If you can convince a CU to check that's fine. If there are more diffs, that's fine. But there's really not a lot on the table to be getting this seriously interested in chasing them over. A single revert, by an IP which is at worst mildly disruptive at times, and an editor who is at worst mildly disruptive at times, is not a good case for a sockpuppet. If we set the standards for evidence for the Duck test this low, it will false positive all the time on perfectly innocent activities that by random chance line up.

I'm not saying you're wrong - but I'd like to see more evidence, and the evidence needs to be proportional to the degree of effort we expend in pursuing SPI cases. If we jump all over every coincidence, we will certainly drive people away who didn't do anything wrong, and ruin the project in short order.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the timing and content of the edits, and this user's history regarding sockpuppetry and edit warring, no, there is not. Anyway, I don't think they're a sockpuppet, but a meatpuppet(a friend of the user garnered for help by the user). I also have a sneaking suspicion the IP is an open proxy, per it's almost blank userpage(take this with a grain of salt, as I do not have much, if any, experience regarding open proxies(re: I was once told they don't geo-locate anywhere)). In regards to that, it is not impossible for someone to have a friend thousands of miles away. I for one have several friends on the eastern coast of the US, along with a few more in Europe. I live on the west coast of the US myself.

That a side, CU would be declined as using it to link an editor to an IP is against the policy regarding its use. CU is also not for fishing.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Rbwm was 18 months ago and not CU identified, and was clearly disruptively blockable on their own. There was no block of Vitor coming out of that investigation. That is not a "history regarding sockpuppetry".

Their edit warring behavior is reasonably straightforwards, and actionable independently, but that's different than spending this much effort on ANI beating them up for alleged sockpuppetry. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but as I noted above, I still find the removal of the sock tag on the IP editor's page odd, unless Vit was stalking the edits of the admin who placed it there.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Or watchlisted the category after earlier incidents (more likely).

The alternate (that he is the IP) is possible, but not the simplest and most credible explanation, much less the one AGF argues for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if that were the case, it's unlikely unless he checked there regularly, as when a page is added or removed from a cat, it doesn't show up on the watchlist. The only thing that does is changes to the cat page itself.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. After the dispute on the 22nd started, Ericorbit tagged the IP [114], then told Vitor not to IP sockpuppet on Vitor's talk page [115], then Vitor went to the IP talk page and removed the tag [116] with the edit summary "Proff?".

All of this flowed from Ericorbit's notification on Vitor's user talk. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Without that piece, there isn't much for this case to stand on now.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It was circumstantial, which is why I invited User:Ericorbit to invoke an WP:SPI, which would have brought a fresh perspective to the issue. As it happens, Vitor opened his own SPI, which effectively circumvented any possibility of a CU happening- if Ericorbit had done so in a timely manner, perhaps that would have occurred. However, Ericorbit's notification to Vitor was not beyond the bounds of possibility, and Vitor over-reacted in the worst possible way, by seeking to remove evidence and notifications. That's not constructive. When faced with dubious accusations, it's not helpful to fight fire with fire, and Vitor should have sat back and said "Open an SPI, and let uninvolved Admins judge the merits"; that is now happening, and I agree with that. But Vitor's conduct here has breached so many rules here, as he has previously, that I wonder whether he is a net benefit to this project, especially since he makes a point of emphasising that this is not his "home wiki". He's been here long enough, in my view, to have realised that we may have different ways of working from , and should adapt. Rodhullandemu 00:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No matter, if you think I will adapt or not. Lately, as you can see in my list of contributions, I just put interwiki, or the image of that article because it was referenced. If the reference is good for the charts, why isn't for the image? I know your rules fairly, and not only studied better because every day I come here I realized that this isn't what it seems, watching this case, I want my innocence proven, and nobody does anything. I just want it, I want to prove, I din't use that IP and I want my name out of those speculations. I just didn't know that here you made accusations without any evidence, but now i know that. After the last discussion I left this project, but it seems that he wants to persecute me for my entire life. Vítor&R (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is missing the point, with respect. If you are incorrectly accused of sockpuppetry, you should have nothing to worry about, and should just sit back and let uninvolved editors and admins come to a rational conclusion based on the evidence presented. As it happens, evidence of sockpuppetry turns out to be thin at best, and therefore unsubstantiated. What is more worrying here is your reaction to this accusation; I repeat- however strongly you feel about your own position, there are processes here that may indicate one way or the other, but deleting accusations, nominating categories for deletion, making personal attacks to editors, even uninvolved editors, isn't going to sway opinion in your direction, because (as already pointed out above), it makes you look as if you have something to hide. I have extensive experience of criminal proceedings, and I have to say that when one is accused of an unsupportable accusation, the best defence is (a) to remain silent and (b) if pushed, say "prove it". However, in my experience, most actual criminals cannot resist the temptation to push it further, and by doing so, tend to incriminate themselves. Your behaviour pointed me in that direction, but I am prepared to assume that your anger displaced your common sense in this instance. Rodhullandemu 05:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"This is missing the point, with respect." And don't talk to me as if I had the guilt, I demand respect. I never be silent knowing that I'm innocent, this is for cowards. I don't care if you think that I have something to hide, I'm quiet and you are not going to change that. What I demand is that removed my name and undo the allegations made to me. The project can not be driven by suspicion but by certainties, and administrators aren't more important that the users, you should already have realized this. I just want to see my innocence proven, I do not want to adapt here, to put iw I don't need to know your internal policies. And my reaction is more normal for a person who is being accused unfairly, and I'm too good editor (even that is not here, because I'm not interested in that) to see my name involved in your unfounded accusations. Vítor&R (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Defending yourself when falsely accused is one thing; lashing out at others as you did [117], [118], [119], and [120] is another. We have processes for resolving disputes, and we all must work within them. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the case that I am being accused, are different things and you can't separate matters, unfortunately. Vítor&R (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that they can't really be separated, since they arose directly as a result of this. For example, this edit was in response to the explanation a different administrator provided to you here of the problem with repeatedly tagging the category for speedy deletion. Again, I understand that this has been distressing for you (it wouldn't make me happy, either), but you can wind up getting blocked for this sort of behavior alone, and that won't help you defend yourself against sock puppetry accusations. It's far, far better to just take a deep breath and figure out how to proceed calmly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The E.N.D.

Wikipedia Anglophone is a shame. A disappointment. Their policies prohibit a user to fend off accusations without any concept. But what is this scheme? Accusing and stain the name of a person without clear evidence, there is no evidence, just a lot of contributions from a user in the United States and one from Portugal, with no way to communicate with one another. Fortunately, this is not my home wiki, and I do not care what you say. I'm innocent, God knows. Speak freely. Vítor&R (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

We are not preventing you from defending yourself. You're defending yourself by attacking the people who accused you, which is not at all OK, and is in fact specifically prohibited. If you can remain civil and calm you can explain your position and defend yourself as much as you want to.

Your statement that there's no way to communicate with someone in California is not credible; email, chat, phone calls, and friendships and family are global now.

With that said, see my comments to Deadalus above. I am not at all convinced by the picture painted accusing you, so far. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is over for me, I will not say anything else. I know I'm innocent, and that's what interests me. I tried to defend myself, and I is that I have been provoked by another user. Refused the request for verification, I have nothing else to do in this Wikipedia, is your kingdom and I am not aware of your policies. Vítor&R (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic point

As the main point seems to have died down, I just wanted to point out that this exact type of dispute (when to tag people as suspected sockpuppets) is being discussed at WP:SOCK (where the stated policy as just written would actually require removal of the tag) and I actually referenced this exact situation to argue for eliminating the whole shebang. More opinions would be greatly desired. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

TruthHistorian POV edits

TruthHistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been making POV changes to a subset of article (see contributions) including adding satan/satanism etc. to Wotanism and POV changes to Historicity of Jesus (such as upper casing all references to him/he/his and wording that seemed to undermine scholars not of his POV). I rv'd suggested he discuss these changes on the talk page (politely I thought :() but he responded with this edit. Not sure if it warrants a block but could an admin have a look over and keep and eye, pretty please :) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 19:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This response [121] also indicates a familiarity with Wikipedia jargon that this may not be such a new user. Active Banana (talk) 19:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm thinking he needs a cool down block so "he has time to learn that we have WP:NPOV and WP:CIVIL, we won't tolerate stomping on those, and messages like Tmorton166's are not examples of biting" (actually, I'm thinking give him more rope to hang himself, possibly gather evidence for an SPI). However, I warned him for making an unsourced addition to Wotanism, and then warned him for calling Tmorton a nazi on his (TruthHistorian's) talk page, he called Tmorton a nazi on Tmorton's talk page. I'm guessing he was saving the second attack just as I was saving the first attack's warning, but he hasn't been editing since then so he may believe he was already blocked or something. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, actually I could have been a bit clearer in my message (it's easy to forget that POV may mean nothing to a genuinely new member). As you say, though, TruhHistorian looks "up" on his terminology :) Thanks for looking at this guys --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 20:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

His claim he's been making small edits, mostly grammatical, doesn't explain how he could call [122] minor. He may be cooling down though, so there's hope. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Anybody know offhand what the status of removing the "mark all edits as minor" preference is? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 78#Preference to mark all edits minor by default asked to be removed in bugzilla:24313 is most recent I know. DMacks (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am constantly being accused of being a sock of light currant

A few idiot administrators have declared I am a sock of light currant. I think by now they acknowledge their mistake, but they now claim I'm to be called light current for simplicity of tracking!?!?! wtf!?!?!?!? I've only started changing IPs etc since they started this. They should accept it is mistaken identification. Please investigate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.226.121 (talk) 18:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know who "light current" is but I'll assume that he did something "bad" and got blocked for it. Therefore, the only reason that these administrators might think that you are him is if you are doing the same "bad" thing. (see WP:DUCK) Therefore, whether or not you are him, the solution is simple, stop doing the "bad" thing. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This IP is making severe personal attacks and needs blocking, range, town, whatever. Off2riorob (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh no it isn't, this IP is making aggressive banter at worst. Heck, perhaps it isn't acceptable, but I'm being driven to it by the incomprehensible behaviour of those who continue to block me. 217.41.226.121 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to describe myself as "an idiot". However, I'd suggest that you might want to scale down the attacks on other editors.

Further information is available in my logs and by examining this editor: 86.178.201.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). TFOWR 18:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll stop everything once this is sorted. FFS. Maybe as first step, gimmee immunity on that page you created? 217.41.226.121 (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No one gets immunity. Seeing as this IPs edits start with this thread (apart from some personal attacks), what account or IP have you been using that is being "declared" a sock. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The IP claims that 79.75.171.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was their first. The first time I encountered them was in their 86.178.201.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) incarnation (which I blocked). I've blocked a few since then. They've been hitting Tnxman307's talkpage as well as Baseball Bugs' talkpage. In addition to the "rusty knife"-style comments at Tnxman307's talkpage and mine, there's also image uploading, this original piece of vandalism, etc. It's entirely possible that the user behind this isn't Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - but, as Ron Ritzman points out, they're making it really hard for us to spot the difference. TFOWR 19:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked 217.41.226.121 for harassment. His comments at Baseball Bugs and TFOWR are completely unacceptable, and if he cannot even attempt to communicate civilly with others, then we cannot help him. –MuZemike 19:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Should just run up a CU. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Waste of time. The editor should prove he's NOT a sock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.173.135.155 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK is right. Regardless of whether it's an actual sock, if it acts like one, even if just because claims to be being pushed to do it by others, I don't care why it decided to cover itself with feathers, duck is duck, disruption is disruption, blocks prevent disruption. If the editor can't realize that he needs to stop being the trigger for the problem, well then that's the critical point that blocking addresses. I don't care who or if it's a sock. Disruption is disruption. DMacks (talk) 21:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"I'll stop everything once this is sorted. FFS. Maybe as first step, gimmee immunity on that page you created?" 217.41.226.121 18:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC) This type of "terroristic" negotiation attempt is typical of socks, whomever's draw they belong in. --GabeMc (talk) 21:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the IP has not provided a single example of anyone calling him a sock, the discussion thread should be closed. TFD (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• The way this user has been acting, making threats etc, it's no longer relevant whether they are a sock or not, they've shown such a degree of hostility and unwillingness to listen to others that it is in the project's best interest that they remain blocked. Maybe we can get a rangeblock expert in here? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:JackShestak

I just came across edits by this user today. Apparently a long history of unsourced edits and an impressive record of creating articles of dubious note [123]. One administrator, Dlohcierekim, discussed this with him and brought the issue here back in March, but the pattern continues unabated. Left behind is a trail of deleted articles, and a lot of clean up for subsequent editors. JNW (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice that a few of the articles he has created have not been deleted; I can't judge in this field--were they just overlooked, or is some of the work satisfactory? DGG ( talk ) 22:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

[124] 85 of them. Maybe at max four meet guidelines. I'm leaving right now to ref some football games, but otherwise I'd be putting a ton up for AfD. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at a few:

• Whatever Gets You Off
• The Last Vegas (album)
• Live at Park Ave.
• Cartesian Dreams

Sourcing wasn't extensive, and at least one Youtube link, but they didn't strike me as unusually problematic.--SPhilbrickT 22:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It is disruptive to create numerous articles that lack proper sources, despite numerous notices. The fact that some of these articles failed AfD or adequate sources were later found is irrelevant. JackShestak should be blocked from creating new articles. If he wants to create new articles he should go to Articles for Creation. TFD (talk) 22:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite protection of Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Jessi Slaughter|Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard § Jessi Slaughter]]

Resolved

 – nothing wrong with semi-protecting that article. Toddst1 (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Kafziel, an administrator who I have been cordially editing with at Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case has fully (and indefinitely) protected the article due to a dispute over including the Leonhardt family's names in the article. While I do not doubt the sincerity of his desire to protect the Leonhardt family (his motives are admirable), there are a multitude of opinions (both on the article's Talk page page and its ongoing AfD discussion) that support inclusion. Kafziel believes the "Jessi Slaughter" incident is analogous to the Star Wars Kid WP:BLP case, but other editors (myself included) believe there are substantial differences between the two situations.

Again, I want to reiterate that I do not begrudge Kafziel his position on the issue, and I very much empathize with his motives. The Jessi Slaughter case is a difficult and unfortunate subject. Regardless, as an editor involved in this content dispute, Kafziel should not have exercised his administrator tools in this fashion. Indefinite full protection is uncalled for in this case. I would like to continue developing the article, but this is now impossible. I would also appreciate Kafziel not referring to other editors' good-faith inclusion of the names (I have been discussing the issue with him and have not re-inserted them myself) as "vandalism." Ingersollian (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be fully protected: it just seems to be semi-protected? TFOWR 23:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the very real threat of harassment to a living minor, WP:BLP it SHOULD be permanently locked down. Active Banana (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Given the very real threat of real life harassment to a living minor, it should be permanently deleted as quickly as possible. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but the "Wikipedia is a Tabloid" crowd's scream would shatter fine china. Tarc (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

God not one of these again, at least it's a little better than the last one. At least deletion arguments are actually grounded in BLP Notability policy (even) this time. Fair enough. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:36, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

67.170.86.33

On my user talk page (User talk:Coasterlover1994). The IP appeared to be calling me a Sockpuppet, as evidenced by this line from a reverted edit to my talk page: You should have read my first edit when it was obvious to a blind man that I put the userspace page live: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A67.170.86.33&action=historysubmit&diff=375307256&oldid=359398796 which netted that warning. Nice sock account by the way, going right to policy-wise Vandal Fighter status after about 20-hours of membership. 1 up! 67.170.86.33 (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC). I don't know what I did to offend the IP, other than removing a redirect to the article namespace that was placed on a user page. Also, after looking at the IP's talk page history, the IP seems to have a history of personal attacks to users after the IP's edits have been reverted. Coasterlover1994^{Leave your mark!} 03:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No doubt he'll be here in a few hours. He also reverted your talkpage warning.--Rockstonetalk to me! 06:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive content editing by Shouko0624

Resolved

 – The block is good. LK (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouko0624 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been editing content disruptively (removing some info (including birth name in edits such as this) and adding other info) without explanation, without references, and without communicating on any talk page. In some of this behavior, the user could be described as a Genre Warrior. Diffs include 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Active Banana (talk · contribs) wrote in this edit that the user "keeps editwarring across multiple pages to do things like claim that a persons father is trivia The user has received a pageful of warnings and made no attempt to communicate back." NativeForeigner (talk · contribs) wrote in this edit 'I blocked shouko for one day, but I"m inexperienced in dealing with disruptive content editors, so please bring it to ANI where people more well versed in this can figure it out.'   — Jeff G.  ツ 06:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The block looks fine. I don't think any further action is needed at this time. Tiptoety ^talk 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming it for me. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 15:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:ThomasK

User had squeezed an unblock request onto their unprotected user page. I have reverted him and protected his user page, and moved the request to talk. I have no experience with this user (that I can remember!), am guessing it will be declined given the contents of his talk but want to check here first. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, I've just noticed that the last comment on there before the current unblock request was by me! Idiot! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 08:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So this user has been blocked for four years, and still trying to get unblocked? This (in March 2010) doesn't look convincing for an unblock. That edit may have shown his true nature.  Davtra  ^(talk) 08:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• In early July he was told to go away for a few months and try again. This is not even a month later. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

..and now he has created a WP:SOCK in User:ThomasKone and requested unblock from there. It's declined. He can e-mail arbcom if he wants to come back. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Back log at Candidates for speedy deletion

If we could get a few admins to take a look at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as there is a small black log. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs) 16:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing a few admins have jumped into the fray, because when I checked just now there were only 47 CSDs - that's the best I've seen it. TFOWR 16:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Bell possible Legal Language

Ok this is Technically not a WP:LEGAL, but this deserves wider attention. I recently edited heavens gate for Neutrality, and Found an Economist used as a source. I say ok thats odd and click the wikilink and come across a Spammy looking article. I check out the history and not to my surprise a single purpsose account created it. i checked and every thing that links to it was added by a different SPA, since i nommed it for AFD another single purpose account pops up and Votes Keep Twice! When it is struck out by another user Since somone can't vote twice a IP adress pops up and votes keep again. and says Do not delete my boss will be very upset! I will be contacting my lawyer to consider my options if this is deleted! Personally I am getting Fed up and now a Borderline Legal Threat. Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Screw "borderline"; that is a legal threat. Threatening to bring in a lawyer is tantamount to threatening to sue, since both have the same purpose of intimidation. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Carl Johnson)} 18:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention serious WP:COI issues. I've seen COI editors refer to "my boss" often enough that I've created the shortcut WP:MYBOSS. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked 64.134.190.246 4 days (the remainder of the AFD) for making a legal threat. –MuZemike 19:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend as many eyes on that Afd as possible. There's lot of SPAs involved. Edward321 (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Tbma again!

Tbma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has again started his editing war in Battle of Tali-Ihantala already breaking 3rr violation this last hour. The goal of his behavior is to break down the article in to noconsistent rubbish.Posse72 (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This user was already previously blocked for his attacks on me. This article has open NPOVN investigation, and my edits were adding information from more sources. User Posse72 continues to reverse my edits, and falsifies numbers from the references. --Tbma (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If you're reporting a 3RR violation, you should do so at WP:ANEW. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Pls Check User:Tbma history, and compare with former user YMB29. Also dont forget user:Tbma a few days ago accused article Battle Tali-Ihantala being a hox and fake. This was investegated by WP:NPOVN who disregarded Tbma accusation as false.Posse72 (talk) 21:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your claim was removed from sock-puppet board. If you think that it should be re-opened - you might do it again. --Tbma (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

After I have read trough all of user:YMB29 postings i 200% she and Tbma is the same.Posse72 (talk) 10:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Then file an spi and stop arguing about it here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cross-Wiki sabotage

A sockpupper, Rafax (es:user:vitamine = en:user:Rafax = es:Usuario:Dermot = es:Usuario:Cronoster, etc. etc. etc...) was blocked in eswiki for sabotage for a whole month the discussion es:talk:choripán. Three wikipedians we denounce him (es:user:Aleposta, es:user:Rosymonterrey, and myself), and two administrators ratified the denunciation (es:user:Ecemaml and es:user:Ezarate, here).

Now Rafax tries to do the same thing in talk:choripán, aggravated by the fact that the sources, here, are not understandable by anyone (are sources in Spanish). He uses the sources to his whim, and for this motive he was blocked one month in eswiki. This is a case of manipulation of sources crosswiki. Ferbr1 (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ferbr1, I'm a strong believer in the independence of wikis. I'm fully aware of how different the uses of each wikipedia (you can see my block log here, you'll possibly get surprissed) are and I don't think that the behaviour of a given user in a wikipedia must have the slightest effect in another. At least in the Spanish wikipedia, Rafax is not a sockpuppet of Vitamine. Rafax asked for a name change and choose Vitamine. I can, of course confirm that his behaviour in the Spanish wikipedia was disruptive (that was the rationale of the block, a block done by me) that he used unreliable sources, and a lot of WP:SYN in order to produce original research. I cannot judge whether his behaviour here is also disruptive, since that's something this community, using the procedures defined in here, must deal with. On the other hand, my understading of WP:EL is that external links in Spanish are valid, as long as there are not better links in English. That's not possibly the words that were expected, but I do think each wikipedia must work in a fully independent way. Otherwise I could claim admin status here, as I'm also an admin in the Spanish wikipedia and commons :-) Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) PS: I don't understand your mentions to different users. Are those users being used in the English wikipedia? If not, your mentions are irrelevant. PS2: on the other hand, my personal understanding of the choripán issue is that "choripán" is the name given in Argentina and other Latin American countries to the local variety of chorizo sandwich. On the one hand, it seems difficult for me to determine to which extent a given variety of such sandwich can be said to be "invented" in a given place (of course that, without proper sources, such a feeling is not enough for assert it in a wikipedia article). However, the sources currently supporting such statement (the Argetinean "invention") are not solid enough (papers and the Argentine portal, with an obvious CoI, so that it's far away from being a reliable source).

Jessi Slaughter deletion log

Resolved

So Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case was speedily deleted with an Ignore All Rules rationale, but then described in its deletion log as a BLP G10 violation -- yet it did not even remotely fit those criteria. Because of that G10 characterization I've been denied reviewer rights as the author of "a negative unsourced BLP" (it absolutely was not negative or poorly sourced). I wrote a difficult article, waiting for several days of media coverage before even creating it, and took great pains to write it using only the most mainstream of third-party sources. It might not have been a popular topic to try writing about, but I wrote it well and followed WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:BLP1E to the very best of my abilities.

I'm fine with the community deciding that WP:V and WP:RS are outweighed in some cases, and it's obviously futile to contest the decision at WP:DRV, but to cast an editor like myself as having authored an attack page and slap me with a scarlet letter over a poorly-written deletion decision is completely unfair. That poorly-written rationale and its inclusion in the article's deletion log has branded me as the sort of editor that I am not, and I'd appreciate someone at least taking the time to refine the language of the article's deletion log to make this clear. Ingersollian (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the delete log to reflect the actual issue. Not perfect but should at least remove any questions. I would confirm that the article looked to be carefully written and sought to follow a high standard of writing, however community concerns related to harm and long term newsworthiness carried more weight in this instance. It can happen. Borderline BLPs can be difficult to second guess in terms of community reaction.

Not a lot that one can say. Any one of a great many competent editors fancying a challenge might have judged that topic likely notable and tried to write exactly that article. I hope that's some kind of comfort :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"Any one of a great many competent editors fancying a challenge might have judged that topic likely notable and tried to write exactly that article. I hope that's some kind of comfort :)" Thank you so much! That's exactly what I've been trying to explain all along. Is there any chance someone who knows the circumstances of the deletion would now reconsider my request to be able to review? :) Ingersollian (talk) 20:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Way ahead of you. Having been closely involved on the post-AFD/BLP it would feel improper of me to do anything on your permissions even if it were my area of focus. However while you were writing the above I was posting a comment at WP:PERM/RW, you may want to ask the declining admin (on his talk page) if he would be willing to review it again. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Pvae again

Resolved

 – Blocked by BWilkins. LK (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Back in April, I posted here about Pvae (talk · contribs) constantly adding links to Songfacts.com; see here. The discussion hinted at possibly blacklisting songfacts.com, and it went nowhere. Before the last ANI discussion, I warned this user twice that Songfacts.com is generally considered unreliable since so much of it is user submitted. Now, this user's spamming Songfacts again. I don't wanna keep playing whack-a-mole with this user, so for a change, can we actually GET somewhere with discussion instead of having it peter out after a day? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A blacklisting of Songfacts.com is probably a good idea, but this is not a the right forum for that. Unless you're suggesting a short block for Pvae (talk · contribs) as a whack with the cluebat? I would support that too. LK (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, looks like I blocked them a couple of hours ago for this reason - the blacklist discussion is pretty important now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at both the original ANI thread and at pvae's talk page and I think that this block might be premature. In the past I have said that if an editor receives multiple warnings and requests to stop doing something and refuses to discuss the issue, that editor should be blocked. I don't see that here. What I see is one user asking him to stop (and another with a minor opinion) and a plausible sounding rebuttal from Pvae. The previous ANI and WP:SBL threads were inconclusive. This isn't consensus this is "because I said so".

Now Tenpoundhammer might be right but before we start blocking people for using Songfacts as a source, we should get a stronger consensus on its reliability (or lack of it) at WP:RSN. In the previous ANI thread it was suggested that it might be like IMDB, reliable for some things but not for others. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing informations and edit-warring

User:Ninguém is removing several informations from article Portuguese Brazilian. He's also edit-warring.

[This is the original version of the article http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Brazilian&action=submit], which has been there for several months. A rich article, full of informations about the Portuguese presence in Brazil from colonial times to nowadays.

[This is the version of Ninguém http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portuguese_Brazilian&action=submit], after days of heavy edits, he removed most of article's informations. He removed all the informations about the Portuguese presence in Brazil during colonial times, and focused only in their presence after independence. It became a much poorer article. And he also included his personal opinions, like "People descending from Portuguese from that time are never considered "Portuguese Brazilians" and might take offence at that."

It seems article ownership. Opinoso (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have exactly the same memories of Ninguen. He is rewriting many long term stable articles from another perspective. Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• - Notified User:Ninguém - Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

He re-writes stable articles from his own perspective. When he deslikes some information, he just removes it, or claims that the source is not relible or that it does not belong to the article. Former stable articles are not destroyed after his editions and endless discussions. He has a huge lack of knowledge about the subjects, so everything he did not know he claims to be false. Opinoso (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If I am edit-warring, against whom am I edit-warring? Or would this be a new thing, a war with only one side?

About the "sourced" informations I removed, here is one example: ""No available figures. The vast majority of Brazilians have some Portuguese ancestry". No source. It also seems to imply that the "vast majority" of Brazilians are "Portuguese Brazilians", which is not only unsourced, but, frankly, simply false. And here is the "unsourced personal opinion" that I substituded: 1.2 million<ref>Maria Beatriz Rocha-Trindade. [http://analisesocial.ics.ul.pt/documentos/1223029690Q0qVY3ok7Pi09MZ4.pdf Espaços de herança cultural portuguesa — gentes, factos, políticas] in ''Análise Social'', vol XXIV (100), 1988 (1º). p. 328. PDF file.</ref> Apparently it does have a source.

The above is representative; Opinoso is quite a bad reader. He misreads the sources, and then reports them into the articles, stubbornly defending his misinterpretations. In this way, he has included much garbage in Wikipedia, such as, for instance, "Nelson is a Portuguese name". Much of his "sourced information" is of this quality; most of the rest is based in unreliable sources. When someone undoes his confusions, he likes to claim "article ownership", "vandalism", etc. On the other hand, he often undoes - rightly or wrongly - the work of others in them most uncivil way, and then a different standard seems to apply. Ninguém (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop trying to change the focus of this discussion, Ninguém. You removed nearly all the informations from article Portuguese Brazilian. You already did it in several articles. Opinoso (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I did; the removed information is unsourced, missourced, unrelated to the article, or otherwise simply false. The bit I posted above shows exactly that: you included misinformation (indeed unsourced misinformation) in the article, I removed it, and you are claiming that I removed "sourced" information. That's the substance of this ANI. Ninguém (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Stop using your own perspective to re-write article. And you removed half of the article, not only that figure. By the way, your source does not claim that only 1.2 million Brazilians are of Portuguese descent. Opinoso (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at what this is all about. The best way in is the list of the last 250 edits. We see here an edit war between Ninguém (31,150 bytes) and Opinoso (45,413 bytes). The figure of 45,413 bytes first appears, I believe, at 02:00, 3 April 2010. If we compare that version and the current one, we see no change. Opinoso wants to take the article back to the state it was in over three months ago.

That earlier version lasted 12 days, before it was amended by Ninguém -- slightly and simply, if with a curiously pugnacious edit summary. But this edit summary was anomalous: the edit history of the article shows a string of over a hundred edits by Ninguém, to 12:31, 17 May 2010: each incremental, each -- as far as I can judge (and I cannot read Portuguese) -- an improvement, and each with an informative and polite edit summary. A week later, Rich Farmborough did a little clearing up. Five days later, 200.251.176.140 reverted it to 45,513 bytes with the edit summary "Several sourced informations were removed from this article after heavily continous editing. Can somebody protect it from vandalism?"

There has been an edit war since then. On the one hand, Ninguém. On the other, 200.251.176.140, 201.62.216.172 and Opinoso. All three of the latter consistently complain about the removal of "informations". (The latest is "You discuss why you are removing informations. I am free to add informations in Wikipedia, but you are not free to remove them".) Ninguém's summaries have included "No actual reason for restoring distortions, misinformation, and irrelevance" and "Discuss in the talk page if you think the changes aren't good."

And what are the changes? They're so extensive that the normal left-right comparison makes them hard to see -- which of course is hardly Ninguém's fault: he provided an edit summary every time. Still some discrete changes are easy to make out from left-versus-right. Opinoso has reverted:

• "After Portugal's recovery from the effects of Salazarist dictatorship" to "After Portugal's recovery from the effects of the 1974 military coup"
• "endogamy" to "endogomy" (at least twice)
• "The Brazilian culture is in large part derived from the Portuguese culture and the similarities between both cultures and the relatively easy integration of immigrants in Brazil, make it nearly impossible for some to keep a separate Portuguese identity." to "The Brazilian culture is in large part derived from the Portuguese culture and for the similarities between both cultures and the relatively easy integration of immigrants in Brazil, makes it nearly impossible for some to keep a separate Portuguese identity."
• "Genetic studies also confirm the strong proportion of Portuguese genetic ancestry in Brazilians." to "Genetic studies also confirm the strong Portuguese racial influence in Brazilians."
• "theater director" to "theater director de teatro"

And so on. Most of the above are of course trivial. The point being, when Opinoso's handiwork is extensively edited, he repeatedly reverts wholesale, and the hell with spelling mistakes, crappy markup, readditions of categories that no longer exist, bits of Portuguese, and miscellaneous absurdities.

There's more to see at Talk:Portuguese Brazilian (and indeed the talk page of many articles about issues and non-issues in South American demographics).

For those of you thinking that the names Ninguém and Opinoso are both very familiar here at WP:AN/I and clearly they both hate each other's guts and are time-wasters and should be dealt with in the same way -- no, there are differences:

• Ninguém argues each point, Opinoso demands equal time (or something like that), but hardly argues.
• Ninguém shows where Opinoso's edits are at fault; Opinoso airily ascribes what he doesn't like to Ninguém's PoV.

When both editors agree that there's a substantive difference between the two of them and a third party tries to get to the bottom of it, Ninguém tends to be willing to discuss the issue(s), Opinoso tends not to. (See e.g. the archives of Talk:White Brazilian.)

I started in these squabbles a long time ago, merely as a disinterested admin. I still have no more interest than I had then in the ethnic affiliations, skin color, "race" or genetic origins of Brazilians and others -- they could be Melanesian or Maori, black, white or green for all I care. (And ditto for my inlaws, my neighbors, and my own family, for that matter.) Still, I have some concern for the ability of WP readers who are interested to read coolly and scrupulously written material, and have at times done some editing as well as made some attempts at mediation. The mediation attempts failed, and perhaps I bear a grudge against Opinoso for having wasted so much of my time. Awareness of the possibility that I can no longer look dispassionately at Opinoso's reversions makes me hesitate to do what I believe is amply justified: block him for 3RR, editing disruptively, degrading articles, etc. But somebody else should consider this. I'm sure that this and related articles would benefit from Opinoso being given a long vacation. -- Hoary (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken redirects

Resolved

There are two broken redirects listed on Schutz's tool[125] but they need an admin to fix them. Can someone oblige? Cheers. 86.145.163.208 (talk) 00:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Some advice on persistent hoax vandalism, please

Resolved

 – Another 4chan target armor-plated N419BH 20:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have List of British words not widely used in the United States on my watchlist, and so have been witnessing a series of US-based IP addresses (and some throw-away accounts) insert made up words into the list. They're blatantly false, for example, "smokery pokery" to mean "corn dog", even though Britain doesn't have, make, or eat corn dogs. These IPs have been pretty much tag-teaming trying to keep some of these words on the list, but they seem to have settled on "Smibbly Bibbly" as a favourite. When this was first inserted, I searched for it and got only a single hit, which was this one: [126]. I've searched intermittently for it since then, and the list of hits keep growing, as the word gets added to various forums and other public-posting sites around the 'net. Adding it to the urban dictionary does not make it a British term. I'm not the only one who has been reverting these additions as vandalism, but I have been doing so consistently, and even semi-protected the article for a short period of time. My last removal has provoked this: [127], rather humorously calling me a bitch, :) Question is, what to do? I don't mind carrying on removing it, as protection seems too drastic, even though this has been a long-term issue, and the variety of IPs being used probably makes blocking ineffective. I'm convinced that whomever is determined to insert this term into the British language is hoping Wikipedia will lend strength to their hoax. Other opinions? For completeness, I've also discussed this with an IP, here: [128]. Thanks, Maedin\^talk 19:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it seems to be on-going and with so many IPs and socks, I'm inclined to think reprotecting it would be a good idea. I see that it was protected before, which drastically cut down on the problems until it expired. It might also be a good candidate for the Pending Changes trial, if they are still allowing new articles. I'd also recommend an SPI on all the editors doing the same edit to see if they are the same person or group of people, get them tagged, and see if a range block is possible. With the SPI, it will also generally be easier to report to AIV for blocking on future occurrences. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 20:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Might be a 4chan attack. Sometimes I'm embarrassed to have that USA Citizen userbox on my page. Probably should semiprotect. N419BH 20:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be embarrassed, there's an equal percentage of idiots elsewhere, we just have more people, therefore more idiots. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no shortage of vandalism from the UK, I assure you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the talk page of the article has suggested 4chan as the source. How long would one semi-protect for? The last 3-day protection was useless. Maedin\^talk 20:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd say 5 days, see what happens after that. If it continues, semi again. Eventually they'll get bored/find a new target. N419BH 20:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like John took care of it—a month. That should shut them up, ;-) Thanks for the extra eyes! Maedin\^talk 20:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't count on it,Channers can go after a target for half a year or more, this might need to be permanent... Soxwon (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh. RBI for now, worry about it in a month if they come back. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks, vandalism, BLP vio

Resolved

 – indeffed by John Toddst1 (talk) 04:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User: GeorgeSorrows has been repeatedly warned about his behavior, but is unrepentant. His behavior includes personal attacks and incivility toward other editors ([129], [130], [131], [132])), deleting warnings from his talk page ([133]), vandalism ([134]), and slanderous BLP violations ([135], in which he calls George Soros a "creepy self-hating Jew whose army of of hapless bloggers are polluting the minds of our disaffected youth everywhere"). He has shown no indications that he intends to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, so I think a block is in order. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Fifteen edits this guy has. Fifteen. And this is what he's brought to the table so far. (Btw, he's entitled to remove warnings from his own talk page, but still.) --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not here to improve the encyclopedia. Blocked indef. --John (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Elockid abetting meatpuppets?

No point keeping this open. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – This conversation is over. Moving on. –MuZemike 20:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Here's the timeline: 13:30 I post to Talk:Astronomical year numbering 14:43 Chris Bennett reverts 14:52 Jc3s5h (who has been editing all day) files SPI 15:22 Elockid gives judgment An interval of thirty minutes between filing and judgment is unheard of in a free society. It gives the accused no time to read the charge/instruct lawyer/file defence. It demonstrates Elockid's bias against me. A comparison of the way other cases are handled is instructive. For example, The lonerex was filed 08:32 July 23, judgment given 14:22 July 24. Ryanpatrick filed 16:13 20 July, judgment given 06:23 July 24. Now we look at the collusion aspect. Bennett reverted at 14:43 and Jc3s5h filed nine minutes later. The obvious inference is that he was alerted off - wicki. Time for these guys to be blocked and Elockid de - sysopped. (No tilde on this keyboard). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.211.161 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC) What ever gave you the idea that Wikipedia is a free society? There are standards of behavior to be observed. Including assuming good faith. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Since the IP sock of Vote (X) for Change apparently can't read directions, I have notified the users involved in this thread. N419BH 19:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Re the continuing attacks on my wife, instead of claiming she is a sockpuppet and then changing the subject, can we have some reasoning showing how the conclusion is arrived at? She went to the trouble of collating all the evidence on her talk page User talk:Meletian. It might be a good idea to refer to the evidence against and for (there isn't any) then demonstrate how the operation of the rules on that evidence supports your conclusion (they don't). Re your claim that she didn't notify Elockid, how do you think that (s)he found out to block her (see block log). Are you crediting Elockid with psychic powers? And since my wife does not have psychic powers, how was she supposed to notify Bennett and Jc3s5h after being blocked? Do you think that blocking without giving a chance to give the required notices is an act of good faith? I don't need psychic powers to forecast that two people who won't be showing up on this thread are Bennett and Jc3s5h. (no tilde on this keyboard). WP:DUCK is quacking. N419BH 19:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC) There you go again. You never quote the relevant paragraphs of the rule and show how they support your case because you don't have a case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.178.117 (talk) 19:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC) The longer this goes on the worse it gets. Last night MuZemike "invited" my wife to leave the project, protected this page and collapsed the thread. The stated reason for collapse, WP:DENY is bogus, since that applies to vandals and nobody has suggested that my wife is a vandal. Chris Bennett continues the disinformation campaign on his talk page. He is now accusing my wife of "an attempt to impose the Revised Julian Calendar leap year algorithm on the Gregorian Calendar article", referring to an earlier thread. Scrolling back, we find his actual words: "I haven't looked at that closely". This he swears is the only interaction with Jc3s5h in which my wife is mentioned. According to him, my wife is "a crank" and he thinks Jc3s5h believes the same but "I don't know, because we've never discussed it". So what about [136] where they accuse her of "lies, slander, obfuscation, ignorance and misinformation" and "monomania", or [137] where he describes her as a "nutter"? Higher up the page they both dispute a ruling by SarekofVulcan where (s)he says "That's a content dispute, not vandalism -- be sure you don't get blocked for violating the rules against edit warring".

Ductch Wikipedia Drama

Dutch Wikipedia drama
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:JanDeFietser Resolved  – Deletion was proper. Concerns about NL-wiki to be dealt with at meta-wiki as EN-wiki is not the place for it. I deleted User:JanDeFietser/wikipedistan001 earlier as an attack page after reviewing a google-translated version ([138]); note that the bottom of the page apparently contains a threat of a fine of 100 euros/day under some Dutch law for nl.wiki because the user's block on nl.wiki - apparently for legal threats (sulutil:JanDeFietser) - was supposedly illegal. The user has since recreated it with essentially the same content. Bringing it here for community review. T. Canens (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I am uncertain that all this effort is productive at all. More effort could be spent on article writing. To most people, the user page is a huge mass of Dutch (could as well be Tamil). The alleged legal threat is not clear and Google Translate is just an unofficial tool. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC) User:Tim Song has changed his name to T.Canens. Very confusing! Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC) There is NO legal threat. I am blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia since 06th November 2009 after the false accusations of an alleged "legal threat" that there wasn't at all. Quite strange , even after my clear confirmation dated 19th November 2006 I am still blocked there: there something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. My message seems enough to inform the community about that. Reactions are welcome, deletions not. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I have re-deleted the page. This is not the place for it. Please do not replace it. James (T C) 16:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC) What is the reason for your deletion? It is not an "attack" page and there is no "legal threat". --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Reads more like a rant than a message. Could also be construed as an attack on the Dutch Wikipedia in general. Have you considered stating on Dutch Wikipeida "I retract any perceived legal threats made by me". On this wiki that's usually enough to be unblocked unless there are other reasons for the block to remain. That might solve your problem. N419BH 16:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC) You are correct, it isn't really an legal threat. I apologize for adding that part on to the deletion reasoning. However that stated it basically is an attack page and it does not belong here on enWiki. I understand you are frustrated and angry about your problems on nlWiki but this is not the place for that. James (T C) 16:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Both thanks for your reactions. The statement "to consider" was made already 9 months ago - under illegal duress by the way (art. 284 Dutch Criminal Code). That statement already dates from 19th November 2009. That clear statement was first placed on my user page, but then removed, and no deblocking followed until this day. Again, there is unfortunately something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. What do you both suggest is then a more proper place to inform the community on this problem? --JanDeFietser (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I haven't looked into the details of your nlwiki block, but if you express yourself in legal terms such as "illegal duress" and citing laws over there as well, then I'm not surprised you're still blocked.--Atlan (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I can not promise you will get a better reception (they will obviously draw their own conclusions) but a more appropriate place would be a Request for Comment at Meta WikiJames (T C) 16:51, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Dear Atlan, expressing something in legal terms is in the first place not so strange because of my background, but is the most clearest description however when injustice is noticed. The behavior on 6th November 2009 of admin Basvb of the Dutch Wikipedia was indeed criminal, if you want to speak in such terms: he threatened to block me if I dared to address a judge on the false and very harsh accusations against my person on which arbitration was refused on 30th October 2009. According to the Dutch law, no one can be withheld form the judge. See here on the English Wikipedia Jus de non evocando and also Constitution of the Netherlands. @ both: But what can one do, if arbitration is refused? (I suppose benevolently: maybe because the issue was /is too complicated ?). If one of you can tell me, I would read that gladly. Again, there is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I'm just saying that when you're blocked for perceived legal threats, it doen't help your case to defend yourself with further legal speak.--Atlan (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Threatening to take your complaints about wikipedia to a judge is definitely a legal threat. And I don't know about the Netherlands, but in the USA there is no constitutional right to edit wikpedia, so blocking someone is in no way, shape or form "illegal". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC) @Baseball Bugs: the other way round, there is no right at a;; to use any force against someone to keep him or her away from seeking his right.--JanDeFietser (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I know a little of this user's history on the Dutch Wikipedia, as I am an admin there, though I don't think I've had much interaction, if any, with him; in my perception, the legal threat (whether real or perceived I do not know) was merely the last straw, as the user was making his own position impossible with long rants against just about everything (like the one that was deleted). I don't think this Wikipedia should provide him with a forum for his rants, nor that we should discuss his perceived wrongs here; as Jamesofur said, Meta is a better venue. Ucucha 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC) This reminds me of an old saying -- the more you yell in people's ears, they less they are able (and will want) to listen. Jan, you need to calm down here. Whatever this article was isn't the end of the world. Let it go. Start over again. The world will continue to spin. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (Sigh) Ucucha is wrong: last year I defended myself against false accusations by users Cumulus and Peter b on the Dutch Wikipedia: then thanks to their deceiving of the Arbcom on 10th June 2009 I was forbidden to defend myself against these false accusations by both for a crime ("laster", art. 262 Dutch Criminal Code) that I did NOT commit and, absolutely unacceptable, the morbid and cruel depicting of me by the latter of an alleged "dancing on the grave" of a person who when alive happened to be very dear and important to me, and Cumulus and Peter b then could continue with their accusations, while other users on the Dutch Wikipedia even started to parrot them about this crime that I did NOT commit, on which arbitration was refused on 30th October 2009. @ Doc Quintana: Thanks for your kind words. But in spite of my clear confirmation dated 19th November 2009 I am still not deblocked and you have no idea of the damage that was done. I will inform you maybe later tonight or tomorrow about this by wikimail. --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC) No wories Jan. Trust me, I know how you feel. Step back for a little bit from it and you'll feel better. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC) There is nothing to prevent you from pursuing legal action against wikipedia. But if you do, or threaten to, then you are not allowed to edit on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC) That last remark I do not understand. Who was talking about "legal actions against Wikipedia"? For what? For the refusal of arbitration on 3oth October 2009? I was falsely accused by two individuals on the Dutch Wikipedia, Cumulus & Peter b, of a crime that I did NOT commit. Do you think Wikipedia will have to take responsibility for their false accusations? (I doubt that). And there never was any "legal threat" from me, but nevertheless I was blocked on 6th November 2009 on the Dutch Wikipedia for such a chimera, which was a false accusation concocted by Arbcom-member Basvb who earlier that day threatened me on the Dutch wikichat (imho such persons with such unscrupulous behaviour should NOT be members of any arbitration committee) and in spite of my clear declaration dated 19th November 2009, now in July after 9 months, I am still not deblocked. Again, there is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. If you don't mind, I take some rest now (thanks Doc Quintana). --JanDeFietser (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I'm a bit confused. You've repeatedly stated that you were denied arbitration. However in perusing your block log on nl.wiki I noticed that you were actually repeatedly banned for violating an ArbCom decision about you. You were blocked no less than six times in only four months for vandalism, personal attacks and then finally the ArbCom decision. You apparently followed this up with a violation of NLT here where you apparently twice emailed the NL ArbCom threatening to sue in civil court for defamation. And you wonder why you got blocked? Mauler90 talk 18:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Well, I eagerly admit that you have indeed some reason to be or at least feel "a bit confused" when you see the practice on the Dutch Wikipedia. When some user files a case against me, then I should also be able to file a case against him / her / them as well, but this very elementary stuff still has to be discovered on the Dutch Wikipedia. In June 2009, I was falsely accused on the Dutch Wikipedia by two users, Cumulus & Peter b, of a crime that I did NOT commit ("laster", art. 262 Sr), and the latter depicted me also as "dancing on the grave" of a person who when alive was dear and important to me: such teasing is an absolutely not acceptable way to discuss matters on Wikipedia. In a procedure full of lies and fallacies from their side, while my defence was ignored, they succeeded in an extremely wide 'topic ban' of which the only purpose was forbidding me to defend myself against their false accusations, that Peter b continued to utter while pushing his POV (Cumulus was blocked then for a while for some other reason). In the meantime other users were parroting these false accusations of Cumulus & Peter b. When I am not allowed to defend myself against (false) accusations on the Wikipedia, then these accusations itself should be forbidded as well, as I requested the Arbcom: however, this was finally refused on 30th October, shortly after I informed the arbitration committee on the damages that had emerged in the meantime. Please do not overestimate the admins on the Dutch Wikipedia. There was NO "vandalism", there were NO "personal attacks", just defence against the false accusations that every now and then seem to be rampant on the Dutch Wikipedia, and the deceiving of the arbitration committee by my accusers Cumulus & Peter b. Many users have left already the Dutch Wikipedia because of the atmosphere. They had less endurance than I do (I guess). I suppose benevolently that the whole case was / is too complicated for the arbitration committee. That I "twice emailed the NL ArbCom" "threatening to sue in civil court for defamation" is a sheer lie from NL Arbcom-member Basvb, who himself threatened me on 6th November 2009 on the Dutch wikichat and behind my back concocted that block, again without any defence from my side (that seems to be quite "normal" on the Dutch Wikipedia?). Such persons with such behaviour should NOT be a member of an arbitration committee. There is something very very wrong on the Dutch Wikipedia. In spite of my clear declaration dated 19th November 2010 on that alleged "legal threat" that there was NOT, now in July 2010 I am still not deblocked. I hope your feeling of confusion is a little less now. I want to take some rest now. Regards, --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC) If this is regarding the nlWiki, shouldn't it be discussed through their appropriate venues, or barring that, Meta? Hazardous Matt (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC) To echo what Matt has said. EN-wiki cannot resolve any issue with NL-wiki, so this is the wrong place to post. Sorry. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 19:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Matt, to make things worse, when I informed several users of the Dutch Wikipedia in September per wikimail about the negligence of the ArbcomNL, the wikimail was blocked for me by user Woudloper. one of the parrots of the false accusations against which I was not allowed to defend myself. And after I was blocked in november for a "legal threat" that there was not, also the email to the Arbcom was blocked for me: ostrichism. I think that the whole case is too complicated for them, and that they just do not dare yet to admit that they are unfortunately unable to grasp it. I go to bed now. --JanDeFietser (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC) If NL won't deal with an NL-Wiki dispute, then try MetaWiki. I don't think anyone on enWiki has the authority to overturn their decisions. Hazardous Matt (talk) 20:18, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I would suggest to an admin around here that this conversation be closed. It's going around in circles. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Hello, I would like to say that I am having similar problems on the Dutch wiki. From my perspective it is quite corrupt. I do not know this particular user's full story, not have I read the whole issue, I am merely saying that this is not just one individual experiencing this. I have had contact with several other users who are also having the same problems there. In my opinion it seems that when somebody contradicts one of the regular contributor's POV that person gets into trouble with the whole lot. Saying something about that makes it worse. It seems to me that these things should at the very least be allowed to be said here AND there. However, there they are not allowed. My question is why such critical notes are even being deleted in an open and free system? --Faust (talk) 21:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Okay, again, really more of a discussion for MetaWiki. No one here can do anything about it. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Addendum: Can an Admin close this please? En shouldn't be a launching point for NL administration issues. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC) See my post here. Not much more we can do here, also recommend this be closed with a possible RfC at meta if the user desires it. Mauler90 talk 21:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Meta RFC link for convenience. Hazardous Matt (talk) 21:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I think the point is being missed here. The thing is that there is absolutely no reason to delete such content in an open and free system. If indeed someone feels that some things should not be said here, that person can caution another for saying something and after that remove his own static. But deleting something is an entirely different matter. That is censorship to protect a POV. That simply should not happen on any wikipedia. Claiming that disputes should be settled elsewhere is a true statement, but does not apply to the content of a user's page. A user's page can be filled by anything that user wants to fill it with, short of criminal exclamations. If other users wish to discuss matters there, making it a discussion concerning a dispute, those users should be prohibited from editing the user page in question. Simply cataloging a process does not constitute that problem. The reason I am making a point of this is because of the broader issue involved: the difference between an open and free system and one where POV's rule the day. I hope any and all mods will be sensitive to this. --Faust (talk) 23:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC) The content was deleted because it was an attack page. A user cannot fill their userpage with "anything they want." If it is offensive it WILL be deleted. Mauler90 talk 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) Wikipedia is privately owned, not owned or sponsored by any government. Therefore, there is no Freedom of Speech in any constitutional or legal capacity. User Pages are not the property of the respective User. The page you are apparently referencing (which has since been deleted) was reviewed to be an attack page. Therefore, it was removed due to WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA. The initial page, the original editor's response, and your responses, have all been a result of an action on NL-Wiki. Several people have informed you that this is not the appropriate venue for reporting questionable action by NL-Wiki Administrators. In summation, the page was an attack in violation of a policy on a privately-owned website, and it was attacking an independent faction of the privately-owned website. There is no censorship or POV-silencing as it pertains to this incident. enWiki should not be a springboard to speak out against NL-wiki. Take it to NL, take it to Meta, but attacks against it do not have any place here. Hazardous Matt (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I think it may be better for Jan to forget about Dutch Wikipedia altoghether. If what he writes is true, then there is little point in contributing there. But then I can understand that he wants to get his version of the facts straight. But the way to do that is not to argue here in the way you would do there. Instead, he should write up something that is of use to us here and that can only be done in general terms. I tried to do that on my talkpage about the negative experience I had on Physics Forums. Perhaps such problems are universal: when you have a small number of Admins/Moderators who get involved in disputes, you can expect trouble; The moderation process can become corrupted. Count Iblis (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC) As an nl-wiki sysop I think the phrase "The moderation process can become corrupted" is absolutely not applicable. First of all nl-wiki has more than a few moderators and Jan has been given the chance of arbitration. Since he dislikes the result of that he now follows this path of slandering people and presenting his own fairytale version of the events. As one of the involved admins I can assure that the part concerning me is highly inaccurate and incomplete. What Jan also forgets to mention is that he refuses to make the statement that he will not sue users of the nl-wiki. Feel free to ask me about the case through wikimail or a message on my talk page. This however does not apply to JanDeFietser since he is resending his view of the events including a ton of false accusations to half nl-wiki all the time anyway (badly enough to get his nl-wikimail shut down). JZ85 (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC) @Mauler: As stated above it is not an attack page. Please do not double your noise. @Hazardous Matt: The wikipedia is not a platform to promote POV's. That is what this is about. To silence people is to promote a POV. Apart from that, no matter the system, basic HUMAN RIGHTS still apply. Please, you have stated your opinion, do not double your noise. @Count Iblis: I agree with you that a small number of referees is a problem. A large number of referees who intercommunicate and socialize is a problem as well however. That way people tend to look at what the majority is doing. If a precedent is created, the rest follow in line. That is why, in normal law cases, an IMPARTIAL judge is wanted. Bias is a POV. Apart from that I do believe that forgetting about wiki.nl might be Jan's best option. For now he is not arguing anything by the way, he is showing what happened. There is a difference. @JZ85: Perhaps you should stay out of this discussion since you are personally involved and therefore bias? In fact, you are the active corrupting individual in this case. By your actions you are actively trying to get a referee to respond to this case in a bias manner. Please stay out of this matter so there is still a chance that a referee would respond to this in an unbiased manner. Even though I am assuming you mean well, please, refrain from adding more static. Please people, I do not think this page is normally used for arguments.... --Faust (talk) 08:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Indeed, we cannot do anything about NL:Wikipedia here. So let's leave these arguments out of it. The whole thread started with T. Canens telling about his issues with removing inappropriate (according him) content from JandeFietsers userpages. My suggestion to JandeFietser would be to let Nl:wiki rest. Do not put up angry ad/or inflammatory references to that on his userpages, and become an active and respected editor on En:Wiki (i.e. here). If he is willing to do that I see no problems, if not, he will run into conflicts here very soon and may run into blocks here as well. But for now I would give him the benefit of the doubt if he agrees not to refer to his experiences on NL:wiki on his userspace (at least not in a way that can be interpreted as aggressive to anyone involved in the disputes he had). Arnoutf (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I ran the deleted userpage through Google translate yesterday, and my view was that it certainly was an attack page. It referred to nl.wiki's ArbCom as a "Kangaroo Court" and moderators on nl.wiki as "lazy". There were specific references to individual arbs and administrators, using equally unflattering terms. I agree with Tim Song's {{db-attack}} deletion, and likewise with Jamesofur's subsequent deletion. I am surprised that this is still under discussion. This is clearly not a matter for en.wiki. The editor responsible for the userpage has been directed to meta: I do not believe there is anything further we can do here unless the userpage is recreated. TFOWR 08:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I am a native Dutch speaker (and reader). I will agree to the fact that he did use the terms in question, but if the situation was reversed, would you not use colorful language to describe the situation? Granted, it may not be as decent as could be, but here he is merely cataloging. I guarantee that this was not used as an attack this time, merely an accurate log. There is a difference. Please, do consider the larger issues. --Faust (talk) 09:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Whether the editor intended to attack is not relevant: what matters is whether the userpage was correctly deleted as an "attack page" (in my view it was). By way of analogy, an editor might innocently create a userpage that disparages a friend: the friend would in no way feel attacked, but the userpage would still be deleted as an attack page, and the admin who deleted the page would have acted entirely correctly (which was the original issue here - did Tim Song act correctly?) The larger issue is that this is outside en.wiki's remit: we have no authority here. The editor has been directed to meta: there is nothing further we can do. TFOWR 09:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Fully support TFOWR's analysis. This issue is closed from an en.wp point of view. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) All "quotes" out of context are wrong. But to put it frankly, indeed I called and call the ArbcomNL a kangaroo court, because that term, though pejorative, applies. Today, I have no time to read all comments here or elsewhere. So for the moment, I thank the users above for their kind attention to this issue, appropriate here or not, and politely ask them to be alert and not to be deceived by the prejudiced admins of the Dutch Wikipedia. Bamanekhuda. --JanDeFietser (talk) 11:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC) One thing I'm surprised no one here suggested was that if JanDeFietser feels he was slandered libelled [see my comment below] on nl.wikipedia -- which seems to be the basis of his complaint, if I understand this thread -- then perhaps his best option is to contact OTRS. I don't know if they can help him or provide a resolution he will be happy with, but there's no relief or help for him on en.wikipedia, no matter what his user page says in any language. -- llywrch (talk) 06:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks for your remark. Please note that I avoid the use of the term "slander", because in the British and American common law systems "slander" and "libel" are NOT identical with the Dutch crimes "smaad" (art. 261 Wetboek van Strafrecht = Dutch Criminal Code or Penal Code from 1881) and "laster" (art. 262 Sr DCC). --JanDeFietser (talk) 17:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC) How many times do people have to suggest to you, that not using legal speak will make you more friends ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC) To be honest, the only way he could make any use of llywrch's suggestion would be if he mailed the OTRS legal queue, so he might as well use legal language. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Exactly -- although the proper legal term I should have used was "libel" (because it was in print) & not "slander" (which is a transient comment). Any comment someone thinks is defamatory involving one of the Wikimedia projects -- whether the subject of an article or another editor -- needs to be submitted to OTRS. Bringing it to another project will accomplish nothing, even if people are convinced that a wrong has been committed; the various Wikimedia projects operate independently of one another. With that, I think this thread is truly closed. -- llywrch (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC) #Dutch_Wikipedia_turmoil. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC) User: Theobald Tiger Resolved  – No threat was realistically intended, perhaps some pun —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I have hesitated to notify the referees of this matter, however, I feel a little scared of this user. In an attempt to get a different user to reflect on a certain act on his part Theobald and others showed their support for him. I would let the question with which this started rest. However, the way in which Theobald Tiger showed his support was by means of this remark: "I fully agree with MoiraMoira and before you actually start consuming the handsomely deserved watermelon, I hereby kindly offer you a nice kitchen tool for convenience' sake!" The remark was adorned with a picture of a knife. Seeing as MoiraMoira had placed a remark concerning a watermelon I tried to assume good intentions on Theobald's part and asked him to change the remark since I felt a little threatened by it. Theobald changed the remark to: "I fully agree with MoiraMoira and before you actually start consuming the handsomely deserved watermelon, I hereby kindly offer you a nice kitchen tool to make life easier for you!" I thanked him for the revision, but his reluctance to make clear what (or who) the knife was supposed to be used on still makes me feel a little startled. Especially since I specifically asked him to change his remark into saying what that (or who) that knife was supposed to be used on. After repeating this request several times he has clearly refused to do so: "No!". I am not sure what to do about this and I would like a referee to change Theobald's mind on that matter. I would like to make clear that I am still assuming he meant this as a joke. That is why I do not think he should be punished or anything like that. However, it is making me feel pretty uneasy and I think that this should not be a part of contributing to the wikipedia. I have thought about asking for assistance concerning wikiquette alerts, but the nature of the double meaning seems too extreme for that, seeing as on that page it is specified that extreme issues do not belong there. To summarize: I am making this request in the hopes that Theobald will chance his remark with the help of a referee. --Faust (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC) I am sorry, Faust, but there's no there there. I can discern no evil intent here, and to feel threatened by someone handing over a very nice chef's knife, that's being overly sensitive. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Looking at it you didn't mention that these "remarks" are actually picture captions...right next to each other. Frankly I have to agree with Drmies, I don't see anything wrong with User:Theobald Tiger's action. Mauler90 talk 18:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)User notified. Mauler90 talk 17:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Hello Mauler and DrMies, I did not say that Theobald had an evil intent. I said that I felt a little threatened by it. Changing his remark into specifying that the knife should be used on the melon seems quite a small thing to ask if nothing was ment by it. I do not see your names on the list of moderators by the way. Since this page is not meant for discussions, would you, and others, please refrain from giving opinions on what was meant (which is not even the issue) and thus cut the static? --Faust (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Interjecting: you want to limit my "freedom of speech"? Seriously, come on. Anyone can comment here--just as anyone can post a request here. Drmies (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Anyone can comment here, Admin or not. I do not interpret Theobald Tiger's comment as a threat. (Disclosure, I do not believe I've ever had contact with him) I would like to address Faust's behavior, however. This appears to be a matter of WP:STICK User_talk:JZ85 Bad faith accusation Accusations of lying Bad faith yet again Second accusation of lying User_talk:moiramoira Accusations of slander and general bad faith Disregarding instructions to take NL Wiki matters elsewhere declaring EN is the place for it More bad faith User_talk:Hazardous_Matt Declaring a Human RIghts violation Requesting documentation of a law stating Wikipedia is exempt from Human Rights violations Insisting he was threatened and denying he has assumed bad faith I think a formal warning is past due at this point. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Dear Admins, Faust is clearly transferring his problems from NL-Wiki to EN-Wiki. For that reason I felt entitled to play a joke upon him. After Faust had suggested to JZ85 that he should resign from being a referee (JZ85 is an admin on NL-Wiki) upon arguments that seem to me totally ridiculous, MoiraMoira (an admin on NL-Wiki as well) offered a nice watermelon to JZ85. I couldn't resist the temptation to offer JZ85 an 'all purposes' cooks knife to cut the melon into pieces. The rest is clearly visible on the talk page of JZ85 and my own talk page. I myself am neither an admin nor important; I am a user who contributes quite regularly both on NL-Wiki and EN-Wiki. I hope you enjoy it. I do not want to interfere with admin-issues on EN-Wiki, but I can only say that the observations of Hazardous Matt have a close resemblance to those of the admins on NL-Wiki. Theobald Tiger (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Hello Matt, I am afraid you are not willing to read what I have actually written. You are dragging matters into this that are not relevant and of which I have not made an issue. However, the accusations are not merely accusations and can be easily backed up by facts by reading what I am responding to. To clarify my position in the initial conversation I would like to say that I have never said that the en.wiki is the place to discuss nl.wiki issues. In fact, I am against that. I have, however, said that removing a log of a rather lengthy issue, in which I am not involved by the way, is a violation of the freedom of speech. Since there are no serious accusations there and an individual is trying to log the unfair treatments he is getting a simple block of the page could do. Since the issue started with this dispute, in which I am not involved by the way, I should clarify that I addressed JZ85's attempt to influence the handling referee with his status at nl.wiki and referred to the history there. To me that is a clear sign of not being able the responsibilities bestowed upon him. Hence I addressed the matter on his talk page to make him reflect on that. The users MoiraMoira and Theobald Tiger felt the need to support the user JZ85, in which the remark was made that I feel threatened by. So, I do not think that any of my remarks were out of place. I was only trying to make the users in question think about what happened there. This may be out of line, but I did so at the users talk pages so I thought I was acting properly. I have clearly stated every time that I meant no offense and only wanted the users to back off so that JZ85 could reflect on his action. I hope all users will now no longer try to influence the handling referee, since I think that what I am asking for is not much assuming good intentions. To clarify my good intentions I would like to say that I have not made an issue out of any of the matters stated above, that I do find very important. I have only alerted the users in question to these matters. I had assumed, in good faith, that such things could be discussed freely on this open and free medium. I do take offense at the remark made by Theobald however, which I feel is at least in part meant as a threat (as by his own admittance above), even though made jokingly (assuming good intentions again). So, please allow this to find its way by means of a referee. --Faust (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC) You are involved because you are the only person who continuously states that "freedom of speech" is being impeded upon. Despite the fact that you have been instructed no less than twice that "freedom of speech" is not a "human right" afforded on Wikipedia. Hazardous Matt (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC) More specifically: Freedom of speech does not abrogate the right for a non-government entity to limit what users can say on their property or website. Upon editing any of the Wikipedias, you agreed to this stipulation. —Jeremy (v^_^v Carl Johnson) 19:12, 23 July 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)Faust - First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with JZ85's action. As most of us do not speak Dutch it is helpful to both get a polite, helpful note on what happened on nl.wiki as well as the opinion of the admins being mentioned on nl.wiki. By your standard JanDeFriester was just as out of line in chiming in on the thread and "attempting to influence the referee." I think it actually speaks quite well of JZ85's abilities to deal with the responsibilities of the tools. Second, Wikipedia does not guarantee limitless freedom of speech, you may want to read this page on free speech on Wikipedia, especially the first paragraph as that seems to address some of the concerns you are having.Third, there is no "handling referee" here and discussion is how we attempt to work through many of the issues brought here (though many do lead to a ban etc). Fourth, I do not believe Theobald Tiger's statement above in any way admitted (partially or other) that it was at least in part a "threat." Mauler90 talk 19:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC) May I kindly refer an en-wiki admin to my talk page here which suddenly is filled with weird talk by this user Faust? User Theobald Tiger is a nice positive contributor on nl-wiki I can attest. User JZ85 as well - he is a very kind and helpful admin colleague of mine on nl-wiki. Please can some one here stop this person Faust? Best wishes, MoiraMoira (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Okay, I am confused. All of you seem to want to try to make this thing about something it is not. This is about Theobald making a remark by which I feel threatened. That is what I want to see changed. The other, very real, issues I have tried to alert these users to all speak in my favor I would say. I have been trying to point the users who seem to feel they should make sure referees are not unbiased to the nature of their actions. The above remarks by said users are of the same content. They are meant to point towards other occurrences to point away from this occurrence and win this argument by making the referee look at non-related matters. I will briefly address some of the misgivings mentioned above. @Matt: The site you are referring to point towards the American constitution, not to the universal declaration of human rights. Article 19 states that every individual has the right to freedom of speech and article 23 states that every individual has the right to appeal to international endeavors; pointing back to the universal declaration of rights again. I am well aware that the American government is trying to argue against freedom of speech of late, implying that there are 'free speech zones'. This is not the case if we accept that all individuals have certain unalienable rights. I would like to stress that I was not trying to get the content of the deleted page in question reappear or anything. I was merely trying to point out that actually trying to silence someone is immoral and make the user trying to get the referee to act bias (no less!!) to reflect on that. That is all. That is why I think this (part of the) matter should not be brought here. @Jeremy: My point exactly: websites are protected by the freedom of speech amendment. But Matt is making a good argument against that, as is the American government nowadays unfortunately. @Mauler90: The other issue I was trying to get through to JZ85 is that any court case needs an UNBIASED referee. That means that the referee should look at the situation at hand and not at previous situations to get to a verdict. The reason for this is that if the referee will look at that suddenly a POV is developed in the referee. In times passed (we should be so lucky) colored people were convicted contrary to evidence for instance. That is an important issue as well. Trying to influence a referee with prior occurrences is therefore immoral (in the narrow sense). Even more so since one of the people mentioned on the deleted page as having acted unjustly is JZ85 if I am not mistaken. So, JZ85 is actively trying to make a referee see his POV and trying to make the referee act on that. That is what I wanted him to reflect on. In the case mentioned the referee has decided to remove the page for alterior reasons, which makes that I am not arguing against the decision. Concerning the free speech remark: see my reaction to Matt above. Freedom of speech applies universally. Concerning your third point: I am unclear on many of the rules on the wikipedia because I am a relatively new user. If I misunderstand, please give me some feedback on my userpage to cut back on the noise. Concerning Theobald I can only say that on the use of the knife he specifies: "an 'all purposes' cooks knife". Yes, I take that as a threat and he admits that there. @MoiraMoira: I am sorry to see you arguing in a way meant to influence a referee to judge based on prior situations. I hope you will take to heart what I have been trying to point out to JZ85 and reflect on your actions. Any ruling should be made by reviewing the facts, without head to other situations or the defendants background. If this is not done a uling is made on the basis of a POV, you see. It is the reason why Lady Justice is depicted with a blindfold. Unfortunately we see her without one often in the Netherlands by the way. I am worried about this as well and am involved in processes to counteract this bias in the courts. "Impartiality is the first duty of a judge; before he gives an opinion or sits in judgment in a cause he ought to be certain that he has no bias for or against either of the parties; and if he has any (the slightest) interest in the cause he is disqualified from sitting as judge and when he is aware of such interest he ought himself to refuse to sit on the case." I understand that this particular case may not be as serious as the impartiality of judges, however, the same principle applies. That is why the wikipedia guidelines clearly stipulate (at misuse of admin tools): "Conflict of interest, non-neutrality, or content dispute – Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions (like obvious vandalism) where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools." Again, I am not making an issue out of this because he prior situation has been handled by a referee who was gifted enough to judge on other bases than the influence of JZ85's POV. However, I did want to point this out to JZ85. It is important. Note:I think the wikipedia guidelines clearly state that no issues from any other wikipedia should be transferred here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust (talk • contribs) 09:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I hope everybody can now get back to the issue at hand: the threat that Theobald Tiger placed towards me and his refusal to specify on what (or who) the knife should be used. --Faust (talk) 08:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Could you please post your concerns in less than 500 words?.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Also, per Tiger's explanation, I don't see a threat. Now, can you please try to assume good faith and drop the issue?— Dædαlus Contribs 09:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Dear all, I think the confusion of Faust is real as his lengthy sermon makes clear. Therefore I want to expand my explanation given above in order to make it a bit easier to pass judgment on my actions and to help Faust banishing confusion. I will do it in less than 500 words and I apologize to those who find joke explanation in bad taste or annoying (I sympathize with them, but the only alternative available to me is to keep silent). Of course I never meant to threaten Faust in a literal sense. I was annoyed by two things: (i) Faust was transferring the issues from nl-wiki to en-wiki as TFOWR has pointed out to him on his talk page, and (ii) Faust was, unshaken by his twofold ban on nl-wiki, showing his nasty habit of holding forth at great lengt on issues that have no relevance to the making of an online encyclopedia (by means of deontological moralizing, by offending others, by not understanding what an encyclopedic article is and should be). When I saw that JZ85 provided useful information in a decent and clear way to the admins of en-wiki and became subsequently the object of Faust's offensive moralizing, I went to JZ85's talk page to support him. But MoiraMoira was there before me to do exactly the same. She offered JZ85 a nice picture of a water melon with a nice text. I decided to offer a picture as well. I offered a picture of a cooks knife, with a text to the effect that it was a kitchen tool that would make life easier for JZ85. The meaning of my offer was not double but fourfold: It was meant primarily to support JZ85 It was meant to let Faust know that Theobald Tiger (who have had numerous conflicts with Faust on nl-wiki) was aware of what he was doing It was a picture of a handy tool to cut the water melon in eatable pieces It was an ominous picture meant to form a contrast with the lovely picture presented by MoiraMoira I am against violence and bloodshed and I wish Faust all the best, but I hope he will stop behaving in the way he does and choose other forums to present his ideas. The only threat that was implicit in the joke was that Faust could run into conflict with me. Thank you for your attention and I apologize that I had to explain what could have been clear to everyone from the outset. Theobald Tiger (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Related to the above (and at least one other thread here) I have recommeded that Faust (talk · contribs) stay away from another editor's (MoiraMoira (talk · contribs)) talkpage, and warned that I will block Faust if there is any appearance of harassment. I invite review of my actions. TFOWR 10:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I had been waiting to see whether xe continued in the same vein, and was going to tell xem to give it a rest if xe did so. In light of your warning in the meantime I've held off. But, yes, a warning to give the pseudo-legalistic sophistry a rest, lest such a rest be imposed by us for the peace and quiet of the volunteer community that is here to write an encyclopaedia, seems entirely appropriate at this point. Uncle G (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Uncle G. Since my post above I've also had to warn Faust about reverting Daedalus969 on Daedalus969's own talkpage. I don't intend to issue further warnings. TFOWR 15:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I didn't think replacing a talkback notification would be a problem. I think a warning is ill placed here. I have requested an explanation concerning such conduct here on TFOWR's talk page, since it is unrelated. --Faust (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC) I disagree that feeling threatened by someone who shows a very nice chef's knife, is "overly sensitive". Contrarily, the person who shows a knife in a debate plays himself a "very nice" malicious and dangerous game. Who disagrees with this might consider how he or she will feel, if I tell in some debate about whatever topic that I have a degree in kyokushinkai and give him or her a mouth guard: that mouth guard, o, that is "just" an "innocent" hint to watch your words... - on the other side it is also an ambiguous message to worry about your teeth (and even that I can belittle, o, it's just your teeth and just my hand, foot, knee, elbow, not even a knife - but I expect you might not appreciate it as well, I guess). By the way, in psychiatry obsessions and compulsions with knives are known. Showing a knife is NOT harmless, NOT innocent, but dangerous and in certain settings stupid - and indeed it says something about your state of mind. You don't have to be a Nietzsche to call TT a weakling for his resorting to (showing) a lethal weapon and also a hypocrite for belittling it then "just an innocent tool". It's just like the tactics of provocation: a way to arouse violence and then claiming that you yourself were "peaceful" and the other is to blame... : o, I was just "joking", you see, he even has no sense of humor!.... I prefer real pacifists, or at least peace loving people, not people who boast about being so innocent and so harmless (it is impossible to be harmless when you are of my species) --JanDeFietser (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) You also seem to believe that when someone is told they are harassing someone, that they may in fact be on the verge of something bigger. [139] Seriously, no one here has interpreted the comment as a threat. Drop the stick, move on and help build an encyclopedia. I may not have the highest edit count, but I've been around long enough to know that no one gets anywhere by playing the victim. Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, indeed they may. Did you perhaps ever hear about Carl Bernstein & Bob Woodward who were accused of "harassment" of some campaigner of some president, who found some reason to complain about that alleged "harassment" at the Washington Post editors? - "All the president's men". (And it also happened when someone started to accuse me, once, when I was a journalist myself and indeed was on such a verge. So talking about experience...). Accusations of "harassment" can serve the evasion of questions, especially in matters of discussion where something can get exposed from which the other prefers to draw the attention away. - The English Wikipedia should indeed by built further, and not be contaminated with the Dutch disease of accusing other editors: nor of "slander" nor of "harassment" - nor am I playing. --JanDeFietser (talk) 14:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC) "[I]ndeed they may." But that's not what's happening here. In the here and now it is time, as Hazardous Matt recommended, to quit: You're not asking for any admin action; the subject of the original complaint in the thread has explained & apologised for his joke; no one, other than you, has agreed with the original poster that a threat was intended or implied; you may not be playing in the sense of "playing games", but you are in the sense of "acting a part" ~ you're not a victim, & it's time to move on. Let's go back to building the WP, yeah? Cheers, LindsayHi 15:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Hello Lindsay, I have started the issue and yes, I feel threatened by the showing of 'all purpose knifes'. I did not ask for an apology in which Theobald Tiger denies his double meaning, which he admits to elsewhere, I asked for the removal or the change of the threatening remark. The fact that an user points out how this kind of thing works and is seen is an addition to this matter. Your remark is assuming bad intentions and adds nothing but noise. Please do not add to the noise, which is difficult enough to wade through for any admin, no doubt. --Faust (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I have just issued a warning to you as well. This issue ends here and now. The next warnings i have to issue towards people will start counting towards a block. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC) This thread is closed: #Dutch_Wikipedia_turmoil. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC) JZ85 Resolved  – Concerns about NL-wiki to be dealt with at meta-wiki as EN-wiki is not the place for it. On June 23, user JZ85 falsely informed above about some topic on the Dutch Wikipedia and wrote about me: "Jan has been given the chance of arbitration." That is contrary to the facts. In June 2009, I was accused falsely on the Dutch Wikipedia by two users of a crime that I did NOT commit. I was patient with them, but before I could address the NLArbcom about their false accusations against me, they addressed the NLArbcom, leading them down the garden path by two complaints full of lies and fallacies, against which my defence was completely ignored. Just as my early proposal to handle their cases separately, because I foresaw that otherwise the case would become too complicated for the NLArbcom: my proposal, dated 22nd June 2009, was completely ignored: the two false complaints that were carelessly piled, onto each other, that made the case(s) too heavy too handle for the NLArbcom That concoction of these two users first resulted in an absurd 'topic ban', that made it sheer impossible for me to defend myself to those false accusations (accusations that one of these users continued then to utter, while the other user was blocked for some other reason) and also impossible to add further prove the facts that were under discussion and about which they accused me falsely and deceived the Arbcom. In the "verdict" of the NLArbcom dated 20th July 2009 the parties involved were even mixed up with each other (could the incompetence of the NLArbcom be exposed better?): in fact the two false complainers had deleted crucial facts and sources, not me... And when I am not allowed to defend myself against a serious accusation of other users, then such accusation itself should be forbidden as well. However, arbitration on this was refused by the NLArbcom on 30th October. As all users can read here, JZ85 now falsely accused me on this page thus (please read the complete text above) "he now follows this path of slandering people and presenting his own fairytale version of the events." This is unacceptable. There is NO slander by me whatsoever, nor any "fairytale version" and falsely accusing me of "slander" is itself slander. I can assure that his part concerning me itself is highly inaccurate and incomplete. What JZ85 also "forgets" (?) to mention is that he himself was the very admin who was and is responsible for blocking me on the Dutch Wikipedia without any checking of the facts and without any defence from my side. JZ85 also ignores the clear statement that I made on 19th November, that was first placed on my talk page on the Dutch Wikipedia and then removed without my permission - without any following deblocking, for which I am now waiting for more than 9 months. To whom it may concern: feel free to ask me about the case through wikimail or a message on my talk page. Please notice however that I am a different kind of editor than he is, since even JZ85 himself is welcome on my talk page, but I feel he is reluctant to answer some sharp questions and that he fears that he might get into dire straits with honest answers, e.g. about his act of blocking me on 6th November without any investigation of alleged facts, that by the way supposedly took place offwiki. => So to nip Dutch scenes on the English Wikipedia in the bud - frankly, I can imagine very well that no one is waiting here for such Dutch scenes - I just ask the admins on the English Wikipedia now to make clear to JZ85 that he should NOT accuse me here of "slander" and "a fairytale version" (suggestively of facts that he does not mention...). Maybe he does not exactly know what "slander" in fact is. Even then, such accusations make things worse (that's how it got started on the Dutch Wikipedia: with false accusations about "slander" where there was no slander at all). I think a clear warning to JZ85 should be enough. I the meantime I hope to do some editing again or other pleasant stuff --JanDeFietser (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) P.S.: can anyone put an ANI-notice on JZ85's talk page for me? I respect his wish. You were told not to drag this issue into the English Wikipedia. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC) You must be plural then. --JanDeFietser (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC) No, you are the one starting another thread on this, no one else. If you would be silent then there would be no issue anymore. So be silent on this issue and accept that you are blocked on another project and that you cannot solve that on this project. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, "you" MUST be plural then: since it can not be solved here, then the English Wikipedia should not be contaminated with that Dutch disease of editors falsely accusing another editor of "slander". --JanDeFietser (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I have issued a warning to JZ85. Now I don't want to hear another word out of the both of you about this issue you have on the Dutch Wikipedia. </kindergarten-mode> —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC) - notified User:JZ85 - here - Off2riorob (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Issued official warning to JZ85 here. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Ends here: #Dutch_Wikipedia_turmoil. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I think this is an interesting case to discuss here, because it raises general issues about the "no legal threats" policy in case there is dispute with legal dimensions originating outside of Wikipedia (in this case the dispute dates back more than a decade). If I am in a real life dispute with another Wiki editor, then surely it would be wrong for me to bring this up on Wikipedia and then demand that the other editor promise not to start a legal case in that real life dispute? Count Iblis (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Maybe it is interesting to know that after the legal treat Jandefietser was blocked for, he repeated his legal treats several times in mails send to the dutch arbitration committee. Grimbeert (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC) People, we are supposed to drop the Dutch turmoil (see below). Even though I do think that legal issues from outside the wikipedia being brought into the wikipedia might be the same issue as addressed below, we should wait for arbitration, especially given the issue below. --Faust (talk) 16:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC) No more discussion of this case will occur here. Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) This stops now I'm getting really annoyed here, all this discussion does not belong in the English Wikipedia, is poisoning the atmosphere and does not help building an encyclopedia. I suggest the following: "All parties are urged to stop discussing IMMEDIATELY the conflicts of the Dutch Wikipedia, as well as all the fallout resulting from that discussion on the English Wikipedia. Continuing this discussing in ANY form, even on ANI or amongst eachother on user talk pages, will result in immediate blocking for a period of a week". Suggested parties would be: User:JanDeFietser User:Faust USer:JZ85 User:Theobald Tiger User:MoiraMoira User:Hazardous Matt User:Grimbeert When implemented, i'll voluntarily add myself to this resolution as well. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Thank you TheDJ. Can I refer to this announcement when this happens again? --Faust (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Could you tells us more pls ..not sure what your talking about. Info has been added !! Moxy (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I added links to the earlier ani discussion. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC) TheDJ, I edit conflicted with you on writing this (and merging this single incident), which is not a resolution but a warning of how I intend to use my tools (which I suspect concurs with how you intend to use your tools): Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a battleground Wikipedia:No personal attacks Wikipedia:Civility There will be no more trolling, pot stirring, tag teaming, sly provocation, playground-level taunting, or other general silliness and game playing of the sort that has occurred over the past few days, on here and on user talk pages. Warnings issued by TheDJ and TFOWR have clearly not sunk in. Therefore let me make this crystal clear. Any further continuance of this beyond this point, anywhere in Wikipedia, will result in indefinite revocation of editing privileges here at the English Wikipedia. This includes any attempts to gloat or have the last word. This ends. Now. This doesn't belong here; we don't want this here; we're not going to have this here; and continued attempts to bring this here will result in summary ejection from the project forthwith. Uncle G (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Agree With TheDJ and Uncle G. Sick and tired of this. TFOWR 16:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Must Agree Disruptive, not to mention very boring now - really needs to stop.  Begoontalk 16:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Wholehearted support, my mop and bucket had already come out. Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC). Comment. If people want to continue the discussion, then this is the right place for that. Count Iblis (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Blocking I have just blocked Faust, for taunting. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC) I might have misinterpreted and I more than welcome another admin to double check this, but I really need to get some food into me now first. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Won't be me double checking: I'm pretty frazzled, and think an indefinite block is too short. Worth noting that the inevitable unblock request is already up. TFOWR 17:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC) After having had a bite to eat, I still think the user was taunting, but I have to say that the statement is rather ambiguous. For that reason have relaxed the block to a week. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC) This block was fully retracted after being determined to be based on a misinterpretation. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC) In the meantime, I've blocked JanDeFietser (talk · contribs) (also for a week) for a comment on Faust's talk page. JanDeFietser was trying very hard to avoid referring to nl.wiki while referring to nl.wiki. TFOWR 19:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User introducing fake sources into Wikipedia

Per this edit [140] User:George Al-Shami introduced a fake source into Wikipedia to support the statement: "...to defend itself against Israeli shellings into Syria. According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis." in the article, cited to "Kamrava, Mehran, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, University of California Press; 1 edition, p. 48". I checked the source in the library, neither on this page nor anywhere else in the book is there anything even remotely. You can even check it on Google Books, [141]. For me page 48 does not show, but it is clear that this chapters is about the pre-World War I era. You can also search for the numbers 67 and 69, the numbers 67 or 69 are not mentioned anywhere in the book. This fake source has subsequently also been used and defended by User:Supreme Deliciousness when the factual accuracy of the statement has been questioned by other editors, see Talk:Syria#Border_Flare-Ups, Talk:Syria#Invalid_Source_on_Dayan_Admitting_to_Israel_Provoking_Clashes). I do not know how one can work collaboratively on this projekt or have trust in Wikipedia articles if we cannot trust our editors to be honest about their sources. This is even more important than civility and conforming to NPOV. Hence I request some admin action. Pantherskin (talk) 10:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Just had a quick look for it and I am unsure why but it is also here, According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis. with a copyright claim at the bottom? http://syria.tripholidays.com/syria-history_sixdaywar.php Off2riorob (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Quite likely copied from Wikipedia (without the appropriate licence). Pantherskin (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I've not looked at your diffs (and won't: see below), but I'll make a few general points:

1. Editing in the Middle East geopolitical area (which includes articles about Syria) is tough, and you will encounter issues like this.
2. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles almost certainly applies to Syrian articles, and you should be aware that editing restrictions apply.
3. You should probably raise the issue at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts (WP:CCN)

I'm currently working on another, similar issue affecting a different region so I really don't want to get involved in a Middle East issue - sorry! However, I suspect most admins here won't want to get involved, either. As I mention above you should raise this at WP:CCN where you will find editors and admins who are prepared to get involved.

TFOWR 10:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not really a conflict that needs to be solved, and the Israel-Palestine conflict is only the background. Unless I am missing something here it is simply the issue of editors using a fake source to support their POV. That could have happened in all topic areas from Armenia-Azerbaijan to Pokemon, and I suspect it does. Pantherskin (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you need to resolve whether the source used is OK or not - hence WP:CCN. You could also WP:RSN or WP:NPOVN, if you'd prefer? The sanctions on Israel-Palestine cover an area broadly interpreted - this includes Syria (Syria having been historically involved with the conflict). TFOWR 11:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a case of assumption of bad faith, forum shopping and "game of gotcha" by Pantherskin. The part about the UN office had been in the article for a long time, and I assumed good faith about the person who added it. Not one single time did Panterskin say that the UN office text had a false source, he said at both the Syria and Golan Heights talkpage that the Dayan quote was incorrect, but that wasn't true and I knew this, the main discussion was about the Dayan quote. Panterskin removed the what appeared to be sourced UN office text together with the sourced Dayan quote that I knew was correct. And once again, he never said that the UN office text had a false source. Later when it was pointed out to me that the UN office text had a false source,[142] I looked at it and I removed it myslef[143] and put a strike on my earlier comment on the talkpage about that source: [144] I also asked the editor who had added it to the article about why he had added it: [145]

This is also a case of forum shopping from Pantherskin as he have brought this up at AE [146][147] and also at NPOV noticeboard: [148] "caught red handed".. clearly assumption of bad faith. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reply to Pantherskin): According to his block log, George Al-Shami has been blocked two times, both in August 2009, the first block for violating 3RR, and the second for block evasion. Deliberately and repeatedly adding untrue sources should lead to a block; hoaxing is not accepted on Wikipedia at all, so I agree an admin action is fully justified in this case. /HeyMid (contributions) 11:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Actually, that edit was made almost two years ago (in November 2008). So a block could definitely not be warranted in this case. /HeyMid (contributions) 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about me who assumed good faith that what a user added with source was true? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In this case the link to the source was obviously false. /HeyMid (contributions) 11:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The source didn't have a link: [149], it was only text. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a question: Was that false statement not detected and reverted until now? /HeyMid (contributions) 11:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As I have shown above, first time it was told to me that the UN office source did not say what the text was, was two days ago, and I removed it immediately. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I see it here. Does that mean the false statement was in the article for almost two years? /HeyMid (contributions) 11:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What it means is that the source (Kamrava, Mehran, The Modern Middle East: A Political History since the First World War, University of California Press; 1 edition, p. 48) added for the the claim that "According to the UN office in Jerusalem from 1955 until 1967 65 of the 69 border flare-ups between Syria and Israel were initiated by Israelis.", is not true. And as soon as it was pointed out to me I looked it up and realized that the source was incorrect so I removed it. As you can see the source wasn't a link to the book., it was only text. But there are many other sources that say that Israel provoked Syria, but this specific source and what it specifically claimed was inaccurate. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was there for two years. The content sourced (or rather not sourced) to this book was already questioned in June 2009, Talk:Syria#Border_Flare-Ups by a different editor, but Supreme Deliciousness defended the inclusion on the grounds that it is sourced. So even if I am assuming good faith here you at least mislead other editors as you never made it clear that you do not actually know the source. Your quick removal after having been caught suggests something different, in particular as you usually question my sources and motives. That in this case you decided to trust my claim that it is not in the source and almost immediately removed it after my message suggests that all the way you knew that it was a fake source. Pantherskin (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

No because, the source was only text, there was no link in the source, so I assumed good faith that he who added it had written what the source says. Even if a source is not accessible with a link, it can not be removed just because the source is only text. But then you pointed out to me at my talkpage that the text was not the same as was written in the book, as shown above, so I went to google books and searched for the book, and looked at the page that the text was sourced from, and I realized that the text was incorrectly sourced from that page or book, so I removed it myself, and striked out my comment from the talkpage about this specific UN office sentence. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is such a big issue, book citations like that are hard to check, of course if it originally was a falsification of a citation then that original falsification was a big issue. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/11/world/general-s-words-shed-a-new-light-on-the-golan.html there are other online cites that report similar claims. Off2riorob (talk) 12:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Only yesterday a good faith user said to me when I questioned a book citation..if you don't like it, get yourself down to your local library and check it. Off2riorob (talk) 12:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)If SD made any mistake here, this was clearly a good-faith error, in not checking the validity of the long-standing reference in half a passage s/he restored. AS SD notes above, as soon as s/he was informed of the false reference, he removed the statement. This is a case of perfectly good editing, and it is only through a massive exercise of bad faith that SD can be accused of being "caught red-handed using a fake source"[150]. RolandR (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, looking at that diff from RolandR and this thread I think User Pantherskin would do well to apply a little more good faith to other users. IMO this is far from a caught red handed situation as he alleges.Off2riorob (talk) 12:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

This claim is one that Pantherskin has now been using to smear SD over several boards, here at ANI, at AE, at NPOVN, and in what might easily be construed as canvassing attempts at WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Syria. Unomi (talk) 12:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Note that first allegation was on the 22nd (at an AE to which it was largely irrelevant) and Pantherskin was told then by an univolved admin [151] that the situation in no way justified his allegations. Then as Roland & Unomi points out 3 different attempts ([152], [153] & [154]) to canvas an already debunked insult. And now this ugly bit of forum shopping? Pantherskin easily qualifies for another block. Misarxist (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I notice that on her/his usertalk page, Pantherskin has accused SD (and Nableezy) of "lying about a source"[155]. This is worse than simple bad faith, and surely warrants some sort of sanction. RolandR (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of Pantherskin screwing around or not, the only real answer from Supreme Deliciousness should be "I got caught up in debating the issues and failed to check that particular source. My bad." There is no good excuse for arguing to keep a source that has not even been checked. Deflecting is definitely not one.

And Wikipedia:Offline sources is a fantastic essay.Cptnono (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Support blocking any registered users and IPs that can be identified as being connected to any of the 2,015,276 page views of the Syria article since the inaccurate source was introduced at the end of Nov2008 for failing to spot it. Oh wait, that includes me, bugger. Scratch that idea. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between not noticing that a source is not valid and arguing that the source verifies a line. The mistake seems easy enough to make but acting like it isn't a problem is starting to look like more of a concern than it was originally.Cptnono (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem that concerns me. What concerns me far more is that many editors make efforts to ensure the absence of reliable and impeccably sourced policy compliant information and think that isn't a problem at all. Policy non-compliance resulting from the absence of valid information is far more difficult to spot that policy non-compliance resulting from the presence of invalid information. Wiki policy/noticeboards etc tend to be geared towards dealing with the presence of information rather than it's absence. This is one event to do with the presence of one piece of policy non-compliant material that has involved SD through a simple mistake that anyone could make, a mistake he resolved. SD is an editor who is rather scrupulous in his sourcing and insistence on policy compliance in my experience and for good reason. Sean.hoyland - talk 16:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Resolved

 – not anymore Tommy! [message] 17:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a growing backlog at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, if someone could go take a look. Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

3 cases is a backlog? Soxwon (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you hadn't had a BM in 3 days, it would be a major backlog... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

:S Was that comment really necessary? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 00:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV backlog

Resolved

 – well it's not anymore Tommy! [message] 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Although not that pressing, WP:AIV could use a bit of work. Thanks. Connormah^talk 19:39, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Just realized that WP:AN probably would have been more appropriate. Apologies. Connormah^talk 19:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Franklin.vp

Could someone decide what to do about the above which is awaiting admin closure? Cu confirmed that the two IPs and 2 userids were the same person, though the Franklin.vp is stale. [156] confirms that one of the ids says they are Franklin but are unable to log on due to changing to a random password. The CU result therfore means some block evasion has been going on.

99.231.81.164 (talk · contribs · count) has reinserted a comment at Talk:New antisemitism which User:Mbz1 removed as sock abuse/trolling. I re-removed it on the same basis, but have now looked at the details above and am not sure whether to self-revert. So could an admin decide what block on the accounts is appropriate for the sock-abuse and block evasion confirmed by the cu, then direct the user to pick one of the accounts as their new main one and decide which comments by the accoutns should stand? Thank you--Peter cohen (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

|}

User:Instantnood at it again

At List of metro systems. The same IP range, the same POV edits, the same sockpuppetry per WP:DUCK. I've requested indef semi-protection, but wanted to mention it here as well. oknazevad (talk) 16:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RevDel

Resolved

 – Revision's edit summary deleted, user blocked. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Moved from WP:AN

Can an admin remove the edit summary from this edit. Remove of the project is correct, just the summary itself should be deleted. Thanks. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've undone this edit from a long-term abusive vandal, blocked them, and revision deleted the disruptive edit summary. As to the propriety of the WikiProject banner, projects are generally free to set their scope as narrow or wide as they wish. –xeno^talk 16:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

delete my user page

Resolved

 – User:AboundingHinata is deleted. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I want to delete it. Can someone do it for me? AboundingHinata (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes,  Done, but in future you can always just wait for the speedy tag to be processed. –xeno^talk 17:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you. AboundingHinata (talk) 17:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Faust

Resolved

 – User was unblocked by Vianello (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Mauler90 _talk 21:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I think User talk:Faust's block is based on a misunderstanding. He and a few others were asked to stop discussing here issues arising from troubles on the Dutch Wikipedia. Then Faust, who I think is interested in philosphy, stumbled on my userpage and found my blog (I had made a few comments in that now closed thread) and made a comment about that on my talkpage. My blog is about certain metaphysical ideas. I don't think his comment is in any way related to the dispute that the invlved editors were asked to shut up about.

Perhaps his use of the word "weblog" to refer to my blog and the fact that JanDeFietser's "weblog" that does discuss the problems on Dutch Wikipedia may have made his comment look suspicious. But then, in the Dutch language, the word "weblog" is often used instead of "blog". So, I think it is more reasonable to assume that Faust was just trying to forget about the case by discussing something else completely unrelated to the problems on Dutch Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to state that count Iblis is right and that the block has been lifted. This one therefore is obsolete. --Faust (talk) 21:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Persistant Hoax Alert

Three times this month someone has created an article about a boxer named Alfredo Peña. The problem? Its a hoax. The BIG problem? The most recent rendition looks very, very legit. Its well written, has the right templates, even comes with half a dozen references. All the references relate to the form of boxing that Pena supposively fought in. One is even a biographical about a boxer by the same name who boxed in the 40s 60s. Another is about one of Pena's opponents.

I'm concerned that this might be part of a larger ploy to damage Wikipedia's credibility. --*Kat* (talk) 09:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, that's a sneaky hoax :( (as an aside; I reverted edits by the same user [who created the article] adding this "boxer" to various boxing lists - on the off chance it turns out not to be hoax anyone feel free to rv that) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I did my homework. Definitely a hoax.

One of the previous versions was created by a user called User:Mike Rosoft (very punny, no?). Source: http://www.theopca.com/news/alfredo-pena/ Whoops, looks like that page took something out of context. My mistake.--*Kat* (talk) 10:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

--*Kat* (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it and salted it for three months. (There's some evidence for an Argentinian boxer of this or tilde-less name, floreat circa 1960.) ¶ And three months from now? Put it on your watchlist, and keep an eye on links to it, too. -- Hoary (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's also sneaky in that some of the other information added by Pn lfredo (talk · contribs) is sourced, but there are questions about the sourcing. Take this for example. I've raised a question about it, explaining the problem, at Talk:Freedom Award#Dubious information (q.v.). This account claims, in deleted edits at Talk:Alfredo Peña (boxer), to be this Alfredo Peña person, by the way. Uncle G (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I seem to have found confirmation about the 2009 award in the Miami Herald archives. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe not, see the article talk page. Dougweller (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Repku (talk · contribs)

I am concerned by this user's usual style of edit summary. I first noticed the user when s/he edited a page on my watchlist and used the summary "Bull. Fucking. Shit." I clicked on their contributions listing and saw that this style of edit summary was not an isolated issue. I shared my concern with the editor and then I posted on Wikiquette alerts for advice. The Wikiquette people immediately suggested I escalate the issue to this forum. To clarify: I have had no content disputes, "edit wars", or other prior contact with this editor. I am just a bit jarred by the amount of vituperation I came across in examining their edit history. Thank you. —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 17:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In delving a bit deeper, there is evidence that the user has long been aware of the inappropriateness of their edit summaries, but has continued with the inappropriate style. —Bill Price^{(notyourbroom)} 18:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That's clearly unacceptable by any standards - the editor's fortunate that they've got away with it this long without being reported. I was going to issue a 24 hour break, but because your note seems to be the first time this has been raised with them it's possible—just barely—that they were unaware of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and have no idea how to behave in a collegiate manner. I'll add a warning to your note, but the next time it's reported I fully expect a block will follow. EyeSerene^talk 18:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Block review

• JayhawkGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kirk Hinrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• JHawk88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hi. I don't do a lot of sock blocks, but this one seems obvious. I've indeffed User:JayhawkGuy as a sock of User:Kirk Hinrich, created during that user's block for copyvios. User:Kirk Hinrich is not actually the first account, since he was previously (and self-admittedly) User:JHawk88, who abandoned that account during a copyright review, but as it currently isn't against any policy to get a clean start during copyright review (though that's something to think about), I didn't concern myself with sock issues there. I did not reset User:Kirk Hinrich's block as per WP:EVADE. I'll leave that up to somebody else, if they think it necessary. Since I don't often do "socks", I thought I'd drop it here in case there's other input. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Zimmerman (politician)

An editor is refactoring other editors' comments in a good-faith attempt to stop additions from what he believes to be the IP sockpuppet of a banned user. While deleting the thread, he's deleting the replies of other editors another editor. This appears to me to be vandalism: the other editor is accusing me of interfering with anti-vandalism: please see the edit history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Zimmerman (politician), User talk:Empty Buffer#Banned users and various threads on User talk:SchmuckyTheCat. Advice and help would be appreciated. Thanks, Empty Buffer (talk)

Note above another editor already noticed the return of this sockmaster. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Instantnood_at_it_again.

In this case, we have a notorious sockmaster who uses caching proxies to edit simultaneously from multiple IP ranges. While removing the banned users contributions (quickly, he makes hundreds at a time) I am not very concerned with a minor reply by another user, it is not of consequence to the end result of the AfD discussion. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

[157], Empty Buffer, when dealing with banned users swiftly and surely, sometimes toes get stepped on. They aren't of consequence to the end result. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 19:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

213.107.191.108

Resolved

 – All accounts are blocked as necessary. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• 213.107.191.108 (talk · contribs) - most recent
• JHUGHES8989 (talk · contribs)
• Joshh101010 (talk · contribs)
• Joshhughes2010 (talk · contribs)

All edits are inserting misleading information about towns in southern Hertfordshire, England. Various warnings, all ignored. MRSC (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

All blocked and tagged, the newer accounts indef, the oldest for two weeks. The autoblock should catch the IP. For future reference, SPI is the place for these sorts of issues. TNXMan 19:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit URL

I'm trying to make an English and Norwegian page about the Norwegian sound designer and music producer named Marius Hansen, but the URL is occupied by a Danish gymnast named Aage Marius Hansen. no:Marius Hansen and Marius Hansen Is it possible to edit these URLs so the Danish gymnast will have these URLs?: no:Aage Marius Hansen and Aage Marius Hansen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnerikbang (talk • contribs) 20:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

You could create it at something like Marius Hansen (producer) and add a hatnote. –xeno^talk 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Marius Hansen the gymnast is now under his full name: Aage Marius Hansen. Go to the redirect page Marius Hansen, click on the link at the top of the page you're redirected to, and make your article.--Wetman (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 4 incoming links that will need to be fixed first. –xeno^talk 20:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed all of the incoming links. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Revoking Jack Ebs's talk page access

Resolved

 – Talk page access revoked. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin remove Jack Ebs's talk page access for consistent vandalism? Thanks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Request IP block of User:207.81.9.153 for repeated vandalism

The user (User:207.81.9.153) has been repeatedly vandalizing many pages, usually involving animated shows and comic book pages, many of which I have reverted several times over the past month. Vandalism usually consists of adding completely falsified information, such as creating characters, involvement in other franchises, appearances in other media, or just adding random celebrities to the casts of animated programs. The user was already contacted by an established editor and warned about his or her contributions and persists nonetheless. Here are some examples: [158], [159], [160], and [161]. The user history demonstrates that he or she has been doing this several times since beginning at Wikipedia. Requesting an indefinite block.Luminum (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Near as I can tell, every edit by User:207.81.9.153 is vandalism. Edward321 (talk) 01:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Since it appears to be a static IP, and edits infrequently but in bursts of activity that cover dozens of articles during those periods, I've blocked the IP for 3 months. Shimeru 06:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

topic site ban for User:Solar Rocker

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a problem here. This user started off as User:Ratinator but has retired that account. They also have a blocked sock account: User:CuteMice. Solar Rocker was technically created while Ratinator was still blocked, but as it seems an honest if inept attempt at a clean start I elected to let that go. All three accounts have been obsessed with acquiring rollback rights and have made one mess after another at WP:AFC that other users have had to spend time cleaning up. I'm frankly concerned that this user may lack the competence required for an editing environment like this, but at the very least I feel they should be topic banned from requesting rollback or participating at AFC for a period of six months. That should be enough time for an active user to gain the required familiarity with out content and vandalism policies, allowing them to participate in a productive manner, rather than just creating a lot of messes that need to be cleaned up.Now requesting a full site ban due to yet another fake retirement that was really just the Rat moving on to anew account, see below. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, fair about the rollback but can you not do the AfC. Solar Rocker|Talk to me! 17:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if I agree with a 6 month ban, but rather on a merit basis... what's the evidence for rollback "obsession"?.. moreover, why do you want rollback so much? It's only a button. Tommy! [message] 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The contributions of CuteMice are evidence enough. --Deskana (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban, but I'm not entirely comfortable with overlooking the socking issue, given his responses here. Frankly, the fact that he even asked this question is worrisome. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ay, yes the 2nd diff is disturbing. Tommy! [message] 17:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Luckily he has no skill at deception, so the socks have been very easy to detect. The obsession with rollback and other user rights is clear if you look at the editing history of all three accounts, here are just a few of the many postings made by the three accounts on these subjects:Solar Rocker's reply to a denied request for rollback [162] CuteMices request, which is one lie after another [163] Actually Ratinator was more fixated on the reviewer right, which they are even more unqualified for [164] is one of his many postings to that noticeboard, so we should maybe throw that on the topic ban as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Also support a "topic ban", as it were. We've received a fair few complaints from people submitting AfC requests that their requests were unfairly denied by Solar Rocker/Ratinator/Solar Rocks/CuteMice (or whatever other username he's used and I've left off), and a lot of these complaints were found to be justified and the close he made was overturned. Additionally, I think he should be restricted to a single account: him continually dumping old accounts for new ones is not acceptable. --Deskana (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Deskana. Tommy! [message] 17:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: Reluctant to support site ban; the user is clearly not trying very hard to hide his footsteps, thus I think for now, at least, make it clear that s/he to use only 1 account, and then we'll go from there. I only say reluctant cuz he's not trying hard to hide his tracks; probably just a young user. Tommy! [message] 06:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I had missed Solar Rock, blocked them too. Agree that he has abused WP:CLEANSTART in addition to the outright socking, and that he should be permanantly restricted to one account. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban, restrict user to one account. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support absolutely (topic ban on AFC for 6 months and restricted to single account); I would also support a fresh block immediately, for an appropriate time, for socking.

I've had to deal with the fallout of far too many AFCs for this user and their socks - I'd guess at least 30 that I've had to repair damage from, and at least 10 users complaining in the IRC help channel about AFC edits that this user has made; I can get diffs if needed, but frankly I've wasted far too much time on this already. If you just look at their contribs to AFC's, it should be apparent that they do not understand that we want to help new users write Encyclopaedic content, not dismiss them to 'clear the queues'.

Solar rocker/ratinator/cutemice/solar rock/IP/whatever you want to be called, you do not seem to have grasped the basic principles of Wikipedia, and you are creating a lot of work; we have to be very careful to make new users as welcome as possible, and to guide them through the difficult process of getting started in Wikipedia; your declined/held AFCs do the exact opposite, and put people off contributing. People have tried to help and advise you where you were going wrong, but you deliberately evaded the block on Ratinator by creating Cute Mice, and even then you were shown great leniency with a short block; you then still persisted in gaming the system, creating new IDs. Wikipedia is not a game, you are not trying to 'level up'; you really do need to understand that. I do not know if you can become a useful contributor or not, but I certainly think you should stay away from AFC, and that you should start listening to all the many people who are trying their very best to get you on the right tracks. And please, stop trying to circumvent policies; it will catch up on you, surely you see that now. Best that can happen now is, you settle down, accept advice, read up on policies and guidelines, and learn to ask when you are not sure - check things, don't make assumptions. Maybe - shock - try writing an article. Stop trying to gain status; 'rollback', 'admin', etc are no big deal, it is not an award, it's just some little setting that allows trusted users to help in special ways. You are not going about it the right way; you're not gaining trust here. Right now, you can fix it; you can demonstrate maturity by accepting this advice - if you're blocked for a bit, use the time to read up on some policies or to start writing a bit of an article on your userpage (WP:FIRST might help). Try making some simpler edits - WP:CLEANUP has lots of stuff to do. Review those AFCs, see what happened to them, learn from your mistakes. Best of luck,  Chzz  ►  17:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for AFC for six months with a review then of general behavior, restricted to single account, and that seems generous. Block for sockpuppetry for an appropriate time with the understanding that further sockpuppetry gets an indefinite block. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• And the latest account: Lunar Stars. --Deskana (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

you can do the topic ban then, I don't mind I deserve it Solar Rocker|Talk to me! 18:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe you are doing the fake retirement/start a new account thing again. Clearly, you are incapable of understanding or abiding by our policies. I have blocked the new account and Solar Rocker indefinitely, and I would like to modify my request from a topic ban to a full site ban. Enough is enough, I shoveled all the good faith I could muster to this user, and they have spit in my face again and again in return. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support This user was shown all the good faith in the world, and abused it each and every time. The door is that way, so long. Courcelles (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support full site ban per Beeblebrox. Creating a new sock in the middle of a discussion about being restricted to a single account pretty blows any attempt to WP:AGF out of the water. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support site ban per Sarek. I think this user is very young and that maturity is a serious issue here; however, I hope that, when he's more mature, he'll come back and convince us to trust him. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please delete all of my contributions

Resolved

 – declined. Toddst1 (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please delete all of my, Charlessauer (talk · contribs), contributions. I no longer wish to participate in any Wiki project after User:DragonflySixtyseven deleted several of my articles on Wikipedia. Please honor my request and delete all of my contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.162.15 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, even if you are User:Charlessauer, all the content you contribute belongs to Wikipedia. If there are articles for which you are the sole contributer, you can put {{db-g7}} in those articles to call for them to be deleted. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, all of the articles created by Charlessauer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are ineligible for G7 deletion, because they all have substantial contributions from other editors. I'm not familiar with any other matter, and so I won't comment on such things. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The request is declined. See Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License if you have any further questions. Toddst1 (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Caden

I am leaving this message here out of concern that a potential problem relating to the ongoing rfc for Blablaaa (talk · contribs) may balloon to the point that an admin may be needed, but in the interest of transparency the matter I can not handle the matter since I am one of a number of the current admins and coordinators of the military project presently involved in the above mentioned rfc.

My concern relates to the behavior of one Caden (talk · contribs), who over the last few days seems to have tried very hard to inflame not just those opposing Blablaaa in the rfc but also Blablaaa himself (interpreted by me from this discussion here, where Caden appears to canvass a little until Blablaa asks him to stop). From where I sit on the matter, the behavior exhibited by Caden could be interpreted any number of ways from unsound advise given in good faith to disruptive editing.

Over the past 48 hours Caden has alleged that a so called conspiracy exists, and has openly rather unsubtly called several different editors out his RFC post (full details), and has singled out both EyeSerene (talk · contribs) (see banned editors link for details) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) out as problematic editors (against ed), even going so far as to defend a banned editor by claiming he was a victim of EyeSerene's abuse of admin privileges.

Certainly I feel that the matter is explosive enough without his two cents, and that is why I am asking for an outside opinion on the matter. I do not believe Caden is acting for anyone's good, I think he is capitalizing on the situation to maneuver a couple of people around so he can further his position that we are all involved in some kind of conspiracy. As I noted above, I'm involved, so I recuse myself from taking an official action, but (and I believe I speak for everyone at the this point) an outside opinion on the matter would at this point be greatly appreciated. At the very least, we must protect Blablaaa from Caden's influence to ensure that the RFC currently running on him remains doesn't collapse into conspiracy theories. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

My relevant contribution here is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa#An annoyed and slightly off-topic second outside view by The ed17. I regret showing so much of my annoyance in that post, but the overall sentiment is (I hope) clear. Caden's use of these unfounded, baseless, and quite offending accusations without any sort of evidence has gone on for too long. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Caden means well. My impression of him is that he's younger and holds the moral absolutes of the young. When it comes to anything remotely political, he's right and everyone who disagrees with his position is part of a (gay or liberal or anti-German) conspiracy. He does quite well when he's editing music or model articles, but he gets really easily worked up when he edits articles that are political (for lack of a better term). He's been topic banned from articles in regards to sexuality before, and he's managed to stay away from those since it expired. I'm not familiar with this situation, but he's a fine editor when he's not emotionally invested in the topic. AniMate 01:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll let it be then, however the others may have different opinions on the matter. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm just giving background. If he's as disruptive as you say, another topic ban might get him back to editing productively. AniMate 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly hesitant about posting here, but thank you AinMate for your advice. I must admit I'm starting to wonder if I've run over Caden's cat or something; it's quite disconcerting when an editor I've never encountered before turns out to be able to dismiss four years' work here as POV pushing and admin abuse using only their logic and common sense. However, I certainly don't feel any need to defend myself against Kurfurst's lunatic notions - his record speaks for itself, he remains indefblocked and Wikipedia's a better place for his absence. If certain editors feel that citing him as evidence will improve their case that's their decision, though it's not one I would be making in their position. It is disappointing, though perhaps not surprising, to see the RfC/U being used as a vehicle for unsubstantiated personal attacks and daft conspiracy theories, but I'm still hoping something worthwhile will come of it all. Stranger things have happened :) EyeSerene^talk 08:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I actually don't know a lot about Caden, but on his allegations of a conspiracy: As I pointed out here (which EyeSerene responded to here), there is some funny (as in bad funny) activity going on by the group against Blablaaa. No administrative misconduct by Eyeserene that I've seen but the understanding of WP:SYNTH is not what I would expect of an admin (see EyeSerene's response for details). People here might be surprised at what EyeSerene considered forumshopping (EyeSerene admitted in the above response that Blablaaa really wasn't forumshopping at that point): Blablaa raises an issue about a WWII battle at a talkpage where people disagree, discusses it a bit at the disagreeing people's user talk pages, then raises it at WP:MILHIST. EyeSerene argued that when Blablaa raised the issue at WP:MILHIST it was forumshopping - that is, the first attempt to seek uninvolved help in a dispute was forumshopping. This has to raise eyebrows and suggests that EyeSerene may not be the best person to be issuing unilateral blocks for disruptive editing. EyeSerene has a decently nice internet tone and seems willing to admit mistakes, and I do think everyone involved will be able to work it out, but I felt compelled to mention this because I think these interpretations of policy are off and I think it can be helpful to discuss policy clarifications. I strongly suspect the editor EyeSerene blocked in question was disruptive, but there's some overall behavior in regard to British-German WWII battles that suggests to me that there is a pro-British spin on the articles. Considering we are the English Wikipedia, it's not all that surprising, but potential English bias also an obvious blind spot that we can watch for. And it's not like admitting that the Germans might have had a good battle or destroyed a few extra tanks is supportive of Nazis or anything either. II | (t - c) 11:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

II, might I ask for some diffs of this alleged pro-British/Allied bias? Yourself, Blablaaa and Caden have stated this numerous times, but I've yet to see any diffs to back this up; you yourself have said several times that you haven't look deeply into the matter (ie Kurfurst and the potential area of bias). Do you have any evidence of this please? It would be interesting to see if there is such a bias, and what could be done to correct it. Skinny87 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I had a response here but I guess it didn't end up being submitted. Did you read my RfC, where I documented fairly clearly a case where original research was clearly used to support a more favorable interpretation of a certain battle, yet nobody supported Blablaaa in the effort. Blablaaa recently brought my attention to the Battle of Jutland which, I think, is a similar case - Blablaaa presents 90 sources with quotes which call the battle a tactical victory for the Germans and a strategic victory for the English, yet there's no budging from the status quo of "tactical inconclusive" except for a single editor. II | (t - c) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can I respectfully add that although you've made quite a serious charge about my interpretation of a fundamental article writing policy at the RfC and again here, you haven't actually explained anywhere why you think I don't understand WP:SYNTH. I gave you a full explanation of why I believe your take on the policy is not entirely correct in this case and is out of step with good article-writing practice. I'd be very interested to hear exactly what your understanding of WP:SYNTH is and why you think I'm mistaken. Obviously ANI is probably not the best place for this, so I'd be happy to take it somewhere more appropriate. However, I do appreciate that you've indicated elsewhere that you don't have the time to endlessly debate this, so if you'd prefer to spend your time doing something more productive I completely understand. EyeSerene^talk 20:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for not explaining and I appreciate that you have remained calm in spite of what could some editors in this emotionally-charged website would view as personal attacks. The honest truth is that I was hoping you would revise your explanation of SYNTH/OR, since your major argument was apparently that since the OR was not used "to advance a position" and it occurred in the lead, it was acceptable. Let me know if you think I've just set up a straw man there. I added my response on why I don't think that makes sense. Summarizing my response for anyone viewing here, I think you need to keep in mind that every sentence in Wikipedia articlespace advances a position, even if the position is a simple fact. The lead actually needs be more directly supported by the sources, not less, regardless of what you've experienced. This makes sense because introducing misleading or original facts (which don't come from actual scholars directly) into the lead is very dangerous - it can seriously confuse the factual record on a topic. II | (t - c) 05:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read your response at the RfC. I'll reply there because I think this is going beyond the scope of ANI. However, from your post there (and above) I think we may be more in agreement that it first appeared. Thank you for taking the time on this, EyeSerene^talk 08:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazi comment

Just thought I'd drop in here to point out that user Caden has been to my user page and practically threatened me because I questioned user Blablaa's unanimous editing. Furthermore, I have seen SOME articles where use Blablaa has edited with a large amount of sources, but I've seen others where he clearly mis-represents the sources and simply mis-quotes then and claims he's reading out of a book. What is more opaque is that EVERY edit he makes understates German losses and claims the source that quotes the lowest German losses and highest Allied losses is the only worthy source. This is essentially contrary to academic opinion since the historians he quotes are often relatively unheard of or simply collating previously debunked figures. I would go into more depth, but this is about Caden, so I'll reiterate on my relationship with him. User BlaBlaa and I got into a conflict where I felt he was unanimously editing an article so I checked his talk page only to find he's repeatedly been blocked for uncivil behaviour and disruptive editing. There I find the only person supportive of him is User Caden. I comment there. Soon after I have a threat from Caden on my talk page.--Senor Freebie (talk) 21:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

... Facepalm WP:BOOMERANG, anyone?

Sorry, SF, what Caden said was not a "threat" by any stretch. In fact, I'd say he was pretty well justified being upset at your comment here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Uh, what does "editing unanimously" entail? Did you mean to say "anonymously?" Beeblebrox (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This guy needs to be blocked per Wikipedia:NPA#Blocking_for_personal_attacks:

"Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted".

Calling someone a Nazi is on a similar level as calling someone a pedophile. Simply because someone argues that the Germans were superior militarily or whatever doesn't make that person a Nazi and such comments should not be allowed. Further, as Blablaaa has documented, Senor's inconsistent use of a source suggests that Senor actually did not know what he were talking about and may be misrepresenting sources. II | (t - c) 00:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: He means "unilaterally" I think. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 05:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be helpful if several participants in the RfC moderated their comments. I note, for instance, that Caden labeled me "anti-German" (among several other slurs) in his contribution to the RfC. All the RfC seems to be establishing is that this situation is probably going to end up at Arb Com. Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Nick. Things have got over-heated in places, but in Blablaaa's defence I've never seen anything to indicate he has an extreme right-wing agenda. In Senor Freebie's defence, while his comment was not WP:CIVIL he didn't call Blablaaa a Nazi; many people, incorrectly in my view, loosely refer to the Germans during the 1930s & 40s as "the Nazis". Perhaps we could usefully invoke Godwin's Law and close this thread? EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I only happened to see this because I was here to comment on something else. Godwin's law is fit for stirring up thought, but invoking it to end a discussion is almost always mistaken, whether or not the discussion should indeed be ended for more meaningful reasons. Calling someone "pro-Nazi," without a ream or two of diffs to back it up, is not on here. I've both heard and read a lot about the German military in the early 1940s and by most accounts, it was better equipped, educated and motivated than any other in the world at that time. Saying so is not "pro-Nazi." That it was built up and dispatched to what can easily be called evil ends is widely understood. That Germany lost the 1939-45 war through overwhelming attrition and inept leadership can likewise be cited. The meaning of the word Nazi has become so widened and fuzzy as to be almost meaningless in most contexts where it is hurled, other than as a wanton slur, meant only to halt discussion, much as the nouns racist and pedophile and I might also throw in, troll as to anything online. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there's absolutely no place for racial, sexist, political or any other types of slur on Wikipedia. I was charitably making the assumption that since Blablaaa has never displayed any pro-right wing bias that I've seen, Senor Freebie couldn't be making such an unfounded accusation and had therefore chosen his words poorly and used "Nazi" when he meant "German" (as many people wrongly do). If he needs to be sanctioned for his attack, so be it - I've blocked editors myself for similar violations of NPA. My reference to Godwin's Law - an internet joke - was a light-hearted attempt to take some of the heat out of the uncivil accusations and counter-accusations that have been thrown around during the RfC, none of which are helpful. It wasn't an attempt to end the discussion or avoid scrutiny, it was poorly considered and I apologise that it came across as badly it clearly did. I'll leave attempts at wit to editors better qualified than I am in future. EyeSerene^talk 09:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it was me. I'm likely too over-keen about Godwin's law because there was a time here on en.WP when it was indeed invoked by some to squash threads into archives. Doing so has always been mistaken, since Godwin meant it to be funny (as you did) from the beginning and moreover, it only has to do with the truly high likelihood of the topic coming up sooner or later if any thread goes on long enough, but often got wrongly cited as meaning "now that you've brought it up, we're done here." Gwen Gale (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that it has actually been seriously invoked to close discussions - that seems a bizarre interpretation of its intent to me. I have to confess my heart sank a bit when I saw your post though. I've been accused of all sorts of misconduct on the RfC, one repeated theme being that I've tried to quash discussion and defended (including misusing my admin tools) misconduct from editors where I support their alleged POV. I read your post and thought "Oh crap... I know where this is going to end being quoted :(" Not your fault in any way - it was my own goal and I've given myself a good hard kick - but I hope it explains any over-defensiveness in my earlier rely. Best regards, EyeSerene^talk 10:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My botch! I was too eager to hop up on the ol' soapbox and preach about a pet peeve of mine :) Gwen Gale (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, no worries :) We've all got our peeves - mine tend to emerge Grumpy Old Men-style at random moments, usually in response to handcream or mobile phone adverts on TV (I mean, thousands of years of human civilisation and this is the pinnacle of our aspirational development?) It tends to attract what I can only describe as 'old-fashioned' looks from my kids... EyeSerene^talk 12:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Guy Stone / Aussieboy373

(edit conflict × 2) When I was RC patrolling, I came upon the edits of Aussieboy373. They're blanking and prodding pages claiming that the article subject wants them deleted. Due to the BLP stuff, I didn't revert, and instead decided to bring it to others' attention. I'm not too sure about what to do in these instances, hence my bringing it here for others to see. (X! · talk)  · @743  ·  16:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I created that page, and I want it deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussieboy373 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, MANDIC777 created it (see the page history here). You created a redirect. Even if you did create it, replacing the content with a prod is disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The page was created by MANDIC777 (talk · contribs) and significantly edited by someone not logged in using the IP address 24.46.211.161 (talk · contribs). Are both of those you? If so (and you can demonstrate it, for example by posting here from both the account and the IP address) then we can delete the article immiediately under G7 of the speedy deletion criteria. If not then it will be deleted if noone objects to the PROD for a week.

Having looked at the sources, I don't think they really confer notability to Stone so deletion in one way or another is fine by me. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

X!, you seemed to be talking about multiple pages but I just see the one. Am I missing something, or...? Olaf Davis (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Even if you create an article, you still do not own it, so it is not up to you to delete it if others contribute. That is what you sing up to when startin to work in Wikipedia

All of them. This is a BLP issue, so this needs to be treaded on with careful steps. (X! · talk)  · @846  ·  19:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally not you but User:Mandic777 created the article in February 2010. Arnoutf (talk) 17:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, this is me as: 1. aussieboy373 asking for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.212.171 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, now as 2: (whatever my IP address is) I am asking for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.212.171 (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So, now as 3: mandic777 am deleting this page. I hope that this is proof enough that I did create the page, I am going to delete the contents of the page (again) and ask for speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

i would appreciate if my request for a speedy deletion would not be fought against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

On the one hand a good number of other users have contributed to this article. On the other, though, I would question whether they qualify as significant contributors. Thoughts? - Vianello (Talk) 20:15, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when you say a good number of users, you mean me. That is my IP address that appears so frequently, and my two user names. The only other edits seem to be people monitoring pages to check if the sources are accurate and have proper citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MANDIC777 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you using two user names? Did you forget the password for Aussieboy373?   — Jeff G.  ツ 20:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No, his first comment here came from the Aussieboy ID. The editor seems to edit using both IDs and a fixed IP address. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll also point out that the subject of the article, Guy Stone, is said in the article to be born as "Guy Mandic". One of the editors IDs is MANDIC777. If there is a relationship between the subject and this editor, that would possibly mean they have a conflict of interest in regard to the article and should take alook at WP:COI. Also, if the editor involved is the subject of the article, he should probably contact OTRS if he has a complaint about the article. I'm not sure why there would be, since they contributed a great deal of the information in it -- but others have contributed as well, so it's possible that some misinformation crept in. If so, the answer is not to delete the article, but to correct it, using OTRS or the procedures suggested in WP:COI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that one cannot revoke their contributions under the CC-BY-SA; this is made clear between the edit box and the edit summary everytime someone goes to edit a page. –MuZemike 01:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That being said, it would behoove MANDIC777/et al to quickly go over Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Dealing with articles about yourself and send an email to the OTRS team at the email provided there if there are problems with the article. –MuZemike 01:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I filed an SPI, even though it's a self confessed duck. Aussieboy tried blanking the article again, I reverted and warned, he switched to MANDIC777 and tried it again, leaving a message on my talk page saying he's the "sole" contributor. I was gonna leave him alone on the two accounts, but the warning dodging, the potential COI, and snubbing the contributions of others (assuming he knows what "sole" means, here) gets under my skin. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not notable. The guy who wrote it, and presumably is the subject of it, wants it deleted. What's the problem? Just do the right thing. Jesus. Anthony (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not Facebook or MySpace, we're not here for people to write stuff about themselves and then maintain control of the content and the fate of the article. He, apparently, wrote an article about himself, and it's been here for almost half a year, when all of a sudden he decides he doesn't want the article – but that's no longer his decision to make. The article is now ours, and the community decides what to do with it through policies. If you or anybody else thinks the subject is not notable, take it to AfD. If he thinks the article he wrote about himself isn't accurate, then he can to to OTRS and make a complaint. What he doesn't get to do is control the fate of the article on his own say-so. In the meantime, he's been playing fast and loose with multiple policies, and we need to decide if this person is someone that we wish to allow to have access for future editing, since they seem to have no real purpose in being here outside of self-promotion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew all that. Who will benefit from us keeping a non-notable, autobiographical puff piece? And who will be hurt by it? Exactly what are your motives here? Anthony (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How pleasant to have my motivations questioned. I suggest you AGF, and if you think the subject isn't notable (the article's not a puff piece at all, it's pretty much a standard actor bio) take to to AfD.

I think we're done here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, motive. It's time someone enquired into that. What is your aim? What are you trying to do here? Did it occur to you to be kind? All I can see is you making someone live with a blp when they don't want to, when, apart from {{reflist}} and some tags and categories, they wrote the whole thing. Surely I'm wrong but it just looks gratuitously petty and cruel.

Now we're done. Anthony (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, gratuitous pettiness and cruelty are my middle names, they're what motivate everything I do here. I'm really surprised no one's picked up on it before now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

How about nominating for AfD and deciding based on notability? Despite your disagreement in the last couple of comments, this seems to be the point of convergence of what you both say. Antipastor (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are your motives, Anthony? Hm? Why do you want the article deleted? Maybe you're a sock for Mandic777/Aussieboy373? Or maybe you're a communist spy? Hm? Or perhaps you're part one of the Illuminati, trying to hide the cover of one of your top agents?!? And I'll turn off my mind control lazers that are totally preventing you from taking the article to AfD, which is why you've been forced to question the motives of and badger others for not doing so. Although, you could have just put on a tin-foil hat to block the beam, honestly. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(Colander firmly in place)Sorry Ken. That was a pretty superficial reading of one single thread. Anthony (talk) 13:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, I know how things can get, sometimes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed block of MANDIC777 and Aussieboy373

Why not? He replaces the content of an article with prods and db tags after being told repeatedly not to, acts like he WP:OWNs the article, snubs the work of others, has a COI, and is spreading warnings out over multiple accounts (if it was a single account, it'd've been blocked by now). Then again, I've been drinking, so if I need to be trouted, please do so. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As a result of the SPI, Aussieboy373 has been blocked for a couple of weeks, and MANDIC777 has been indef blocked. I believe the static IP has been autoblocked as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

1RR on talk pages?

Resolved

 – answered. 1RR rule does not apply on talk pages. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

On Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes I changed a heading that was misleading. This got reverted [165], I reverted back, and then it got reverted again: [166]

So the question is, is the talk page also under 1RR rule? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifying where the 1RR sanction has been logged would help users answer the question you are asking.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who initially placed the article on 1RR. Only the article and not the talk page was placed on any limitation. However, editing another's comments or edit warring on the talk page is just profoundly ridiculous, and will be met with blocks for general disruption if necessary. Just leave the header as is and counter the points they raise instead. (That applies to everyone, and not just you). NW (Talk) 13:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Trouble with user Ariana301

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi, I made a small change in Afghanistan#Foreign relations and military and provided reliable source as well as explained my reasons at Talk:Afghanistan#Foreign_relations_and_military then Ariana310 (talk · contribs) appeared and started replying in a rude tone, deleting my sourced edits and calling me a pro-Pakistani POV pusher everywhere. Ariana310 violated 3rr after I warned her and refuse to stop deleting sourced content. [167], [168], [169], [170], [171] --119.73.1.34 (talk) 08:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not only me who finds 119.73.1.34's edits as POV and confusion, but other users too agree with me on the same point. Here, here, and here, reverts by two different users User:Begoon and User:John.

119.73.1.34 is overly-emphasizing on Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, while skipping and ignoring more important and healthier relations with other countries. He/She is trying to show off the Afghan-Pak relations to be friendly and without any tension, and is relying purely on one-sided and unreliable sources. A wikipedia article should have a balanced approach; we cannot focus solely on a single country.

I have added reliable sources for the reverts I made and for which there weren't any prior references: in here and here. The rest of my edits were removal of pure POV, for example in here. Ariana (talk) 08:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The source you provided simply says that Iran has relations with the ethnic Tajiks and Shia Hazaras in Afghanistan, those are not Afghan rulers. The Pakhtun are the ruling people of Afghanistan and you need to provide a reliable source that states that the Pakhtun leaders have or had relations with Iran. As far as history goes, they were at war with one another since the time of Hotaki dynasty in 1709. You are falsifying sources.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Direct quote from the source: Iran has close linguistic and cultural ties to AfghanistanAriana (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• 119.73, are you Ali (talk · contribs)? Reason I ask is your post at WP:ANEW. Incidentally, isn't this WP:FORUMSHOPPING? TFOWR 09:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My name is Ali, no I'm not that user.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 09:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Understood. I've amended the WP:ANEW report to use your "username", which is 119.73.1.34 - confusing though that may seem ;-)

My comment about WP:FORUMSHOPPING may need some explanation. In general, you should only report an issue in one place. I'll leave it to others to decide whether this issue should be handled here or at WP:ANEW. TFOWR 09:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll suggest here what was said in reply to 119.73.1.34 on my talk page. Since this appears basically to be a disagreement on content between just 2 editors, why not close this thread and the one at WP:ANEW and take it to WP:3O for a third opinion. I have no view on the content issues, my revert was purely for an edit that seemed on balance POV and unsourced, and I encouraged the user to discuss this on the article talk page, which he has done. I think it needs extra eyes, because it's stuck, but this probably isn't the right place. I'd hope both editors can remain calm and get this resolved amicably.  Begoon^talk 10:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I added two reliable sources, one from the Journal of International Affairs of the Columbia University for the Afghan-Pakistan's long-lasting tension (in here) and the other for Afghan-Iran historical and linguistic ties from the Council on Foreign Relations (in here); but 119.73.1.34 removed both sources in here. In addition, he/she placed the CFR's reference after a sentence which has nothing to do with it (here), and in addition without even writing the source in a complete reference style. That's a vandalism by itself. He/She uses uses the texts published by the embassies of the two countries, instead of using the media or other scholarly sources which are impartial and unbiased. Ariana (talk) 10:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ariana310 is trying to built controversy in the Afghan foreign relations section. She should explain the long-lasting tension in the main article Afghanistan-Pakistan relations. The section I edited is mainly focusing on the current-relations. She believes the words of Afghanistan's politicians are irrelevant and decides to remove this Afghan foregin ministry statement about Afghan-Pakistani relations. I made my argument clear at Talk:Afghanistan#Foreign relations and military but there she is not writing anything important other than calling me POV pusher. Along with that she is showing anti-Pakistan sentiments because according to her she lived in Pakistan and was probably harrassed by Pakistani police, using her own personal experiance to explain Afghan-Pak relations with an anti-Pakistani way. That's why I brought this here.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Or you could both keep arguing about content here... Mine was only a suggestion, after all...  Begoon^talk 11:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous! WP:3O would offer a neutral editor with friendly advice. WP:ANEW will offer a bloody-minded admin choosing between 0, 1 and 2 blocks... ;-) TFOWR 11:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:hammy64000 - constant personal attacks, religious vilification, etc

Resolved

 – Indef block reinstated.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

On the 6th of July user:Hammy64000 was indefinitely blocked for harassment and personal attacks by user:SarekOfVulcan. After they were blocked, these personal attacks of an extremely abusive nature continued on their talk page as that is the only remaining place with editing privileges.see this edit after being blocked. They were then subsequently blocked from editing their talk page by the same administrator. However, on the 19th of July the administrator user:kaldari unblocked Hammy64000 without any visible discussions writing "user has pledged to edit cooperatively" on the log. Following the unexplained unblock I have made no contact with Hammy64000 knowing their abusive nature yet they have begun with adding false warning templates to my page. They were removed and they were reverted by Hammy64000. It should be noted that this followed once my page was semi-protected after vandalism by a series of anonymous IPs [172] and [173]. Something is not right here regarding the unblock with no retraction of the personal attacks and the continued intimidation through the abuse of warning templates. --Ari (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

All I really want is Hammy64000 to agree to stop harassing me - directly or indirectly. I have chosen to avoid them and I would like this reciprocated. --Ari (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am preparing my response with diffs. I was blocked, it is true. But I am not continuing any offensive behavior. I discussed the block removal with another admin. by email, before Kaldari removed the block. He provided many diffs, which I researched. This was an email account of 'excirial'. I did not vandalize anyone and I never have done vandalizm since I started working here. About the warning template that I gave Ari, I don't know how it can be defined as false. First Sarek accused me of creating the template, but it was already created before I found it. [174] Also, I can provide many diffs which show countless warnings on my own page from Ari and SpigotMap when all I was doing was trying to oppose a merge without consensus. [175] I will provide diffs to show my edits and discussion during this time. I believe they were not disruptive. I know for a fact that at least one was doctored. The corresponding warning is here.[176] Here is the diff.[177] I never touched the Islam section. I believe this was changed to coincide with SpigotMap's warning. I believe this constitutes WP:GAME, [178]but it was never reported. I don't think the previous block should be part of this discussion if I am not going against Wikipedia standards at this time. I do object to Ari89 defining my "nature" as "abusive."I will provide diffs shortly.Hammy64000 (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, it is not correct to say "they have begun adding templates." For one thing I am only one person. And I only gave him one and replaced it when he deleted it from his page. I have been trying to deal with this article all by myself. Ari89 does not respond. I did some research and found applicable policy guidelines. I thought I had a right to give him a warning on his page. I put it on the article page and that was a mistake. I did not replace it after Sarek deleted it. But please see the discussion on my talk page. [179] Sarek put the heading "Disruptive editing" which hasn't been determined. I changed it and he changed it back several times. This was at the same time that user:Moreno oso was informing me that Ari could do anything he wants with his own talk page. I did not replace Ari's warning after that. But user:Moreno oso then acted as though I was still deserving of a block. I don't think I am.Hammy64000 (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You continued the very vile harassment after you were blocked. Now that you are unblocked and I have made no contact with you the false templates begin.

I called your behaviour abusive because that is the persona you have demonstrably made known, especially noting the above.

Finding diffs of who knows what will not address my concerns - unless there is now a policy that says you can make unprovoked vile attacks such as you repeatedly calling me "a liar", "thief", "fraud", "refuse", "low-life" among many other things.[180] --Ari (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That was the offense I was blocked for. I have already said I expected to be blocked. I have already discussed this with an admin. and another admin. chose to unblock me. I have not repeated anything of the kind. Hammy64000 (talk) 22:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Also please see the beginning of my contributions here. [181] I worked for weeks on the article with no working discussion page. Then on the same day I first heard from Ari he merged the article without consensus and without provided details about his objections, even though I asked for them. I think I was very patient in a trying situation. To define me as basically abusive is not true. You can only do that if you ignore all the other contributions.Hammy64000 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Hammy64000, what made you think that User:Ari89 has a "conflict of interest" related to Miraculous births? I'm having a little trouble imagining what that would entail; does Ari89 get personal or financial benefit from such births? Normally, we don't 'template' people who already know the rules, but instead, we use personal notes to discuss our disagreements. Why did you decide to use a template, instead of simply asking Ari89 about your concern? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is possible, since he is a Christian and since he seemed to object to comparisons of mythological births with Christianity. Also the merge was extreme because of its abrupt nature and the newly merged article was immediately changed to add Judeo-Christian births at the top. The warning does not say I must prove it--but he does have reason to organize the article in this way. Also, conflict of interest does not require financial benefit. It has to do with neutrality. Please see the description. [182] In addition, I have done the majority of the discussion since the day of the merge. He tends to not respond. If he is saying he has had no contact with me because of the abusive language, this is not true. He didn't respond before this happened either. Please see the earticle discussion to see if I was ever able to discuss such things with him. Please see my attempt at a compromise here.[183]Hammy64000 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The only thing you have correct about me above is that I am a Christian. You have made quite an issue of this fact, for example:

• "You are an embarrassment to christianity and a black eye for Wikipedia. You are completely off the wall and anyone can see it." -Hammy64000 (talk) 13:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• "You are an abomination, a travesty of a human being and an embarrassment as a Christian." -Hammy64000 (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• "I have tried to warn you about the bad reputation things like this give to Christianity, but you don't seem to care...You are just validating my concern about how degenerate Christianity has become. Truth and goodness is real. No matter how dark you are, it is real." --Hammy64000 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• "This is not the death toll of Christianity. That happened long ago. This is the faint echo of that tolling bell. If you are the face of Christianity, Ari, then Christianity has become rigid and perfectly hollow." --Hammy64000 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a few reasons why I see you as an abusive editor.

On the issue of Abrahamic religions being at the top (the alphabet does start with A) and does that mean I am also a Muslim?

re me not responding to you, I did there at 11:38, 17 April 2010 which states: "I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make here, Hammy64000." (not the direct reference to you)... --Ari (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It is against Wikipedia policy, having received answers to your questions to act as though you never received answers and do something drastic like merging an article. If you repeat the offense for which I was blocked over and over, and add a little more each time, it is still not a fresh instance. Again, all of my contributions should be taken into account. Ari did not do the merge properly. He made it look like I had no part in it. Here is Wnt's opinion:

Don't cancel your account just yet! Alright, it's obvious that I was wrong about this one. But you didn't help things by saying over and over that Ari "moved" the article - on Wikipedia, that's different than merging the article, which is what he did. And it's clear now looking at the last version of that article - which still does exist in the history - [4] and seeing your contributions in that article's history, that this is where you did do just about all the work that I thought he'd done. Wnt (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC) I'll add that the "manual merge" - which I should have caught in the article history - wasn't done up to the current standard for WP:copying within Wikipedia, which recommends that the source article be credited in the edit summary, and notes be added to the talk pages of the source and destination articles. Additionally, you could have reverted the proposed merge and requested discussion of it on the talk page (see Help:Merging). Wnt (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)"

I did revert the merge later--after Ari redirected it so you could not longer see the original. Then I was said to be edit warring.Hammy64000 (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammy, none of what you have said is addressing my issue. Is that the WP policy that states that you have every right to personally attack me over and over without consequence? --Ari (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the request for an "unmerge" discussion. It was requested again after I was unblocked. While I was blocked Wnt and Ari had a short conversation and Ari redirected the article again so the original can't be seen.[184]

Also, here are links to diffs showing that Ari deleted the sources, which I provided at his insistence--at least twice.

"After the merge you put citation tags all through a sourced article. I provided additional sources even though I questioned the necessity. It started here. [185] My next 3 edits are added sources. In this one I said in the history that I had returned my library books but added a source from the library online catalog. [186] Then three edits involved my adding sources and removing your tags. You deleted my sources from the article, saying they were dubious. [187] I replaced them. You deleted them again. [188] The next several edits were my replacing the sources again. Here Wnt says the article is well sourced except the last paragraph. [189] I believe that was part of the original Miraculous births article. Hammy64000 (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC) The offenses for which I was blocked were rude and I have never tried to make an excuse for them. I fully intended to never come back here again. But after I was blocked, the protection was removed on the virgin birth (mythology) article. I thought it was protected from Ari, but apparently it was protected from me. Also, I had a problem with SpigotMap's part in the block. He has been harassing me on my talk page since April and both he and Ari have threatened repeatedly to block me. For the block, SpigotMap then requested that Sarek of Vulcan block me. My argument for the unblock was based on policy violations involved in SpigotMap's conflict of interest. I said then and I'll say again, I expected to be blocked. I don't make any excuses for the attack that got me blocked. I'm only here now because this is all so wrong.Hammy64000 (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked the diffs for April 13 and 14 because I got so many warnings on my talk page for those dates. On this one [190] it looks like I deleted material about Moses, etc. Please go to that diff and click "next edit." I never deleted any Christian or Judeo-Christian material. I did not wish to participate at all because of the animosity of the merge. All I did in those days was add sources because Ari said he was going to re-write and delete material. So I don't even know if my links above still go to the place where he deleted my sources. Then on the 19 is the diff where I apparently messed with the Islam part. I never did. I provided that diff above.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I clicked link 94 above that use to go to his deleted sources. Now it looks like he was "improving" the article by adding Egyptian material. Here is a version of the original material.[191] He did not improve this material. On the contrary, he threatened to delete it. Hammy64000 (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Miraculous births looked like before the merge.[192]Hammy64000 (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to see changes to the revision history? If not, evidence for any dispute process would be impossible.Hammy64000 (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I provided the links to Ari's source deletions here [193] at 2:27 on July 3. At that time, these links showed his deletions of my sources.Hammy64000 (talk) 02:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The link to Virgin birth (mythology) is number 2 here.[194] I have it on my user page or else no one would be able to see it at all. Also, some of the discussion can only be found there.Hammy64000 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It was here [195] that we had the following conversation about sources. It was at this time that Ari put citation requests all through the article and threatened to delete material.

Ari, you requested citations for the Egyptian article and I provided them. Now you have marked that they need page numbers. That is a bogus way to justify your re-write. Anyone here? Why does this person think he can do this? --Hammy64000 (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC) You may not know this, but quotes and ideas attributed to a book that are not the main thesis require page numbers. This is basic referencing, and not a conspiracy theory. Once again, calm down and think for a minute before ranting. --Ari (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC) The conspiracy theory comment is beyond old. Why do you keep saying it? Do you think it makes me look bad, because I'm not the one who is having a meltdown here.--Hammy64000 (talk) 02:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC) I told Ari on the article history page that I returned my library books and so he is asking for page numbers to justify changing the article without discussion.--Hammy64000 (talk) 01:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Hammy64000 (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Hammy64000 (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammy64000, once again you are not addressing the issue with your extensive monologue. Complaining about a content dispute when the issue is your abusive behaviour is obvious side stepping of the issue. --Ari (talk) 06:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I am requesting clarification. Was I brought here because you object to the unblock, or because I recently put a template on your talk page? Also, I would like to request links to the vandalism you mentioned taking place on your talk page. The two links you provided are not anonymous IP's. Also, they were not vandalism. It has been suggested that some sort of vandalism is connected with this ANI and I think it needs to be cleared up. Thanks.Hammy64000 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand

Neither of you two comment here please, you're both just arguing back and forth and nothing is really coming of it. I am therefore requesting this section be reserved for comment by an uninvolved administrator, as that is the only way this is going to go anywhere.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Those large chunks of varying indents is actually just Hammy64000 arguing with himself which seems to obscure the actual issue. I have set it outin my few posts having provided diffs and extracts to quite vile abuse. I will respond to requests for more from the backlog but hopefully this will be all from me. --Ari (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Ari (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What did I just ask? This section is reserved for an uninvolved admin, or other uninvolved admins to make comment. It is not for you to continue the argument above with a snipe at the other editor. Please leave it be.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:33, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, speaking as an uninvolved Admin who has waded thru the above, I have to ask: is there anything here that can't be solved by requiring both editors to avoid one another? (And on a related note, someone ought to create a template which produces the following output: "There are {{Numberofarticles}} on Wikipedia for people to improve, so it should be easy both of you to avoid one another. If one or both of you can't do this, we can always block both of you until at least one of you learns how to do this." This seems to be the first solution for many issues presented here.) -- llywrch (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari89 on above

Thankyou for the input, llywrch. Avoiding Hammy64000 has been my response for quite some time, however, he continued to post personal abuse against myself on other user pages including his own. Even above I have made clear that I am not going to engage in an off topic content dispute despite their numerous posts/copy/pastes above. Hammy was eventually indefinite blocked for this abusive behaviour. He was subsequently unblocked without any retraction of these personal attacks. I intentionally made no contact with Hammy64000 since his block, yet the other day he started harassing me with false warning templates which he also reverted after I removed them. This was the last straw - I quite forcefully asked him to not post on my user page again and came straight to this noticeboard. Threatening to ban me unless I do exactly what I have been doing doesn't sound like a solution. Maybe asking him to stop the personal attacks and posting on my user talk page would be better. I certainly have no intention to make contact with him on his talkpage after the vile abuse I have received so my reciprocation is without question. --Ari (talk) 05:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said below, all I want is Hammy64000 to leave me alone. I do not care about convincing him that he has done something wrong as user:Daedalus969 mistakenly believes. I am simply sick of being harassed and called things such as "a wolf, a fraud, and thief, a liar, a plagiarist, a punk, and creep, a low-life nobody", "a fat, ugly, stinky piece of garbage with bad teeth", "refuse with a computer", "stupid puke", "an embarrassment to christianity and a black eye for Wikipedia", etc. This isn't asking for anything more than wp guidelines such as wp:npa and wp:civil require from editors. If Hammy64000 agrees to simply leave me alone, I could not care less about them being blocked, cautioned, etc. That may be selfish, but my time is better suited to continuing to contribute to Wikipedia than following this noticeboard. --Ari (talk) 05:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I said below the admin. should end this--please don't keep printing that stuff. It does make me uncomfortable. I was blocked for that and nothing like that is going to be repeated by me. Last night, I thought I might be saying something peaceable for once. You say you are "sick of being called" those things. Why do you keep printing them? Maybe I'm missing something, but it isn't clear whether you want me sanctioned, or whether you want to clarify that you are the victim, or whether your feelings are hurt and you want an apology. It seems to me that you want me blocked again, or that you want the discussion to be only about that. I have already said I can't excuse that and I haven't tried to excuse it.Hammy64000 (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

But then if you get poked in the eye by a typing finger enough times, you sometimes have to modify your principles. I won't excuse the offense, but I'll try to put it in perspective. I started working on Virgin birth (mythology) in January or February. I ended up doing the whole thing in publc because the whole thing was a lot more complex than I thought. You merged it April 13. I tried every way I knew to rectify this situation. I wasn't blocked until July.

My comments were inexcusable and obviously against Wikipedia standards. But they were only aimed at you. On the other hand, this comment on your user page[196] seems to indicate a general editing philosophy:

User:Ari89 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Wikipedia: where the unfounded opinion of any ignorant hick with a computer finds a voice...

And indeed, I am not the only editor you have made hopping mad:

[redacted]

You deleted this from your talk page twice.Hammy64000 (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Indef block re-instated. He deleted it twice, so you thought it was a good idea to post it here? Between that and your comments about Ari's Christianity yesterday, I don't think you'll be ready to edit collaboratively here anytime soon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hammy64000

I will be happy to avoid Ari89 in the future. When you suggest that we have no further contact are you saying I should give up on this article? That is what will have to happen. It seems a little disingenuous for him to treat his current avoidance of me as a virtue. Recently, I have been trying to find a way to stop the stonewalling on the Miraculous births discussion. He has been asked by another administrator to discuss an unmerge, but I get no response.[197][198] That is the reason for the template. It was not a false warning template. He should not keep saying this. His response was this ANI.

I have not been told whether I am here because I was unblocked against his wishes, or because of the template. My understanding is that it was the template. This seems obvious on my talk page. But "continued abuse" is all I hear. The template was not abuse. It seems this would have to be made clear for this discussion to make sense. But I see we will never be able to work together. I won't approach him again for any reason.Hammy64000 (talk) 06:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just looked at your links to the vandalism. The IP addresses, 77.31.85.207, 213.146.172.146 are not mine. This one [199] looks like Morenooso did it. He says he's reverting, but look at the actual revision. Why did you say, "It should be noted that this followed once my page was semi-protected after vandalism by a series of anonymous IPs.." Why should that be noted here, Ari? That is not even my style. And the swearing...If nothing else, the premise of my arguments, my writing style, should have told you something about me as a person. You never had a sense of me at all, which is just sad.Hammy64000 (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I made it clear in my initial post - your harassment which is not limited to personal attacks and the resurgence with unprovoked false warning templates. But I guess this settles it. If you are prepared to:

1. Leave my talk page alone (e.g. personal attacks, false warning templates) unless there is a legitimate reason and you act civilly. I will obviously reciprocate.
2. Not make any more personal attacks or derogatory religious comments about myself or other editors. This includes your own talk page such as you did here among other occasions, other user pages and article talk pages.

In essence, just a call for you to adhere to wp:NPA and wp:civil in contrary to your past behaviour. Then hopefully the past will stay behind us. --Ari (talk) 13:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking to Daedalus and IIywrch. I think it would be more appropriate for them to sum this up.

I see this will never go anywhere and that is why I said I will stay away from you--not because I agree with anything I have seen from you in the past. You seem to want to talk about an offense for which I was already blocked. How is this relevant to the template which led to this ANI or to your actions since the first day I saw you? And editors have a right to give you warning templates on your talk page. You have deleted such warnings from other editors too. I have said the template was not abuse and not intended as abuse and it is as though I have said nothing. Further I can document repeated requests from me since April 13 that you stop leaving warnings on my talk page and you flatly refused.

I will stay away from you, but you speak as though we will go on to collaborate. You know you will avoid this as you have been doing. Of course, you don't have to warn me to stay off the article because all you have to do is stonewall and revert changes as you have been doing.

I will stay away from you, but your pretense of good faith should not go unchallenged. Hammy64000 (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

And I must say something about your heading "Religious vilification". All that anyone can know for certain is that you claim you are a Christian. In truth, I have a great deal of respect for Christianity. It is you I have issues with. In order to pull off your claim that I have vilified your religion--which you have stated as a fact without knowing anything about me--you would actually have to be a Christian or even a religious person--rather than just say you are. But is this possible to prove on Wikipedia? It is like saying you drive an expensive car. Talk is a lot cheaper than the car. All that can really be seen and so all that really matters is the relevance and fairness of your editing practices. I am just amazed at your claims to some kind of precious position here.Hammy64000 (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you two please give this a rest? Ari, you are not going to convince Hammy he has done anything wrong, or convince him to 'fess up' that he has, Hammy, Ari isn't going to back off.

You are not going to convince each other of what you're trying to convince each other of, so instead of continuing this pointless bickering, stop posting here and only reply to an admin when, and if they comment. Otherwise, you are likely to get both of yourselves blocked for disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't block me until you read this. Can't we just wrap this up? We have both agreed to avoid each other. Even if I got the article unmerged at this point, who would be able to read it without thinking of this fight to the death? I tried to start a discussion about content and here we are trying to defend ourselves and mostly, trying to get someone on our side. Sometimes I think there are maybe ten guys on computers somewhere playing spin the wannabe writer. I've heard the phrase around here, "He doesn't know how it works,"--meaning tricks and mental torture I presume. I'm not talking about Ari here. I'm talking about the Wikipedia set-up where no one has any protection and information is dead last on the scale of importance. Maybe this is amusing to some people, but it's pretty traumatic for the majority. Please don't make us wait like dogs for a bone. This has gone on too long.Hammy64000 (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, a wiki-fight to the death would be kinda cool. Just sayin'. HalfShadow 03:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
• Deleted my comment--suddenly seems way too final.Hammy64000 (talk) 04:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.