Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive652

User with a history of socking at it again.

Several months ago, TVFAN24 (talk · contribs) was block for sock puppetry. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TVFAN24/Archive. The user was eventually unblocked, and has proceeded to sock with his IP (98.223.95.42 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) again. The evidence, aside from a historical link between TVFAN and the IP, can be seen in the contribs, as they make similar edits to the same pages. The edits in particular that I noticed were to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series): this one by the IP, this one by TV Fan, and this one by the IP again, all removing the caption from the lead image.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you brought up these issues with (one time?) mentor User:Wgfinley? This may be a more expedient step before bringing it here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a good enough place: TVFan24 has been told not to do this, and has been edit-warring with the IP and account on the same articles. Blocked the IP for 6 months, TVFan24 indef. Wgfinley has been inactive for a month.—Kww(talk) 16:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I agree. Has he been attempting to feign consensus or get around 3RR with the IP? He's been on my radar for a while; it looks more to me that he's just not logging in occasionally, as opposed to deliberately misbehaving. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Her edits on WFLD were extremely dubious, and one more would have breached WP:3RR. However, since the IP is static, I've undone the account block and soft-blocked the IP, which will prevent the anonymous editing.—Kww(talk) 00:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User:BLGM5

Resolved

 – User warned, hopefully won't recur

I had an interaction with BLGM5 (talk · contribs) back at the start of November over a few passive aggressive edit summaries they'd made. I left the user a friendly note, which they reverted as vandalism, which I pointed out wasn't a great idea, which resulted in another revert with a personal attack edit summary, so I tried to clarify my actions, resulting in another revert and a threat in the edit summary and an incorrectly used template on my talk, and at which point I decided not to communicate with the user again. I'm now bringing it up as another user has encountered the same behaviour (passive aggressive and abusive edit summaries, followed by a note, a reversion as vandalism, a warning about classifying the note as vandalism, another revert as vandalism, and an incorrect warning tempate on the other user's talk) and contacted me about it. Not sure if this is the right place, but seeing a second user expressed concerns, I thought it should be brought up somewhere. Thanks! Fin©™ 19:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, some of that isn't great. I'll leave them a warning message and keep an eye on them. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Your stalking is a bit sad and pathetic. BLGM5 (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That kind of attitude is liable to get yourself blocked. I came within inches of doing it myself, but decided to give you another chance. I strongly suggest you apologize for the "vandalism" classification and note that you understand the mistake and will avoid it in the future. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note that the other user (Emerson7 (talk · contribs)) created a Wikiquette alert entry, very similar to this one, this morning (which I just found out about), but there's not been any response. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• please also add to the list of complains about this user where i reported him yesterday to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#BLGM5 for inappropriate summaries and misusing/abusing the twinkle utility. --emerson7 21:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
• This user's overall attitude disturbs me... it seems to say "I'm big, you're little; I'm smart, you're dumb; I'm right, you're wrong!". I think some timeout is in order. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 01:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

  Bare minimum, you should probably de-Twinkle him. Did that sound gay? HalfShadow 01:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed it kinda did... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 01:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Although he's got the bedside manner of a porcupine, the editor seems to be doing generally appropriate work as far as the actual edits are concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I only warned him. Will be keeping an eye out. Black Kite (t) (c) 01:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Niley (Miley Cyrus and Nick Jonas)

I tried to move this stub to Niley but that title has been protected from re-creation - so I guess this article is an attempt to re-create a deleted article. Could an admin please delete it? PamD (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No better than that which it sought to replace, so deleted as a recreation. Rodhullandemu 22:40, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Password1125: Incivility and possible shared account

While editing The Amazing Race 17 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) tonight, Password1125 (talk · contribs) edited the pages in ways that were against the general style of these pages, and I advised him on his talk page as to why his suggested edits were not necessarily correct (or having consensus) in User talk:Password1125#TAR17. After he finally made a thread on the article's talk page, and after I responded to it there, I advised him to sign his posts (a thread he removed) and then I told him how talk pages are generally edited. He first responded by being extremely rude and then admitting that he is not the only person with access to the account. He continued to be rude after. I gave him an NPA warning, which he removed and then put on my page.

In short, Password1125 (in addition to having a possibly bad username) is being unnecessarily incivil and may be used by more than one person.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I would back off if it were me. You're arguing about how to display FastForward clues (whatever they are) for a reality TV program as if Moses brought the formatting guide back on a second trip down from the mountain. I think you got off on the wrong foot when you started out with the "First of all, ... Second, ..." It's going to put someone on the defensive and make it more difficult to get an agreement. Then you kept it up by insisting on debating on his page but deleting his comments from your page and picking a needless disagreement over the difference between an argument and a fight. (And, fwiw, I think he was right.) If it were me, I hope a good friend would tell me what I'm telling you and that I would sleep on it and decide to apologize. (But I'm not an admin, so my opinion is mine alone and worth every penny you paid.) Msnicki (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a note on my talk page (or in its edit notice) that requests that discussions be kept on one page. That is why I was reverting his comments to my user talk (and then subsequently moving them to his). That isn't against any rule as far as I'm aware, so I don't know why you're picking that out as being something I'm terribly wrong about (or the argument/fight thing). Also, the "First..." and "Second..." bits are there because there are two different edits that he made that I disagreed with. Again, not relevant.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, it looked like you wanted to get to some kind of agreement you could both live with. But it's always harder to do that if people aren't sure you respect them. You could be more effective at getting what you want if you can make it easier for people to agree with you. No one likes to feel like they're being pressured. Msnicki (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Sleep on it and apologize tomorrow. I'll freely admit I'm a bit of a nerd...to call that a "personal attack" is a bit excessive. The action more likely to be seen as a personal attack here is you accusing the other editor of making one. Read WP:CIVIL, that's what "you're a nerd" might be more likely to run afoul of...and even then just barely. As for your usertalk, consider posting on his page instead, or moving the comments to your page but leaving them on his as well. So long as the entire conversation ends up in one place...really, who cares where the original posts were made and if a copy is left there? N419BH 07:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

He has still admitted that two people have access to this account with a questionable username choice. There is really no reason to call someone a smartass, moron, or nerd, either. This is not about the dispute that caused this exchange of words. There is a talk page thread to determine a consensus now. This is about the fact that the account apparently has been compromised in the past, his rudeness, and possibly his poor username choice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, unless directly calling someone a smartass, a moron and an idiot as well as having no life, not to mention asserting what seems to be strong article ownership is no problem at all. I have to question from especially this edit here this person's PhD qualifications as claimed on the userpage as the knowledge of basic English required is obviously not there. –MuZemike 07:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note - This user tried to blank this AN/I entry as well. Tarc (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• Shared accounts are strictly against the rules. Why is that editor not blocked already? Color him gawn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The incivility would be highly problematic, however a shared account is even more so. Indeffed. Courcelles 18:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Password1125 has returned as Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs), we can AGF that the "shared account" issue is resolved, but incivility issues may remain. I will leave to others as far as how to deal with this is concerned, but my above comment, as well as all other previous correspondence should remain in effect. –MuZemike 00:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, he was advised to fix the shared account problem by creating a new user ID, so that's what he's done. He'll certainly bear watching, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahh fuck I saw all of this report apart from the last message by Bugs! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed my error, hopefully didn't WP:BITE him too much... *slinks off sheepishly* S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:23, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My comment was also a bit vague, so here's the diff[1] where an admin advised him to either take it to ArbCom or create a new ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot..

User:HBC Archive Indexerbot is editing while logged out (again, I believe) The IP is 71.244.115.102 (talk · contribs). I'm not sure if I should post this here or on the Bot Owners' Noticeboard, never having come across this issue before, but I'm gonna try posting here. If I've got the wrong place, just let me know! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 07:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, this is the appropriate place to post. I suggest that the IP be blocked longer than 24 hr since this has been happening for over a month (or more) now. Goodvac (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Older discussions: August 3, November 5, and bot owner's talk page. Goodvac (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Despite being a frequent vandal fighter, I've never requested someone be blocked, so if the IP isn't already blocked, would you tell me how to make such a request? (I feel like such a newbie...) Thanks! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 09:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmm, according to the IP's block log, the IP was blocked early on 27 Nov., but the block expired 8 or 9 hours ago..
    • I don't think it's that much of a concern since it's not editing currently, though it does need to be blocked eventually. Right now not too many people are active, so I figure that when it nears 11 UTC, more admins will be on, and one will block the bot. Goodvac (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I for one didn't think it worth blocking the IP address when it hadn't been used for eight hours. The far more important thing to be doing here is going to User talk:Krellis#User:HBC Archive Indexerbot and emphasizing your concerns. Or — better yet — looking at the 'bot's source code and seeing whether you can determine and fix the problem. Krellis has already attempted to do so, as you can see. Uncle G (talk) 10:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
        • A fix to stop it editing logged out (but not recovery of that failure) would require page.pm to be updated so the line in the save method saying POST $obj->_wiki_url . "&action=edit", would be POST $obj->_wiki_url . "&action=edit&assert=bot", so mediawiki enforces the must be logged in as a bot bit. I'll post to the bots talk page. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by a registered user

The user Catsclaw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuously removing content of some articles that I have edited. He insists on deleting information that is not favorable to the Dutch in naval warfare articles, although these informations are based on reliable sources. ElBufon (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things; firstly you have not notified the user of this discussion - as prompted by the orange/yellow banner just above this box (and noted at the top of this page). Secondly, do you have diffs of you notifying the editor of your concerns? - presumably on the concerned article talkpages, since when I checked for the ani notice I saw that the editors talkpage had not been used for several months. In short, have you attempted to resolve this content dispute before bringing it here as a behavioural issue? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

the user has in fact been notified of this discussion but as yet to presente himself for questioning. its hard to fix an edit conflict if the other user is nonresponsive. User:Smith Jones 16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Be very careful; Amending your edits to make it appear that they were previously warned is not going to help your cause. Better to say "Whoops, will fix!" next time. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

i apologize and take full responsiblity for those typographical errors i was merely trying to avoid sanctions on ElBufon for a procedural error in his part and dont want him to have been let out to the herd that he was the one who made that mistake and not me, who was the true errorer. User:Smith Jones 17:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize that intentionally trying to create a false history of a situation was now called 'typographical errors'. An often made error by relatively new editors is easily overlooked. Your actions were deliberately bad. What possible reason do you have for thinking that faking conversation and signing someone else's name to it could even remotely be considered a good idea? --Onorem♠Dil 21:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have already tried to discuss with him on two occasions leaving messages on the discussion pages of some of the articles in question, but with no success. I'm going to notify him in his talpage. About the diffs, see this or this, or the article about the Action of 4 November 1641 versus the article about the Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1641). ElBufon (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ElBufon, i already took care of it. Ive been watching this user myself since I also edit naval warfare articles (albeit, not the same niche as the Netherlands editor here) and It was only a matter of time before someone called in administrative action!

Do you have any diffs of you attempting to resolve this, on a talk page, and the other user being non co-operative. Admins cannot intercede on content disputes, other than as other editors, but only on behavioural grounds or policy violation. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hector Sants

An editor with few other edits, SilverFox93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has followed in the footsteps of an anonymous editor in trying to insert a controversial section relating to Credit Suisse and Iran into the article Hector Sants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I picked up VRTS ticket # 2010112510012945 originating from a very prominent, respected and immensely credible firm of solicitors. I reviewed the sources used for the content. Here they are:

• BBC News mentions Credit Suisse but not Sants
• Reuters mentions Credit Suisse but not Sants
• The FSA mentions Sants but not Iran
• Credit Suisse is an annual report that merely names Sants as an officer of the company
• The Observer does not mention Sants at all

Not one of these sources supports the inference that the editor seeks to draw. The editor reinserted the text after I removed it and revdeleted it, in response to the OTRS ticket noting its potentially defamatory nature. I accidentally chose RD2 instead of "Potentially libelous/defamatory", I corrected that for subsequent redactions. I am of the very strong opinion that SilferFox93 is engaged in novel synthesis, I am also convinced that this is an agenda account. I note all this for review. Guy (Help!) 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

SilverFox93 was indef blocked for good reason. On the other hand, the full protection of the article until 27 May 2011 seems excessive. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Fair reminder, I will down it to semi, now SF is blocked. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Navajo people

Resolved

 – not for ANI Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

---

Concerning this thread: [2] an apparently new editor wants to turn this article Navajo people into a stub and start over again. In my opinion that seems excessive and unnecessary. I will appreciate any input there. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm very happy to leave any and all information in the article if it can be sourced. However, a lot of the material is unsourced, and at some of the information is incorrect, such as that "brush" is used for building hogans. Some of the articles linked to such as this one, is sourced to a "personal interview," and other sources which leave his notability for Wikipedia in severe doubt. So it looks like the whole complex of articles may be in need of pruning and discussion. But at the very least, the main article on Navajo people should not have tags stating it is unsourced since June 2010 or April 2009. This is a major article. I'm not here to destroy, but with these things you have to be bold or no one does anything. I don't have access to the sources myself. Atneyak (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are another couple people which seem to be non-notable: Emmi Whitehorse and Melanie Yazzie. Atneyak (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

. . .so you want to start the article anew because some of the sources are incorrect/not RS? Sol (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I was incorrect to say it should be stubbed. I was looking for inline references, and didn't notice at first that the article uses another form. That still doesn't mean that I should be told to tag and move on, as I just was on the article talk page. That's already been done. I'm just trying to take the next step. Of course that isn't nice for the authors, but again I'm not trying to destroy wikipedia. Atneyak (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

And while it shouldn't be stubbed, there is quite a bit of material which should be removed, and as I said above some of the stuff included is lists of people who aren't actually notable... it's a big project to clean this up :P Atneyak (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

An unenviable task, yes :P But you might find it easier to pull out the offending information/find better sources and leaving in the remainder as having to find the sources all over again would more than double the work load. Sol (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'll do that. Writing it is half the work like you say, and anyway they seem willing to work to find sources. I really didn't expect anyone to care, considering how long the tags have been on. Atneyak (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat suspicious of this user's agenda. He asked what was appropriate action with the lists of famous Navajo, which includes a number of entries which are not bluelinked, not redlinked, and not sourced. I offered advice on identifying members of these lists which appeared to be notable. In the next edit, Atenyak proposed instead the removal of a bluelinked article, as he argued it was 'not notable'. An odd thing to focus on, given that the unsourced list probably violates BLP. I have voiced this same doubt on the talkpage, so I'm not coming here behind the user's back. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Cross posted from talk page:Of course you should be suspicious of my agenda... if I'm wrong about what I'm saying and not open to suggestions or ignoring Wikipedia policy so as to skew the encyclopedia to a non-NPOV state. However, I urge you to read WP:NOTABILITY. Yes, we need to get rid of some of the non-linked people, but also many of those with articles just don't seem meet the standard for inclusion unless much better sourcing can be found. I'm not focused on the article but really on the whole complex of articles. Again... if I'm wrong of course you need to be suspicious. But if I'm right, I would suggest you focus on the content of my edits rather than on what "agenda" I might have. Atneyak (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if you think it violates BLP, let's discuss that, and maybe you can help get rid of any violations. I don't know of any, I just notice they sometimes aren't well sourced. ......Uh, which is a violation right there, I forgot. So then what's the problem with focusing on them? Atneyak (talk) 20:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Emmi Whitehorse and Melanie Yazzie seem to pass WP:N. What are the specific problems you have with these two pages? Jarkeld (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

They may be, but Yazzie barely seems to make it with the sources given, if she does. Emmi Whitehorse seems to have only one source which isn't self published or insignificant, "Reno, Dawn. Contemporary Native American Artists. Brooklyn: Alliance Publishing, 1995:183," which I think is probably less than "significant coverage," maybe just a mention. IOW, if she's notable, it seems just barely. However, this may be because good sources aren't given, rather than that they aren't notable. Here's another that's iffy Irvin Morris Atneyak (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK — why is this at ANI? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This was brought here to avert an edit war and to create a better working environment at the article; it seems to have worked as several issues are now being worked on, looked at and discussed as opposed to simply deleteing, reverting ad infinitum...Modernist (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Let it be noted that there was no edit warring... there were a few edits by me and Modernist reverting. Since I didn't even revert once, bringing it here to prevent and edit war.... Atneyak (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

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

QuackGuru

QuackGuru (talk · contribs) has become slightly difficult on the article vertebral artery dissection. This medical condition sometimes results from chiropractic neck manipulation, and one gets the impression that QuackGuru wants to use the article as a WP:COATRACK for this link. I have taken the opportunity to add some uncontroversial content about the condition, trying to make whatever is written as NPOV as possible. The following things have now happened:

• Adding a tag ({{too short}}) despite my assurances that the article body would soon be expanded to match the introduction.
• Changing the header of others' threads on talk:Vertebral artery dissection without engaging in actual discussion
• Bloating the intro after insisting that it was already too long
• Refactoring my posts on his talkpage, using edit summaries to respond in the process.

Could someone have a look and explain that this is not going well? JFW | T@lk 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Needless to say, my addition of {{ANI-notice}} to his talkpage was refactored also.[3] JFW | T@lk 04:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you know that he has read your posts then. He is allowed to remove them on his talkpage - as long as he realizes that it's considered acknowledgment of the message (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:58, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, that's helpful. In the context of his other behaviours I imagined it might still be relevant. JFW | T@lk 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:The Globular Mass

- - User:The Globular Mass added nonsense to the Serpentor article yesterday, and restored it after it was removed. IPs 69.210.253.143 and 69.210.241.145 also became involved, restoring it several times[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. The Globular Mass was warned, but removed the warnings. 108.69.80.49 (talk) 18:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked The Global Mass following a review of their edit history, prompted by their removing of the above report previously. This action, and their edit warring over the complained edits, and other questionable actions leads me to believe that they are not intent on improving the encyclopedia. I welcome further review of my and TGM's actions here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. A third IP 69.211.8.205 has now restored the nonsense as well.[9] 108.69.80.49 (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Schrandit at Crisis pregnancy center

Resolved

 – No administrative action required. Please follow the steps listed at WP:DR.

I wasn't sure whether to put this on the noticeboard for vandalism or edit warring, so I thought it would be more appropriate to list it on the general noticeboard. Here's a rundown: I (Roscelese) have been making a sincere attempt in the past week or so to improve the article Crisis pregnancy center. It has NPOV issues, true, but it's more that there are significant pieces of information that are just missing, among them information about the centers' religious affiliation. I added a paragraph that contains the following facts:

• Three-fourths of centers in the USA are affiliated with Care Net and Heartbeat International, two CPC networks.
• Care Net and Heartbeat Int'l are both Christian in nature (I elaborate on this).
• Other centers are run by the Roman Catholic Church or by other church groups.
• (These statistics obviously exclude other countries; however, the USA has by far the most CPCs, and the UK's and Canada's also appear to be largely Christian. I doubt this is the reason the user in question has been continually removing information - s/he hasn't mentioned it at all - but I'm in the process of adding it for completeness' sake.)

Given the presence of this information in the article, I thought it appropriate to put in the lead that CPCs were typically Christian in nature.

Schrandit has repeatedly made the following changes:

• Typically Christian in nature to Often Christian in nature - "Often" doesn't even imply a majority, much less over three-quarters of CPCs.
• Although the vast majority of CPCs are Christian to Though the majority of religious CPCs are Christian - Over 75% of CPCs having a Christian affiliation is not a majority only of religious CPCs.
• Many require employees to comply with a statement of faith to Some require employees to comply with a statement of faith - Care Net is the largest CPC network in the USA - ie. in the country with the most CPCs - and our sources state that they are affiliated with half of all American CPCs [I either misremembered or just can't find that source again] the largest CPC network in the USA. That isn't "some."

I initially tried to assume good faith. I asked Schrandit to suggest a change to the lead (the part that contains "typically Christian") that would please hir without changing the nature of the information presented; I asked for sources that contradicted mine; I reiterated my points on the talk page and asked hir to stop making unsupported changes. Though we had discussed at length on the article's talk page, I also posted to hir user talk page before reporting hir here.

At this point I really can't fathom what Schrandit wants from my sources. They clearly state, for example, that Care Net, which administers half the CPCs in the United States, not only calls itself "Christian" but requires affiliates to comply with a statement of faith, and that Heartbeat Int'l, which administers another quarter, describes itself as a "Christian association of faith-based pregnancy resource centers," yet s/he says that it's "irresponsible" to "assume" that that means most CPCs are Christian. Does s/he think that Care Net employees are really Jews pretending to be Christians in order to get jobs at CPCs? That Heartbeat Int'l is a "Christian association" that administers Muslim or Pagan "faith-based pregnancy resource centers"?

In conclusion, the changes Schrandit has made are a) flagrantly misrepresenting the sources and b) suppressing relevant information. Given hir total lack of effort to explain why my sources do not support my edits or to find contradictory sources, I'm led to call this - in the sense of a deliberate, bad-faith attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia - vandalism. I would really appreciate administrator intervention.

Thanks,

-- Roscelese (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Have you considered/tried WP:3O or WP:MEDCAB? Sounds like a simple content dispute at this point--you've not alleged any edit warring or like conduct. Jclemens (talk) 01:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that would be better? I'm hesitant to call it a content dispute since one side is not providing any content, but I could do that. Roscelese (talk) 02:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell Roscelese is inserting OR into this article. It could be possible that a majority of CPCs are Christian in nature but she has failed to provide sourcing that says so. - Schrandit (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:CALC/WP:NOTOR. Routine calculations - like "three-quarters is more than one-half" - are not original research. "[The NOR policy] allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided editors agree that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." Do you disagree that "3/4 > 1/2" correctly reflects the sources? Roscelese (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please follow the steps for dispute resolution. Ask for a third opinion or file a request for comment. There is nothing here that currently requires administrative action. AniMate 04:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing accusations of conflict of interest

Very reminiscent of User:Twoggle, isn't this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.96.227 (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of conflict of interest are being leveled by TickleMeister (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) at Aspartame and Talk:Aspartame. I am one, but not the only target. Several months ago, TickleMeister announced a departure the article with accusations of conflict of interest and received advice to "Avoid casting aspersions regarding the motivations of others..." ([10]). The return to the article was heralded by an implicit accusation in the edit comments ("You don't build an encyclopedia by removing facts that you think may hurt it sales stats"). Talk page comments have gone from implicit ("must cleanse this, it's bad PR", "a deliberate attempt to cover this up. I suppose it's to be expected with a product like asp that has sales of around ONE BILLION DOLLARS a year") to fairly direct ("...I'm not being paid by a corpoaration to do this crap.", "So who wins this one, the wikipedia volunteer editors or the PR men?").

This is not the first time. Prior efforts at dispute resolution have not resulted behavior changes: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive88#TickleMeister. There have been several requests on the talk page for the behavior to end: [11], [12], [13].

As a final step, I invited a redaction of the comments and indicated the COI noticeboard was the place for COI accusations ([14]). Past COI accusations on this noticeboard indicate a familiarity with procedure: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive629#Aspartame articles. At the time I post this, there has been no reply to my message, but a subsequent post indicates that he will continue to accuse on the talk page ([15]). At this point, I believe reasonable measures have been exhausted and this is the appropriate forum.Novangelis (talk) 08:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Anyone reading the talk pages at Talk:Aspartame and Talk:Aspartame controversy can see blatant evidence of COI, where we have determined editors hell-bent on not allowing facts about this chemical onto the pages. The latest incident is with the fact that aspartame is made from constituents produced by genetically modified organisms. This information comes from newspapers and published studies. It is an unequivocal FACT. Yet a small phalanx of editors, of which Novangelis is a prominent member, are utterly determined that this fact should not be mentioned in the aspartame article. This is blatant censorship that threatens to disrupt the very purpose of wikipedia. Wikipedia is at the mercy of megacorporations that threaten to sue anyone saying a single negative things about aspartame (for example, the court case against Asda in the UK because they had the temerity to remove it from their store-brand foods and call it a "nasty", the threat they issued to The Independent for publishing the fact that aspartame is made by genetically modified bacteria, the propaganda websites they run to promote the use of aspartame, the scientists they hire to go on speaking tours all over the world to promote aspartame, etc). So here we have a huge corporation that we know is intensely active in defending and promoting this billion dollar chemical. And yet when I make the obvious comment that this corporation clearly has people at work editing the aspartame pages and suppressing information, I'm immediately hauled before an admin tribunal by one of the chief perpetrators in a sickening and farcical abuse of procedure. Novangelis has done this on numerous occasions too, accusing me unsucessfully of sockpuppetry, and forum shopping against me whenever the opportunity presents itself. In summary, the aspartame articles are being held to ransom by a small cadre of editors determined not to allow a full picture to emerge of the chemical. Taking action against me for speaking the truth is like beating the little boy who called out that the Emperor has no clothes. TickleMeister (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I've just read Talk:Aspartame for the first time, and you're right, the situation is very clear - that practically the whole page consists of you and a couple of other editors calling out practically everyone else for somehow being corporate shills for aspartame, whilst they - usually - patiently try to explain to you such concepts as WP:RS, WP:POV, WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH. I would strongly suggest to you that you concentrate on the subject at hand rather than attacking other editors without any justification, because that behaviour is likely to lead to a topic ban. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• Per Black Kite, I have also read the talk pages and also the article Aspartame controversy and agree with his comments - the sum of the articles reflects the reliable sources available, and the correct application of WP policy. That is not to say that your general opinions about the product and its manufacturers are untrue (or, importantly, true) but that it is entirely inappropriate regarding deprecating the motivations of those editors who are conforming with WP editorial practices. They are not obviously "shilling" for anyone, they are complying with the rules. Your issues are, rather, with the lack of authority and weight of those references that support the accusations made against the product and its producers and the preponderance of good quality sources for the current majority opinion upon them - and that is beyond the remit of Wikipedia or its editorialship to address. Whatever, your comments upon the integrity and competence of other editors for following policy and properly conveying the available references can not be tolerated. I am going to issue a general NPA warning on your talkpage, and insist that you desist from this behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• If one were to use Ticklemeister's thinking against him/her, one could make accusations that TM worked for the sugar industry and the manufacturers of all products related to the treatment of diabetes. Fortunately we're sensible enough not to do that....;-) I'm sure that if anyone did so, TM would be the first one to object. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to concede that I am wrong on this issue IF anyone here can explain to me why a large corporation with a very profitable yet controversial product would not employ people to massage the wikipedia page about the product, by creating a pro-corporation yet false consensus on talk pages. The wikipedia page on aspartame comes up top of a Google search for the product. Use Occam's razor, fellas. I have to be right. If you study the aspartame talk pages from the very beginning, you'll see a clear pattern of information suppression and censorship. I am by no means the only editor who has tried to broing balance to the pages. On the Aspartame controversy page, one side of the controversy is largely removed, which flies in the face of MEDRS's recommendation to air both sides of any controversy. To see just how much information is censored from the articles, compare to another wiki's page on aspartame here. I suggest other wikis will become more prominent as Wikipedia's success attracts more and more corporationsTickleMeister (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• So much for AGF. With this attitude of refusal to abide by this fundamental policy, you can't be trusted here. You don't understand our sourcing policies or MEDRS, and show no evidence of a positive learning curve. I suggest you change your attitude or be topic banned / blocked.
  BTW, how much are the sugar industry and diabetes industry paying you to edit and disrupt here? Do you get my point?!! One would think that by now you would understand that AGF cuts both ways, and that when you insist on assuming bad faith, you are making a bed in which you may be forced to sleep. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BullRangifer, this is the second time you've threatened to block me. The other time was on my Talk page. Is there some policy that allows non-sysops to make these threats, or is this a violation? TickleMeister (talk) 03:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand....again. It's an option / suggestion for any admin, if they so desire. It's also to let you know that you're skating on thin ice when you refuse to follow our policies. If it were only a single instance it wouldn't be a big problem and I wouldn't mention blocking, but you've been warned repeatedly by many very experienced editors. You then refuse to accept their explanations and cautions. That's recalcitrant behavior. There is no positive learning curve. We should be seeing that by now, but we aren't. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You carefully phrase your threats so that inexperienced editors could conclude that you are threatening to block them. I'm astonished that admins tolerate that. And I am still waiting for someone to deny the possibility of the situation I outline above, IOW that it is highly likely that there are hundreds, if not thousands of people paid by large corporations to edit wikipedia articles and establish whatever consensus they wish. This is a glaring flaw in the wikipedia model. TickleMeister (talk) 15:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are anything but inexperienced, but you are also not learning. Many editors, within far fewer edits than you have under your belt, have learned the basics of our policies and learned to collaborate. They learn with each edit they make. With each of their edits that are reverted, rebuffed, and modified, they learn to adapt their behavior. You don't do that.

As to your concern about COI editors, sure, we know that they exist, but as long as they edit within our policies they are allowed to edit here. It's not who the editor is that counts, but whether they follow policy. Focus on the content, not the motives or identity of other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so you have come part way to meet me here. Now all I need from you is an admission that it is very possible for any corportation (or any well-funded concern) to manufacture consensus on any Talk page by deploying multiple PR people to that page. Is this or is this not possible? Actually, your agreement is hardly necessary, because it is obviously possible, and obviously occurs. This is where the Encyclopedia Brittanica model, where there are gatekeeper editors for all information, is superior. TickleMeister (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That it's theoretically possible is irrelevant to the point, and even if they did, if they violated policy their edits wouldn't last. They would get changed. No, the point is that you can't go around making such accusations about other editors. That is a policy violation. You MUST AGF unless there is absolutely clear evidence to the contrary. If you have such evidence, then start a case against the individual editor on a noticeboard, not on talk pages. If you try such a thing without clear evidence, then you will be guilty of misusing a noticeboard, so be very careful. If it involves the real life identity of an editor, you must not out them. In such a case, it would probably be best to contact an ArbCom member by email and discuss what to do. Note that the owner(s) of Monsanto could even edit the article, and be allowed to do so, as long as they don't violate policy. It wouldn't necessarily be a good idea, but it's not totally forbidden. It's all about policy and content, not the identity or POV of editors. You really need to study and understand the following about personal attacks:

• "*Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense." From: What is considered to be a personal attack?

Brangifer (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

"if they violated policy their edits wouldn't last. They would get changed" — Not necessarily. What's happening on the aspartame pages is much more subtle than policy violations. People who edit wikipedia professionally don't make silly errors like that. But be that as it may, I think the situation here is clear to me and to many others, and no further purpose is served by me accusing people of editing with intent. So I will not do it again. All of this does nothing to assuage my disappointment over this issue though. TickleMeister (talk) 07:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks along political lines

I just noticed these unbelievable tirades on User talk:LAz17 [16][17], including deliberate insults ("quite arrogant"), political attacks ("commie"!), and threats ("Direktor's in for a hard time"). This is all after he was informed that I am not a "communist", and warned against trying to badmouth me to other users. Quite frankly I would like to see him blocked for this. I'm still trying to believe that someone openly writes pamphlets against other users on Wiki and gets away with it.

The user only recently got back from a month-long WP:ARBMAC block [18] after ignoring his topic ban on WWII Yugoslavia. Upon his unblock he arrived on Requests for mediation/Draža Mihailović (an ongoing RfM on the WWII Yugoslav resistance), rejoined the discussion he was topic-banned from by immediately ad hominem attacking other users so that Sunray was forced to remove the comment [19]. It is also interesting to note that upon being reminded of his ban (and the fact that he is not a mediation participant), the user simply requested the topic-ban removed [20]. (I have been "solemnly forbidden" to post on his talkpage so I would like to ask someone to notify him of this.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

According to attacks I've seen on you, you are both a Communist and a Nazi, which strikes me as being a pretty good trick. :) Based on the editor's blatant threats, perhaps he should be "solemnly" sent to the phantom zone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Its all in the phases of the moon, you see. :) When the full moon is out I venture into the woods and morph into a Nazi, while on Tuesdays I turn into a conservative liberal Jamahiriyist... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You won't have truly arrived until you're accused of being part of a "pro-circumcision cabal". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Notified LAz17 about this thread on your behalf. Exxolon (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ty :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I was punished for writing on my own talk page. But any rate, what I said remains true. You support the hardcore communist view that only the communist forces participated in resisting axis forces. That is exactly out of the communist textbooks, that the commies did everything and nobody else did anything. Wrong.

Second, my topic ban was not for yugoslavia. It was related to any ethnic map stuff. That was quite broad - by mistake. I am working on getting that revoked. There was never a topic ban for me that included any world war two related stuff.

You simply dislike me because I do not adhere to the traditional communist rhetoric which you continually support. Now, sometimes that rhetoric has a lot of truth. But at other times it interferes with the correct picture.

And also, that block expired a long time ago. That I did not edit much since that block expired is another matter. Currently I am more involved on the serbian wikipedia, and am struggling against those who who to cyrillicize latin articles. (LAz17 (talk) 21:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)).

Ya know, they're all commies... except me... and thee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I should have noted here that I blocked LAz17 for 3 months, violating ARBMAC re personal attacks, for the post above and the others noted by DIREKTOR. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok if those trolling "pamphlets" are removed? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Delete them if ya want. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I noted with interest that in the most recent Indiana Jones movie he had moved on from fighting Nazis to fighting Commies. Indiana Jones is a series of tongue-in-cheek, light hearted, adventure movies. Wikipedia is not. Those who feel that labelling others in such ways adds anything here have a lot to learn. HiLo48 (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record: I'm a Marxist of the Groucho kind. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Been there, done that... suppressed the evidence! LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I see, how goes your struggle with the Harpoist splinter group? :)

I hope they don't stop, its actually a source of light entertainment: which totalitarian ideology will I be labeled with today? Will it be Communism? Fascism? Chicoism? Lets watch --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 03:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should compile a list of Totalitarian ideologies ascribed to Wikipedia contributors? We could give a prize for whoever gets the most. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The UnWIKICUP! Physchim62 (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

We have an award for it -- the "Inaugural Uncle Duce Award for Contradictory Political Bias", which I proudly acknowledge to have received in 2009, here, for pretty much exactly this same thing. Antandrus (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, I came across a 'contributor' the other day that seemed to think the Nazis were Communists, so such an award might not be that difficult to acquire in one go. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

It's telling that the "Inaugural Uncle Duce Award for Contradictory Political Bias" is about to be awarded for the SECOND time. In a forum on which I was once very busy I made sure that everyone knew in advance that I was a tree sniffing whale hugging pinko lesbian long-haired vegetarian namby pamby do-gooder new age sandal wearing hippie black armband stoned un-American pot smoking limpwristed baby boomer subversionary bearded pacifist leftie bleeding heart out of touch neolithic idealogue. Labels are important HiLo48 (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Without labels, you might have to consider the other guy some sort of person or something. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait... there's an award for this? Goody gumdrops! I'm sorry to have to tell you guys but I win, no competition. Its a daily thing on the articles where I'm at. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think that having been called both a Marxist and a Nazi sympathiser means you must have done something right regarding NPOV. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The user is restoring the personal attacks on his talkpage. They are quite belligerent and call for users to follow me around and revert my edits (because I'm a "communist", of course xD). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Left him a note to only use his talk page to discuss questions about his block and removed the personal attack again. Any further disruption and I would recommend removing talk page access again. Kuru (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"commie" again [21]. He's not getting the picture. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin attention needed

Based on this latest rant,[22] I think it's time the editor had his talk page privileges removed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sarah Palin community article probation

Resolved

 – Review completed, consensus determined against content inclusion. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Request an uninvolved administrator to take a look at a situation covered by the Sarah Palin community article probation. The particular user involved is Victor Victoria (talk · contribs).

For full background on the situation, see Talk:Bristol Palin#Willow mentioned and WP:BLPN#Willow Palin. To make a long story short, Victor Victoria wishes to add negative tabloid-type information about Willow Palin, the 16-year-old daughter of Sarah Palin, to the article about her older sister, Bristol Palin. Willow Palin, due to her age, has been treated per past consensus as a non-public figure per WP:BLP.

Consensus at the BLP noticeboard has been, I believe, to exclude this information. Victor Victoria has continued to argue for inclusion, supported by 184.59.23.225 (talk · contribs). I actually suspect the user account and the IP are the same individual based on similar editing patterns at Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and Bristol Palin.

Victor Victoria has been notified of the community article probation, but continues to add the mention of the younger Palin sister to the Bristol Palin article.

At the very least, would appreciate someone with BLP knowledge stepping in and making the call one way or the other whether this information is a BLP vio. Kind of between a rock and a hard place - don't want to violate the article probation by edit-warring, but I also think the consensus is that the info is a BLP vio and needs to be removed. Any help greatly appreciated. Kelly ^hi! 03:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I am not User:Victor Victoria, and I welcome a checkuser to verify that. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kelly that this edit by User:Victor Victoria reinserted material reinserted virtually identical material to a BLP without any consensus for inclusion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this edit is not a reinsertion of anything. That quote has never been in the article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Trivial error corrected.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not a trivial error, and I object to the new wording as well. The quote of the apology never appeared before, and frankly it boggles my mind that a quote of Bristol Palin is being censored from her own Wikipedia article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The new wording (in my comment above) is not going to change. If someday there's a full-length multi-volume biography of Bristol Palin, it will not quote every word she's ever said; while it might perhaps include the quote you've inserted, that doesn't mean it belongs in a brief encyclopedia article. What surprises me is that you're ignoring the need for consensus to insert or restore material to a BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong on two counts: 1) the point of Wikipedia is to expand. If the Bristol Palin article is "brief" (which it is not, it is much bigger than a stub), then we should grow it. 2) Consensus has to be based on policies. The current objection to including the words "Willow Palin" in the article essentially rests on WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the 4th example in WP:IDONTLIKEIT is to call something "trivia". Victor Victoria (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The issue really comes down to whether a teenager acting like a teenager is 'notable'. I'm inclined to think not. AndyTheGrump (talk)

Accusing me of employing sockpuppetry is bad faith on User:Kelly's part. I call on him/her to take it back immediately. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Struck - your word is good enough for me. Sincere apologies. Kelly ^hi! 04:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Now how about addressing the substantive issue. Why isn't this trivia? Would you wish to include this if this wasn't Sarah Palin's daughter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Notability doesn't exist in a vacuum-- IOW, it's not necessary to establish that this event would be notable had it not involved the Palin children in order to establish it's notability in context. Furthermore, something being "trivia" is not a contraindication to inclusion. The more appropriate question, I think, is "Under what policy has this assertion-- sourced to no less than nine reliable sources-- been deleted?" (I'll also note that past consensus regarding WIllow Palin's status as a WP:NPF has been mooted by her recent press releases regarding the issue.) 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Nope. If a contributor wants to include something, it is up them to show why it should be. Anyone can delete anything that fails this test. I'm glad to see you accept that this is 'trivia'. Now explain how something can be both 'trivia' and 'notable'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I never conceded that this is trivia; I simply asserted that trivia isn't antonymic to notability, which you can verify by consulting your favorite thesaurus. I also don't see anything on WP:BLP to back your assertion that "Anyone can delete anything that fails this test," although it's difficult to be certain, as you have yet to clearly articulate which test it is that you feel this content fails. Regardless, it strikes me as fantastic that any articles retain content at all were that an accurate restatement of some existent policy. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

184.59.23.225 put trivia in quotes, which you should interpret as air quotes. He/she has not "accept[ed] that this is 'trivia'." Victor Victoria (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the original post baselessly accusing me of trying to insert material about Willow Palin into the Bristol Palin article. It is Bristol herself, that tied the two of them together, not me. Now, there is a certain group of individuals that are performing absurd edits to ensure at all costs that Willow Palin is not mentioned in the Bristol Palin article. Victor Victoria (talk) 04:40, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That's right. Wikipedia is a conspiracy run by the Palin sisters. You win. I give up. Welcome to Absurdistan... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:SARCASM. That sort of statement is nonproductive. 184.59.23.225 (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to produce anything. I was trying (unsuccessfully) to hold back a flood of trivia. I've now decided I can't win, and am resigned to drowning. Please play "Imagine" at my funeral, and then bury me face down at a 45° angle, just to confuse 25th century archaeologists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

<undent> It wasn't my intention to drag a content dispute here, and I ask all participants to please stop restating arguments they've made elsewhere. They've been restated so many times that this is well into dead horse territory, and I provided links to the discussions. Just looking for an uninvolved admin to please look into the BLP issue and make the call on consensus one way or the other. Thanks! Kelly ^hi! 05:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Your original post sure doesn't read that way. I read it as a complaint against me and my alleged "sockpuppet" (which you have graciously struck out). Victor Victoria (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Probation

Articles like Bristol Palin are under probation precisely so admins can offer firm guidance when nonsense like the current dispute arises. When I noticed the issue at WP:BLPN#Willow Palin, the Bristol Palin article contained some extreme trivia (see this version and search for "shit") where pointless details of how a 20 year old ranted on a Facebook page, and later issued an apology with a mention of her 16 year old sister and a rant she had made. Do we have to debate this endlessly and start WP:DR, or will someone please handle this. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Gods10rules, User:KeptSouth, User:Kelly, and User:Johnuniq reported by User:184.59.23.225 (Result: ) Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP review by uninvolved administrator NicholasTurnbull

The text reinserted by Victor_Victoria (talk · contribs) is a substantial recreation of content that has formerly been excluded from the article under BLP policy. Having undertaken a consensus review for the purposes of considering this AN/I request, the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:BLPN#Willow_Palin (excluding the article disputants from the discussion) was as follows:

Willow Palin is, at the present time, considered not generally well known as a BLP subject on Wikipedia. She is, consequently, not considered a notable subject for inclusion in Wikipedia.

On the basis of this above reasoning, the conclusion of this BLP review is that the information regarding the Willow Palin Facebook homophobia exchange shall be excluded from Wikipedia by community consensus. It is my opinion that Subjects notable for only one event (WP:BLP1E) applies in this case:

"Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article."

Taking the spirit of BLP1E, Willow Palin could be considered mentioned in published sources only in the context of a specific event -- i.e. the Facebook exchange -- for the purposes of the current discussion. As the event is not notable enough for an article of its own, the content should not be included, especially when taken in the light of Willow Palin being a minor at the time of publication, in which the bar for inclusion of events is necessarily higher as a component of editorial discretion. One can take the spirit of the above and reason that, since the event is definitely not notable enough for an article to exist on it, the content is entirely excluded in this case. Therefore, my summation is the following:

The Willow Palin Facebook homophobia exchange shall be considered excluded from Wikipedia on the basis of an editorial decision of non-notability by community consensus[23] and its inclusion shall be considered a violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons content policy. Victor_Victoria (talk · contribs), 184.59.23.225 (talk · contribs) and any other involved parties are put on notice that, in the event of reinserting content describing this event, they may be banned on sight from editing articles related to the Palin family (Sarah Palin, Bristol Palin, and any other future articles) under the terms of the existing article probation; any uninvolved editor may remove the inserted content.

Corrected. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Then can the full protection be changed back to semi-protection? Tvoz/talk 05:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it can be. I'll semiprotect. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 11:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at User talk:Toomanywordstoolittletime

Resolved

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

This user got in trouble a few days ago for adding links to the website 60second Recap, about which he or she has also written the article. After WuhWuzDat (talk · contribs) warned Toomanywordstoolittletime for adding spam links, Toomanywordstoolittletime called these remarks slander. I cautioned the user about the use of legal terms such as this, and in response, Toomanywordstoolittletime has proceeded to make a more explicit claim of slander, and move comfortably into the territory of legal threats by mentioning the possibility of getting his or her lawyer to send a cease and desist letter. Note that this relates not only to the use of the word "spammer", but also to the user's contention that he or she still owns the copyright to the content in 60second Recap.  -- Lear's Fool 11:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Did he use copyrighted material to make the aricle, or did he write new material for the article that he now claims is his? Those are two different things. If the article has verbatim matrial from a copyrighted site, then that should be removed, but the article itslef can remain if it's rewritten to avoid copyvios. - BilCat (talk) 11:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is, they claim to hold ongoing copyright to their own contributions here, the terms of use not withstanding. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale is correct. I'm not sure whether anything more needs to be done, now that they've been blocked, is there any need to alert OTRS?  -- Lear's Fool 11:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I notice the user also created Jenny Sawyer, and then rewuested it's deletion. Should this be reviewed for posible restoration? - BilCat (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The best move might be to ask the admin who restored the 60second Recap article, to see if it qualifies. One issue with the 60second article is that others besides the author had edited it, and that complicates matters. Can't say about the Jenny article, since it's invisible to us serfs now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Going by the contrib history, they were the only author (all other edits look like sundry cleanups, taggings) and the topic in itself, a BLP, likely doesn't meet WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I just wanted to make sure it was reviewed after we know more about the situation, especially, as a serf, I can't read it either. :) - BilCat (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There wasn't much to read, it was a BLP stub with a photo. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:99.90.197.244 again

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive637 § 99.90.197.244

The user is once again making bizarre talk page comments and disrupting the main article with pointless maintenance tags. This is the same disruptive behavior that has been ongoing since January 2010 with no sign of improvement. If you recall, in September, a WP:COMPETENCE block was proposed on ANI, and the user was eventually blocked for one month due to disruption.[24] Now, the user has returned to the same pattern of behavior, this time on United States diplomatic cables leak, where this editor has been adding maintenance tags for no reason. When asked to engage on the talk page, this very weird discussion took place, leading me to believe that the user does not know why they decided to add a POV tag to the article four separate times but will continue adding it at their whim because they can.[25][26][27][28] Could someone look into this please? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• This editor has also been conducting a slow-motion edit war on American Airlines Flight 77, insisting for some obscure reason that the article specify that passengers called from the airplane "by phone" as opposed to, presumably carrier pigeon or telepathy. At first I thought it was something Truther-related, but I tend to believe now that there's an issue of general competence. Given their response to my concerns on their talkpage, I don't think they have a clue about consensus. Acroterion _(talk) 12:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see what's wrong with specifying "phone calls" as opposed to just "calls", which is more colloquial and could be confusing to a non-native English speaker. In fact, were they cellphone calls, or did the airplane have a built-in phone system like some airlines have or used to have? Or was it both? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • As Viritidas notes below, they know how to use scare quotes, but have refused to discuss why they believe this is a necessary measure. In the absence of any other reason, I assume there's an intention to cast aspersions on the veracity of the reported calls. I believe calls were made both by cell and by AirPhone. Acroterion _(talk) 13:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The user is adding 'phone' in single scare quotes. Look at the page history. It isn't specified nor necessary according to the consensus of editors on the page. The passengers made calls, that's it. The user has been unilaterally inserting 'by phone' into the article against consensus since September! They were blocked for a month for the reasons listed in the report at the top of this incident. When they returned, they started up again. Since you're interested, why don't you try finding out why they are adding maintenance tags to United States diplomatic cables leak. You can even review the talk page discussion. Let me know what you discover. Viriditas (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree that a long WP:COMPETENCE block is necessary at this point. The user seems unwilling to follow our editorial guidelines, and is merely stalling discussion and improvement of a number of articles (example). NW (Talk) 12:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
        • I can't speak to the IP's other edits, not having seen them. But if he had said that the passengers had made cell phone calls (no scare quotes), would there have been a problem? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My goodness! Why are you all making a two month long edit war out of what seems to be a perfectly simple clarification? Just turn 'phone' into telephone and you're done in one edit. You could have been done in one edit back in September. Uncle G (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it could use some clarification, but it certainly doesn't need the scare quotes. I might just do that, if I can find the right reference. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Not needed, as it already says phone calls in the body of the article. No hay problema. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Baseball bugs apparent bias against non-admins

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

 – These aren't the droids we're looking for. Move along, move along. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

I was helping admins at AIV when suddenly along comes these 2 edits both with a summary of "you are not an admin". I left them a note to which they have since replied. Last time I checked this user was not an admin either... Anyone care to offer some insight? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's more he's pointing out that admins make the calls on blocking or not blocking (is this true? not sure, experienced users might be okay to remove obvious inappropriate reports from AIV). I don't think "bias" is really evident here. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'm sure the user meant well, but obvious socks and impostors don't need "warnings", and in fact they had already been informed that they had been found out. It's up to the admin to make a judgment decision on whether to block a user based on the situation, not just on some letter of the guidelines. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is that Bart should have looked a little more closely at the situation himself instead of blindly posting those cautions. But I would like to hear what admins think about this, as I don't think I've run into this before. Normally the one doing the undercutting on AIV is the vandal itself, not another regular editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if you stop posting for a little while one can get a word in... Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think Bart may have felt a bit... bitten. If I'd seen a need to do anything, I might have left an ES more along the lines of "let an admin do this, pls." GF editors tend to learn new stuff about WP every day they edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it appropriate for non-admins to be undercutting AIV reports that way? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't undercutting. I was (and still am) helping the admins deal with the backlog. Correct me if i'm wrong; but AFAIK there is nothing wrong with doing that! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 12:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Bart was only trying to help by copy-pasting something LvHU had posted above those reports and which he thought also fit the ones below, with some tweaking. Bart, more often than not, it's more helpful to leave those tasks up to admins, given the page is called Administrator intervention against vandalism. Sometimes, that page can look backlogged when it's not. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The admins are perfectly capable of determining whether the user has been adequately warned or not. And it's their judgment to make. By posting that way, you're giving the impression that you yourself are an admin (which I had to go check first, though I thought it unlikely). And FYI, you're technically right about the one IP, which was his only edit in the last 5 days. But it's still up to the admin. There might be a pattern of abuse there that would suggest a block is needed regardless of the warning level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Personally, I don't see a problem with a sufficiently experienced non-admin assisting with clearing the backlog on tasks that don't specifically require admin rights. That said, I can completely see why Baseball Bugs might feel differently and so, to that extent, it doesn't seem fair (or AGF) to suggest that his actions reflect any bias against non-admins.--Korruski^Talk 13:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bart is interested in becoming an administrator and make a request after seven edits. I think it was under his old username - User:doggie015 - Off2riorob (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Off2riorob for pointing out why I got a username change early on. (The reason I gave was so that my name had less insult potential, it was accepted with no questions asked.) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That was almost two years ago, Off2riorob. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoa... has it really been that long... time does fly! Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with user name Doggie015? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

this might explain it. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries about a non-admin doing something non-controversial and straightforward there, I guess. I don't think Bugs was showing a bias, but rather, a GF editor felt slighted by the wording in Bugs' edit summary. Bart, before bringing something here, you might try posting to the editor's talk page first and try to learn more about what they had in mind. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

He did post on my page first, but he didn't like my answer. I apologize for my overall bluntness. Nothing personal intended. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that an admin issued a very mild rebuke to Bart's post about the IP, and that's why I say I'm sure Bart means well, but he needs to let the admins do their jobs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bugs, many of us have seen so many of your edits, we know you're friendly and helpful (and often funny). Keep in mind, not everyone knows that, nor would they from a pithy edit summary. It doesn't hurt, if you go into a bit more depth when someone asks you something on your TP. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Barts account has existed since 2007 but 98% of his contributions are since July 2010. Off2riorob (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Why are you showing this bias against me Off2riorob? I thought you were supposed to be an ArbCom candidate...? Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see as pointing out facts is any bias. Off2riorob (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to ANI. Unless someone can quickly show some policy breach which needs admin heed, I'd say it's beyond time to close this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to close. (I would do it myself but after looking up I won't be...) Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints? 13:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

IP 119.155.58.245

This IP (one of many hundred self admitted avatars of a registered user who claims to have "renounced" their ID) has been making several edits without providing sourced (where required) or even edit summaries (where required) and generally doing what they feel like without regard to established procedure. The past self-admission means I know it is the same person making the edits, regardless of the IP used. But the fact that there are so many IPs, means trying to reason or discuss is rather like trying to nail pudding to the wall.

• The latest list of this IP's edits is here and said IP's talk page is here
• The talk page of the registered account is here

There is a bit of a a pattern and a history with this editor, a lot of which can be gleaned from the talk page. I can provide additional input if needed.
Anyone have any input on what, if anything, can be done?
Thanks, jasepl (talk) 14:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Skitole7

• Skitole7 (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• Banyamubeta (talk · contribs · checkuser · block user · block log · edit count)
• BMB LU (AfD discussion)

User:Skitole7 has seen fit to create BMB LU, an article which is going to be speedied (and may be a recreation of deleted BMB Lee, and seems to think this is Uncyclopedia, given the tone of the article written, the wholly fake sources, and the user's flippant attitude towards proper editing protocol. The user is clearly not interested in improving WP, so I ask that the account be CU'ed for socks and indef blocked. MSJapan (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I should also have added that BMB LU, BMB Lee, and Banya Mu Beta should be salted. MSJapan (talk) 07:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Sometimes students writing silly articles about themselves can be turned around into productive editors. All deleted contributions precede the AFD discussion. Maybe the person now understands from experience that we don't want such silliness here. Any action taken here should really be predicated upon further silliness, I think. Uncle G (talk) 10:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • They can, but I have a difficult time believing that when: a) the SPA activity on this topic goes back to July (as evidenced by User:Banyamubeta above, whom I did not even know about - good catch), b) the user refuses to act maturely or communicate properly regarding the matter, c) when the article is created three times in six months (and twice in two days), despite being deleted all three times with clear rationale, d) when said article is nonsense and has false sources, and e) when the author removes the AfD templates from the articles. I would say that instance 2 was "further silliness", instance 3 was "still further silliness", the wholly fake article is indicative of intent to insert garbage, and the exchanges on AfD and his Talk page (his response to my statement to read policies first was "But President Obama approves!") are further evidence of a lack of wanting to be a productive editor. He had that chance back in July when he created the article (the first time it was deleted). He had another chance to do so when it was deleted a second time, and yet another chance by responding appropriately to the information he was given regarding what is appropriate for WP. I think that by not doing something about this now, we are tacitly allowing a problem to occur in the future when we have been clearly forewarned on two occasions (as I'm going to let the July one go in this instance) that it will happen again. MSJapan (talk) 18:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

88.104.199.57 vandalism of article Glasvegas‎

Can someone please block this account. Repeated vandalism at Glasvegas‎. Bjmullan (talk) 10:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Now blocked by User:Gwen Gale. Thanks. Bjmullan (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's been issued a short block for vandalism, 3RR violation, and posting its non-notable self-portrait in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

LOL Bjmullan (talk) 11:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Block evaded with ease. EL EM EH OH, that was LAME, Bugs. ترجمة عربية (talk) 11:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) BLOCKED with ease. See'ya~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocke evader blocked with ease. It only took 2 minutes. - BilCat (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

If anyone cares, his fake user ID apparently means "Translate Arabic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what the Arabic is for, "He gawn, bye-bye." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The transliteration of something close to that in everyday spoken Arabic would be kalas!. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow. So if Harry Kalas were to have adopted Hawk Harrelson's strikeouts catchphrase, he could have simply invoked his own last name!

Speaking of names, I'm thinking to change my own signature to البيسبول البق, which according to Google translate is my ID in Arabic. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WikipediaExperts

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.

Guys, let's please not bring this up again so soon. ArbCom can't do anything; we'll need to wait for policy dealing with paid editing. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

---

In user:Alpha_Quadrant's irc channel, he posted a website which allows users to pay $99 to get their atricle into wikipedia. WikipediaExperts.com has to have users here on Wikipedia and I am sure there will be sock accounts as well. Can we get a check for them? The ip from Whois says the IP for the site is 173.230.132.153.

Thanks - Sophie ^(Talk) 20:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this, if this were to happen and bussinesses start using Wikipedia for profit it would essentially undermine Wikipedia's founding purpose. --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Their FAQs

Q: Do I have full control over the content of the article? A: Yes. This is the case in the sense that we won’t post any article without your approval, and that you can later make any modifications to the article on your own. However, under Wikipedia rules, we are required to do our own research and submit a balanced article based on multiple sources. Wikipedia articles are NOT press-releases or advertorials written by the company or its ad agency. As specified in Wikipedia Pillars: “Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. We strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately and in context, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy: unreferenced material may be removed, so please provide references. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong here. That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources, especially on controversial topics and when the subject is a living person. When conflict arises over neutrality, discuss details on the talk page, and follow dispute resolution.” Q: Are there subjects not admissible to Wikipedia? A: Yes, and they are best summed up in another of the five Wikipedia Pillars: “Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, newspaper, or a collection of source documents.” Q: Do you guarantee the articles you write will be accepted by Wikipedia? A: We guarantee that we will submit professional content, consistent with Wikipedia rules and standards; however, Wikipedia does not have a central acceptance authority that makes a final conclusion about the admissibility of articles. An article may be flagged, edited and removed at any time by any user or administrator. In such cases, we will make the necessary changes and resubmit it until it is accepted. Q: How long does it take you to learn that someone’s modified an article? A: We receive alerts instantaneously. Q: What’s included in your writing services? A: The writing service includes: Necessary research needed, including an analysis of your website and other materials you may provide including related media coverage Article creation in compliance with Wikipedia rules, and adjusting the article should it be refused by Wikipedia The $295 introduction package covers up to five hours of work. This is enough to complete most articles. If extra work is required, we apply our standard billing rate of $95/hour, with the detailed verifiable time reporting via our Transparent Billing application. Q: What’s included in the monthly monitoring and maintenance service? A: The $99 monthly fee includes: Monitoring of your article by our proprietary software Immediate intervention by our staff in case brand -damaging content is posted Content updates whenever your company’s situation changes The $99 fee covers up to two hours of work per month. This is enough for most articles. If extra work is required, we apply our standard billing rate of $95/hour, with the detailed verifiable time reporting via our Transparent Billing application.

All the other issues surrounding this aside, it's really, really unlikely that you're going to be able to turn up any socks using the IP address of the Web site. The company would have to go to unusual, special effort to make their paid editors turn up from the Web site's address block rather than, say, the cable company dynamic IPs of the home Internet connections they probably edit from, or the company's business Internet access IPs (if they have them). The Web site's address block is that of their network service provider (Linode) and wouldn't typically be used for editing. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Should this be forwarded to ARBCOM or the foundation? Or are we just gonna play whack-a-mole as they crop up? I can see this becoming a major issue. Heiro

doing so Sophie ^(Talk) 20:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It might also be worth looking into Linode's terms of service and seeing if there's anything there that would justify a complaint to Linode on that basis. The absence of a Wikipedia policy on paid editing makes that somewhat unlikely, though. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

On what basis would such a complaint be made? If company A is paying person B to volunteer at site C, where's the violation? Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to death. – iridescent 20:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It is now in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#WikipediaExperts - Sophie ^(Talk) 20:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So do we take it on an article by article basis, and keep track of the editors verified as being their employees? Maybe we ask as a courtesy that they put a disclaimer of some sort on their user page acknowledging their paid status? Heiro 20:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Isnt that what a role account is? Sophie ^(Talk) 20:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Never came across that before, do you mean this [29]? Doesnt seem to be approved.Heiro 20:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ROLE - Sophie ^(Talk) 20:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• This has already been discussed here (and Iridescent beats me to it). The general consensus is that it's not that big of a deal and that we should just treat it as editors editing under a COI, which, in itself, does not mean that they will make bad edits. It just means we have to watch them more carefully, but their FAQ seems to suggest that they will do their best to make articles that comply with our policies. If they indeed do so, then there isn't a problem here. If people are able to get paid to make articles that fit under our policies, then good for them. I would enjoy that being my job. Silverseren^C 20:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Both Silver seren and Iridescent beat me to it. So I'll point to the Project:Paid editing (guideline)/Noticeboard instead, which was also mentioned on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. I think that, between the three of us, we've left Rd232 with nothing to say. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Almost :) - I'd add that the issue of whether Wikipedia:Paid editing (guideline) is ever going to move beyond a proposal or be marked as {{failed}} should really be resolved. This could be given some momentum by those who have a particular interest in the subject but haven't yet participated there. Rd232 ^talk 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Bad block of User talk:80.189.151.45

Resolved

 – Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This user, User talk:80.189.151.45, only vandalized twice (editing tests) and then was reverted and warned a couple more times for good-faith edits by ClueBot NG and another editor. He was then blocked. I am requesting that he be unblocked because he did not vandalize enough to warrent a block. (Obviously, the blocking admin saw four warnings before User:PamD removed the inappropriate templates. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Support unblock Looks like the bot mucked up. It does happen. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Blocking admin has been notified of discussion. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 00:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment - PamD struck the templates and explained why they were mistaken. Unfortunately, CluBot does not have the ability to see this, so issued escalating warnings and then made a report to AIV. I have raised this problem with the ClueBot operators, and I blanked the incorrect templates, as advised by the bot operators. I did also comment on the IP talk page that I felt the block was wrong, but it is not clear if the blocking admin has the talk page on his watchlist. I'll drop him a line to tell him about this thread (if he's not been told already). DuncanHill (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked and explanation/apology left. I assume Edgar won't mind my doing so without his OK; if I'm wrong, then I'll apologize for that too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Aye, AIV admins should note they shouldn't automatically assume that Cluebot reversions are of vandalism, I've noticed a few false positives recently. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. DuncanHill (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Could Supreme Deliciousness be given a break, please?

This is the eighth SPI done on him, the last not even a week ago,. Honestly it's starting to border on harassment at this point. Any time a new account or IP pops up that happens to edit the same article he does, the community screeches SOCKPUPPET! and reports him. HalfShadow 05:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, but what can we do about it at AN/I?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Far too much attention is being paid to SD! Do I just not seem to have what it takes to be a sock puppet master?! On a serious note, yeah, it's getting silly. Sol (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Has he been notified? Basket of Puppies 05:53, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SD has been around for a year and a half, and Frederico1234 has been around for almost three years. One would think that if they were socks, that would have become evident before now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The focal point of user Juijitsu's complaint is the article Cave of the Ramban, and he seems to be involved in arguments with at least 3 different users there. It must be obscure, since "I" never heard of it, but as the editors in question show an interest in this region, it's more likely they would have heard of it. That observation doesn't prove anything either way. But the previous SPI's have all been either vindication for SD, or dismissal due to lack of evidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin please delete the outing that has taken place at the SPI? Jiujitsuguy is revealing my location, my ethnicity and nationality, its personal information and I don't want it revealed. He links to an old account (removed) that I in the name reveal both my ethnicity and nationality, its not a sock, Before I registered this account I had that account that I used a few times, keep in mind that I didn't know anything about Wikipedia rules at that time, then several months later when I wanted to edit Wikipedia again I just registered a new account, I didn't know that I should have used the old account, I didn't think about it at all, at many websites I just register a new account instead of trying to find out the password. I never pretended to be someone else or something like that with this account. I just abandoned the other one. The problem is that I was very inactive with that account and I didn't know any of Wikipedia rules, so at one point of time I did some inappropriate canvassing when I wanted to get attention to an article problem: [30] I'm not trying to hide it, I didn't know anything about the rules here and didn't realize that I did something wrong. The problem with that account is that both my ethnicity and nationality is revealed, and I don't want to be outed, I regret revealing that personal information, and I told shuki about it at my talkpage [31] I told him I did not want it revealed. Because of the personal information. Now he must have told Jiujitsuguy what account that was and Jiujitsuguy made a post about it at Shukis talkpage, so Jiujitsuguy must have seen the conversation between me and Shuki and asked for the previous account, but despite this he is revealing the account - revealing my ethnicity and nationality. I now ask you to please delete the comments at shukis talkpage and SPI so that the link to my previous account is removed and my personal information is not revealed, and the personal information connected to my old account, and my location and nationality is removed [32]And please tell shuki and Jiujitsuguy not to continue to out me. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can you pass it to another admin (SD left a request at my talk). I won't do it because I have been told by User:SandyGeorgia here that our standards for outing are those of Wikipedia Review and that if your name is available by doing Internet research, then you're out of luck on outing. Since all of this is ... somwhat different from what I learned after becoming an admin, I will brush up on my knowledge of outing before acting in such a case again. --Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If you admit in the post just above that you are the same account as (removed), then that would have to be revdelelted, according to your interpretation of "outing", SD. Do you want a revdelete of anything that would ever tie you to the account that you are mentioning as being you? You have confirmed that the accounts are both you yet again. You cannot "out" yourself, and I challenge any editor to show me how one can without giving out truly personal information that has not been subsequently deleted. Real name, address, serial number: that stuff. "Supreme Deliciousness" is most likely not your real name... Doc talk 11:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Accounts? There is one account. I don't want that account shown to be me anywhere as it reveals my ethnicity and nationality.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"He links to an old account (removed) that I in the name reveal both my ethnicity and nationality..." It's not personal information that could actually harm you - stop it, please. You misunderstand what WP:OUTING is meant for, I'm afraid... Doc talk 11:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've revdel'd the SPI stuff, since Admins can still see it, it seemed safest to do that. SandyGeorgia is wrong, our policy says "Posting another person's personal information is harassment, unless that person voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia." and says nothing about an exemption if it's available through an Internet search. Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia might be wrong if she had said any of that and Wehwalt were representing my views correctly. Alas and alack, not the case. By the way, Wehwalt, if you tell stories about me again, would you mind letting me know? Is it All About Me All The Time with you? Must I follow all of your posts or rely on people to let me know when you're misrepresenting me? Please, lower the focus on me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just like you didn't notify me of this little turkey of a comment about me? However, I intended my subsequent comment there as an olive branch. Deal?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, since when do you need to be notified of a conversation you're participating in? You wouldn't be trying to make me chase my tail, would you? Olive branch for what? I've got no problem; you just stop poking me, stirring the pot, misrepresenting me, and being pointy, would be a better deal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Endless rehashing of the past and grievances does no one any good. Let's agree about the future, which alone is capable of change.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Uh, no, let's agree that you the next time you go to AN/I and make false claims about me behind my back, we will have a grievance, and YOU need to stop poking and "rehashing". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Come on guys; snipe at each other somewhere else. HalfShadow 04:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And SD, many people are known to be of a certain nationality, sex, or religious group without being considered to out themselves.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic, but the problem is that WP:OUTING goes on to define what it means by "personal information" as follows: "Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not." I'm not sure that nationality or ethnicity fall into that definition. If I had the information on that list, I would be able to find where you live and work, steal your identity, or contact you without Wikipedia seeing it, leading to possible harm or harassment off-Wiki. Things like nationality and ethnicity (or sex) don't provide the person who knows that information any such power to harm or harass off-Wiki. I'm not saying I oppose the definition specifically in the case of SD, but just generally I think those types of information should not be considered WP:OUTING. Maybe we need something more like WP:VANISH, whereby editors would have the right to have information posted about them vanish as well. ← George ^talk 11:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Bingo - but now you should revdel this whole thread, since "Jiujitsuguy is revealing my location, my ethnicity and nationality, its personal information and I don't want it revealed." "Location" has been taken care of... but "ethnicity" and "nationality", still for all to see, and within this thread. I'm also, shockingly, (removed). Actually, I'm really not. I'm Scotch/Javanese. I mean New Guinean/Luxembourgian. Eh - just revdel all this too, just to be "safe". But this is my real information: you gotta believe me! 555-1234: call me ;> Doc talk 12:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

If someone is concerned about outing, announcing it here is not the best approach. A better approach would be to contact a trusted admin via e-mail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly referring to someone as a "transexual Filipino" or whatever could be harassment, especially if the editor referred to is clearly distressed or has asked the other user to stop. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA already cover on-Wiki harassment of that nature. ← George ^talk 22:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that self-revealed ethnicity and nationality is covered by the outing policy, since this information is not in any way sufficient to determine identity and was in any case posted by the editor himself, but since SD objects to the name of his old account being referred to because it reveals this information, would an admin please change the name of the account to something neutral of SD's choice, so that this doesn't become an avoidance of scrutiny for the edits made by that account (such as the canvassing of multiple editors complaining that the "Golan" article had been taken over by Israelis)? We are all responsible for our edits, and there's no reason that SD shouldn't be held responsible for those edits simply because of this matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User Heitor C. Jorge calling others' edits edits "vandalism".

User Heitor C. Jorge likes to misconstrue other people's edits as "vandalism":

[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

etc.

Can an admin please explain him what is and what is not vandalism, why the above reversions haven't to do with vandalism, and please make him stop this kind of behaviour? Thanks in advance. Ninguém (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Subject of discussion notified: [43] Ninguém (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• After looking at half a dozen of the diffs, I'm inclined to agree with Ninguem. Good faith is to be assumed, and the changes reverted by Heitor appear to be good-faith efforts to improve the articles. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I have written a little note on their talk page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Which was quickly erased... Ninguém (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Odd editing at Classical liberalism

I'd appreciate an admin's opinion on an edit war going on at Classical liberalism. Last night I noticed Learn From It (talk · contribs) making a change to the article. I looked, and it seems that the editor is an SPA, and has been adding material to the page for some time without discussion that other editors have removed [44] [45] [46] [47] completely. I reverted the newest addition, which was also reverted twice before, and asked the editor to please begin a discussion on the talk page [48] [49]. He reverted twice more [50] [51] and told me to [52] "discuss or butt out."

The new addition was reverted this morning by another editor, which was then reverted by Bullet Dropper (talk · contribs) [53]. After looking at his contributions (and block log [54]), Bullet Dropper certainly appears to be a similar SPA, and has been blocked for edit warring on the same article for inserting the same material before. BD was dormant for six weeks until LFI reached the 3RR limit on the article.

I have no stake in the article at all, but it certainly seems like two SPA accounts reaching the same place at the same time are working together to keep from edit warring. If an admin would give this one a quick glance, it would be greatly appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well isn't that interesting. What an amazing coincidence! LOL. Bullet Dropper (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That attitude will get you nowhere very quickly...I suggest taking a different tone, and would do so soon if I were you. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Why? It's just ridiculous. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

BulletDropper used a confirmed sock, User:Rapidosity[55] It seems likely that this new account is another sock. TFD (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rapidosity is my old account. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Rapidosity is a confirmed sock, as well, see it's block log. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...it seems that connection was already made in the diff above...=P It's just been one of those days. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:05, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Looking through the history of Learn From It (talk · contribs) and Bullet Dropper (talk · contribs), they look like socks to me. A move to sock puppet investigation is probably appropriate here. LK (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been through this farce before. It was claimed I was some other user(s) and order to try to keep me from making an edit, then it was found out it was different people. And I never even received an apology for the block. I suggest this time the checking up be done BEFORE blocking me. What this looks like to me is some people who are friends alerting each other to come in to prevent changes from being made to the article by any means possible. Probably some kind of alliance. Why else are people coming in that never edit that article mysteriously appear to delete an edit without giving any reason the deletion other than that someone else didn't want it there? I want to see substantial reasons why they don't want the information there. Another user put a sourced item in there, and the other was just the extension of a quote. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have now filed a report at SPI.[56] I suggest that this discussion thread be closed and any further comments be posted there. TFD (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mclaudt requests lift of ban.

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive600#User:Mclaudt|Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive600 § User:Mclaudt]]

User:Mclaudt is requesting that his community ban be lifted. The reason he gives is, "Please unblock me. I have no time no intention for canvassing or train-wrecking Linux software discussions. I'm getting PhD in quantum chemistry and I want to be really useful for Wikipedia in that field. Also I'm happy to be an active Wikipedia donator because I sincerely support ideas that Wikipedia declares. Thanks." Is there support for lifting this ban? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not by me. The user's request does not address in any useful detail the many reasons given for his ban in the discussion that led up to it. It is therefore unconvincing.  Sandstein  22:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support- it's been nearly eight months and the user has promised to behave, and I for one don't require a lengthy essay by way of apology or shameless grovelling before supporting an unblock. If the editor resumes disruptive behaviour they can be reverted and blocked again very easily. Reyk _YO! 23:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• weak support I agree with Reyk (which may be a first?) It's been long enough, see how it goes. Hobit (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• I feel I should point out that he also contacted me about it - which I find odd because I've got it written plain as day on my talk page that I lost the tools in July and will not have them back for the forseeable future. In any case, Neutral. I'm leery of the "I'm a *REFORMED* alcoholic" defense, and I'd like to see a bit more than vague speech. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 23:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose It's been long enough, but I don't see evidence of understanding why he was banned in the first place and what he will do to avoid those issues. I also woule like to see how he wishes to be "really useful": working on any drafts first, etc. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Question- The guy was blocked/banned for off-site canvassing and has now said that he has no intention of canvassing again. Does this not demonstrate a knowledge of what he was blocked for? If not, what would you consider a satisfactory answer? And, if you were in his shoes, how would you explain how you'd avoid canvassing again that goes beyond saying "I won't do it anymore"? What other possible answer is there? Reyk _YO! 03:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. Give him a standard offer and see if he agrees to the terms. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support lifting ban, his sincere request is good enough for me. He may have a rocky past but it's on record now and I don't believe he's dangerous to the project. -- œ^™ 10:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral comment Reblocks, following a community unblock, are easy. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Weak support I'd prefer to see a full year go by, but I don't feel strongly about it. If he can contribute within our rules, give him a chance. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support standard offer: Seems to have an understanding of what he was blocked for, and as long as he understands that this is a last chance, I think it's worth considering. Kansan (talk) 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Incivility, threats and outing by DinDraithou ; similar incivility and outing by ReidarM

This two editors have engaged in a growing joint attack on the character and integrity of an article's subject Francis Martin O'Donnell and this editor Max Kaertner. The latest in this was an expletive (some fucking lunatic) used to describe me, after his threats to alert a commission or association about the family of Francis Martin O'Donnell: [57]. Please see also [58], and the recent traffic they have generated after a highly offensive remark by an unidentified user: 113.190.132.229, at 06.45 on 26 November 2010. This has all the hallmarks of a vicious witch-hunt. My efforts to provide verifiable sources and disprove their prejudicial statements have been ignored. Max Kaertner (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Having just seen something very alarming, true or not I will not be contacting any commissions or nobiliary associations. All of this I am completely letting go. Hopefully Max/Seneschally is a good person who just doesn't have the best command of his sources yet, and this is all a misunderstanding. Also I don't think he should be banned for having two accounts and just needs to pick one. As far as Francis Martin O'Donnell, I gave him the benefit of the doubt once and am happy to again. Whatever problems there may be he seems to have done some fine work and deserves credit for this. DinDraithou (talk) 01:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Max, Please accept my apologies if I have been threatening and incivil, and let me know where I acted in such a way. Reading your post here, I understand you feel hurt - again, please rest assured that was not my intention. Yet, I would have appreciated if you had alerted me to this issue on my talk page, citing what you think I did wrong, and give me a chance to resolve this before you post to the admin noticeboard. ReidarM (talk) 06:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This complaint can now be shelved, and both editors DinDraithou and ReidarM encouraged to continue their normally excellent work. Their assiduity is appreciated, but a lesson learnt for all is that objective thoroughness and civility will gain more for us as a community. in this regard, I owe them both a small apology for not being hitherto better-informed myself. I had given a reference on the AFD page to a book by J. Anthony Gaughan on Thomas O'Donnell, MP, which I remember made a reference to the Tyrconnell origins (as a tradition) of the Castlegregory O'Donnells. I just googled up "Thomas O'Donnell, MP"+"J.Anthony Gaughan" and got this: [59], a page of a review of that book by Sean O Luing in 1983, where he refers to the Tyrconnell origins of these O'Donnells. Had I known this before it might have simplified our exchange. We live and learn. My apologies to Francis Martin O'Donnell for any awkwardness all this may have caused. Max Kaertner (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

William S. Saturn at Fort Hood shooting

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.

Resolved

---

Ever since the early days of the Fort Hood shooting article, William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) has been attempting to label the incident as 'terrorism'. He has also been consistently trying to insert the article into List of terrorist incidents, 2009 article. Today, I reverted his latest attempts, in the absence of any significant breakthrough as to its classification, and it seems to have set off an edit war. What's more, he angrily accused me firstly of POV-pushing, and then he brazenly removed my comment, inserting a personal attack against me in its place. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been under the impression that this incident was called domestic terrorism by major media outlets,such as this one. Am I wrong? Whatever concerns you have about his style, if the result is obviously correct, it seems odd to sanction him. One tactic that may help would be to say who called the incident terrorism. Using the source I just gave, "The US government has called the shootings an act of terrorism." Jehochman ^Talk 03:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Jehochman. The shooting was (domestic) terrorism. Reliable sources referencing terrorism here, here, here, and here. Let's deal with the personal attack issue here, and maybe the reversion, as incidents requiring the attention of administrators. However, the content should be clear. Thank you to the administrators handling these issues. Saebvn (talk) 03:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a bit each way. Reverting without edit summaries ([60]) rarely helps to resolve a dispute (I hope rollback wasn't used); the "personal attack" is inadvisable but mild; and I would AGF that the removal of the comment was accidental (it happens often). --Mkativerata (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• With respect, the edit summary clearly said "revert censorship", which would indicate he had deliberately intended to remove my comments outright. That in itself was objectionable, without even mentioning him deliberately referring to me as "OHConfused". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Yes you're right, in light of that edit summary it is hard to say the removal was accidental. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, if you look, it seems as if you accidentally removed his comment first in what may have been an edit conflict, and then William must have thought it was on purpose and just reverted you. Dave Dial (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I can assure you that had maybe 3 ec's whilst making that comment, but did not knowingly overwrite him. Having said that, bearing in mind the most deliberate and offensive comment, I guess yes, he may have assumed that I removed his scurrilous attack. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• And as for the apparent lack of edit summary, two things: This has been going on for months, but each time he would back off after others agreed with me, so he would know perfectly well what I was on about, and I would know that he knew; secondly, I did explain in one of the two reverts of his. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is there any "consensus" on this matter? Re edit summaries: not using edit summaries when reverting is very unhelpful - it indicates to the other side (and neutral observers) that you don't have any desire to engage in discussion.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be inclined to say that if two reverts were related and directed at the same editor, then one edit summary might suffice. Two would probably have been better in retrospect. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• It's no big deal: the point I'm making being that there were reversions on either side that didn't need to happen. If there isn't a clear existing consensus, it's hard to say one party is at fault and the other isn't. If there's no such consensus I'd normally suggest protecting the article while DR and consensus-building mechanisms are pursued, but I don't think protection is viable here because (a) it would be overkill to protect the list article because of a dispute over one entry; and (b) the Fort Hood article is too prominent and frequently edited to warrant lockdown over this dispute. So I'd hope that those DR options can be pursued without the need for administrative action - there have been some very helpful suggestions in this thread alone.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for that interesting report, which I haven't seen. I have been following the evolution of the article, and strange as it may seem, this point has not made it there, nor was the article used at all in Fort Hood shooting, nor in 2009 Terrorism, let alone be used as the basis of arguing that it was indeed a terrorist attack. Instead, sources cited and argued with included the habitual mix of soundbytes and political posturing. Thus the article is arguably out of date, and since January, it would seem. Saturn has been testosterone-charged since well before that, in fact since the shooting occurred. I still believe I have been wronged by that uncivil and most scurrilous attack, but if you say it was a good faith or otherwise correct response to my removal, then I can only disagree with that as faulty judgement. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, we were here a year ago for the same exact issue. Tarc (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that sounded familiar. Single-minded, innhe? HalfShadow 04:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

People tend to bring up things again when they don't get the result they believe to be correct. WP:CCC is really a license for periodic revisiting. As far as I'm concerned, if it was called domestic terrorism in at least one reliable source, it goes in. If there's a disagreement between RSes over whether it's terrorism or not (one or more calls it terrorism, one or more calls it not terrorism), we cover the debate in an NPOV manner. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything Jclemens said. Except for his spelling of "RSs".--Epeefleche (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but its easier with content and a bit trickier when trying to categorise in an NPOV way. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• We've kissed and made up, so I guess you can mark this thread as 'resolved'. Thanks to all. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • So it shall be written, so it shall be  Done. --Jayron32 07:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Possible corrupted account?

Resolved

 – blocked and tagged. Horologium (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I think the account Loom91 (talk · contribs) may have been corrupted or hacked into. The user had mainly constructive edits leading up to 2008, then in the past couple of weeks carried out three acts of vandalism:

• Move of Chandrabindoo (band) to ChandrabindooOnHueels on November 18 2010
• Move of Moheener Ghoraguli to Moheener Ghoraguli On Hueels on November 20 2010
• Move of Bhoomi (band) to Bhoomi on Hueels on November 21 2010

All these moves went unnoticed until today when I happened to be looking for an article on Bhoomi. I don't know if there is any action that is necessary against this account, just thought I'd raise it so it's known about. -- role^player 14:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the account and tagged it as compromised. The last edits from that account were over two years ago, until a spree of page-move vandalism with snarky edit summaries. Horologium (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Compromised! That was the word I was looking for! Thank you for taking action. -- role^player 15:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman and User:Fusion is the future

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615#Arnold Reisman book self-promotion|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615 § Arnold Reisman book self-promotion]], and [[:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arnold_Reisman/Archive]]

AFD discussions for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman
• Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Reisman, Arnold

• Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ellen Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• BandGwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Fusion is the future (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The article Arnold Reisman, about a retired professor, was created by User:Ellen Reisman, and extensively expanded by User:Arnold Reisman using that account and a number of IP sockpuppets. (I believe that User Reisman confirmed his real-world identity as Arnold Reisman to OTRS, but I don't have a link for that.) After discussion on AN/I, both Reisman accounts were indef blocked for extensive self-promotion of Reisman's self-published books, which were spammed into numerous articles. Neither account has ever asked to be unblocked.

In June, an IP attempted to edit in a similar manner to User:Arnold Reisman, and was warned off, [61],[62] to be replaced by User:BandGwolf, who was also warned off. [63], [64],[65]

In September, User:Fusion is the future is created, and edits productively to jazz-related articles for almost two months, before starting to edit the Arnold Reisman article – which is totally unrealted to jazz – in a manner similar to the editing by Reisman. Once again, I warned the editor, resulting in extensive discussion in which Fusion adamantly denied being in any way connected to Reisman. [66] Fusion reaches out to admin User:Slim Virgin for assistance, [67], who examines the article and strips it, as a BLP, of all unsourced statements.

Since then, there have been numerous threads on the article's talk page and on the RSN board concerning the article. Fusion persists in attempting to add material to the article using primary sources, ignoring Slim Virgin's request for secondary sources to show the subject's notability. User:Fladrif has indicated that there are some secondary sources, reviews from reliable sources of the professor's self-published books, but Fusion has, as of yet, declined to integrate these into the article.

Uninvolved admin intervention is needed for these reasons:

• Given Fusion's attitude towards this article, his clear self-involvement in the subject, his personal reactions whenever anyone does not agree with what he wants to do, his setting up as first one editor (me) and then another (Slim Virgin) as the "bad guy" preventing him from doing what he wants to with the article, and given that the article's subject is totally disconnected from the subject area Fusion otherwise edits in (jazz), it is nearly impossible not to come to the conclusion that Fusion is in some way connected to Arnold Reisman, either as a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Arnold Reisman (the editor) has never requested a lifting of the indef block, yet has persisted in attempting to shape the article about him through socks, and this is appears to be yet now another attempt, albeit a somewhat more Wiki-sophisticated one, to do so. An admin should decide whether the behavioral evidence is strong enough that Fusion should be indef blocked as a sock- or meatpuppet of Reisman.

• Regardless of whether Fusion is a sock- or meatpuppet or not, his behavior has become an egregious case of I didn't hear that and his framing of other editors as adversaries is uncivil, uncollegial and indicates a battleground mentality. An uninvolved admin should warn him not to continue editing in this manner.

• Finally, although the article Arnold Reisman has survived two AfDs [68],[69], the most recent one in May of this year, some determination should be made of whether it is sourced sufficiently as a BLP to be kept. If so, then it should probably be taken to AfD again, since, despite over two weeks having passed since Slim Virgin asked for secondary sources, it is still based almost entirely on primary sources, and does not appear as if it fulfills the notability requirements for subjects of this type. (I'd rather not take it to AfD until these other issues are decided.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All named parties have been notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the last of your comments on the subject, my thinking is that if the article were taken to AfD and deleted then it would make much of the rest of the concerns noted moot - especially if User:Fusion is the future confined themselves to editing jazz related articles. Again, if the AfD resulted in good secondary sources being located and added then the other concerns, if not moot, would be of considerably less import. What is your rationale for not moving to AfD, precisely? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess primarily that I'm involved, and that bringing it to AfD might be perceived as a tactic rather than a good faith nomination. I've no objection to filing there, if that's what folks thinks is the best thing to do. Aside from that, I had (and have) no particular objection to the existence of the article per se. This report was provoked by Fusion's most recent comment on the article talk page, which convinced me that we were on a merry-go-round that didn't show signs of stopping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, Arnold Reisman seems borderline notable at best. There are others in his field more notable than he who still do not have WP articles written about them. Even so, I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• No objection to an AfD, but to disallow primary sources in an article is inappropriate. If I'm understanding correctly then VS is wrong in preventing them if they are otherwise reliable. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Primary sources are fine, Hobit, so long as the article is based on secondary sources. I don't know what to make of the Arnold Reisman situation. This is the version of the article Reisman himself seems to want, and has tried to insert using various accounts and IPs. Problem is that much of it is unsourced. He appears to be a former academic at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. What might make him more notable is a series of books he wrote on Turkey and the Holocaust, listed here on Amazon. But when you look at the publishers, you find they're all self-published. In addition, Reisman has written a blog post on how to use the Web, including Wikipedia, to self-promote books: "My premise is that the Web has made possible a direct relationship between a book’s author, its purchaser and or reader ... What is also significant to the author, is that it’s cost free ..." This was accompanied by someone spamming his book titles into a number of WP articles.

  So at this point it becomes difficult to know what to trust, and for that reason we've been asking Fusion to construct the article out of secondary sources. Fladrif found some book reviews and posted them on the talk page, but all we get from Fusion are long posts complaining about other editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Using a school's website as evidence that a talk was given at that school is perfectly reasonable. It's a perfectly valid reliable source unless you have evidence otherwise. I'd say it even counts (a very little bit) toward WP:N. No reliable source, primary or otherwise, should be kept out of the article if it improves the article. One can certainly argue if it does improve the article and one can very easily argue this belongs at AfD (heck, it's close enough I'll do it) but I don't think we should be keeping sources out because notability hasn't been established. Hobit (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Binksternet, before you make any further comment, I kindly suggest you read the discussions, all of them, from the scratch.

First here, than here. and than here.

Otherwise, you are hurting me with these words:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

This is to me, "Rush to judgment."

@Beyond My Ken, I am truly thankful to you, that you brought it up here, even though you still try to spread doubts about me, still, I am happy, so that uninvolved editors and Administrators alike can sort things out by going to the bottom of it.

As I said all along, my words are my honor and the basis for my credibility. I would also ask the respective admins to run an IP check on me. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• You mean you wish me to give the tar baby a good poke? No, thank you. I ran into the Arnold Reisman article a while ago, months before you created your current user profile, and at the time I searched and searched to try and unearth some solid notability reference to help the article stand on its own. I failed, something I am not used to. I do not expect that Reisman has significant new material since this discussion makes no mention of any, so I do not wish to revisit the article's sourcing problems, and I especially do not wish to engage Reisman supporters in debate. I have written more than a hundred Wikipedia articles from scratch, and improved hundreds more by adding good cites, and I have never had the kind of trouble finding good sources as I had with Reisman. I made up my mind months ago that Reisman is borderline notable at best, and possibly a candidate for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, it's now nominated, for the third time. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The behavioural evidence, including amongst other things fairly clear evasion of a simple what's-your-source question, is quite compelling at this point. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Obscure answers are something of a speciality of this user; see Talk:Atilla Engin (not for the faint of heart). pablo 12:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I hadn't read that. Ouch! There's more behavioural evidence there, including another diff that tallies with Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs) and adds another brick to the pile. The continued evasion below is fairly transparent, too. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, although Arnold Reisman appears to be better acquainted with the English language. pablo 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

@Binksternet, I guess I was not clear enough. Okay. Please allow me to pass you a not-so-well-kept secret. The honorable and surely most defendable thing to do is to ask me directly, whether I am the above-mentioned subject or do I have any connections to him. Fair enough. Then, you get my answer. Either you assume good-faith and take my word for it, or, if you are not satisfied with my answer, you go ahead and file SPI on me. That's the right way to do it.

Otherwise, saying this will only damage the credibility of the one who says it:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

Again, please read this first, than this. and than this before you make any further comments. The answers are there, including about 15 secondary sources I found on the Internet, after a hard work, which all were rejected by Beyond My Ken. The reason of his rejection was, these references were about self-published books. When he said that, I stopped there, and never added any text nor references to support the subject's book claims. So simple as that.

And, saying "I made up my mind months ago that Reisman is borderline notable at best" is an opinionated statement.

Since I encountered this article I found many sources. Did you check them all?

You still have to assume good faith. It's about improving the articles. We can not be opinionated. Being impartial is a must. Don't you think so?

Yesterday is behind us. Today is a new day and you might be surprised when you check the sources I found. And here, the Board of Administrators, is the right place to examine these sources whether they can be used. Thanks. _{Fusion Is the} Future 12:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Uncle G

What "behavioural evidence?"

What are "amongst other things?"

And, "evation of" what? Please explain. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 12:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:"Evasion" - Uncle G is referring to this series of posts in which Slim Virgin asked you how you know certain personal facts about Arnold Reisman's character, and you avoided answering her question and instead issued her a "warning". The post that preceded her question was full of specific details about Reisman's life and character. What is your source for this information? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That post with details of Reisman's inner character and motivations appears enough to put this user up at SPI. If proved to be Reisman, the user will of course be indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To all uninvolved Administrators and Editors

This is incredible that I'm being framed up here, being falsely and openly incriminated.

Extended content, click to view. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1 - About Wikipedia:SPI When SlimVirgin, at the end of section 3, (while she knew that I already answered to Beyond My Ken, that I was not a sock,) asked this: Fusion, are you connected with Reisman in any way? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 2:33 pm, 16 November 2010, Tuesday (14 days ago) (UTC−2) I said this: 3.1 NO I AM NOT! I have never heard of this subject in my life until I saw the article with two tags, and desparately needed references. When the involved editor said go away, I STAYED. I even offered him to file SPI investigation on me which he never did. I gave you all necessary links, including this one, Once again, a reminder to read and see what was going on. But it seems you did NOT BOTHER to read them and see what my answers were and what was the problem which were personal attacks, incivility, threatening, disrupting...you name it. Now you crossed the line. I am very disappointed. You should know better as an administrator. I urge you to file SPI investigation on me, im-me-di-a-te-ly. I mean immediately. Thank you. Fusion Is the Future 3:15 pm, 16 November 2010, Tuesday (14 days ago) (UTC−2) More... I said this, here on the Administrators Notice Board, before yesterday: @Beyond My Ken, I am truly thankful to you, that you brought it up here, even though you still try to spread doubts about me, still, I am happy, so that uninvolved editors and Administrators alike can sort things out by going to the bottom of it. As I said all along, my words are my honor and the basis for my credibility. I would also ask the respective admins to run an IP check on me. Thank you. Fusion Is the Future 9:52 pm, 28 November 2010, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−2) Meaning, right from the beginning, I offered Beyond My Ken, SlimVirgin and here at this board, three to times to file an SPI on me. But yet, neither Beyond My Ken nor SlimVirgin did do that. Why? 2 - So called "evading" SlimVirgin’s simple question. Editor Binksternet says That post with details of Reisman's inner character and motivations appears enough to put this user up at SPI. This comment alone, demonstrates that either editor Binksternet does not understand what he/she reads, or he/she has something else in mind. I said SlimVirgin this, among other things, as a reply, at the end of this post where she earlier asked “How do you know that he's an active, energetic, non-stop workaholic?” àRequesting a broad discussion about writing a biography section in the article Mine is an observation. Please read again what I wrote. Now. Anyone who has a grip on human psychology and has analyzing skills can easily make these observations, after going through the information given on the Internet, about his books, reviews of his books, his participation of conferences, his bio and so on. You don't have to be Ronald Reagan to make these observations. I studied this subject for more than a month. As I mentioned Beyond My Ken and SlimVirgin much earlier, I found his e-mail address here and I contacted him to get his photo. This was my first ever contact. He later forwarded me an e-mail sent from UCLA confirming his BS, MS and PhD records + he forwarded me yet another e-mail sent from AAAS, confirming his Fellowship with lapses. Because I asked these info, since SV removed almost all text (including his fellowship, him being a PhD,) from the article for just to take the article to AfD. These two editors even removed his birthday and place. Go figure! All along, this subject was being treated unjustly and unfairly. Beyond My Ken did not allow any-reliable references I found, nor did he allow any text to insert, concerning his books. He said they were self published. Slim Virgin was numb all the time, despite my questions about the references I found, whether we could use them. She evaded my questions. They removed the text that he is PhD', and even the word Engineer. I wrote Reisman a letter asking these records and he forwarded these e-mail to me: From: XXX XXXXXX Dear Dr. Reisman, According to our governance records, you were elected AAAS Fellow in 1969 under Section P - Industrial Engineering. Your name is listed in the AAAS Directory of AAAS Fellows for 1977 (p. 262), 1985 (p. 211, and 1994 (p. 104). Your name does not appear in the 1998 directory, which may be consistent with your membership lapsing (?). At any rate, I hope this is sufficient info for the Wikipedia editors. Let me know if it is not. Best regards, XXX XXXXXX, PhD AAAS Archives 1200 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 202-326-6791 (If asked, I can forward the admins all these e-mails, including my first e-mail I sent to Reisman to get a photo of him.) Again, all the so called information with details of Reisman's inner character and motivations as editor Binksternet describes it, is here, at his official site and the rest are my own observations. Imagine. He is 76 years old. What does it mean? It means, you are an old man with limited energy and dreams. Most of people at his age, retired, sitting home, watching TV, gardening or doing some other-similar things. You have almost no desire to pursue anything. You have been there, done it. But this man, at the age of 76, writing one book after another, travelling around the world, lecturing. As I mentioned earlier to SW, I learned many things about this subject and his works. Everything is on the Internet. Now, all uninvolved editors and administrators, including editor Binksternet, Essential: Please read this again to understand why I chose to stay. If someone says to you : My advice is to move on and edit a different article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 1:52 pm, 26 October 2010, Tuesday (1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−2) What do you do? You say "YES SIR! Right away!" And run as fast as you can? No way. Beyond My Ken tells me to get a hike! No one can tell me that. I can edit whenever/wherever I want, as long as my edits improve the articles on Wikipedia. I seek consensus, consensus, consensus. Beyond My Ken told me to leave, I stayed, and worked even harder to find references. And SV arrived, already opinionated. She was never impartial. Because (I guess,) she, all along, thought I was a sock which I am NOT! That's why, all respective admins and editors, before making up your minds, please read through everything, every single sentence to see what's really going on here. Please read this section again, to go to the bottom of it. What am I saying, why am I saying? Here again: He was born in Poland. Escaped the Holocaust. Then came to US as a child. Naturalized. Studied engineering at UCLA and received BS in Engineering (June 1955) MS (Jan 1957) and PhD in June 1963 from the same university. (I have the confirming e-mail from UCLA, forwarded to me by Reisman. He wrote countless articles published in credible science magazines and many books, in his field, were published too. Most of these articles and all of his books can be seen in the Library of Congress’ catalogue, and in the catalogues of the libraries around the world. Because of he was a Jew who had first hand experiences with Nazi takeover and its deep destruction of the Europe, if not the entire world, which then caused WW2 and millions of people suffered-died from it, (although he was barely teenager,) he had this in him throughout the years. He had a genuine interest in the near history, despite he was an engineer. His thoughts had to come out. Everything. Once and for all. Since he was highly educated intellectual, a PhD he was, he knew how to go ahead and make research about the near history he planned to speak about. He knew how to achieve his goal. Although he was not an accredited historian, he took solid steps to be one, as every historian would do. A very active, energetic, non-stop workaholic he is, he made his home work; again, as any other historian or a researcher would follow to achieve. After all, he was a PhD wasn’t he? He went to Turkey, taught at several universities, interviewed/talked to hundreds of old people, if not thousands, who were old enough to remember the near history. He was/is, as mentioned above, a very passionate person in terms of near history. He wanted to uncover the chain of events occurred in the near history which were not spoken yet, namely, the story of the professors who escaped from Germany and came to Turkey which then they all were embraced and given positions at the universities by Turkey. This triggered a domino effect. One story followed by another. One book followed by the next one. Self published or not. He, after my humble opinion, became a historian and his works (books) in that field were/are being praised increasingly, by some of the other (notable) historians. Again, and as (I hope) you would agree with me, most of us start our lives to pursue something which we have love for, but then, years go by, we find ourselves in one field and become an expert in that very field which we could never imagine in the beginning of our journey. We are never just one thing in life. Are we? We are many things in which most of them are waiting to be discovered. This subject is lecturing, participating in conferences everywhere which are noted. To me, this individual is noted enough to have a biography. There are enough-credible and verifiable-secondary sources about him. And they keep coming. As of today, I do respect this subject, a month after I first encountered his article, desperately needed references. This was my presentation to SlimVirgin to make her understand that there was a human side of it. I did not write that to be called a Sock Now. Please read these conversations 1, 2 and 3 again. Last. I am framed up, falsely accused and incriminated. by user Beyond My Ken I am not a sock, and will never be.

Now, please go and file an SPI on me now, as I suggested to the admins, two days ago. I mean now.

@SlimVirgin, as you failed to intervene as an admin, despite my outcry, you will live with this for the rest of your life, because you passivly contributed to this false incrimination. As an editor, you made one mistake after another. You did not/never seek consensus. You just did it, as you wanted. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that for all the bluster Fusion has managed to call up, and for all the numerous words that he has posted, he still has not answered the straight-forward question: What is your source for the personal information on Arnold Reisman that you posted?. May I suggest that before he writes another screed, he answer that, and that if he does not answer that, an uninvolved admin should assess what it means that an editor has information about Reisman's character and activities that he's unwilling to share the source of, and is very invested in the article on Reisman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

editor assuming bad fatih

looking for some help with an editor i am working with on an article who has a habit of automatically assuming bad faith and making unfounded accusations; all contributing to a somewhat hostile editing enviroment. for instance, in this edit i am accused of "ineptly" writing the lede of the article. i didn't write the lede, i reverted it to the version that existed prior to me even editing the article. and again, in this edit, the editor removes a wikilink added by another user here and instructs me to "stop this silly linking" in the summary. i've been on the article's talk page trying to engage the user about the article, especially after they requested i do so in an edit summary, but the user didn't reply to any of my comments there. then in this edit, i attempted to show a little good faith towards the user after i had tried to fix up some of their additions by fixing refs, adding wikilinks, etc. to which the user reciprocated by removing most of the wikilinks (in other edits as well) and stating "... whilst I normally do Assume Good Faith it does rather depend on the pattern of editing by the editor concerned."[70] i'm not looking to have Hauskalainen removed from the article or anything, just trying to get them to edit cooperatively instead of adversarially as has been the case thus far. they seem to believe disagreeing about a topic is grounds to assume bad faith with other editors and treat them with hostility. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I have left a warning on their talk page. However I will be watching both of you closely. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 05:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

*shaking in his boots* :P thanks WookieInHeat (talk) 05:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm I re-wrote the lede because it did not reflect the content of the article and it made an improper suggestion. I have to say that in my opinion it really matters not very much whether you wrote the content yourself or simply re-added the old and improper content back. What you added back was not a summary of the article and that IS inappropriate for the lede. You were responsible for putting it back in the article. As for linking, I do think that there is not a person on the planet who can read English who does not know what America is, for example, or journalist, scholar or politician. Adding links for words like that in an article is very distracting. And when I put in the summary "stop this silly linking" , it was a comment for whoever added it. If that was not you, I don't see how you can think I am addressing you. That particular link was to a non-existent article and so is not helpful to the reader and just creates lots of red ink. It was not the only non-existing link that I had to delete. I do think that you are a destructive editor. Your initial recent edits to the article was to completely strip the article of references to the work of Adam Curtis whose work is highly regarded and whose 3 hour film is entirely devoted to the present culture of fear and its players. You stripped the article of much of its content (without consulting your fellow editors) and then put it up for delete, and when that did not work you proposed it for merger. That is not constructive editing, it is destructive editing. Yes, I agree that in most cases it is right to assume good faith - and with most editors I do. I also try to edit co-operatively and I make a great use of the TALK pages to discuss major changes with fellow editors. AGF is a good rule when it is appropriate. But not when it is not. Your mod to the lede is a good case in point. I have [traced here] the originator of the destructive edit which modified the lede and which I see no merit in (as it does not reflect the article) and which, as far as I can tell, makes no grammatical sense. It does seem to be the work of an editor with little interest in the topic (this is his/her only edit). This is what the version you added back says:- "Culture of fear is a term used by some among public discourse to accuse public figures of inciting fear to achieve a political end, in an attempt to alarm the audience into acceding to this accusation." We are talking about a particular kind of culture but it is not a term "used to accuse". And what is "the audience"? And what is "this accusation"? The whole sentence is meaningless. Whether you wrote it or not, I cannot understand why you added it back over the more meaningful version that I added here. It seems to me that you make wild edits for no good reason that causes a lot of work for editors like me to repair the damage you cause. And then you go off and complain when you are scolded for your actions. --Hauskalainen (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I just edit war?

Did I just edit war with this? A number of us reverted the persistent removal of content and insertion of personal opinions, then the IP got blocked, and he created new IPs to continue removing it. He also made personal attacks on my talk page, which other users reverted a number of times. When I realized I might be edit warring, I stopped editing the article. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

All you did was get others to continue it for you. Then had someone unjustifiably protect the page. Good job. I'm glad the ideals Wikipedia is build on matter so much to so many people! 174.91.1.138 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP's edits seem to border on vandalism (and the personal attacks in his/her edit summaries do not help matters), and reverting vandalism is an officially recognized exception to 3RR, so I'd say you have nothing to worry about. Kansan (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In addition, the IP editing above admits here to being the same IP editor blocked for personal attacks, so I would think another block should follow. Kansan (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If you bothered to look, you'd see it was Reaper Eternal who vandalized. What do you call it when someone unjustifiably and blindly reverts a legitimate edit? I call that vandalism. You're right that he doesn't have to worry, though, as you nerds stick together. 174.91.1.138 (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What's this one about, I thought, as I clicked on the link. Ah, Palestine! No... Hang on... Plasticine! You are edit-warring over Plasticine? Only on Wikipedia... I'd agree that the IP needs to be a little more malleable. And a lot more polite. This is a content dispute. Or at least it should be. Try talking. On the Talk page... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP may also profit from reading Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

174.91.0.0/2221 has been blocked 3 days. Blatant harassment and edit warring are not acceptable here. –MuZemike 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You might want to inform Reaper Eternal and his buddies. I'd have thought blind reverts, blocks, and protecting pages without justification might be something also unacceptable. They did it because he's one of them. Does someone have to go to the bother of creating an account and becoming an administrator just to have a chance of being listened to? If so, forget that. I've already wasted way too much time on this, and I know that you people have barely a nodding acquaintance with reason. 174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the rangeblock didn't cover it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Now it is. –MuZemike 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would say the IP may be right that the image he kept trying to remove is of "poor quality", but his behavior shouts "Troll!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Admittedly that is so, but I don't think the other side behaved any better than I did. The first several times I changed it I didn't give a reason, but even after I did it was still very quickly reverted before I even had the chance to go to the discussion page and give a more detailed justification. After that it kind of just went downhill. Someone with an account and I guess administrator priveleges has made the change I wanted anyway, though I can't help but think that if someone else with an anonymous IP had made that same change it would have been quickly reverted. 174.91.5.19 (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • It's bold-revert-discuss not bold-revert-reinstate-discuss. Uncle G (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Yes, the IP colony needed to take it to the talk page after at most 2 reverts. Edit warring is futile. It's potentially an infinite loop. Hence the reversion rules. And in this case, there is by no means a clear-cut reason for deleting the image. It's a matter of opinion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
    • The objectionable image has been replaced. Now everyone can be happy! Dlohcierekim 01:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia brings peace to Plasticine! Shalom, Salaam, and Salutations ... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm disappointed. I was hoping someone would post an illustration of plasticine porters with looking-glass ties. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat received from IP

Resolved

 – IP blocked for clearly threatening legal action. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I reveived this message from IP 81.100.64.222 which reads suspiciously like a legal threat. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Also: this seems even more like a legal threat than the above. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Suenahrme

• Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism (AfD discussion)
• Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 30

Please notice of the behavior of this user here[71] and here[72] who keeps on igniting sectarian crisis and accuses all users of wrongdoing except him/her. This user is in complete bad faith and has no respect with regards to other editors in his dealings. - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the tone of comments is inappropriate. I have left a WP:NPA notice on the users talk page. We can go from there if the behaviour continues.--Korruski^Talk 11:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, let us try to convince him/her about assuming good faith and I do not advocate any harsh action against the user as that will demoralize him/her as an editor. I agree this happens with the newcomers. I hope a third person coming in and asking the user to stop attacking will help. Thanks. - Humaliwalay (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Baiting and insults by User:Suenahrme

the User:Suenahrmehas been baiting and insulting me, refusing to have a constructive dialogue over disputed content on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Twelver Shi'ism. I have tried to point out during discussion that I'm uncomfrotable with his wordss but s/he relies on same language. I'll classify his words as personal attacks based on religion/creed. S/He during discussions at various times have used following word which imo are abusive in nature:

• false shia propaganda
• faizhaider is lying
• he is lying for sectarian reason
• do not lie
• you are lying
• only ones adding stupid garbage POV again and again are shias
• absurd and blatant lie by you faizhaider which only make you look more untrustworthy
• not using bad words except to say you are lying
• you2 just to help further your sectarian causse
• you clothe a wolf in sheeps clothes

--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 11:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the user is making personal attacks. However, per the discussion immediately above this one, I would personally prefer to wait and see if his/her behaviour changes after my warning, and then take further action if necessary. Up until now, I don't believe the user has received any warnings, so I'm not sure that an administrator action is currently required, although that may well change.--Korruski^Talk 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok! I'll wait more. Before reporting I have already given three chances, after two consecutive events of insults I gave him a chance & warned her/him by saying "But imo Suenahrme statements above are violation of comments on people rather than the article is considered disruptive and I take them as personal attack." But it seems s/he is not bothered and used same set of abuses third time, thenI reported this misbehaviour to admins. Usually I'm cool but this thing crossed my line of patience. In whole bargain I have never been personal to him (or anyone, as per my own policy I try to be general as much as it is possible) but I don't know how s/he has interpreted that I'm targeting her/him & her/his edits specifically on the article. IMO its his/her general behaviour as evident from another page Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2010 November 30 where s/he is being abusive to another user (which I came to know from the post above).--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 12:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Suenahrme has been involved in similar bashing for other user User talk:Mohebahlolbait.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 22:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. This was, however, prior to my warnings. Since my warning, I don't think he has made any problematic posts, and he has responded positively to my warnings. I will keep a close eye on him, but I don't think any further action is needed currently.--Korruski^Talk 09:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Gnangarra

i'm not sure if this is the correct forum, but am having an issue with an apparent administrator that is threatening to block me for reasons that i am completely not sure of. the issue started with an uncommented revert user:Gnangarra did on FMC Corporation here. i then reverted as the edits seemed perfectly legitimate to me and had proper references. after another cycle of reverts, he began templating me and making claims of "sockpuppetry", and "meatpuppetty", and "supporting spam", and making a "collection of lists", all of which had absolutely nothing to do with the FMC Corporation edits. the best way for me to summarise what followed, is to reference the puzzling discourse here, and here.

his latest communication to me was a threat to block me for disruptive editing unless i self-revert. this entire ordeal has been really baffling because i honestly have no idea where this guy is coming from. if i could please have an administrator step in and assist, it would very much be appreciated. --emerson7 04:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Simple I removed spam, you restored it, I advised you it was spam request you self revert you didnt so I did, you restored it again I cautioned you against spamming and acting as a proxy for the spammer now I've given you an opportunity to reconsider by either self revert or finding a alternative source. Gnangarra 05:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh by the way the person who was spamming acknowledges they were and that the site is unreliable, and that they will seek out better sourcing. Gnangarra 05:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It is very clear that the WSRW is not a reliable source: it is very open on its website about it being an advocacy group. I'd be a bit less ready to call it "spamming" but it certainly appears that these edits are inserting negative material cited to a non-neutral source. And that is problematic.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

What Mkativerata said. WSRW openly describes itself as campaigning for WS independence from Morocco. It is neither neutral or reliable. –Moondyne 06:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit war over RfC wording.

I found myself engaged in an edit war with User:Medeis at Chinese Room. So I took it to the talk page[73]. That didn't seem to be going anywhere and no other editors weighed in. So I posted an RfC [74]. Now we are edit warring over the wording of the RfC... I posted "should it be mentioned", User:Medeis has twice changed it to "should it be removed". I didn't randomly choose my words or intentionally to attempt to influence responders. Rather I was guided WP:BURDEN which states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Some assistance or guidance would be appreciated. I must admit that the editing of my talk page comments by others is something that does bother me quite a bit. My apologies if I did not post this in the right place. Dlabtot (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you guys could get a source for the Futurama episode-in-question (say at YouTube), it might help solve the dispute. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe that this is the right place for your report. Per the talk page guidelines, it seems that users should not edit other user's comments without a very good reason, but in this case (Medeis editing your comment in a way that it almost seems that he is trying to reverse your opinion) it seems disruptive, to me. The talk page guidelines also say that users should be cautious when editing other's comments, and normally stop if there is any objection. I will quote some of the text from the talk page guidelines on other's comments below:

"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request. Do not edit apparent mistaken homophone contractions in comments of others. One may only ask the poster what they meant to say.

Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection."

[|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 05:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It's very similar to the situation that resulted in my only block: an edit war that consists simply of me restoring comments I originally made and another editor deleting or changing them. A low point in my WP history that I don't want to repeat. Dlabtot (talk) 06:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I request summary judgment. The above editor seems to think he owns a section head, which has stood thus: RfC: Should the Chinese Room article mention the Futurama episode Rebirth [in the Popular culture section]? since before any of the above comments. Section heads are not personal comments. RfC's are to be neutrally worded. The material in question is in the popular culture section of the article, a fact which the above editor refuses to allow be mentioned in the RfC. Whatever admin is reading this is invited to pass summary judgment and revert my addition of [in the popular culture section] if s/he thinks it makes the RfC less neutrally worded. I find this nonsense tiresome. μηδείς (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Admins do not pass summary judgement. We have access to tools to stop people from being disruptive. Edit warring is disruptive. Doubly so on talk pages. Just stop, both of you. --Jayron32 06:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Medeis, if you acknowledge the section head read as above, why were you changing it here? [75] What was the point of that? Dayewalker (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

...because disruption is something we can "pass judgement" on. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Blatant socks, possible canvassing at AFD

I submitted three articles to AfD the other day. They are

• List of American politicians convicted of crimes
• Political scandals of the United States
• List of political sex scandals in the United States

At the AfDs, Leeroy10 (talk · contribs), an account created on the 28th, immediately voted keep on all three. Leeroy10 is a blatant sockpuppet. As all three of the AfDs have now been corrupted by a sock, I suspect other active socks may have added keep votes, or the sockmaster has also voted keep. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I suspect Leeroy10 may be a sock of Richrakh (talk · contribs). They both top posted at all three AfDs [76], and [77]... [78], and [79]... and finally [80], and [81] - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Leeroy10 is someone's sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bring in the checkusers, and maybe start a SPI? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, a number of regular eds have also posted keep. I think the nominator may be either unaware of BLP policy with respect to public figures, or trying to change it. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change a thing and I know the BLP policy. Editors can vote keep all they like, it's the sockpuppets/sockmasters I'm concerned with, poisoning the discussion and attempting to stack the vote. This thread is about socking and behavior, not whether we think the AfD is merited... Some regular editors have also voted to delete, which seems to indicate I'm not alone in my concerns. Behavioral evidence seems to point at one of the people who has worked extensively on all three of these articles, per my post supplied above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the outcome of the AfDs, Burpelson, you came here to bring up worries about a sock and it's a sock. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Gwen. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Leeroy10 and Richrakh are  Unlikely to be related at the moment. The only similarity besides MO are locations, but it's a very busy metropolitan area, so even that doesn't say much. –MuZemike 18:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that. Mind, I didn't say it was Richrakh's sock. I haven't blocked because neither the AfDs nor the project are hanging over the edge on this and I'm waiting to see what happens next. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oops, I just finished filing the SPI... if it's not needed feel free to close it. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware though, Leeroy10 is somebody's sock. Only saying. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the SPI will be able to discover the sockmaster if it's not Richrakh. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Time may tell. Let me know if you see any other accounts which are straightforwardly socky. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do. In the meantime, I note that Richrakh has also openly canvassed for support in the AfDs here [82]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

To "stop you"? How wonderful thrilling, how encyclopedic. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of this Burplenson ;) (I was the one Richrakh asked for input). Yes, he perhaps should not have messaged me for support; I will explain to him why this is considered inappropriate and that should probably be enough. Given I am the only one he has asked for help I think AGF means it is a legit request for help and there was no obvious attempt to canvas - hopefully a talk page reply from me will end that as a matter --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't think I needed to notify you of this discussion since I wasn't explicitly discussing you or making any accusations against you, only noting that Richrakh had attempted to canvass on someone's talk page. A note from you on his talk page telling him not to do this would be nice (although he's been here since 2007 so he should know about it by now). And why should I assume good faith of him when he's openly assumed bad faith of me, not only by canvassing for support but by accusing me of having some kind of puerile vendetta? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I was just being grumpy, apologies. I left him a reply on my talk page, hopefully that will serve as explanation :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Happens to the best of us. :-) - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Off-topic screed

Inappropriate personal attack, based on content dispute. AN/I is not the appropriate forum. Horologium (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
On 01:27, 5 August 2010 I posted a section on "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" titled “Random Questions” which started “I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them.” The section went on with several rethoritical questions, and ended with “As to sources, the last books I have read are The Murder of Adolph Hitler by Hugh Thomas (sort of shaky) and The Last Days of Hitler by Anton Joachimsthaler (English translation, I buy much of this).” Gwen Gale was apparently assigned me as an administrator, because at 09:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC) she replied with: ”As the article lead says,...This said, this talk page isn't a forum for talking about personal views or questions on a topic, it's meant for talking about sources and how to echo them in the text. I say this because the article seems to already cover, with thorough citations, most if not all of what you've brought up...dodgy. Gwen Gale (talk)” By this reply it appears that Gwen Gale is NOT FAMILIAR with the work of Joachimsthaler, who I have just referenced, and thinks that I am asking a personal question, not a rhetorical one. At that time I apologized, tried to explain myself, and restate my questions. At 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC) I posted” If I had read Kershaw's Nemesis Chapter 17 note 156 and Epilogue note 1 I wouldn't have wasted your time. You can't get much clearer than that. Should be required reading. Perhaps someone else should read them, and possibly edit the article. Thank you for your time.99.41.251.5 (talk)” At 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC) I posted “I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources....The source Joachimsthaler is basically an English translation of a German's analysis of 1950's post-Soviet interviews of bunker survivors. The original transcripts must be available somewhere. There are many other bunker interviews, some with questionable intent, and not all agree. Wm5200 (talk)“ Since those posts I have posted a huge amount on the talk page, much of which Gwen Gale has disputed. Much of the material I have posted I have later deleted, often because I felt that the endless conflict between Gwen Gale and myself is counterproductive to the article. Anyone who is Wiki can probably bring back any of those posts. Was I sometimes rude and argumentative? Absolutely. Was I making legitimate points which related to the article? I thought so. Did I receive effective support and encouragement by my administrator? I think not, but you judge. My main point was that Joachimsthaler had reviewed the information, and had made a solid case for positions which Kershaw backed. I repeatedly begged anyone, especially Gwen Gale, to read Joachimsthaler and Kershaw, specifically, two footnotes, I even told the pages of the footnotes. Gwen Gale clearly had not read either source. 18:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the heading “Question for Gwen Gale” , the following: ”I lost you, but I’m confused myself. It appears as though the person with the least information available is most influential on the article. My very low budget suburb is in a system which serves 225,000 people with 4 MILLION titles (numbers approximate, thanks Carol). Kershaw, Joachimsthaler, Thomas, Trevor-Roper, Beevor, Shirer, Ryan, Toland, Eberle/Uhl, Lehmann/Carroll, O’Donnell, Victor, Petrova/Watson. (Vinogradov hit a snag, reordered). These are books which I have had in my possession and read parts of since Aug 2010. I can understand if others do not have access to the same resources, but I think that should be addressed. If someone does not have access to two footnotes which are critical in a discussion, that also should be addressed...I know that this is P.O.V., and that I am personally involved. But I can not help but believe that this article has problems with it’s process.Wm5200 (talk)'" On 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Gwen Gale posted “For starters, the Russian autopsy bore overwhelming evidence he not only shot himself, but bit down on a cyanide capsule. Gwen Gale (talk)”. By this post it is clear to anyone familiar with either Joachimsthaler or Kershaw that Gwen Gale is still not familiar with either work. Joachimsthaler was first referenced by me at 0127 5 August 2010 and Kershaw was referenced by me at 17:48 6 August 2010, and I believe that they were both on the articles reference before that. Still, on 22:02 11 November 2010, Gwen Gale was apparently unaware of any of the content of either book, and was making posts as if they didn't exist. At 02:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC) I posted, under the title “Gwen Gale’s sources”, the following: “I think the rest of us in this discussion would benefit from knowing what Gwen Gale is using as sources, which sources that are on the article and the rest of us are familiar with is she NOT familiar with, which sources she has access to, and when she last familiarized herself with the ones which she is currently using. It appears that we are talking about a person who is "informationally challenged" relative the others in this discussion. Perhaps some arrangement might be made so she has a level of knowledge that could make her be an asset. I have both Kershaw Nemisis and Fest Hitler which I will donate, if it will bring her up to speed so this article is not impeded any more.(User:Wm5200)” At 04:59, 12 November 2010 Kierzek deleted my post “per Wiki talk page guidelines”. Okay, how do I address this continued refusal to read the source material? I have offered to mail Kershaw half way around the world so that Gwen Gale can read two crummy footnotes. But my offer is not only not taken up, but is apparently not in good faith, and even “snarky”. What can I do to get my administrator to read the source material? I would like to bring up two Wiki terms which I do not understand. It appears that Gwen Gale and I have a different “P.O.V.” about the usage of these terms. Assume Good Faith. I first thought that Gwen Gale would be a good administrator, after what I have been through, would YOU assume she is acting in good faith? Original Research. I have never been to Berlin, read any original documents, or talked to any eyewitness. The ONLY information I have about the subject is what I have read in published works. How is it that Gwen Gale finds so much of my work “O.R.”? Am I the only person who has had problems with Gwen Gale? Not if you read her contribs, and certainly not if you Google her name. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS HOW TO GET GWEN GALE TO READ ABOUT THE SUBJECT?Wm5200 (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC) Besides being massively WP:TLDNR, this is clearly a content dispute/discussion about the reliability of the source, disguised as a concern about an administrator. None of which belong here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

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

---

I do not understand. The conflict is not about the content, it is about her not reading it to start with. Where should I go when the administrator responsible for the article will not inform herself about the article. Several other persons in the conversation are familiar with the content, shouldn't the administrator know the subject she is administering? Have you read the discussion, and realize how the subject is being manipulated to reflect only Gwen Gale's postition?Wm5200 (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gwen Gale does not appear to be using admin powers to maintain that position, thus it is not a question of Gwen's admin capability and doesn't belong here. As noted, if it is a question of source reliability, that should be taken to the Reliable Sources noticeboard, if it is a question about Gwen's discussion/participation (as a regular editor) behavior, that should go to Wikiquette alerts. --MASEM (t) 17:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time. However, I doubt that you could familiarize yourself with the subject in only four minutes. I am trying to be polite. Joach and Kershaw (along with several other noted authors referenced in discussion) cast doubt on the "Russian Autopsy" in general and Lev Bezymenski's book in specific, yet Gwen Gale will not entertain such a thought, on 11 November she still is using an almost universally discredited "Russian Autopsy" as fact. I do not see how she is qualified to administer the discussion. Anyone who will read Kershaw's two footnotes will see the problems with her position. We are not disputing Kershaw, she won't even read him!Wm5200 (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You are confused about how Wikipedia works, Wm5200. There is no "administrator responsible for the article". Agreement regarding content disputes is reached by consensus on the talk page of the article. The role of administrators is to enforce Wikipedia's agreed policies. David Biddulph (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

David is correct, Wm5200, but he understates your apparent misunderstanding. Not only is there no "administrator responsible for the article", you have not had an administrator "assigned to you" and no such assignments exist. Furthermore, no editor can demand that another editor carry out a reading assignment before editing or engaging in discussion, thus your view on what "should be required reading" is of no particular consequence. Right now you are engaged in a content dispute and a dispute over the reliability of a source, which is not what this noticeboard is for. In addition to the other avenues of dispute resolution, one of the two of you may wish to seek assistance at WP:FTN. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Admin’s volunteer for article? Does this mean that she is not assigned me, also? An admin is responsible for policy only? She appears to be controling not only policy but content as well. The apparent problem is that she is not as informed as others in the discussion. Possible solution other admin’s to look in on article? The article is not terribly attractive, there are editors, not effective admin. I am also part of problem, need way out. Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely right; that's what Steven just told you; an admin is not "assigned" to an individual editor. You say "I am also part of problem, need way out"; your way out is to accept the consensus reached by other editors, or otherwise to follow the processes defined in WP:DR. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a time lag between Steven and I. I do not dispute the consensus between the editors. I have the utmost respect for Kierzek and Farawayman. Their two days work was masterful, and greatly improved the article. I dispute Gwen Gale as an admin using her power to influence the editing, which is beyond her base of knowledge. She is beyond policy, and into content.

This is a good exit, though. I have stated my concerns, you will do with them as you wish. This is the fairest venue I’m going to find inside Wiki.Wm5200 (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have read that talk page and it seems to me that excellent and detailed work was done by the editors in analysing what the sources actually say. The page was entirely civil and hard working until the entry of Gwen Gale when she and the other editors seemed to rub each other up the wrong way somehow. But Wm5200 - as has been said above, you have misunderstood how wiki works in this regard. Gwen was not there as an admin - just an editor, giving her view on the talkpage as she is entitled to do as much as any other editor. Admins have no superior position or powers when it comes to writing articles. Their job as admins is to try and keep wiki clean, as it were, for content editors to create the encyclopaedia. Beyond that they are editors like everyone else. I note that all of your edits have been to the talkpage. I applaud the process of trying to work out the best summary of the many sources in a controversial area on the talkpage, but you are as entitled as anyone else is to actually edit the articles. There are no ranks here.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't seem to be able to find the talk:death of hitler discussion prior to 20 September. Have I misplaced the archives? Thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Where are the "Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler" posts between 8 August and 20 September?Wm5200 (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

An IP made a vandalism edit that had the effect of hiding those comments. I've reverted and it seems fine now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Does that seem suspicious to anyone else? That discussion directly relating to this thread was vandalized? Or do you think I am being paranoid? Thank you Ken.Wm5200 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You people are lamer than the League of Nations. You all know what is going on, but none have the guts to oppose her. Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead. Wm5200 (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Who is "her"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you mean Gwen Gale is the IP who made that edit? No freakin' way. I may have disagreed with Gwen Gale on some things in the past, but there's no way that I can see her doing something like that. Your paranoia (and lack of Wiki-sense) is showing. Come back when you have a clue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Wiki-sense"? Are you jolking? Still, I suppose it's more fun to live in your delusional world than my sometimes paranoid one. Who told you about clues, you certainly don't recognize them when you see them. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 09:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think you can sell me on that “vandalism” being random? Are you telling me that you think that a discussion pertaining to, and not reflecting well on, Gwen Gale should suddenly disappear at the very time this thread is dealing with just that info is mere coincidence? Do I accuse Gwen Gale of specifically pressing “return”? No, I doubt that she did. But I do believe that someone did, thinking it was in her best interest. I do wonder why these numbers keep showing up around her. I do believe that she has an alliance. Perhaps George Smiley, or Intrepid, can come out of retirement. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead." Wm5200 (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:BLOCK. If you want to stop editing, do so. We don't block on request. Also, please read WP:CABAL. This is not a conspiracy against you, and Gwen Gale is a long-standing member of Wikipedia with an excellent track record. Accusing her of this is rather silly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? User:Beeblebrox, and probably others, do block on request. Providing it's a good-faith request. Please ignore me if I've taken this out of context, I noticed the edit summary in passing but haven't had chance to read the thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Eh. Admins can do so if they wish. But it's their baby if the person changes their mind, which gets ugly sometimes. Generally, admins won't do it because either A) the user winds up coming back, often demanding their block log be cleared; or B) the user was just baiting, so they can claim how poorly treated they were. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Any time anyone who is informed on this issue wants to break in, I’m waiting. Perhaps actually reading the material, especially the closed up thing on the top, may help.

I know some Wiki are literate. Kierzek knows everything, Farawayman may be close. Why do I seem to meet the people who will not read a book?

Now, for those who won’t read, let me try once more.

1. Gwen Gale has dominated the article “Death of Adolf Hitler” for years.

2. Gwen Gale is not informed about the “Death of Adolf Hitler”. She refuses to acknowledge the work of Sir Ian Kershaw, about who Wiki itself (no books needed) says “He is regarded by many as one of the world's leading experts on Adolf Hitler and Nazi Germany and is particularly noted for his monumental biography of Hitler, which has been called "soberly objective." “. She continues to use Bezymenski, a 1968 admitted fraud, as a source over numerous other authors.

3. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, serious scholars will fix it and get stars or whatever, Wiki will be accurate, and proud.

4. Any time anyone will keep Gwen Gale away from “Death of Adolf Hitler”, I and all my posts become moot. All I have ever wanted was to get the “popular press” out of what I consider a serious subject.

"Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not helping yourself here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

“not helping yourself”? “not helping yourself”? Really? You don’t think so?

When has this ever been about me? “I am not Wiki.” First sentence I ever posted. Do you flatter yourself by thinking I want to be? For me the “mission” has always been “the article”!

When I got here the article belonged in one of Rupert Murdoch’s rags. I had read Joachimsthaler, who sounded rational, and thought he could be of some use in the article. That’s it. My whole goal in Wiki.

Since being re-buffed by “my admin” (I don’t care about the assignments), I have read virtually everything about Hitler’s Death, becoming a world expert. About someone who I find distasteful, and doesn’t really interest me. And apparently to no avail. I can not get Gwen Gale to read two footnotes. Or get out of the way. That’s all I ask.

Apparently I am the only person who thinks that possibly Gwen Gale might recluse herself from this one article, for the good of Wiki. It appears that the quality of the article is less important than the ego of one admin.

I have said before, I don’t understand, or much care, for Wiki politics. Is this just a case of “old boy network”, where no one wants to offend a “friend”, or is there an actual “Gwen Gale maffia” who scares the rest of you?

I’m still waiting for any kind of informed answer. Or are you just waiting for 24 hours to come, and archive me, out of sight, out of mind?

And many of you miss the bitter irony of my now standard closing. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Closing this; it will just go on and on and is simply a content dispute. Recommend WP:RFC as an avenue for Wm5200 to explore --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 13:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Cowards

Well, I guess that's it. Do not addres any point, just close the discussion. "Not one of your own friends. Better block me instead."Wm5200 (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

**Crickets** - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

<tumbleweed blows across the deserted vista.> LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

*snort* Sorry, what now? Fell asleep there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 14:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

See above under the heading "Off Topic Screed". Or just read WP:DEADHORSE for a more thorough explanation. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Facepalm the point of closing it was to discourage people from replying and dragging it on. Shush ;). User should be aware of the correct forum for pursuing matters. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Abusive mail thru wikipedia by user:Don Zaloog & probability of sockpuppets

Resolved

 – Indeffed and SPI filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed_Ghazi. Tijfo098 (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I have received quite disturbing mail from User:Don Zaloog, the mail was sent to me thru wikipedia. I'll classify his words as personal attacks based on religion/creed, religion, nationality. Following is the content of the mail:

To an Indian Muslim Moron:

Stop the edit wars! Stop deleting my edits and additions you biased Shia loving idiot. I demand you cease and desist from deleting my edits without any reasons, or I will report to the Wikipedia administration! Hazrat Abu Bakr was the prophet Muhammad's (صلى الله عليه وسلم‎) closest and dearest companion. Closer than Hazrat Ali. Relative or no relative. Period. Abu Bakr was the rightful successor to Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وسلم), and that is final. Ali accepted it. Every respectable person accepted it. Indeed, Ali had no greed to become caliph, he was in full agreement with the appointment of the greatest of the Sahaba: Hazrat Abu Bakr, as calioh. This fact is present in the authentic works of the great pious commentators (e.g. Ibn Kathir): Muhammad, during his last days, prayed behind Abu Bakr. This was related by Aisha, Muhammad's (صلى الله عليه وسلم‎) wife, and many other close companions. You can deny the truth, but it will not change it. Stop your fallacious statements, you wretched liar, you malevolent hypocrite. Abu Bakr was the rightful successor to the caliphate. Also, what's with the title "Sayed" in your name. Don't tell me you claim to be related to the most pious human of all time! You fully know your ancestry and your genealogy. You are of the lineage of brown Dravidians and indigenous Indians who converted to Islam upon the arrival of the great Muslim conquerors (e.g. Timur, Babar, Muhammad bin Qasim). Stop your lies, you are by no means related to the greatest of the prophets himself. In other words, stop interfering with my edits, you dummy.

With Great Contempt,

Abrar Ahmed Kissana

I don't remember having any interaction with User:Don Zaloog, on Talk:Aisha (or as matter of fact anywhere) another User:Ibn Katthir was active in the discussion. User:Don Zaloog has not done a single edit on article Aisha. IMO User:Don Zaloog, User:Ibn kathir, User:Ahmed Ghazi, User:Sahil45n, User:Filoofo, User:Zaza8675, User:Jparrott1908, User:UmHasan, User:Markajalanraya, User:Allah1100, User:Rehan45n, User:Markanegara, User:MazzyJazzy, User:Fabbo10, etc. are one and the same (or at least few of them) and an investigation for them being sockpuppet should be taken into consideration.

Please let me know if any further action from my part is required.--Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider^tc_s 21:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

User notified. «CharlieEchoTango» 21:23, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Disturbing is right, especially with all the "Peace be upon him" honorifics added after Mohummad's name. It's a racist e-mail, and the wording gives the impression that he is threatening violence (at least it gives that impression to me). Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I am looking at this person's contributions, and I mostly see attempts to add his own religious beliefs to the encyclopedia. Add that to the harassment, and I would really like to block this person. So I did. If you disagree... I respect that. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I only blocked for 31 hours, though. Now I wonder if it should have been much longer. If someone disagrees and wants to change it to indefinite... I respect that, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

If I had the tools I would block indefinitely - the user clearly has no intention of contributing constructively. – ukexpat (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In view of the statement of intent in this edit summary, I would support an indef block. Favonian (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

His userpage also contains false Wikipedia service awards ("Tutnum", etc). See the count. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef. We have no need for this vitriol, and this risks spilling over into other articles. Xavexgoem (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC) I'd do it myself, but maybe someone has another idea.

According to his userpage, he's thirteen. Perhaps we could get his mummy to spank him? Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef. Regardless of age, he's acting like a religious zealot and obviously doesn't intend to do anything except jihad. Block the clown, and let the Masqued Prophet (saw) sort him out. (Note: This user is not particularly religious and equates all forms of overt religious zealotry and jingoism as intent to refuse to contribute in a collegial manner.) —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 00:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• I have changed the blocking to indef. I almost never block indef, but there are times when it is necessary. Given the situation, I am also changing to indef the block on editing the talk page and on email access. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• IANAA, but support indef. Saebvn (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse indef block. Has anyone taken care of the socks? Dlohcierekim 01:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Popups say "No". —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 02:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support indef- currently this user is obviously nothing but a disruptive influence and a major annoyance. But we shouldn't interpret indefinite as infinite; this user is thirteen and he might still grow up. Reyk _YO! 02:21, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Honestly, this reads like elaborate trolling to me rather than a true "13 year old jihadist". Tijfo098 (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter either way. Trolling is just as much a blockable offense as suffocating others with your beliefs. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 11:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Krishnashuraa

User:Krishnashuraa is continuing to add spam to his talk page after being blocked. Can the block be extended to the talk page? . . Mean as custard (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've warned the user in question. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 10:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If the only edits post-block have been to spam his TP up, a warning ain't gonna cut it. Blocking NTP will be more effective. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 11:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, he hasn't edited since his block. 06:09 last edit; 06:12 block. - David Biddulph (talk) 11:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Conduct of User talk:Ilvon

This user has been very active in recent days, making a significant number of unreferenced additions to a large number of articles, mostly (as far as I can tell) the common thread being individual stars (in the astronomical sense). The user has been advised not to make these kinds of changes before (and again), and by me again this morning, and now by another user today. I have reverted a dozen or so of their efforts, but there appear to be a couple of hundred at issue, not all of which I am expert to comment on. I don't think the message is getting through. I will alert the user to this notification, and hopefully someone else can monitor and, if necessary, act to block - I'm going to be offline for a little while. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page comments by MickMacNee

I'd like to report harassment/stalking by User talk:MickMacNee, per his comments on my talk page. I'm not sure if he's stalking me or User:Mjroots, but in either case the stalking is unwarranted. I was blocked on 31 October 2010 for "baiting Mick" on his talk page while he was blocked (Actually, I was trying to make fun of an admin, and the whole thing backfired. I learned my lesson anyway.) Anyway, I should be able to make comments in passing about someone without having to fear that they will feel the need to comment on it. In the case with Mick, he is known for harassing other users, especially at AFDs, and has been the subject of many ANIs in the past for such harassment, and other related behavioral issues. I'd like an injunction against his posting on my talk page for any reason other than gving notices reguiered by WP such as for ANIs, and ask that he be restricted in his interctions with me on AFDs where I have posted first, allowing other users to respond to me. I'll agree to the same restrictions in return, if needed. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have modified the header of this section. Stalking is a real-world activity that involves physically following a person and threatening their well-being. You're not being stalked, and using that term to describe someone posting on your talk page when you've made reference to them is unacceptable. This is not a comment on the remainder of the report, but a correction in terminology that should routinely be enforced on this noticeboard; the term "wikistalking" was deliberately deprecated a considerable time ago because of this issue, and it is remarkably disappointing to see that regular posters on this board have forgotten it. Risker (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  That's a limited definition, and one I don't accept. Whether you call it hounding or stalking, it amounts to the same thing. it's a form of bullying, whatever you chose to call it. - BilCat (talk) 06:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  BilCat, Risker is spot-on here. I've not read any further than this in this thread, but I, too, insist that you adopt more appropriate terminology. Robert Bardo is a stalker. Mick is a chronically disruptive editor who keeps skating by being indef'd. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 06:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  Yes, you're right, I was wrong. To be honest, I was so angry when I first came here that I forgot that "stalking" was deprecated - seriously. I still disagree with the reasoning, but you are correct that it is not considered a neutral term. My apologies for it's use, and for my "defense" of it. I'll do my best not to use it again. - BilCat (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  Thank you. It is a poisonous term, and it is part of the whole toxic-wiki environment. Risker has advised that that a prohibition of its use should be enforced on this noticeboard, and I strongly support that. Users who use the term should get one warning, and then a block on any subsequent uses. Calling someone a stalker is little different than calling them a paedophile; they are both accusations of criminality and should be viewed in the same manner as leagal threats. And, no, this is not at all about neutrality. Jack Merridew 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Such an interaction ban would seem reasonable to me. You obviously both rub each other up the wrong way or whatever. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Nothing good will come from you posting on each others' talk pages. So I'd support an interaction ban. --Mkativerata (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• In agreement, an interaction ban would do nicely. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I reserve the 'right' to comment wherever and whenever my name is being mentioned, whether that user feels they have the right not to 'fear' my input or not. If that location is on a talk page of a user who does not want me there, then I reserve the 'right' to expect that they cease bandying my name about in casually incivil conversation, safe in the knowledge that I cannot respond. That is pretty much the definition of baiting right there. Infact, while we're at it, I also reserve the right not to be called a mother fucker and a stalker in edit summaries, period, in all cases the former, and at least without evidence in the latter. This ANI complaint of 'stalking' is based on one post to one talk page, where my name was being mentioned. I was not aware of any ban of myself from that talk page, neither formal or through the expressed wishes of BilCat. Based on these facts, and the fact that this report makes various oblique references to my 'past behavior' in the best tradition of poisoning what he already knows is a very viperous well for me, I think it's pretty fucking clear who is baiting who here. Based on past experience of what he does and doesn't know about EQ, I will happilly accept the most formal and complete interaction ban with this user, who cannot it seems even file an ANI report header in a neutral, non-offensive manner, on the express proviso that I have done nothing wrong wrt the bare facts of this report, and also with the exception of his rather unusual 'me first' Afd suggestion, which can only be seen as an attempt to game me off of an ongoing notability content debate. I would note however that he is in no position to be offering to stay off my talk page save for notices etc as some sort of new bargaining chip at all, that was apparently what he had already agreed to do when he was unblocked for the aformentioned baiting of me the first time round. I had no knowledge of what was arranged in that appeal, and certainly no notifications of any related consequent obligations/restrictions on me, as I already explained here and here, and which has been clarified for him by the blocking admin here, so any and all suggestions from him that I have been baiting him, are quite false. MickMacNee (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think it should be clear that this interaction ban will be imposed on a "no liability" basis. It should also be clear that, as per usual, the interaction ban means neither party can "make reference to or comment on [the other party] anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly". --Mkativerata (talk) 03:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The ban is two-ways. Also, he might've been calling you a Massey Ferguson. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

From a user who uses profanity in regular converstaion on a regulkar basis, Mick's objection to being called an "m-f" is hilarious! He's called me worse names than 2 letters and a hyphen on several occasions. As to "stalking", that's why we;re here: to address unwanted attention and harassment. Note this is not the first time he has done this,, on my talk page or on others. He even interjects himself into converstations where I'm asking for advice out of frustration at dealing with him on another page - that also appears to be both harrasment and baiting, as he did at this admin's talk page today. This sort of behavior is normal for Mick, and no one else is permitted to do thses same things to him, even inadvertantly, as my block incident shows. If the community wishes to impose a direct and indirect ban on both of us, that's their choice. I won't be watchlisting his page (and I haven't been) to see that he keeps his part of the injuction, and I wouild ask he not be permitted to watchlist mine either. Let an impartial 3rd party do that if required. - BilCat (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Massey Ferguson? That's daft. MMN meant mother-fucker. Jack Merridew 17:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to reiterate, I will most definitley not be abiding by any restriction if it is enacted in such a way that gives this person's complaints here anything other than complete dismissal as totally and utterly unfounded. I will accept an interaction ban only because it benefits me and stops me from having to be subjected to his ongoing slurs and attacks, both direct and indirect, and nothing else. Anyone is free to go and look at the archive of his block appeals I provided above, it shows pretty clearly that nobody was convinced by his allegation that there is some sort of disparity between his treatment and mine wrt the block button. Infact, considering his baiting occured while I was in the middle of being community banned without the being allowed to defend yourself part, whereas he was just sitting out a week long block for a pretty egregious violation, which would have been quickly reduced to 24 hrs had he not shot himself in the foot with this exact sort of baseless allegation, I think he's got some brass balls even suggesting it. This guy thinks I have admin friends, that's how off base he is. I have had more than my fill of people dragnetting ANI for old Mick threads just like this and then claiming they are evidence I do this, that or the other at arbcom and such like. This stirring ANI is what is real misbehaviour, not placing perfectly relevant replies on an admin's talk page when this user is making requests that he pass messages to me because he says it 'appears' I've done this or that. I will also not accept any form of ban that restricts us commenting on the same content/process pages like Afd/articles, with the exception of direct conversation, this is certainly not what I understand as the standard 'interaction ban'. MickMacNee (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

An interaction ban would not prohibit you from participating in the same discussions, such as AfDs, but it would prohibit you and BilCat from replying to each other's comments. Regarding "I will most definitley not be abiding by any restriction if it is enacted in such a way that gives this person's complaints here anything other than complete dismissal as totally and utterly unfounded.": the ban would not be enacted to give legitimacy to anything. It's no liability, for the purposes of preventing future problems without determining who may have been in the right or in the wrong in the past. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That's as I thought, although it probably needs breaking down for him in clear terms that he can refer back to, his misconceptions over policy, let alone even his basic recollections in this issue here really are that bad from my perspective. As for liability, as long as the resolution says that in crystal clear terms, I am fine with that also. And noting that he was already banned from my talk page anyway, even though I didn't even know, would also not go amiss, to give context to the above allegations and diffs. MickMacNee (talk) 05:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There he goes again, misrepresenting the truth. I think it's quite clear to anyone else why I am so frustrated with Mick. He is a bully, and anytime anyone dares to stand up to him, this is what happens. As to admin friends, HJMitchell is the one who blocked me, and then disapperared promply for 20 hours *he said he had trouble logging in, while I had to endure a 20-hour block after I stated I would not comment on Mick's page again. Blocks are supposedly not punitive, but I haven't got those 20 hours back yet. HJM also unblocked Mick while discussions were underway about lifting Mick's indefinite block. (Stated for the record, as Mick brought it up this time.) I'm a good editor, and while I have a history that shows I have a short temper, I'm generally quick to admit I'm wrong. I know I haven't behaved perfectly in this matter, and have "shot myself inthe foot" on several occasion, however inadvertanly. But Mick's bullying tactics are right here on this page for all to see! This is how he treats everyone who dares to disagree with him. The recent AFD's that he and HJMitchel have prticipated in are compltes jokes. They file an AFD on almost evert aviation accidennet article that's created, and almost all of them are kept. Yet they keep doing it, they repeat the same NOTNEWS nonsense at every AFD they participate in, and nothing changes. Mick instists on cross-examining every comment that disagrees with him to the inth degre, but it's all the same thing! The really odd thing is that Mick almost never participates in the accident AFDs were it's qute ovbious that the subject is non-notable. I can't help but think they're pushing an agenda here. If they won most of the AFDs, it would be a different story, but that's not the case. I actually stopped participating in Aviation accident AFDs completely for several weeks, then stared back while Mick was indefinitely blocked. We've had little interatcion in AFDs until today, but his showing up uninvited on my talk page set me off. I admit I shouldn't let it bother me, but it does. I'm not the only person he bullies, but I am just dumb enough to think eventually it will all catch up with him. I repeat Mick's own profane own words verbatim to HJM, and HJM immediately wanrs me, but Mick hasn't been warned for the original statement yet! I know it;s easy to tell me to just grow up, tht WP is not for the faint-hearted, blah blah blah. But seriously, who else on WP hets to say point blank that WPCIVIL doesn't apply to him if the other person is making a dumb argument! (yes, I actually have the diff on that one, if someone really cares to see it.) He admits he doesn't feel bound by WPCIVIL, and yet he's still here, bullying anyone who disagrees with him. Sorry, but yes, I'm angry and frustrated, I admit that. How long will Mick's uncivil behavior on a daily basis be allowed to continue before someone says enough is enough? Help stop him, please. - BilCat (talk) 05:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful for either party to continue to post here about each other. We've proposed a solution that both parties seem to agree to, that will have consensus support, and that will solve the problem going forward. No-one's going to get blocked here (I hope) so why bother? --Mkativerata (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You have to realize this is the last time either of us will be allowed to say this here on WP, to tell our sides of the story. Give us a little space, please. No one's going to get killed, so why not let it go a bit longer? - BilCat (talk) 06:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Please, even though this is ANI, this is an encyclopaedia not a place to tell your side of the story. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But this is ANI - there's no where else to go, as we're both giving up the right to take it to any other venue on WP, as I understand the terms. ANd we both hope something else will be done intstead of this solution. - BilCat (talk) 06:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

No probs, keep commenting on each other (or don't - your guy's choice) until the thread is closed. GoodDay (talk) 06:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, as long as it is made crystal clear, and I mean 100% indisputable, that nothing this guy has alleged in here has been proven to be true in any way, then I'm fine diddly-ine with that frankly. Not much of what he said in this latest paranoid-delusional half page rant is even remotely true tbh. I invite anyone to pick just one of the more basic facts in it, to see if it checks out, such as the allegation that me and my best buddy Mitchell are an aircrash Afd team, and hold exclusivity in nominating any and all such articles, even the ones I also supposedly never vote in?!?!?, or even that we are simply wiki-buddies generally, or even that he has unblocked me ever, rather than just restore my talk page access once that was removed as a result of this guy's activites on it. Then you will see if it's likely or not as to whether some of the stuff that would take a bit more time to verify that he alleges, might be remotely true or not. MickMacNee (talk) 06:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's irrelevant (to me) as to why you're both locking horns. That you're both locking horns is releveant, though. You both should reach a gentlemens agreement - to avoid each other & not speak of each other. GoodDay (talk) 06:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, BilCat voluntarily agreed not to interact with MMN as a condition of his unblocking. AFAIK, he has stuck to that agreement. MMN may well have been unaware of this. It is disappointing that BilCat has felt it necessary to withdraw from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun Way Flight 4412 due to MMN's continuance of his usual behaviour at AfDs. I would urge BilCat to reconsider his withdrawal from the AfD. He has as much right to participate as any other editor does. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

In the same veign as my reply to BilCat's accusations, anyone is free to go and look at that Afd, and see if Mjroot's vague insinuations here are remotely proveable (or in this case even appropriate for an admin on the ANI board) as a description of my actual contribution in that Afd. I've tried an Rfc against him to stop exactly this sort of behaviour, but it was a waste of time, and it's not hard to see where the supposedly wiki-inexperienced BilCat is learning his bad EQ habits from. I won't stoop to BilCat's level with regard to alleging who is friends with who around here, and who does what or how at Afd, but seriously, this complaint of his here was sparked by me 'butting in' to a 'conversation' between these two on his talk page about whether "Keep, just to annoy MMN" was a valid Afd vote or not? I mean seriosuly, wtf? Infact, I urge all admins to go look at that convo, you'd be hard pressed to pick out which of them was the admin, and which was the inexperienced editor. MickMacNee (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, MJR. Note that I could not tell him the agreement to stay off of his talk page, and to try to avoid conflict elsewhere, as I could not post on his page. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I will not accept these terms as stated by Mick. What I have said about Mick's actions and behavior are true, and I can show the diffs - but diffs have been shown countless times at ANIs just like this one. I'll file an RFC/U if that's what's needed to be fair to Mick concerning these "accusations", though it won't be today or tomorrow (Monday or Tuesday, NYC time), as I've never doen one before. I will agree to abide by the solution until the RFC/U is filed, and let the RFC decide on the issue from that point on, even if that is to not accept the RFC. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mick is welcome to file an RFC/U agaisnt me for my accusations if he would rather do that - it matters not to me along as both our behaviors would be reviewed. (I assmume that is how an RFC works, but some things about WP are still a mystery to me!) ARBCOM has recently declined to take up a case agaist Mick (or it's stillpending, so I think RFC/U is the next step here.) - BilCat (talk) 06:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It would save you both alot of hassle, if yas would agree to remain on opposite sides of the Wiki-street. Pluss avoid commenting on each other. GoodDay (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But that doesn't help the other people he's intimidating on a daily basis, though I'm not here today because of them. I'm not the only one he treats this way, nor are Aviation accident AFDs his only venue f intimidation - the British/Irish dispute pages are familiar with him too. But he does deserve "his day in court", as he beleives (publically at least) that I'm makeing false accusations against him. - BilCat (talk) 06:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom declined to take up the case re MMN. Partly because it was bundled in with a request to deal with the unblocking of MMN against consensus by an admin, despite several editors urging Arbcom to take up the case as it was felt that a RFC would not lead to any change in behaviour. It seems that a RFC on MMN is going to have to be made, something which I am working on atm. Mjroots (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do what ya'll think is best. GoodDay (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I will accept the terms of the restrictions, unilaterally, until the RFC/U is filed agaist Mick, as long as I'm allowed to participate in it when it is filed, or to file it myself within a certain time frame, as stipulated here. (I know Mick has seen the RFC as a threat held over his head, adn I don't ant this to be open-ended on my part.) I'll make myself availble to MJR, private communications, to help in any way that I can, if that is acceptable to the admins here. And I will unilaterally cease my comments that I ahve been making here about Mick's behavior elsewhere. Will that be acceptable? - BilCat (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I've no authority in this whole matter. How you, Mick & Mj proceed is entirely in your (your 3) hands. GoodDay (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm more inclined to propose a ban that is indefinite, where the one and only exception is to make a single appeal every six months be it to the Community or ArbCom. If each is going to refuse to get along and put aside their differences, and each is also refusing to avoid one another altogether, then these sorts of solutions are the only things that preserve everyone else's sanity against this utter rubbish.

Let's make no mistake; Bilcat's original comment, and Mjroots continuation of it, and MickMacNee's response to it...all of it is trolling. None of this reflects well on any of the three of you, and if you aren't willing to accept such a binding restriction voluntarily, then perhaps an involuntary restriction is all that is left. The apparent compulsive need to continue to inflame this dispute as much as possible to try to eliminate content opponents is utterly unhealthy. Am I the only one who is getting sick of it? At the end of the day, the trolling needs to stop...and you should voluntarily drop the sticks and move on to better things and ways of approaching certain situations. If you aren't going to do that but are trying to make assurances which mean diddly squat in the long run, then you're going to force the Community's hand on each of you through a series of sanctions and it won't be pretty. I seriously hope that it doesn't come to that and that the polite requests will get through to each one of you...well-before the new year arrives. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. You cannot brush under the carpet serious allegations like stalking, harassment, bullying and intimidation made at ANI, without a shred of evidence, with a simple wave of the magic 'you're all as bad as each other wand', or by turning the issue into something else, such as the (unsubstantiated) allegation that I am trying to 'eliminate a content opponent'. Infact, filing frivelous 'mud sticks' ANI reports is a pretty good example of what someone who was actually trying to eliminate a content opponent, would try to do. You can actually see in his original report the suggestion that I be barred from any Afd he gets to first, right? I have done nothing at these Afds except give cogent, policy backed arguments, and request that others have the common courtesy to do the same, as per the instructions. If you are really interested in sanctioning people who have made personal comment after personal comment, assumption of bad faith after assumption of bad faith, and repeated, serious, attempts to poison the well in this dispute, just like this ANI complaint, then seriously, you need look no further than BilCat and Mjroots. BilCat's vote in that latest Afd was this gem of a PERTHEM/ABF combo. I take great offence to you even suggesting that I am in any way similar to him in either Afd standards of ettiquette, general behaviour, or motive, overt or otherwise. If your broad brush summary was remotely the case by the way, why is nobody here in the least bit disturbed by the fact that one of this trio is an admin? You or the community can propose whatever sanctions it like's on me, and if the evidence doesn't support it, well, let's just say I am getting used to having to use arbitrators as my first, last, and only court of session, on this site. There is a reason why they threw out the claim that ANI is evidence of proper dispute resolution, and certain posts in this thread are a pretty good example why. I've given the conditions under which I will accept an interaction ban, BilCat is the one with the issue with it, even though he is apparently in fear of me, yet here we are, still waiting for him to substantiate this report, and with him still trying to figure out a way that he can both have me eliminated from Afd and his talk page, while still having the right to generally talk shit about me. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And yet, after all this text, I have not seen an actual explanation of why you made that snarky post in the first place. Ncmvocalist is right; from what I have seen you're all as bad as each other - almost in rotation. If no one can impress on all of you how annoying this little three-way spat is then it is not going to end well. The community seems to be roundly saying the same thing; quit slinging punches at each other, edit collegially - and if you cannot do that, stay the hell away from each other before the community just gets shot of you. Resist the temptation to rise to each other, go write something. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it might have had something to do with the fact that when I raised an Rfc/U about that admin's predeliction for making incivil comments and insinuations about me all over the pedia, in little talk page convos like that, and worse, even after his own multiple frivelous ANI reports against me had all ended in no action, because I had frankly done fuck all wrong, as many people of 'the community' he supposedly is here to serve, told him at the time, it was unsurprisingly turned around on me by editors just like BilCat, coming to the rescue of their good mate, and their shared outlook on content of course had nothing to do with that, oh no. As usual, you have to go all the way up to arbcom before you start seeing actual common sense interpretations of such obvious gamery like that. This is an admin who, having been appointed over a year ago, up to this month still didn't even know basic Afd procedural things like the fact you cannot just simply speedy withdraw a 5 day old Afd with tons of delete votes on it, just because the nominator changes their mind. I have frankly lost count of how many times he has been told that his ideas about what is and is not allowed wrt threaded discussion in afd's, and yet he was still acting only last month in the farce that was my attempted banning by Sandstein as if his views were still remotely supported or within policy, to the point where he even had the brass neck to propose them as unblock conditions! Frankly, out of the three of us, I am the one with the bigger right to feel absolutely fucked off at the utterly biased and underhanded campaign I am being subjected to, with an extremely questionable admin at the heart of it, for doing nothing more outrageous than not agreeing with them as to what is and is not 'clearly notable'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clear. My question was why you thought that a snarky reply was a reasonable response; you must have known what would happen. "I'm the victim, so a little snark is allowed" doesn't strike me as a particularly persuasive argument. I've no investment in this dispute; but from the outside it looks more than a little silly. Leave each other alone. period. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 16:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Being assused of stalking, harassment, bullying and intimidation at ANI seems "silly" to you? I'm glad you have such a positive and breezy outlook on life. I on the other hand know from bitter experience what happens when people lazily summarise ANI reports as 'well, they are both as bad as each other', even when that summary is accurate, which it isn't here. It will go into the file to be pulled out at a later date by Mjroots as evidence of "my behaviour", and surprise surprise, when the shit hits the fan and these two come for me again, suddenly people will completely forget that anybody had a bad word to say about BilCat or the admin Mjroots in this thread. I hope you stick around to see it, and I hope you remember exactly what you said here, as you watch the ignorant pile on as it gathers to a frenetic pace. MickMacNee (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the community decided to sanction all 3 of you or anything else, there's really nothing you 3 can do about it. Editing on Wikipedia is a privillage, not a right. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• I honesntly don't know if this is permitted here or should be handled elsewhere, but I must state it: I do not beleive that HJ Mitchell is neutral in respect to Mick, and would like to ask that he recuse himself from all admin actions regarding Mick, mjroots, or me, in perpetuity, for any and all issues. If he is unwilling to do that, I am willing to file an approriate appel agaisnt him seeking such restrictions. I have reason to believe that his actions have not been that of a neutral admin, but I realize now tht in previously stating that opinion, I may be handling that the wrong way by bringing it up here in my previous comments. I'm totally willing to stop that from this point on, provided I am given guidance on how to officially present my concerns to the community, and have them considered. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarification: I will stop bring up HJM's conduct in any posts, except that in pursuing restrictions against his interacting as an admin with me or Mick. - BilCat (talk) 21:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC) - in the proper venue, betiond this question itself. - BilCat (talk) 22:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This whole 'incidents' case is getting close to archiving. It doesn't look like a consensus for the intermed sanctions. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

• Back to the matter at hand, is there a consensus to impose an interaction ban on BilCat and MickMacNee? I would propose something along the lines of:

BilCat (talk · contribs) and MickMacNee (talk · contribs) are prohibited from interacting with or commenting on one another at any venue on Wikipedia and from editing each other's user talk pages for an indefinite period of time.

--HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, this is indeed agreeable & beneifical to the 2 editors-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, not that there are not issues; interaction bans do not work. I'm more interested in the RfC/U I saw referred to above. Jack Merridew 16:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Given that Arbcom were split on whether they should review Mick's behaviour and the removal of the block its a much bigger issue than an interaction ban. I understand an RfC is being raised per the Armcom discussion, so its best to move things there when its set up. The responses and the language above are indicative of a much wider issue. --Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, keep them apart if they are unable to resist their attraction, interaction bans do seem to work. The RFC is a rumor and even if created will only address the issues with one side of the dispute, this is a good start. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment There has already been a RFC which raised issues with MickMacNee's editing - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots. I can confirm that a RFC about MickMacNee is not rumour, it will happen soon; although I'd rather be spending my time editing articles on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support non-rumour ;) free tickets. Jack Merridew 19:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support If another RFC is to be pursued, pursue it by all means. But this is a sensible solution to stop obvious problems between two editors. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'm already under a restricition to not post on Mick's talk page (ANI notices excepted), and to limit direct interaction elsewhere. I've already agreed to not engage in indirect interaction until an RFC/U is filed and processed. What happens after that depends on the result of the RFC/U or similar community or ARBCOM action. I can't see limiting such appeals to once every six months, especially if an appeal is denied with comments that it be restructured and re-submitted. Further, what is the course of appeal if one of us violates these restrictions, sicn those would not be an RFC/U issue, as I understand it? These arer serious questions. - BilCat (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Then you need to understand what several users are telling you: this is not good enough and we don't find this assurance credible after seeing what has happened here.
    • The limitation on appeals is to ensure this supervision isn't moving from one venue to the appeals venues; it's to prevent any of you making excuses to interact with one another. We don't want to have to keep supervising the three of you. Should it come to the point that an appeal needs to be restructured and re-submitted as a matter of priority, the Community will amend the restriction so that you may make an extra appeal, as a one-off, to satisfy this requirement (but frankly, it is unlikely to be an issue). This is an interim measure and if either you, Mjroots or MickMacNee are unable to comply with the restriction, you would be blocked. An administrator could have blocked all of you based on the above incident; instead, we're trying this measure as a last resort before those more serious remedies. This will enable the constructive contributions from the three of you - that is, the contributions where you are not directly or indirectly interacting with MickMacNee, and the contributions where MickMacNee is not directly or indirectly interacting with you. The Community or ArbCom will amend the restriction as necessary (be it temporarily or as a long term measure) based on where the matter is at. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support interaction ban as it deals with the issue at hand without prejudice to possibly examining or RFCing other issues--Cailil ^talk 22:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support sounds like a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Not likely to work and is more likely going to lead to frustrations wish could be taken out on other editors. Best to wait for the RfC. Bjmullan (talk) 23:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The aggressive nature of the interaction is the issue and asking all parties to simply ignore each other's actions even if they are egregious is bound to be unproductive. The ongoing tendentious editing of one editor should trigger an immediate RFC and the community's resolve to follow through on positive measures to end that type of behaviour. FWiW, I realize my comments will now create a chain of voluminous debate/denial/effrontery, so be it... Bzuk (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

  'So be it'? The only tendentious behaviour here is the fact that you have for months been making poisonous commentary just like this all over the place about how it's 'high time' an Rfc was filed on me, instead of filing the Rfc yourself, or even bothering to back up your continuous accusations with a single diff, inlcuding at high visibility places like ANI, where people are not supposed to be able to get away with this shit. Why neutral admins tolerate this on this board and in those other places, considering it is definitly considered incivil behaviour if not worse (considering this thread is inronically supposed to be about harassment), is beyond me. But yet again, we come back to the point that one of the actors in this trio is an admin. Yet again, here we have an editor who seems to take his lessons on EQ from that admin, and yet there has still been zero comment in this thread in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Pretty much sums it up in that last statement, there appears to be little more to say... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2010 (UTC).
    • And the same to you. Following a poisonous and tendentious comment with another poisonous and tendentious comment. Well done. MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Still nothing new here...FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Nope, no change at all. You are still acting like a wind up merchant on the ANI board, and nope, no admin still seems to give a fuck about that. MickMacNee (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
          • The derogatory comments are just part of the MO, along with the "last worditis". FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC).
            • And alleging "MO's" without evidence, without any will to do anything about it, and in a generally tendentius and poisonous manner, and continuing and continuing that behaviour in an obvious wind up merchant manner, is what exactly? I don't give a crap about your pathetic 'itis' jibes, I am justifiably going to have the last word here, because I am sick to the back teeth of this sort of shit being tolerated as perfectly acceptable behaviour, not least on ANI of all places. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support These editors are both productive but they dont exactly bring out the best in each other. An interaction ban is likely to defuse all issues. -- ۩ Mask 13:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

User:CBM, a case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING?

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.

Policy issue to be resolved at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposal. For the rest, whether the small differences between "references" and "reflist" falls under the "observe the original style of an article unless there's good reason not to" approach is a bit How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?. For now, please stop making such changes in bulk, as there's a fair chance the Proposal will make it moot. Rd232 ^talk 10:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Ever since I replaced <references /> with {{Reflist}} on Feynman point back in January [83] (which BTW led to this discussion), User:CBM is tracking my edits, and reverts all in which I replace <references /> with {{Reflist}}, or {{Reflist}} with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} (Recent examples: [84], [85], [86], [87] led to [88], [89], [90], [91], and there are literally thousands of other articles). I know there is no Wiki guideline on whether {{Reflist}} is recommended or not, and I know WP:WIKIHOUNDING is not a rule violation per se, but this is getting ridiculous. Could someone please tell him to stop that? —bender235 (talk) 18:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

CBM has been notified. Favonian (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Bender235 is aware that our guiding principle is to not change the established style of an article, but he continues to change reference styles at his own whim. His changes are not limited to articles he is actively editing. Instead, he seems to go through random lists of articles he has never edited before, changing styles as he goes.

The most succinct response I ever received from Bender235 about this was, "That is a dumb rule I deliberately chose to ignore." [92] I am not the only person who has pointed out to Bender235 that this type of edit is inappropriate; see [93] and [94].

In any case, the underlying point here is that as long as he's permitted to make such "bold" edits, others have to be free to undo them – that's the reason that BRD works at all. The changes are not supported by any guideline; they actually go against WP:CITE's recommendation to preserve the established style. Moreover, common sense says that if there was actually consensus that <references/> should be replaced by {{reflist}} everywhere, a bot would already have done it.

I have been contributing recently at Template talk:Reflist to establish a general consensus about the right template usage, which I hope will establish more clearly whether there is a need to change the template invocations. It would be reasonable for Bender235 to stop making these changes until that discussion is settled, but he hasn't done so. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Implementing {{Reflist}} or adding that "colwidth" parameter is not "changing the established style". It is an improvement of the existing article, adding a feature that did not exist when the article was created (i.e., when its "style was established"). So by doing what I did in all those articles was following Wikipedia's one basic rule, that says "If you see something that can be improved, improve it!". In my opinion, and seemingly everyone's opinion except for CBM's, {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}} is an improvement compared to {{Reflist}} (and <references />, for that matter).

By the way, I've been roaming Wikipedia for almost 6 years, fixing minor errors on thousands of articles I had "never edited before". I didn't know I needed CBM's permission to do that. —bender235 (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The point of WP:CITE is that you should not make stylistic changes simply because you feel they are an improvement. People have discussed these templates before, and the reason that {{reflist}} is not mandatory is that there was not agreement that it should be; the same is true for the particular parameters to the template. If the change was clearly an improvement, there would be consensus for it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is reasonable. However, I would suggest that tracking and reverting edits like that is definitely a big no-no. The point of the policy you cite is to avoid pointless style disputes. If you are following Bender235 to articles purely to revert to a style (which you openly preferred) that's not really helping the matter. If he is widely making this change then address it with him (which I see has been done) then bring it to a wider forum for review. If the community says no, I imageing (AGF) that Bender235 will stop. On the issue of that policy; I've always considered the spirit of the policy to be about avoiding dispute amongst the articles contributors. Where such a change is uncontested (and so long as it is not part of a wide scale attempt to change massive numbers of articles) it should simply be taken as acceptable. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the cited example where Bender235 doesn't actually add {{reflist}} but instead modifies the column width and then you turn to <references /> is an example why tracking edits like this w/o community input doesn't work. Because you accidentally violated the policy you're citing --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:00, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So are we ever allowed to change the reference style? Does the person who adds the reference section first get to dictate how they are presented for all eternity? AniMate 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The principle at WP:CITE is that editors should respect the established style. Now if there was a change in the middle of a lot of editing, for example to make the article a GA, I wouldn't complain. But Bender235 is simply going randomly from one article to another changing the reference style. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

So the only objections to his changing of the reference styles are from people who don't think reference styles should ever be changed? From what I can see, there don't seem to be many (any?) objections from people who regularly edit the articles in question, but rather the objections come from self-appointed citation police. Apparently the objections are based on principle rather than any actual objections to the change of style, and in the absence of any objections beyond rules-lawyering, this is dumb and I'd ignore it too. AniMate 20:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, a large number of people have come to Template talk:reflist to complain about changes to the way that columns are displayed. One of the common changes that Bender235 makes is to change from a fixed column count to a flexible one. It seems, based on the discussion on the template talk page, that a consensus is forming against that change. So this is not just a matter of principle, although the principle alone is already enough to make the edits inappropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AniMate, you're right. CBM is the only one objecting the move from <references /> with {{Reflist}}. On most articles I fixed, other people actually reverted CBM's revert (e.g., [95]). Like I said, this is getting ridiculous. I have idea why CBM is acting like this. —bender235 (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Errant: I have taken it up with Bender235, as have others; see the diffs I provided. He simply ignores it when people point out his edits are inappropriate. So I have instead been discussing things at Template talk:reflist to try to find out what the actual consensus on the matter is. But in the meantime as long as Bender235 is making "bold" edits, anyone is free to undo them. I will check the diffs more carefully in the future to avoid the mistake you pointed out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion but, Carl, this one is for me obvious that reflist is much better. They are 12 references there. I am not sure if there is any policy on the number of references the page much have to use reflist but I usually use when they are many. As I wrote before, I don't have strong opinion on the subject I just made a comment of this certain edit. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no policy about it; if there was, a bot would probably have already made the change, and AWB would also make the change as part of general fixes. The reason that these things are not done already is that, in the past at least, there was never consensus for the change. After this thread was opened, though, I started a thread at WP:VPR about whether to go through and change the remaining <reflerences/> invocations. Maybe that will lead to a new consensus that will let AWB handle it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

CBM; I appreciate that you have tried to address this (I did mention that in my first post). But I think the point is that the next avenue is to bring it here and get community input on whether Bender235 can continue to make these edits (as a separate issue from whether it is a good idea or not) - if the community says no then it becomes appropriate to take the action you did. Basically what I am saying is that finding these edits to revert presents a number of problems - one example being highlighted. In addition it is somewhat against the spirit and word of the policy which indicates that citation format should be kept to avoid changing article level convention and cause unnecessary dispute. The insinuation being; it is a policy that regular page editors can cite if Bender235 comes in and makes these changes. I'm waffling, but you get my point. Perhaps some form of proposal here on AN/I now about stopping these actions in the short term and see how much support that gets? --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to propose that Bender235 and I both stop until a clear consensus is established. That seems like a good-faith resolution. If there is indeed a consensus for changing all instances of <references/> to {{reflist}}, it should become apparent pretty soon on the thread I started on WP:VPR, and I'll be happy to abide by it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Who determines whether there is consensus to use {{Reflist}} instead of <references />? And hasn't this consensus de facto been established already, since {{Reflist}} is implemented in almost 1.7 million articles? —bender235 (talk) 23:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd recommend you participate in the village pump thread. So far, the trend seems to be that people support changing the CSS for <references/> instead of replacing <references> with {{reflist}}. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment: AWB doesn't change references to reflist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware. I take that as strong evidence that there was not consensus to make the change globally, since AWB devs are usually on top of these things. However, if the style issue is resolved (by making <references/> have the same style as {{reflist}}) then the change could be added to AWB, like a template replacement, if people wanted to. That's all I was saying. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I routinely replace <references /> with {{Reflist}} whenever I am editing the article for some other reason. Does this mean I should not? Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not IMO. I do the same and consider it appropriate. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering if CBM finally recognizes the consensus here. —bender235 (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't have been changing the font size without consensus, especially on large numbers of articles. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

@Bender: you see what I mean? In any case, I will watch the VPR discussion very closely, since I think it will help clarify the issue. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It won't clarify anything, because you made it a discussion about whether the font size of <references /> should be changed. But the original question was whether a Wikipedia user is allowed to replace <references /> with {{Reflist}} (or vice versa), or whether instead the "establised style" is presented for all eternity? —bender235 (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The effect of that replacement is to change the font size of the references. Your claim is that there is agreement that the small font size is appropriate in general. If that's true, we can just change it wiki-wide and be done with it. Clearly not everyone agrees - see Gimemetoo's comment. If the consensus is that the font size is a matter of article-by-article style, then of course everyone should leave it alone. We'll see how the VPR thread turns out. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the docs for template:reflist say, "Note that there is no consensus that a small font size should always be used for references; ". I think that is an accurate statement of the consensus a couple years ago, but it is not as clear now whether that's the consenus viewpoint. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I was aware of that comment on {{Reflist}}. The question is: does "no consensus to always use it" mean "don't implemented it anywhere w/out prior discussion", like you're suggesting. I don't think so. —bender235 (talk) 14:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

(←) See e.g. Wikipedia:MOS#Stability_of_articles. It's a basic principle here that when more than one style is acceptable, editors shouldn't go around changing from one to another based on personal preference. That principle is why your widespread edits to change reference styles, in the absence of a clear consensus for the style you change to, are simply inappropriate. However I'm willing to see if there actually is a consensus for the style you are changing to, and I'll heed any such consensus when it develops. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested in your opinion on: if someone thinks that <references/> is better, do they need to ask first before converting from {{reflist}} to <references/>? If there is not a consensus in favor of {{reflist}}, would changing to <referenecs/> be inappropriate in any way? — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion everyone should be allowed to convert from {{reflist}} to <references/> and vice versa. It depends on what fits the particular article (few, long notes vs. many, short refs). But I strictly condemn the idea of an "established style", because there is no such thing on Wikipedia. —bender235 (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The MOS has said for a very long time, "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." WP:CITEHOW says, "You should follow the style already established in an article if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected." I must be seeing ghosts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

@Bender, Let me say also, that you should not be replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}} willy-nilly. Several editors have said so here. Bender's replies here seem to me to amount to just asserting that "Reflist is better". It has been explained here why you should not go around making this change. CBM is being entirely reasonable and polite. Bender, you should please participate in central discussion about whether such a change should be made wikipedia-wide, but just stop it now! --doncram (talk) 20:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Pfft. Right now the only objections to Bender's changes are not from people who object to the changes but from people who object that policy hasn't explicitly been changed to condone his actions. If he thinks he is improving the encyclopedia, he should continue to do so, not sit through an interminable community discussion to see if we might form some rough consensus with the handful of people who will participate. Generally, we ignore policy when it gets in the way of improving the encyclopedia, and I see no reason (other than people wanting more policy discussion) for him to change his actions. AniMate 22:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I would think it unlikely that we would change our policy to permit this sort of instability in article formatting--the rule to observe the original style is one of the most sensible rules in the entire MOS. Following it will eliminate this sort of conflict over trivia. If we ever do have an agreement on preferred reference style, this would beanother matter, but I doubt very much that the agreement would be for any of the existing formats. DGG ( talk ) 00:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That is true. If there's a disagreement, the original style should be preserved. However, there was absolutely no disagreement about the style change in all the articles I edited (replacing <references/> with {{reflist}}). The only one complaining was CBM, citing a rule that only applies in major disagreements. In fact, most of the time CBM had his revert reverted by the next user that came along (like [96]).

Like I said: I understand having this rule helps minimize conflict over trivia. But when there is no conflict, why prevent people from improving Wikipedia? —bender235 (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

When I undid the edits, didn't that make it clear there was disagreement, which invokes the rule to keep the established style? Isn't this thread itself "conflict" because of the changes you made? Maybe I don't "count" for some reason. Do Gimmeetoo, doncram, and DGG count? I'll point out that you re-did the same edits after posting here despite knowing that there was an objection to them. But you already knew there was a disagreement before you did them the first time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain clearly what problems you have with {{reflist}}. AniMate 06:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Animate, I think you have this backwards. If Bender is going around changing "references" to "reflist", then he is the one that has to explain what the problem with "references" is. CBM is maintaining the status quo and undoing changes that go against our "stability" MOS guideline. He is not going randomly to pages to change a long-standing "reflist" to "references". CBM is not the one that has to explain his actions, Bender is. Fram (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this the encyclopedia anyone can edit or the encyclopedia that everyone must maintain the status quo. Personally, I have no strong feelings about how reference sections should be formatted, but this idea that we must revert changes because this hasn't gone through a formal community process at the proper venue for discussion thus change is bad is frankly stupid. AniMate 10:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

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

Continued widespread style changes

The closure of the previous section was "For now, please stop making such changes in bulk, as there's a fair chance the Proposal will make it moot." However, Bender235 has continued to make the same changes, including those that would completely be covered by the proposal on VPR. For example [97]. Several people commented in the above thread that the changes are inappropriate (Fram, Gimmetoo, doncram, DGG). Could someone else point this out to Bender235? — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing this because it is not about the style. Like replace a HTML table with a wiki table is not about the style. It's about replacing a bare MediaWiki feature with a modifiable template. —bender235 (talk) 19:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bender, though I agree with you that replacing <references /> with {{Reflist}} is a positive move in general, you really ought to lay off, at the very least until Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Change to template:reflist fontsize wiki-wide? is resolved, not least because if it goes the way it looks right now, the change you're making immediately becomes neutral in terms of presentation and most reasonable objection to it is removed. In general, even if you're doing something you see as reasonable, if a bunch of editors say you should chill out, that really ought to give you pause. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't you realize that this will end like the recent Template Reflist experiment? It started when CBM reverted my replacements of {{Reflist|3}} with {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}, arguing (like he does now) that the "established style" (whatever that is) is set in stone for all eternity. I started a discussion whether flexible column numbers should be prefered over fixed, which was somehow turned into a discussion whether a fixed column input (like {{Reflist|3}}) should automatically produce a flexible column output ({{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}). That idea was implemented, and (of course!) had a number of people wondering why they don't get out what they inserted (see Template talk:Reflist#Anomalous behaviour).

It will be the same again with this bogus proposal. Once implemented, people will wonder why <references /> doesn't produce the <references /> outcome anymore, and it will get reverted. This is just a waste of time. —bender235 (talk) 19:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

@Bender235 - "It's about replacing a bare MediaWiki feature with a modifiable template.": replacing a bare feature with that same feature wrapped in a formatting template is not an improvement if it leads to no changes in output - as it won't if the Village Pump proposal succeeds, as seems likely. If that proposal is implemented and then reverted, you can restart the discussion, but in the mean time, please don't require us to start talking about editing restrictions to prevent mass implementation of trivial changes without demonstrable consensus. Rd232 ^talk 20:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, fine. But I'll guarantee that this font size change will soon get reverted, like that other Reflist change. —bender235 (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll take that bet :) The reflist change had unpredicted consequences about how it affected display on diverse screens; I don't see any comparable risks here, and there's already a draft gadget for those who prefer a larger Reference List size. Rd232 ^talk 20:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually those "consequences" were both predicted and intended, because that is the purpose of "colwidth" (the number of columns being determined by the size of screen). if you enter {{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}, that is just what you want. But when you enter {{Reflist|3}}, you want three columns, no matter the screen size. But you didn't get it after that recent Reflist modification.

It's the same with <references />. If you want small screen size, you enter {{Reflist}}, and if you don't, you use <references />. Having small fonts with <references /> will unsettle a lot of people. —bender235 (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Bender235, you have justified the change from <references/> to {{reflist}} as an "improvement" of the article. If there is actually consensus that it's an improvement, we can use that consensus to make the change wiki-wide. After all, you claimed above "CBM is the only one objecting the move from <references /> with {{Reflist}}.". If that's true, we will get consensus to make the change. But now you seem to be saying that people will object to the change. Which is it?

Rather than trying to predict whether there is consensus, I started a proposal to test what the consensus is. That seems like the best way to put the question to rest.

There was a related question about column width, whether width-based formatting is preferable to fixed-column-count formatting. The outcome of that discussion on Template talk:reflist makes it clear there is not consensus that the change to width-based formatting is an improvement. It is clear that a significant number of editors prefer the fixed-count formatting. Ergo, that style change should not be made en masse. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pandrzejczak

Resolved

 – editor and socks blocked Dlohcierekim 21:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pandrzejczak (talk · contribs) has authored Niesamowity Wyscig 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Niesamowity Wyscig 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both of which are amalgamations and blatant contrived content based on actual versions of The Amazing Race. For example, this section is a very blatant copy-paste of an older version of this section. There is no Polish language version of the TV show (it certainly has no coverage on the Polish Wikipedia) and Pandrzejczak does not realize what he has done is wrong (or I may not be explaining it clearly enough).

Basically, I don't think Pandrzejczak should be permitted to edit this project.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You know what Ryulong or whatever your "name" is i am sick of that you are like that school bully that thinks is the smartest and greatest so the one that needs to stop is you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandrzejczak (talk • contribs) 03:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just for illustrative reasons, I've taken the liberty of copy pasting from deleted and not deleted versions here.

from deleted version (Leg 3 (Finland → Kazakhstan))--

In this leg's roadblock one team member from each team had to search among 30,000 chickens for one of seven golden eggs to receive their next clue. In this leg's Fast Forward teams travel to a restaurant and eat Korduk, a local Kazakh delicacy, which includes fat from the rear end of a sheep, when they finished, that team would win the Fast Forward. In this leg's detour teams had to chose between Act Like Fools or Play Like Mad. In Act Like Fools, teams had to put on a two-person cow costume at the Almaty State Puppet Theater and travel across town to a milk stand and drink an entire glass of milk. At the bottom of the glass was the name of their next destination - the Zelyony Bazar (Green Market); they should receive their next clue in the meat section thirteen. They then had to bring either the dombra or the cow costume head with them to the Pit Stop. In Play Like Mad, teams had travel to the State Museum of National Musical Instruments and learn to play a traditional folk tune on the dombra and the shang-kobuz which later they had to repeat it ro receive their next clue.

from not deleted version (Leg 8 (India → Kazakhstan))--

The Roadblock required one team member from each team to search among 30,000 chickens for one of seven golden eggs to get their next clue. The last Fast Forward on this race had teams travel to Alasha Restaurant and eat Korduk, a local Kazakh delicacy, which includes fat from the rear end of a sheep, when they finished, that team would win the Fast Forward. The Detour was a choice between Act Like Fools or Play Like Mad. In Act Like Fools, teams had to put on a two-person cow costume at the Almaty State Puppet Theater and travel across town to a milk stand and drink an entire glass of milk. At the bottom of the glass was the name of their next destination - the Zelyony Bazar (Green Market); they should receive their next clue in the meat section there. They then had to bring either the dombra or the cow costume head with them to the Pit Stop. In Play Like Mad, teams had travel to the State Museum of National Musical Instruments and learn to play a traditional folk tune on the dombra and the shang-kobuz which they then play for locals and earn tips totalling 200 tenge (about the equivalent of $1.50) in a park to receive their next clue."

Cheers, Dlohcierekim 04:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Pandrzejczak (talk · contribs) is also Kacper95 (talk · contribs) and an anon which has also been warned several times for similar reasons. I've blocked the accounts. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Baseball Fanatic sockpuppets

Baseball62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Created Nov 22, blocked by HJMitchell on Nov 30 at 20:52 for harassment
Smiley4541 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Created about Nov 20, blocked by Jpgordon on Dec 1 at 02:26 for block evasion
66.167.61.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Dallas-based, blocked by MuZemike on Dec 1 at 14:51 for block evasion
Baseball Fanatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Created Jan 28, first entry April 1. Now blocked (see below)

Nov 20 at 20:37, Nihonjoe renamed Smiley4541 to Baseball Fanatic.[98] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

---

Two of his sockpuppets have been blocked (Baseball62 and Smiley4541 (note: usurped user), but Baseball Fanatic has not been blocked yet. Thank you. Perseus (t • c • g) 13:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, sockmasters aren't always blocked unless its deemed necessary to prevent further disruption. Maybe the admin decided it wasn't required in this case?--Korruski^Talk 14:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There's one obvious reason to block, and that is the admission that his account may have been compromised.[99] Either that point was overlooked, or there's something else going on. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I don't think he's admitting that his account may have been compromised, but that his computer (or WiFi, since he seems to have changed his story) could have been accessed, which is an attempt to explain why another user has the same ip address.--Korruski^Talk 17:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Even so, I think his current account should be indef'd "without prejudice" and he should create a start-over account. Although if his wi-fi has actually been breached, wikipedia accounts are the least of his worries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My concern: Baseball Fanatic welcomed Baseball62. He warned him too. So, he just might be him. Perseus (t • c • g) 17:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very peculiar behavior. Like he created a straw-man vandal or something. Weird. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The 3 blocks were done by 3 separate admins. I have asked them to come here and enlighten us as to what's going on, if they are at liberty to do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My (informed) guess is that they're sitting next to each other in a classroom or internet cafe or something. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the vandal, Baseball62 (talk · contribs). I don't know anything about the socking and I would guess that the other two admins are in the same position. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I need to also ask Nihonjoe, who did the renaming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

←While Jpgordon raises a valid point, I fail to see how the usernames followed by the fact that they are technically  Confirmed is simply a coincidence. I will note that one of the ranges these accounts are on are very busy with everything from serial spammers to administrators. That said, I am confident Baseball Fanatic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is a sockmaster and have blocked it as such. Tiptoety ^talk 18:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/List of people who have turned on the Oxford Street Christmas lights

Request for admin help at this AfD. No blocking or banning required. Should be obvious what the request is for when you read the most recent posts. Apologies if this should have been posted elsewhere.Dingo1729 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That sounds ridiculous. Why not just wait for the AfD to end and then figure out what needs to be done? I see no reason to close it early, unless perhaps you can get the nominator and everyone who !voted to Delete to agree with you. The closing admin should be bright enough to figure out the most appropriate action when the time comes. SnottyWong ^communicate 22:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to add fun to the mess there was a content fork AND cut/paste move issue with Oxford Street Christmas Lights and Oxford Street Christmas lights - I redirected both of those to Oxford Street#Christmas lights which is, I think, where it came from (with the list of people appended) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact I think those articles were cut/paste from this list in the first place. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 22:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

CfD continues to exceed its remit

Notice to user page of User:Explicit;

Despite a bold warning on the CfD page, Category:Music, mind and body has been summarily deleted. This has resulted (per the warning) in the entire loss of categorisation of many music articles. Similarly, the deletion of Category:Musical memes has resulted in unknown losses of musical articles and the review of this category's contents is now impossible. The delete decision seems to have been taken in response to non-specialist comment on the CfD on the validity of (a) psychological and physiological studies and applications of music and (b) the psychological theory of memes and its applicability to music. No consultation was attempted with music projects, psychology and physiology projects or contributing editors, and I consider this deletion - not on any grounds defined on the CfD pages but simply, as I stated, because a small group of CfD activists consider such matters "airy-fairy" or think some articles in those categories are unsuitable - a reportable incident, since damage has been done and work wasted for trivial reasons beyond the remit of the CfD page. I therefore request you undo these deletions pending evaluation and recategorisation of these "lost" articles, and that you engage those editors who have called for this decategorisation to decide upon and implement an alternative means of categorising these articles so that they are not completely lost to the category under which they belong. Thanks Redheylin (talk) 22:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The community has spoken. The clear consensus was delete. WP:DRV is the only place where this case can be taken, there is no point raising it here as no action will be taken because of what is on here. Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 22:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Take it to DRV - this does not require administrator intervention at this time. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I think one of the complaints that is being made is that by deleting this category is it's mucked up the "tree system" for those categories that existed below it and I think some of the concern is that this should be sorted before the category is deleted. This isn't the place to ask even for a temporary undeletion to sort that out but neither is DRV the place to discuss the wider issue as to whether this should have happened in the first place for which I would suggest WT:CfD. Dpmuk (talk) 23:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To begin, I certainly will not restore the categories. Consensus was very clear, and restoring the categories would clearly be out of process. Redheylin's assertion that the deletion of these categories "resulted in unknown losses" is misleading and untrue—Cydebot (talk · contribs) removed these categories from articles and deleted the categories, and this can be found in the bot's contributions. As stated above, administrative intervention is not required nor merited, and DRV will likely endorse the results of the two CFD discussions. — ξ^xplicit 23:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

So the real locus of complaint here is that parent categories were deleted and thereby subordinate categories were effectively undone? Or am I still not understanding the complaint? Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That was my understanding from the user's comments above but having reviewed the bot's edits that doesn't appear to be the case so I'm not equally confused. Dpmuk (talk) 23:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC) Actually no I'm not. I think what they're suggesting is that when the bot removed the articles from a category they should have automatically been added to the parent category - which makes some sense. Dpmuk (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Which applied nearly to no page, because it was such a broad category. I went through Cydebot's contributions, which start here nearly at the bottom of the page. I didn't check many, but the only page that needed the be categorized was Category:Music therapy, where Redheylin originally removed one category to add the other. Naturally, I went back and fixed that. Categories like Category:Music education and Category:Music cognition were simply added into Category:Music, mind and body without another category being removed, so no categorization was lost in these instances. — ξ^xplicit 00:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, so in this case it was rare but I can see how it may, more generally, be something worth discussing, but here is not the appropriate venue. Dpmuk (talk) 10:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

This kind of tomfoolery and constant screwing around with categories is the reason I basically don't use them. Every article needs a category. Fine. If I create a baseball article, I call it category:baseball. If I create an article about a cartoon, I call it category:cartoons. Then let the category zealots have at it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

unfortunately, people use categorization to send a message. witness the earlier removal of categories on ethnicity and the current attempt to remove the analogous articles, or the attempts to change the names of parts of a certain group of islands, or a particular area in the middle east. BBB, substitute an article on football , and you'll see the problem. what CfD needs is more attention, and a greater willingness to reverse possibly unrepresentative decisions there at Deletion Review. DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And the above two replies are perfect examples of how to positively contribute to a discussion without derailing it from the issue at hand and turning it to a completely different direction. Imagine, this thread of on specific CFD log turning into criticizing the entire CFD venue? Never. These is exactly what ANI needs in order to keep it from one day becoming a drama-infested board—let's pray that day never comes. Keep up the good work, you two. — ξ^xplicit 04:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Editors here have correctly divined the problem and the reason that I bring it here. Now that user Explicit has declined to restore the category I can take it to review, but this does not address the broader issue. I posted this[100] alert to the CfD;

ATTENTION. Nested categories have been removed from performing arts articles. Summary deletion of a category may result in complete loss of categorisation of many performing arts articles under Category:Performing arts.

Still, User:Explicit deleted. The results are plain. Check Category:Music therapy. It is no longer categorised under Category:Music. So, as User:Dpmuk and User:jclemens say; "it's mucked up the "tree system" for those categories that existed below it" and so "parent categories were deleted and thereby subordinate categories were effectively undone". The adding of the top parent category by the bot is the very least that should have been done.

However User Explicit says; "Redheylin's assertion that the deletion of these categories "resulted in unknown losses" is misleading and untrue—Cydebot (talk · contribs) removed these categories from articles and deleted the categories, and this can be found in the bot's contributions." Well, that is helpful, and the fact that an ANI has extracted this information somewhat mitigates the gross incivility of his actions and remarks. Still, User:Explicit has a clear choice - he can admit that "Music therapy" should be categorised under "Music" - and that he has therefore negligently damaged the category system - or else he can continue down the way currently favoured at CfD, of bullying, allegation and abritrary pronouncements that (perhaps) "music therapy is bullshit, it reminds me of Oprah Winfrey and you have some vested interest". I am amazed by the hostility at this page, during which I was accused of sockpuppetry, reviled, mocked and "warned" by users who simply ignored and refused to engage with facts and information put before them, many of whom appear to spend a good deal of time hanging out at CfD and voting "delete".

It has been asserted that there was a clear consensus for delete. That may appear true on a cursory inspection: a closer look shows, for example, that two such votes occurred before any explanation had been given; one said "I do not know what to put in it" and another said it was a "catch-all". I then explained that one "puts in it" articles on music also categorisable under "Human body/Physiology" or "Mind/Psychology", that there are a significant number of such articles and more are being found but that the categorisation in this interdisciplinary area is currently poor and being improved. Point answered.

I then explained about the loss of categorisation, so that three editors supported my call for renaming or recategorisation. The remainder did not respond in any way to the explanation or the warning. A "consensus" requires some broad agreement: there has been no such thing. Musicological issues were raised and dropped: I requested proposers seek the opinion of interested editors or that the music and the psychology project be consulted - nothing happened.

User:Baseballbugs is correct to call this sort of goings-on "tomfoolery" that threatens the utility of the category system. However categories have their uses; after thousands of edits I have redirect-merged dozens of duplicate or even triplicate articles and old WP:NOTDIC stubs, applied consistent orthographies to hundreds of foreign-language titles, improved see-alsos and citations, added pics, rescued orphans and untangled countless category-gaps, such as "amplifiers" under music and under electronics, with consequent improvements in cross-referencing and wikilinking, enhanced utility of categories as directories, unification of tree-structure etc. This regularly involves clearing some 300 articles from a top category like "Music" - and now I know who did it! It takes days and it's boring, and I do it because I am a teacher of these subjects and I want wikipedia to be reliable and readable and good - no other reason. I am looking for slight signs of civility from anybody who decides to tear down days of hard work. I am not finding it. I am not even getting an intelligent conversation. If CfD can do this, it's just not worth it.

User:Explicit says; "Imagine, this thread of on specific CFD log turning into criticizing the entire CFD venue? Never." But this is exactly why this is here - because this has happened before. I believe it was Category:Folk and traditional music worldwide - the dozens of articles that were left uncatgorised have still not been picked up. Weeks of work, involving the reading and referencing of every article, to unify and distinguish between "folk" and "traditional" and "world" music arbitratily so classified by editors on the ground. But CfD knew what to do about that! All folk and traditional music articles of the developing world remain uncategorised. Nobody is ready to spend days again when the work can be undone in a second for no good reason.

"Nominate categories here which violate policies or guidelines, are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant, small without potential for growth, or generally bad ideas." That's what CfD is for - and only by the widest interpretation of the last can we deal with a situation in which a group of non-specialists casually determine, say, that the discussion of "Musical memes" in psychology is meaningless and erase the concept from wikipedia with as much hostility and incivility as they can muster. I am therefore looking for a way to ensure that CfD voters do not continue to inflict such damage for reasons which go far beyond the intent of the CfD process. Redheylin (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see "bullying" or "gross incivility" in either the CFD or here, unless you consider the sarcasm above as such, which I personally find to be a stretch. I also fail to see what immediate action needs to be taken here right now. As far as I know, you clearly disagree with the category's deletion, but you also refused to discuss this with the deleting admin, instead complaining directly to ANI. Stuff like this is precisely what deletion review is for; in my opinion, if this is a mere technicality, then I'm sure something can be worked out as far as recategorization under different categories is concerned, but contesting the deletion simply because you don't like the CFD result or how CFD works is not going to get you much anywhere. –MuZemike 15:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike - You say I refused to discuss - I certainly contacted User:Explicit first, but I have also made it clear that this is not an isolated problem but an ongoing situation that requires intervention; first, that the CfD page exceeds its remit clearly stated on its page, that CfD editors seek to decide (in this case) musicological matters, second that no care is taken for the destruction of work and order caused by deletion of categories. Quite simple - is "Music therapy" classifiable under "Music" or not? User:Explicit has decided that it will not be and simply leaves others to pick up the pieces, once he has been forced to admit this is possible. I am saying this declassification is destructive, that it brings no advantage but simply damges wikipedia. There was no consensus since consensus requires that all voters have heard and considered all the arguments. Here, people did not change their vote or respond when their points were answered, voted for reasons outside CfD remit, voted without giving remits, voted then took no further interest, voted without knowing what the category was or what it contained. And at some arbitrary point, despite a civil and reasonable request for warning of impending deletion, "Music therapy" suddenly ceased to be categorised as "Music". Now, if you've got a reason in mind WHY "Music therapy" (just one example of dozens) should not be classified under "Music" - then take it to Psychology, take it to Music, but don't bring it here and don't bring it to CfD. Those pages are not for that. This action was negligent, destructive and incivil, and the perpetrator can manage nothing here but arrogant posturing and a run for cover. If this situation is not fixed, the category system will break - who wants days of work destroyed because "the name of the category sounds like Oprah Winfrey" (whatever that means)? It is entirely unacceptable - it is not what CfD is for. I did not write its remit. Redheylin (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There's really no admin intervention that can or will come in regards to this. WP:DRV is thataway, plain and simple. Tarc (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

As another user pointed out above, review cannot deal with the ongoing problem of non-policy decisions at CfD. Remember, in the case of Category:Musical memes, nothing at all was heard from any contributing editor. I pointed out that many pieces are discussed by psychologists as "memes", so the category can be populated. It was then demanded of me that I provide citations showing that all current members of the category had been so discussed, and it was widely stated that the idea was meaningless.

CfD is not there to decide upon the validity of psychological theories, nor to discuss the contents of categories, nor to demand that work be done, nor to de-categorise articles entirely. "Nominate categories here which violate policies or guidelines, are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant, small without potential for growth, or generally bad ideas." Where does it say "decide to exclude subjects you do not like, do damage and then tell others to pick up the pieces of their work"? Certainly intervention is needed on a permananent basis, to ensure this page sticks to its job. Redheylin (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a diff of my "gross incivility of his actions and remarks"? Accusations like this without providing any evidence is a clear-cut personal attack. Of my three years here, this is the first time I can recall being accused of anything near incivility, and I certainly don't appreciate this tarnishing. And yes, to reiterate, I will not restore the categories. Consensus was extremely clear and it went with "delete". As for discussions themselves, I see no bullying, threatening, nor were you accused of being a sockpuppet—the last point is being completely taken out of context. Good Olfactory simply stated that "Qwazzerman appears to be a SPA, so I'm not sure what's going on here." He did not point fingers nor accuse you (or anyone else, for that matter) of any wrongdoing, you're coming to conclusions by yourself. If you consider other editors refuting the points you made at the discussions as bullying and threats, then I don't know what to tell you. In fact, several editors did reply to your comments were not swayed by arguments. Smerus was actually quite persuasive, and that editors happens to be an editor I hardly see at CFD.

As I stated, Category:Music, mind and body only effected one page negatively. One, which I quickly fixed. Any type of merging that required more than two targets, that Category:Musical memes would have probably required, can not be done by Cydebot; it only deals with moving contents from one category to another, not one category into two or more. There's even a section at WP:CFDWM dedicated for multiple merge targets, which is done by regular editors. Any editor who was up for the task needed to "pick up the pieces" regardless.

Lastly, if this was not an isolated problem but an ongoing situation that requires intervention, why does it require admin intervention? Are regular editors not able to initiate discussions? If CFD is as broken as some claim it is, why is nothing being done about it? Why do we ignore the thousands of categories that regularly go through CFD each year with no complaints, why is CFD not broken then? The hundreds of categories created by the CFD regulars and the countless of pages being added to these categories, why does this work go unnoticed? Why is CFD only broken when the result of a discussion rubs someone the wrong way, but their completely negligence of the venue in the first place was the problem? — ξ^xplicit 08:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Strawberrywalruslane

If what this user wrote on my talk page is true, then we have a teacher who is trying to game this system. I'm wondering if a CU and rangeblock are necessary. Thoughts? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably a prank, but if they're looking for a rangeblock, then perhaps we should oblige. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that, especially if it comes up as a school IP. Here we slave to make this site a valuable resource and some idiot with a teaching credential tells his/her class to destroy and disrupt it. Great thing to teach kids. Bugs, you're the best. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) But I'm not a checkuser, so I can only offer a viewpoint. :( I still suspect (or at least hope) that this is a student prank and not an actual teacher's assignment. Some have suggested automatically blocking school IP's and only unblocking them on a case-by-case basis. That idea kind of runs counter to wikipedia principles, but it might well get the approval of school principals. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right; the account has been quiet and there haven't been any further creations of articles on phony British toys.  :) Thanks for the insight. I agree with your sentiment regarding school IPs.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know about other countries, but most UK schools teach modules on Web 2.0 in Key Stage 4 (or earlier) these days. I have seen many schemes of work that involve the teacher or the students introducing fake or false information in order to test how robust the systems are - after all, it's a clear demonstration of the concepts. Indeed, I've read lesson plans that suggest that students should introduce negative (false) information into the biography of both a very well-known and very obscure person to see how long it takes to revert; the learning target is that subtle inaccuracy often goes unnoticed whilst clear violations don't. It's something we'll have to put up with I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, some low-key vandalisms can take years to uncover. Then the fun begins, of finding out who entered it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Heck, if someone with CU privileges has a moment, please run one. If this is a school IP with an assignment such as this, we really may be faced with some problems. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I say go for it. I've read the "against Wikipedia principles argument" for years. First and foremost, though, we need to protect the Work. And I've seen mostly trouble-- years of it per IP-- from school IP's. Dlohcierekim 17:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is an extraordinary situation of an organizational campaign against the Project. Dlohcierekim 17:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hear hear! The first priority should be to serve the reading public. Hence the intentional loophole called IAR. If it does turn out to be an organized campaign, if it were me I would indeed notify the school principal and ask him to have a friendly chat with the teacher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. I'm going to formally request a CU. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:36, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've always said school-IPs should be at least soft-blocked. I have yet to see a single school-IP being used legitimately. It's gotten to the point where I can practically identify whether a new IP is from a school or not simply by the vandalism pattern. "Good Faith" or not, leaving ourselves open to this is simply stupid. School-IPs are a problem and school-IPs always will be a problem. Soft-blocking them would probably drop vandalism by a third. HalfShadow 17:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You might be where I saw that idea. Soft-blocking wouldn't totally fix the problem, but at least it would compel someone to take the time to create an ID. Although, ironically, a CU then has to be run in order to pinpoint the IP. I have actually seen an occasional useful edit from a school IP, and the fact it caught my attention suggests how rare it seems to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Indeed. Perhaps the office needs to discuss this with the appropriate school board. Dlohcierekim 17:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would start with the school principal in order to make a determination if any teacher really was the source of it. It's an area where we have to be careful, because if we make any false accusations or come on too strong, it could cause wikipedia more harm than a boatload of belligerent IP's can cause. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Slight problem there; most UK schools edit through a consortium ISP arrangement; my school has the same IP address as 347 others. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there some lesson plan that encourages this? If so, we should find it. We just went through this with Cjpmiller (talk · contribs), who was a teacher vandalizing Wikipedia as a demo. See User talk:DMacks#Hey, DMacks for the dialogue between the teacher and an admin. --John Nagle (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Checkuser note: The account is editing from a school (that is all the information I will give). Take appropriate actions as needed and as relevant to this situation. –MuZemike 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Just a heads up: since many educational IP ranges are blocked from anon editing, most lesson plans will encourage students to introduce such information as homework, i.e. they'll edit from random locations. I have to admit my surprise that numerous editors think this is an unusual situation, to be honest; working in education myself, lessons are very clear - don't tell students what happens if they edit wikis, show and encourage them to do it themselves. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment): Appears PMDrive1061 is offline. If an admin (doesn't have to be uninvolved) would put the range block in place and block the account, it would be appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fabulous. Wonderful. I wonder if any of these teachers encourage their kids to go through the neighborhood breaking windows and keying cars to see how long the owners take to fix them or to demonstrate that glass is not impervious to rocks or that automobile paint is not so durable that it can't be scratched off. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

From my personal experience, it's the teachers' cars that end up getting keyed by the students, if anything. Breaking windows, exploding mailboxes with cherry bombs, etc., that's another story. All I know is, it's those who have to repair their own property who have to pay for everything, insurance be damned. –MuZemike 07:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate talk page use

I just blanked User talk:Ryute, after having left a "notsocialnetwork" warning. User has no edits besides that talk page, and after I posted the template, I saw that some of the content (dealing with sex, underwear, and slaves) was highly inappropriate. Most of it is in Spanish and looks like a rambling sort of autobiography or blog. Anyway, there's also an email address in there, and I wonder if any of you (the ones with the powerful buttons) will have a look, to see if a. I acted appropriately and b. if the content (history) needs to be deleted entirely. Thanks in advance. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It reads like amateur porn. The major issue might be various names he brings up. Probably best to revdel the whole thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done. I've directed them to WP:OUT. If they come back and do it again a block would be warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Amateur porn? Pity I didn't have Google translate the whole thing. Thanks to both of you! Drmies (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

 Not done. All the objectionable material is still there unless someone gets rid of this revision. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Now  Done T. Canens (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:81.167.16.214

81.167.16.214 (talk · contribs) has made a number of edits that paint migrants in an extremely negative light, especially migrants to Norway (note that the IP is Norwegian), almost all their edits have been reverted, and the user has been given several warnings including for edit warring. the user consistently violates WP:3RR and WP:POV and WP:UNDUE. and fails to get consensus for these edits. the edits look suspiciously like banned SameerJaved (talk · contribs). LibStar (talk) 01:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as SJ's underlying IP. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RFPP

Hanukkah really took a beating today. Oldest unresolved threads at RFPP are 3 1/2 hours old. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All caught up now. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 07:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dianaa --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Krishnashuraa talk page self promotion

I'll just let the diffs do the talking...

diff 1

diff 2 Signed by Barts1a Suggestions/complements? Complaints and constructive criticism? 09:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Account was already indef for spam, now locked out of own talk page, latest spam rev/deleted. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Counter-revolutionary unblocked at a bad time

Alison has released User:Counter-revolutionary from his indefinite block,[101] noting the background to the block on his page: "C-R was proven to have colluded with David Lauder and co., about two years ago. While technically not a 'sock', per se, he gave access to his account to the LauderHorde and they used it to try to sink Giano's ArbCom bid." The timing of this unblock seems atrocious to me. Giano has made two ArbCom bids altogether: in 2008—attacked by David Lauder and co by means of the good offices of Counter-revolutionary—and one running now, in 2010. I suppose I needn't elaborate on what's wrong with the idea of giving Counter-revolutionary another opportunity to try to sink Giano's ArbCom bid, at a time when a little less than half of the rather brief voting period has passed (voting runs from Friday 26 November to Sunday 5 December). I have so much trouble understanding this unblock—right now? After two years, it couldn't wait another five days? — that I can only suppose I'm somehow misunderstanding what has happened. Alison, could you explain your reasoning, please? Bishonen | talk 22:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

I understand what you are saying, but how could User:Counter-revolutionary sink Giano at this juncture? Why did Alison unblock now? Dlohcierekim 22:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not familiar with the Giano incident, although Alison makes specific reference to it, but I'm not keen on the wikilawyering on that talkpage (C-R claims he was not blocked for abusing multiple accounts - indeed he was allowed to continue editing, but was blocked indefinitely and no admin would unblock for a single comment made by one of the multiple accounts which he claims was not actually him typing the words in the edit box. So there doesn't seem to be any recognition that abusing multiple accounts is bad unless you get caught doing it. I don't see why there was a refusal to come to the community with this, particularly as there wasn't even a majority on the talkpage for this action, although I totally accept that Alison was keen to avoid drama. given that the dramah llama had already arrived, I think it might have been better to take this to a wider discussion. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

• sigh - well, I was hoping for little drama here on the Counter-revolutionary case but I see Giano's already in my inbox and is upset :( I've said pretty-much everything on C-R's talk page already. C-R will not be votestacking at ArbCom, nor will he be handing the keys of the car over to User:David Lauder and his sockfarm. I'm already checkuser volunteer for the ArbCom elections and am available if there are any suspicions of votestacking. Indeed, it was I who caught the LauderHorde in the act last time, as well as Vintagekits, his counterpart on the 'other side' of the Troubles debacle. I did not choose the timing around this matter - I was made aware of it some days ago. Per process, I contacted the blocking admin from two years ago who gave his assent to unblock. C-R was not blocked for the Lauder affair. That had already been dealt with by ArbCom back then, and he was already editing again. He was blocked as he was associated with an account that made two abusive edits. Given all that, and the fact that he has never been formally banned - not even close - I certainly didn't see the need to start Troubles Arbcom II - Electric Boogaloo - nobody wants that. In short; this editor was blocked for over two years on a socking charge which he denies and which, in retrospect, was flimsy indeed. He'd already copped to the Lauder affair and it had already been dealt with. He will not be interfering with the ArbCom elections nor will he be abusing multiple accounts. I'll see that he doesn't - Alison ^❤ 04:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I reckon, with Arb-elections (and Giacomo a candidate) taking place now, this would be a great test for CR to proove himself. GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and if he tries anything, I'll be more than happy to indef block his account again & would not be unblocking - Alison ^❤ 05:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

There was a period of a few days between the request for unblocking and it being granted. Giano, certainly, was aware of the request soon after it was posted and plenty of others commented (including a number unsympathetic to C-R's request). If the coincident timing with ArbCom elections was such an obvious concern, or indeed a risk, surely on-wiki representations to that effect would have been made prior to the unblock? The fact they weren't suggests to me the "atrociousness" of this block unblock is very much in the eye of the beholder. Rockpocket 16:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I expect it does. Did you mean "this unblock"? Bishonen | talk 21:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC).

Yes, I did. Sorry if that was confusing. Rockpocket 11:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Conflicting views, on the one hand "this editor was blocked for over two years on a socking charge which he denies and which, in retrospect, was flimsy indeed" according to Alison, and CR were they they admit it. CR says that he was not blocked on the socking charge, but for a comment on Alisons talk page. --Domer48_'fenian' 08:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

All correct. He was initially blocked on the Lauder socking charge, then unblocked after a discussion on ANI. After that, some months passed then his final block was for the edit to my talk page. This final block is the one we're discussing here. The other one is done and dusted and he copped to that one already - Alison ^❤ 08:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In fact, here's the ban discussion from 2008 where User:David Lauder was community-banned (and rightly so). It should be noted that C-R was explicitly not banned and there was no consensus to ban his account. In fact, quite the opposite, and his indef block was lifted later that day - Alison ^❤ 08:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• If this is what we can expect to see entirely support unblock. I'm guessing this editor will be watched by a few for misbehaviour. Any attempt to scupper Giano is unlikely to work at this point and even attempting it is likely to be caught quickly. Blocks are preventative not punitive; better to have an editor than not where possible :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 09:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Blitz quote removed

The quoted says he was misquoted and wishes to stop receiving calls about the quote, which he gets from people reading the article. Will inform of thread.Cracked acorns (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me in the least that The Mail could get this wrong, but the quote is referenced to a... um... 'reliable' source, so I don't think that just removing it is ok. Maybe a good compromise would be to remove the name and make the quote simply 'a spokesman'. If they have since refuted the statement in a reliable source, then that information could be added as well. Either way, isn't this better off discussed on the talk page? I'm not seeing a need for admin intervention here?--Korruski^Talk 15:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh. As an issue raised by an anon claiming to be an injured party in real life from a Wikipedia article?Cracked acorns (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, ok, but it's still a content dispute regardless of who they are or claim to be. As long as they don't start making legal threats, I don't personally think there is anything an admin needs to do that an ordinary user couldn't do.--Korruski^Talk 15:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If the anon has a serious beef, they can contact WP:OTRS with some identification. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Did as you suggested above. No further contact as yet from the anon. Perhaps he thought removing and politely explaining his reasons would settle it. Not sure if the line is really worth putting back, but I'm just a passer by.Cracked acorns (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I just went to WP:OTRS so I could give the IP clear instructions on how to contact them, only to find that there are no clear instructions there. Can anyone help? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTRS suggests you go to wikipedia:contact_us, which then seems to suggest Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_problem for this sort of thing. However, if you follow that through, the answer is essentially that if they disagree with content, they should go through the same process as any other user.--Korruski^Talk 17:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

<-- I too have found frustration rather than OTRS. Dlohcierekim 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OTRS? over at commons I'm still waiting for them to act on stuff I e-mailed 2 months ago.--Crossmr (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK this is ridiculous. I know commons OTRS is backlogged on picture copyrights, but the advice we are supposed to give to people who are the subject of BLPs is to contact OTRS. I'll see if Chase me ladies is about - he works in OTRS.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

What we would do at OTRS is one of two things:

1. Tell him to discuss it on the talk page
2. Remove the quote ourselves after he complained, explain why on the talk page, and hope no-one kicks up too much of a fuss about it

In this case I think it's pretty clear: we should just remove the quote as the chap concerned says he's been misquoted. It's only polite and we can leave a record of it on the talk page - it's not as if the Oxford Mail is particularly reliable. OTRS don't really need to get involved - we're primarily for people who can't work out how to solve their problems on-wiki. Hope this helps. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

User:M12390

the aforementioned user was previously blocked for WP:NPA after warnings and acknowledgement by him still went unheeded. He came back and made another attack, following which i warned him again on his page. And he then continued to go back to an old "fixation." (ironic because he accuses me of doing so after i removed the controversial content pending consensus which was then agreed to all users on the page except him). Lihaas (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This editor's last edit was one week ago. The two diffs you present are even older than that. Even if they are personal attacks, there is very, very little that could be done at this stage that would not be punitive. Courcelles 11:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

um, the edit diffs are supposed to be older (by 2 days) from his last edit. The point he doesnt seem to learn to discuss content instead of editors.Lihaas (talk) 09:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Arnold Reisman and User:Fusion is the future

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615#Arnold Reisman book self-promotion|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive615 § Arnold Reisman book self-promotion]], and [[:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Arnold_Reisman/Archive]]

AFD discussions for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman
• Articles for deletion/Arnold Reisman (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Reisman, Arnold

• Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Ellen Reisman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• BandGwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Fusion is the future (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

The article Arnold Reisman, about a retired professor, was created by User:Ellen Reisman, and extensively expanded by User:Arnold Reisman using that account and a number of IP sockpuppets. (I believe that User Reisman confirmed his real-world identity as Arnold Reisman to OTRS, but I don't have a link for that.) After discussion on AN/I, both Reisman accounts were indef blocked for extensive self-promotion of Reisman's self-published books, which were spammed into numerous articles. Neither account has ever asked to be unblocked.

In June, an IP attempted to edit in a similar manner to User:Arnold Reisman, and was warned off, [102],[103] to be replaced by User:BandGwolf, who was also warned off. [104], [105],[106]

In September, User:Fusion is the future is created, and edits productively to jazz-related articles for almost two months, before starting to edit the Arnold Reisman article – which is totally unrealted to jazz – in a manner similar to the editing by Reisman. Once again, I warned the editor, resulting in extensive discussion in which Fusion adamantly denied being in any way connected to Reisman. [107] Fusion reaches out to admin User:Slim Virgin for assistance, [108], who examines the article and strips it, as a BLP, of all unsourced statements.

Since then, there have been numerous threads on the article's talk page and on the RSN board concerning the article. Fusion persists in attempting to add material to the article using primary sources, ignoring Slim Virgin's request for secondary sources to show the subject's notability. User:Fladrif has indicated that there are some secondary sources, reviews from reliable sources of the professor's self-published books, but Fusion has, as of yet, declined to integrate these into the article.

Uninvolved admin intervention is needed for these reasons:

• Given Fusion's attitude towards this article, his clear self-involvement in the subject, his personal reactions whenever anyone does not agree with what he wants to do, his setting up as first one editor (me) and then another (Slim Virgin) as the "bad guy" preventing him from doing what he wants to with the article, and given that the article's subject is totally disconnected from the subject area Fusion otherwise edits in (jazz), it is nearly impossible not to come to the conclusion that Fusion is in some way connected to Arnold Reisman, either as a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. Arnold Reisman (the editor) has never requested a lifting of the indef block, yet has persisted in attempting to shape the article about him through socks, and this is appears to be yet now another attempt, albeit a somewhat more Wiki-sophisticated one, to do so. An admin should decide whether the behavioral evidence is strong enough that Fusion should be indef blocked as a sock- or meatpuppet of Reisman.

• Regardless of whether Fusion is a sock- or meatpuppet or not, his behavior has become an egregious case of I didn't hear that and his framing of other editors as adversaries is uncivil, uncollegial and indicates a battleground mentality. An uninvolved admin should warn him not to continue editing in this manner.

• Finally, although the article Arnold Reisman has survived two AfDs [109],[110], the most recent one in May of this year, some determination should be made of whether it is sourced sufficiently as a BLP to be kept. If so, then it should probably be taken to AfD again, since, despite over two weeks having passed since Slim Virgin asked for secondary sources, it is still based almost entirely on primary sources, and does not appear as if it fulfills the notability requirements for subjects of this type. (I'd rather not take it to AfD until these other issues are decided.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

All named parties have been notified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the last of your comments on the subject, my thinking is that if the article were taken to AfD and deleted then it would make much of the rest of the concerns noted moot - especially if User:Fusion is the future confined themselves to editing jazz related articles. Again, if the AfD resulted in good secondary sources being located and added then the other concerns, if not moot, would be of considerably less import. What is your rationale for not moving to AfD, precisely? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess primarily that I'm involved, and that bringing it to AfD might be perceived as a tactic rather than a good faith nomination. I've no objection to filing there, if that's what folks thinks is the best thing to do. Aside from that, I had (and have) no particular objection to the existence of the article per se. This report was provoked by Fusion's most recent comment on the article talk page, which convinced me that we were on a merry-go-round that didn't show signs of stopping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

To me, Arnold Reisman seems borderline notable at best. There are others in his field more notable than he who still do not have WP articles written about them. Even so, I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked. Binksternet (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• No objection to an AfD, but to disallow primary sources in an article is inappropriate. If I'm understanding correctly then VS is wrong in preventing them if they are otherwise reliable. Hobit (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• Primary sources are fine, Hobit, so long as the article is based on secondary sources. I don't know what to make of the Arnold Reisman situation. This is the version of the article Reisman himself seems to want, and has tried to insert using various accounts and IPs. Problem is that much of it is unsourced. He appears to be a former academic at the Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio. What might make him more notable is a series of books he wrote on Turkey and the Holocaust, listed here on Amazon. But when you look at the publishers, you find they're all self-published. In addition, Reisman has written a blog post on how to use the Web, including Wikipedia, to self-promote books: "My premise is that the Web has made possible a direct relationship between a book’s author, its purchaser and or reader ... What is also significant to the author, is that it’s cost free ..." This was accompanied by someone spamming his book titles into a number of WP articles.

  So at this point it becomes difficult to know what to trust, and for that reason we've been asking Fusion to construct the article out of secondary sources. Fladrif found some book reviews and posted them on the talk page, but all we get from Fusion are long posts complaining about other editors. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Using a school's website as evidence that a talk was given at that school is perfectly reasonable. It's a perfectly valid reliable source unless you have evidence otherwise. I'd say it even counts (a very little bit) toward WP:N. No reliable source, primary or otherwise, should be kept out of the article if it improves the article. One can certainly argue if it does improve the article and one can very easily argue this belongs at AfD (heck, it's close enough I'll do it) but I don't think we should be keeping sources out because notability hasn't been established. Hobit (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Binksternet, before you make any further comment, I kindly suggest you read the discussions, all of them, from the scratch.

First here, than here. and than here.

Otherwise, you are hurting me with these words:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

This is to me, "Rush to judgment."

@Beyond My Ken, I am truly thankful to you, that you brought it up here, even though you still try to spread doubts about me, still, I am happy, so that uninvolved editors and Administrators alike can sort things out by going to the bottom of it.

As I said all along, my words are my honor and the basis for my credibility. I would also ask the respective admins to run an IP check on me. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 23:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

• You mean you wish me to give the tar baby a good poke? No, thank you. I ran into the Arnold Reisman article a while ago, months before you created your current user profile, and at the time I searched and searched to try and unearth some solid notability reference to help the article stand on its own. I failed, something I am not used to. I do not expect that Reisman has significant new material since this discussion makes no mention of any, so I do not wish to revisit the article's sourcing problems, and I especially do not wish to engage Reisman supporters in debate. I have written more than a hundred Wikipedia articles from scratch, and improved hundreds more by adding good cites, and I have never had the kind of trouble finding good sources as I had with Reisman. I made up my mind months ago that Reisman is borderline notable at best, and possibly a candidate for deletion. Binksternet (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, it's now nominated, for the third time. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The behavioural evidence, including amongst other things fairly clear evasion of a simple what's-your-source question, is quite compelling at this point. Uncle G (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

• Obscure answers are something of a speciality of this user; see Talk:Atilla Engin (not for the faint of heart). pablo 12:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I hadn't read that. Ouch! There's more behavioural evidence there, including another diff that tallies with Arnold Reisman (talk · contribs) and adds another brick to the pile. The continued evasion below is fairly transparent, too. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Perhaps, although Arnold Reisman appears to be better acquainted with the English language. pablo 00:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

@Binksternet, I guess I was not clear enough. Okay. Please allow me to pass you a not-so-well-kept secret. The honorable and surely most defendable thing to do is to ask me directly, whether I am the above-mentioned subject or do I have any connections to him. Fair enough. Then, you get my answer. Either you assume good-faith and take my word for it, or, if you are not satisfied with my answer, you go ahead and file SPI on me. That's the right way to do it.

Otherwise, saying this will only damage the credibility of the one who says it:

• "I think the solution must continue to be Whack-A-Mole, where each new meat- or sockpuppet is blocked."

Again, please read this first, than this. and than this before you make any further comments. The answers are there, including about 15 secondary sources I found on the Internet, after a hard work, which all were rejected by Beyond My Ken. The reason of his rejection was, these references were about self-published books. When he said that, I stopped there, and never added any text nor references to support the subject's book claims. So simple as that.

And, saying "I made up my mind months ago that Reisman is borderline notable at best" is an opinionated statement.

Since I encountered this article I found many sources. Did you check them all?

You still have to assume good faith. It's about improving the articles. We can not be opinionated. Being impartial is a must. Don't you think so?

Yesterday is behind us. Today is a new day and you might be surprised when you check the sources I found. And here, the Board of Administrators, is the right place to examine these sources whether they can be used. Thanks. _{Fusion Is the} Future 12:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

@Uncle G

What "behavioural evidence?"

What are "amongst other things?"

And, "evation of" what? Please explain. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 12:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Re:"Evasion" - Uncle G is referring to this series of posts in which Slim Virgin asked you how you know certain personal facts about Arnold Reisman's character, and you avoided answering her question and instead issued her a "warning". The post that preceded her question was full of specific details about Reisman's life and character. What is your source for this information? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That post with details of Reisman's inner character and motivations appears enough to put this user up at SPI. If proved to be Reisman, the user will of course be indef blocked as a sockpuppet. Binksternet (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

To all uninvolved Administrators and Editors

This is incredible that I'm being framed up here, being falsely and openly incriminated.

Extended content, click to view. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1 - About Wikipedia:SPI When SlimVirgin, at the end of section 3, (while she knew that I already answered to Beyond My Ken, that I was not a sock,) asked this: Fusion, are you connected with Reisman in any way? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 2:33 pm, 16 November 2010, Tuesday (14 days ago) (UTC−2) I said this: 3.1 NO I AM NOT! I have never heard of this subject in my life until I saw the article with two tags, and desparately needed references. When the involved editor said go away, I STAYED. I even offered him to file SPI investigation on me which he never did. I gave you all necessary links, including this one, Once again, a reminder to read and see what was going on. But it seems you did NOT BOTHER to read them and see what my answers were and what was the problem which were personal attacks, incivility, threatening, disrupting...you name it. Now you crossed the line. I am very disappointed. You should know better as an administrator. I urge you to file SPI investigation on me, im-me-di-a-te-ly. I mean immediately. Thank you. Fusion Is the Future 3:15 pm, 16 November 2010, Tuesday (14 days ago) (UTC−2) More... I said this, here on the Administrators Notice Board, before yesterday: @Beyond My Ken, I am truly thankful to you, that you brought it up here, even though you still try to spread doubts about me, still, I am happy, so that uninvolved editors and Administrators alike can sort things out by going to the bottom of it. As I said all along, my words are my honor and the basis for my credibility. I would also ask the respective admins to run an IP check on me. Thank you. Fusion Is the Future 9:52 pm, 28 November 2010, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−2) Meaning, right from the beginning, I offered Beyond My Ken, SlimVirgin and here at this board, three to times to file an SPI on me. But yet, neither Beyond My Ken nor SlimVirgin did do that. Why? 2 - So called "evading" SlimVirgin’s simple question. Editor Binksternet says That post with details of Reisman's inner character and motivations appears enough to put this user up at SPI. This comment alone, demonstrates that either editor Binksternet does not understand what he/she reads, or he/she has something else in mind. I said SlimVirgin this, among other things, as a reply, at the end of this post where she earlier asked “How do you know that he's an active, energetic, non-stop workaholic?” àRequesting a broad discussion about writing a biography section in the article Mine is an observation. Please read again what I wrote. Now. Anyone who has a grip on human psychology and has analyzing skills can easily make these observations, after going through the information given on the Internet, about his books, reviews of his books, his participation of conferences, his bio and so on. You don't have to be Ronald Reagan to make these observations. I studied this subject for more than a month. As I mentioned Beyond My Ken and SlimVirgin much earlier, I found his e-mail address here and I contacted him to get his photo. This was my first ever contact. He later forwarded me an e-mail sent from UCLA confirming his BS, MS and PhD records + he forwarded me yet another e-mail sent from AAAS, confirming his Fellowship with lapses. Because I asked these info, since SV removed almost all text (including his fellowship, him being a PhD,) from the article for just to take the article to AfD. These two editors even removed his birthday and place. Go figure! All along, this subject was being treated unjustly and unfairly. Beyond My Ken did not allow any-reliable references I found, nor did he allow any text to insert, concerning his books. He said they were self published. Slim Virgin was numb all the time, despite my questions about the references I found, whether we could use them. She evaded my questions. They removed the text that he is PhD', and even the word Engineer. I wrote Reisman a letter asking these records and he forwarded these e-mail to me: From: XXX XXXXXX Dear Dr. Reisman, According to our governance records, you were elected AAAS Fellow in 1969 under Section P - Industrial Engineering. Your name is listed in the AAAS Directory of AAAS Fellows for 1977 (p. 262), 1985 (p. 211, and 1994 (p. 104). Your name does not appear in the 1998 directory, which may be consistent with your membership lapsing (?). At any rate, I hope this is sufficient info for the Wikipedia editors. Let me know if it is not. Best regards, XXX XXXXXX, PhD AAAS Archives 1200 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 202-326-6791 (If asked, I can forward the admins all these e-mails, including my first e-mail I sent to Reisman to get a photo of him.) Again, all the so called information with details of Reisman's inner character and motivations as editor Binksternet describes it, is here, at his official site and the rest are my own observations. Imagine. He is 76 years old. What does it mean? It means, you are an old man with limited energy and dreams. Most of people at his age, retired, sitting home, watching TV, gardening or doing some other-similar things. You have almost no desire to pursue anything. You have been there, done it. But this man, at the age of 76, writing one book after another, travelling around the world, lecturing. As I mentioned earlier to SW, I learned many things about this subject and his works. Everything is on the Internet. Now, all uninvolved editors and administrators, including editor Binksternet, Essential: Please read this again to understand why I chose to stay. If someone says to you : My advice is to move on and edit a different article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 1:52 pm, 26 October 2010, Tuesday (1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−2) What do you do? You say "YES SIR! Right away!" And run as fast as you can? No way. Beyond My Ken tells me to get a hike! No one can tell me that. I can edit whenever/wherever I want, as long as my edits improve the articles on Wikipedia. I seek consensus, consensus, consensus. Beyond My Ken told me to leave, I stayed, and worked even harder to find references. And SV arrived, already opinionated. She was never impartial. Because (I guess,) she, all along, thought I was a sock which I am NOT! That's why, all respective admins and editors, before making up your minds, please read through everything, every single sentence to see what's really going on here. Please read this section again, to go to the bottom of it. What am I saying, why am I saying? Here again: He was born in Poland. Escaped the Holocaust. Then came to US as a child. Naturalized. Studied engineering at UCLA and received BS in Engineering (June 1955) MS (Jan 1957) and PhD in June 1963 from the same university. (I have the confirming e-mail from UCLA, forwarded to me by Reisman. He wrote countless articles published in credible science magazines and many books, in his field, were published too. Most of these articles and all of his books can be seen in the Library of Congress’ catalogue, and in the catalogues of the libraries around the world. Because of he was a Jew who had first hand experiences with Nazi takeover and its deep destruction of the Europe, if not the entire world, which then caused WW2 and millions of people suffered-died from it, (although he was barely teenager,) he had this in him throughout the years. He had a genuine interest in the near history, despite he was an engineer. His thoughts had to come out. Everything. Once and for all. Since he was highly educated intellectual, a PhD he was, he knew how to go ahead and make research about the near history he planned to speak about. He knew how to achieve his goal. Although he was not an accredited historian, he took solid steps to be one, as every historian would do. A very active, energetic, non-stop workaholic he is, he made his home work; again, as any other historian or a researcher would follow to achieve. After all, he was a PhD wasn’t he? He went to Turkey, taught at several universities, interviewed/talked to hundreds of old people, if not thousands, who were old enough to remember the near history. He was/is, as mentioned above, a very passionate person in terms of near history. He wanted to uncover the chain of events occurred in the near history which were not spoken yet, namely, the story of the professors who escaped from Germany and came to Turkey which then they all were embraced and given positions at the universities by Turkey. This triggered a domino effect. One story followed by another. One book followed by the next one. Self published or not. He, after my humble opinion, became a historian and his works (books) in that field were/are being praised increasingly, by some of the other (notable) historians. Again, and as (I hope) you would agree with me, most of us start our lives to pursue something which we have love for, but then, years go by, we find ourselves in one field and become an expert in that very field which we could never imagine in the beginning of our journey. We are never just one thing in life. Are we? We are many things in which most of them are waiting to be discovered. This subject is lecturing, participating in conferences everywhere which are noted. To me, this individual is noted enough to have a biography. There are enough-credible and verifiable-secondary sources about him. And they keep coming. As of today, I do respect this subject, a month after I first encountered his article, desperately needed references. This was my presentation to SlimVirgin to make her understand that there was a human side of it. I did not write that to be called a Sock Now. Please read these conversations 1, 2 and 3 again. Last. I am framed up, falsely accused and incriminated. by user Beyond My Ken I am not a sock, and will never be.

Now, please go and file an SPI on me now, as I suggested to the admins, two days ago. I mean now.

@SlimVirgin, as you failed to intervene as an admin, despite my outcry, you will live with this for the rest of your life, because you passivly contributed to this false incrimination. As an editor, you made one mistake after another. You did not/never seek consensus. You just did it, as you wanted. Thank you. _{Fusion Is the} Future 13:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that for all the bluster Fusion has managed to call up, and for all the numerous words that he has posted, he still has not answered the straight-forward question: What is your source for the personal information on Arnold Reisman that you posted?. May I suggest that before he writes another screed, he answer that, and that if he does not answer that, an uninvolved admin should assess what it means that an editor has information about Reisman's character and activities that he's unwilling to share the source of, and is very invested in the article on Reisman. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm lazy to read the whole thing but did someone commit suicide or was hurt or put in jail or something as the result of wrong info on wikipedia? If not what's all this about living with it for the rest of your life? It sounds extremely serious rather then your typical run of the mill good faith but incorrect sockpuppetry suggestion. Nil Einne (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

This was archived without action. Since there are behavioral issues still unresolved, I've restored it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)