Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • Try dispute resolution
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

---

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

Start a new discussion

Block review of SkagitRiverQueen

I just blocked SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) for one week for what I saw as her continuing harassment of Crohnie (talk · contribs). However, I'm not sure this is long enough -- it's part of a editing pattern I've been seeing for a while. Can I have some more opinions on whether the block was a) appropriate and b) the correct duration? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And once again, Sarek blocks me for what he sees as an infraction, but doesn't block the other editor (Crohnie). The inequity is glaring. In fact, I'm starting to see a pattern here - the same thing happened with my last block where even editors who aren't usually "friends" noticed the inequity in my block then. Also again, Sarek seems to be using his administrative powers to punish - which is not only *not* supposed to be the way admins operate, but something only bad admins do (at least that's what a very wise admin I am acquainted with believes). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with the block qua block (it might be shorter for a first offense, since blocks are to be preventative rather than punitive), but I generally think we should do more to enforce WP:CIVIL. I do note that when an established editor did the same thing to me (right down to the insulting language), and I complained about it, I was blocked for complaining about it, so I'm a little frustrated with the double-standard. THF (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I read through that talk page and didn't see anything that bad and certainly nothing worthy of a block. The diff you provided in the block comment may have been a little snarky, but to call it uncivil is a stretch. I don't think the real question is whether the block should be longer but whether the user should have been blocked to begin with. I vote no. PhoenixPhan (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) This account has been blocked as a probable sockpuppet created specifically for the purpose of commenting on AN/I Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't just read what's on the page, read the history, and see how many other pages she went to complaining -- including a rejected WP:AN3 report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please *do* read through the history. Please read through the history of me trying and trying and trying and trying to work with Crohnie and then read through her history of continued incilivity toward me, her personal attacks aimed at me, and he continuous false accusations lodged against me, and her repeated bad faith concerning me. And then, be sure to look at how no one does a thing about it. Oh, wait...yes, something was done. I was blocked for reacting out of frustration due to Crohnie's continued incivility, personal attacks, false accusations, and lack of good faith. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If SkagitRiverQueen is going to have comments move here then I would like to request difs for her accusations of my supposed bad faith towards her. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In isolation, I wouldn't have blocked the editor for that one edit. However given the history, it seems appropriate. Support block.Toddst1 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the history, you might have a better understanding of why I never should have been blocked - or with my block, the other editor should have also been blocked. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

LPerhaps we should look into her conflicting claim that she is the one being harassed? If she was being harassed` first then that should be seen as a mitigating circumstance for some "uncivil" words she may have SAID. This is all IF, as I dont know all the details but have seen in the past Skag actually get harassed in the past by other editors and the frustration she went through and not many listened or helped (and some were down right rude and should be ashamed of what they said). If someone is harassing someone through ACTIONS and then someone defends themselves and says some "uncivil" words because of frustration then no a block is not at all right. I also vote no on the block per PhoenixPhan. Having people ignore your complaints isnt a sign of incivility, its a sign that around here people are simply rude to those they dont like. Wikipedia is middle school when it comes to this stuff.Camelbinky (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A hearty amen, Camelbinky. You and I haven't always agreed on everything, but on this, you hit the nail smack-dab on the head (more than once). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well all of this went on after I left. The problems for me started with this second posting to me. I deleted the one above it because it was rude and I said so. She insisted on adding that in and to be honest I wouldn't have seen it, at least not immediately because Sarek had removed it. [1] I then got this one followed by [2] which I deleted after the complaint was closed. I went to Sarek to say thank you and ask for help [3]. She followed me there. I went to Lar who is aware of all the problems with SRQ. [4] The problem is SkagitRiverQueen. She has disputes where ever she goes. This can be seen by the history of her talk page. After I removed her comment she should have stopped. On my talk page titled Ted Bundy a new editor came by to talk to me about it. SRQ jumped in which the editor was apparently surprised about. I didn't even have a chance to respond to that editor before SRQ did. That editor is gone now as far as I know. SRQ bit him and I reminded her not to and pointed to the policy WP:Bite. Personally I think a week is too short because she was recently blocked for edit warring and then another day was added for a personal attack. She is not a victim here, I am. The post I made to her talk page she changed the title of to make it an attack on me. This was called 'For the record'. She accused me of following her to this article which is not true and I told her how I got there. You can see her response. That response is what I have to endure everytime we end up at the same article. I have tried to avoid her, ignore her and nothing works. She says she was at the Jeffrey R. MacDonald article first and that I followed her which is not true because I got to that article in Nov. '08 and her June '09. She is now on most of my watchlist so how am I supposed to handle all of this? Everything I do is being watched. So please look at the history of the different talkpages and articles. If you check the different boards like this one, Wikialert, edit warring and so on and put in her name you will see she brings editors to them a lot and most if not all of the time they are dismissed with no action needed. It's time to put a stop to this because I am not the only one having serious problems with this editor. Thanks for reading, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI SRQ's responses are being copied here from her talk page by User:PhoenixPhan, who ought to be indicating as much when they get transferred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And has now been blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add some difs of attacks that I've had to endure prior to all of todays activities. [5], [6], [7] (this one she accuses editors of having an agenda and other things which is why I said above that there is more to this problem), [8], [9] (here she is being rude and arguing with another editor), [10] (here are two editors that are uninvolved who tried to help and got attacked for it.), [11]. If more difs are needed please just ask me. I think these show a pattern. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the block. I'm not sure about an extension. A week seems like a good escalation from the couple of days of her last block, or at least that would be the case for most users. I can't say I'm optimistic about it helping in SRQ's particular case. Crohnie is correct about SRQ being the problem here. I've watched her jump from epic rivalry to epic rivalry. She's always battling someone, and even if she starts avoiding Crohnie for fear of being blocked, I can't see this not starting up again with a new contender. Watch her closely when this expires, I guess is all I can say. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:20, 2 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Equazcion. I've responded on her talk page, and I encourage others to look there for her further comments on this board (which she is not allowed to address here). My main concern is SRQ's continuing disparagement of Wildhartlivie when she was instructed not to comment on her, "...I have been a vocal opponent of one of her Wiki-friends' continued bad behavior in WP (including socking and socking during her block due to socking)..." WHL has observed her own admonition not to engage SRQ, and has not commented on any of these recent issues; yet there is obvious persistence here from SRQ against WHL and her "friends" like Crohnie. I unfortunately share Equazcion's pessimism and acknowledgment of the clear evidence of consistent battling. If SRQ could only concentrate on fighting vandals (which she does well) and avoiding endless arguments on (usually) small matters, there should be no need for an extension right now. I do wish she would "own up" to her errors and stop blaming others, but I can't have any effect on that. I would like to see SRQ remain as a positive contributor to WP, but certain glaring behaviors simply must change in order to avoid the seemingly constant conflicts centered around her. There are simply too many blocks and not enough admission of inappropriate behavior for this pattern to continue as it has been recently. I don't really dislike or have anything against this editor, and we have edited several of the same articles for some time. But something has obviously got to change for the future of SRQ's editing habits, because two weeks is next, and so on, and so on... Doc9871 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, we have lots of editors who are slightly abrasive, and do good work. A lot of them have a lot of friends, and as such, it seems even civility warnings are like water off a duck's back. SRQ is occasionally abrasive, and does good work, but has fewer "friends". Every time she does anything that anyone perceives as even slightly "wrong", the sharks circle until she's pushed into a corner and blows up. Even those who she tries to not interact with will then drop over for a drive-by. All I have to do is read through her talkpage and I become frustrated, so I can only imagine how she feels. This sock accusation has to have just been a peachy end to the day, and the editor who placed it there refuses to explain their actions. Yeah, she's not a perfect interactor, but crikey, if half your day is defending your right to exist... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All things being equal, an uncollegial editor is bound to have fewer "friends" than a collegial one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi! You must be new here. There are several uncollegiate editors who have survived multiple ArbComs and ANI reports precisely because they have enough friends to clog up the system. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I said "All things being equal", meaning that given two editors who are otherwise the same, except one being collegial and the other uncollegial, the former is likely to have more "friends" than the latter. The point being that bringing up SRQ's relative lack of "friends" as an argument for mitigation of her behavior doesn't really make much sense, since to some extent it's a natural result of her behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but things are never equal, so that argument doesn't hold. Lack of friends isn't a "mitigation," but it's a reason why she's getting called out while others get by with disruptive behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No argument from me that things are never "equal", or that some very uncollegial editors consistently get away with a lot of stuff, despite the furor they create. Regarding Bwilkins' comment above, if it was meant as merely an explanation of SRQ's behavior, I can accept the analysis as valid, however it appeared to me to be an argument meant to mitigate that behavior, and that I do not agree with -- to explain is not, after all, to excuse.

In any case, it seems to me that SRQ doesn't really have "friends" as such, instead she creates allies and enemies, a result of her continuing battlefield mentality, and she shifts people from one category to the other depending on how she perceives their willingness to support her without reservation. This kind of behavior is antithetical to what is supposed to be a collegial enterprise, and I'm afraid it appears to be basic to her character as expressed here, and not apt to change without some intervention more convincing than a short block. Certainly there is no indication in her current talk page comments that she realizes there is a need to try to change her behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it either that crap like this is put up, or that her talk page is constantly assaulted by childish vandals. Having edited with SRQ for many months, I can surely tell you that I don't want her to be further "punished", ostracized or banned. She does good work, and none of us are perfect by any means, but we have to abide by some pretty imperfect rules as well... Doc9871 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as having friends shouldn't excuse incivility, a lack of friends should likewise not make us any more likely to excuse it. SRQ isn't just abrasive, though, and I'm not too crazy about the implication that complaints against her must be due to people not liking her for inconsequential reasons, like some mere lack of diplomacy. I've met users who were far more abrasive in their superficial treatment of others. This is not the problem. It's much more than that. SRQ is non-collaborative, not just in the way she talks to people but in her actions. She doesn't listen to anyone who doesn't side with her, including those who are neutral and seek to mediate one of her many disputes, and she is vindictive. As the offer has been extended to many individuals who were once neutral, uninvolved, fell for SRQ's often-convincing victim act, and doubted her being the cause of these disputes (this included myself up until roughly two months ago), I invite you to pay attention to the pages she edits and try collaborating with her in the future. If this person can be turned into an editor who collaborates well even through disagreements, I will be thankful to whoever facilitates this. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:31, 2 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to still be doubt that SRQ has a problem with editors other than me here are some more difs to see. But first I want to bring this threat to everyone's attention that recently showed up "I would like to add in that all you have done is just antagonize another editor, and as such, decide to keep you under close watch. Ryou Hashimoto (talk) 12:36 pm, Today (UTC−5)" I do not know this editor at all and have no reason to understand why he felt the need to threaten me like this. Ok more difs, [12] , [13], [14], [15], [16], [17]. I also think SRQ copying over the conversations here to her talk page and attacking editors is uncalled for. She also made her own titles for them starting here, [18]. From this thread on down her page she has attacks on others with copies of this thread. She doesn't say she did anything, just that everyone else did. I am really tired of this and would appreciate it if someone would remove all of this on her talk page. There are accusations of bad faith but no difs are shown even when asked. Please, I beg you to stop all of this. Also the editor who said he was going to keep me under close watch is totally uncalled for. I am the one who has been antaganized and I show that in some of my difs. I am an editor in good standing who has all of this going on because of the friends I keep. Thank you again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

This block seems reasonable, While I have never interacted with SRQ, I have observed her interactions with others, and she strikes me as a drama queen. That wouldn't be a problem if she could get along with others, but that does not seem to be the case. RadManCF (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Duration?

Sarek of Vulcan's purpose in bringing this block here was to determine if it was appropriate, and if the duration was correct. Clearly, from the comments made here, the collective opinion is that it was an appropriate block, but there's been less discussion of whether it was the right duration. Blocks are meant to be preventitive, not punitive, so it would be reasonable to look in the present demeanor of SkagitRiverQueen for some indication that once the block runs out she will not return to the same pattern of editing that Sarek spoke of – it's been several days now, enough time for SRQ to have calmed down from the immediate reaction to being blocked, and to have reflected on what brought about the block in the first place.

Unfortunately, the available evidence seems to indicate that SRQ has little insight into what she did to be blocked, and has no intention of changing her ways. In this latest comment on her talk page, for instance, she forcefully states that she did nothing wrong, that her comments were justified and fitting, and shows that she clearly intends to continue doing exactly what she's done before. "Being honest," she says, "(even if it might hurt at the time) is a kindness" which apparently, in her mind, justifies not following basic policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

Honesty is, of course, a laudable trait, but if it's wielded without the judgment to know when to be honest and to who, when to dissemble a bit to smooth things over, and when to just say nothing at all, it's counterproductive to the smooth running of a civil community. It doesn't seem to me that SRQ has that kind of judgment, and I think it would be a mistake to allow her to ride out her block and simply start up again. Perhaps a longer block would giver her more time to reflect and come to an understanding of how saying nothing, some "white lies", and a sense for when to stop can be the lubrication that makes collegiality possible, or, if folks are uneasy about extending the block, at the very least some sort of civility parole should be imposed, to help her reign in her (apparently) uncontrollable honesty. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

SRQ confirms her sense of self-righteousness and victimization previously expressed views in her deconstruction of the above comment, and continues to give no indication that she plans on changing the way she edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Taking my own advice and striking words which may have been poorly chosen or too blunt. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone outside the conflict has actually engaged SRQ as far as her future behavior goes. I wrote an essay on this once that didn't seem to catch on at the time, but here it is anyway, if you'd like to see my thoughts: WP:EHP. In summary it's not necessarily imperative that SRQ admit she did wrong, only that she agree to specific terms for the future. If someone who she hasn't been fighting with could work that out with her, that'd probably be best. Perhaps something written up at WP:Editing restrictions would help. Equazcion ^(talk) 08:39, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Her statement that she "was never not calm about this block" strikes me as particularly worrisome.RadManCF (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To answer the question presented by this thread, I would argue that the block was not long enough. Two weeks (at least) would have been better. RadManCF (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

interaction ban no longer in effect

As a note, I had asked Wildhartlivie and SRQ to stop interacting with each other on my own recognizance (originally on pain of bringing the matter to AN/I... well it's been to AN/I more than once since then anyway). Both of them have appeared from time to time at my talk page with various points of information. I think it's become clear that my informal separation hasn't worked so I've released WHL from the restriction. Nice idea, seemed worth a try, but it appears not to have worked. WHL has indicated she may have additional diffs that give information about SRQ's approach. She may or may not choose to share them here. ++Lar: t/c 19:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When Enough is Enough

I have refrained from commenting here until now because I had a restriction from commenting on SkagitRiverQueen, which has now, in light of her continued comments on me on her talk page, been lifted, for which I want to thank Lar. The preponderance of comments that she has posted on her talk page regard how she did nothing wrong, despite clear evidence to the contrary. First, let's look at what she said that warranted her previous block for personal attacks, made to Jpgordon. In reviewing her unblock request, Jpgordon observed "Well, since the real issue is that you seem to have problems with the cooperative environment we hope for on Wikipedia, it does illuminate the nature of the problem pretty well." Her response, which brought an extension of that block was "Apparently you're learning impaired. That's okay, you have my sympathy and I can certainly make allowances for your affliction." That she struck the comment after having been blocked means little. If readers would peruse her talk page, she has steadfastly denied any culpability or wrongdoing in her actions.

As she has widely announced and is known to many, I served a one week block for sockpuppetry, which I denied at the time because a friend who frequently stayed with me was the one who did so from my computer. LaVidaLoca has since posted a mea culpa on her talk page and we have submitted personal identification to show that we are not the same person to Lar, which is being perused by people who worked with him for confirmation, as he noted here. I stand on those statements, as did LaVidaLoca. SRQ's talk pages shows her admonition from Lar to disengage from posting to me or commenting on me that was made here. Note that was on February 7, and at the time it was made on condition that if it were violated, it would be taken here for further action. Her response was ""I've said what I needed to say; the truth is obvious to those not in denial. Cut to me now walking away." In any case, I served my block and I am under the impression that once one has served a block, the event should not continue to be thrown up in the face of the person. However, that was certainly not the end of it from SkagitRiverQueen. Not by a long shot. The next day, she engaged in this conversation about me on User talk:Crohnie, where she compared her honesty with a comment on mine, and to Crohnie, whom she chastised for being my friend, actually over and over. A full 42 minutes after being admonished by Lar, SRQ posted this scathing comment about me, in which she called me a liar ("Since she's been exposed as a liar") and began her recitation of her perceived sins I committed, and just after that, went to the talk page of an IP in which I was in dispute to solicit email contact so she could send him "pertinent information you may be interested in regarding a current issue you are involved with." She had been already been receiving taunting posts by various registered accounts and IPs to her talk page, which she had semi-protected and added that "I strongly suspect it is actually a regular who is hiding behind anonymous IPs and socks." Did she mean me? She didn't say but coupled with her rants across talk pages about me, it seems likely. She took up her dispagement of me on her [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASkagitRiverQueen&action=historysubmit&diff=344701643&oldid=344666532#Ha talk page] when she continued posting her little rant about what she thinks I did to her, and further insinuated that an account previously proven not to be me was speculated to be me. When I posted to Lar's talk page about this violation of her restriction at 6:31 pm, she then struck it out at 6:42 pm, so that when Lar posted to her about it at 7:43, she was able to say, 3 minutes later that she "realized" too so she struck it out. Note that was when she was blocked previously for the personal attack on Jpgordon. Once again, she took opportunity to spell out her complaints on Lar's page, directly in response to my comment about working on getting the identification proof to him, where she continues to recite her litany and asks why I know what was in an email she received, to which I replied }No great secret about the emails, LaVidaLoca sent them to me after I insisted. Wow, great mystery there. She screwed up, yes, but I didn't write them and as for denial, well, other people consistently deny they did anything to warrant blocks, now don't they?" Her attacks continued on February 27, when she posted this to Crohnie's talk page, in which she again repeated her litany of sins I've committed. While she is currently blocked, a newer editor came in to remove a category from Ted Bundy, something I had seen she opposed. I objected, based on SRQ's statements regarding it and said it needed to wait until she returned. When Doc brought that up to her, her response was to again repeat her litany and question the submission of identification, which Lar acknowledged above and again called me a bully, liar and harasser, put down my efforts to object to something she also objected to and disparaged me for it. In that post, she questioned the motives of Doc, as she has done to Equazcion and Crohnie and various administrators. There is no indication that SRQ will desist in personal attacks and harassment based on her behavior just since she has been blocked this time, since her comments on others continue. All of this has occurred since Lar restricted her from commenting on her, in the face of this being made an issue on this page. There are three separate comments regarding this sock issue on her talk page since the current block began alone. And let's not list the 25 different articles upon which she had never previously edited until her first dispute with me occurred on the Ted Bundy article back in December, 10 of which resulted in disputes on the talk pages involving her. Thus my early complaints of her stalking my editing here. One of those was her "drop-in intervention" into a discussion I was having with another editor on Kate Winslet and regarding which Lar asked her to explain her sudden interest on an article on which I worked to bring a good article status just prior to that. That, among other various things, were discussed on User talk:Lar#SkagitRiverQueen, User talk:Lar#I'm confused..., User talk:Lar#Wildhartlivie and SkagitRiverQueen part deux and today's comments at User talk:Lar#Enough is enough. Her obsession with following me to articles, posting complaints on various administrator boards and posting her version of "Bash Wildhartlivie personal attacks" needs to stop. Not now, but weeks ago. And let's not overlook her dissertation, on the post made to User talk:LaVidaLoca taking responsibility for socking and her spiteful addition of commentary which again brings it around to being all about me and what she supposes I knew or did not know (please note her comments on her talk page about editors who pretend to be mindreaders and making unfounded speculation), which she notes "To be placed in a personal sandbox when my block is lifted", tends to suggest that I am connected to her continued harassment by proven unrelated accounts and IPs by connecting it to the comments on the sock issue, an action which is not acceptable for miscellaneous pages, and of which she has had such "personal injury lists" deleted before (see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:SkagitRiverQueen/Archive 1. The keeping of such pages is not within the guidelines for userspace pages, which she well knows. Nor do I suspect her current "archive", which consists of mostly refactored talk page posts garnered from other pages, as well as her current talk page, which consists of copy and paste content from this page, refactored with her own personal comments, meet the guidelines for talk pages.

In fact, dropping insinuations about other accounts being socks is a routine thing. She dropped this hint at the Charles Manson article talk page and was such that the editor did not return, she did this also on her talk page today when she said about Beyond My Ken "...oh, wait...Beyond My Ken *isn't* a veteran editor. No, in fact, while BMK talks and behaves like a veteran editor, according to his talk page history he has only been in WP since early December 2009. Can that be correct...? Hmmm...interesting (and somewhat suspicious, IMO)." Personally, it's hard for me to believe, if editors are watching her posts and behavior, that anyone would entertain lessening this block time, and have not considered extending it or worse. I did my time, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that grants SRQ carte blanche to post her spiel all over the encyclopedia with the vehement and vitriolic content hers does. That this has spread to other editors with whom I am friends or colleagues, such as Doc and Crohnie, is beyond defense. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. You just melted my brain. I think I need to go have a drink or something. -- Atama頭 02:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I've lived it and that barely touches it. Have a drink for me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This probably would've been better suited to (the seemingly impending) RFC/U, where extensiveness is valued rather than shunned. Equazcion ^(talk) 03:06, 5 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it contains a lot of material worthy of review. I do agree that perhaps an RfC/U might be the better vehicle. ++Lar: t/c 13:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

my restrictions

I was told to apply for reinstatement here on March 1st. I am hopeful that enough time has passed and my actions since my probation will allow me to be a fully functioning member of the community again.--Levineps (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of these restrictions are you finding to be a major hindrance to working in wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to be off "probation" so to speak and be able to edit categories again. I made some mistakes and I am sorry they happenend.--Levineps (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, your judgment with respect to editing categories was suspect, to say the least. Can you point to something that indicates that your judgement has improved? Certainly the incident a month ago didn't show that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have abided by my restrictions of not editing categories and using the summaries. Since that incident a month ago, which was a honest mistake, I have been a positive contributing member of the community. I think I have served my time.--Levineps (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The restrictions being -

Levineps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from creating new categories, and re-categorizing either existing categories or articles. Levineps is required to not mark his edits as minor, as he has used this flag disruptively. He is also required to use manually written edit summaries for all of his edits, outside of the talk space. He is not allowed to remove warnings or notices from his talk page, or anywhere else they are posted. A 1RR per day restriction is also imposed, due to his disruptive reverting. If he fails to comply with these requirements, he will be blocked indefinitely and his edits can be reverted without question. Levineps is reminded that he free to propose any category changes on any talk page for others to implement. He is also reminded that he can appeal this sanction only via a formal community proposal, or by emailing ArbCom.

The restriction were imposed via this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also pertinent: User:Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was a mistake I made over a month ago and I explained it there and I have had no reported incidents since.--Levineps (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely unfamiliar with this situation but just took a quick look through the previous discussions and the editor's recent contributions. Levineps: have you made or attempted to make use of the suggestion that you can use talk pages to request category maintenance? I think the thing that would immediately make me convinced of your ability to use that functionality responsibly would be some evidence of your having tried that route. I haven't found any yet but I didn't dig all the way through the past month's worth of your contribs :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not attempted to do this via talk page as I don't think this is the most effective use of my time when I can directly be helping out.--Levineps (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested on your talk page, it would be better for you to avoid editing categories, moving/renaming articles and that sort of thing for a while. There are an infinite number of improvements that can be made to content, and good research and writing is needed everywhere, so there is plenty to do without working on this administrative/organizational stuff. If you disagree with an article's cats or name, you can always say so on the talk page; if there is a consensus to change it, other people can do so. These types of changes should always be made with caution anyhow. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree there are plenty of ways to help out and I agree I shouldve used more caution. I was told to reapply at the first of March, so I feel that I have already served my time. I am sorry if you disagree.--Levineps (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where you were told to re-apply on March 1. Can you provide a diff for that, please? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

[19]- Resolved: User will re-apply in March. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)--Levineps (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for that link. In that discussion, User:BrownHairedGirl wrote: I think it would be much better to ask Levineps to reapply in March, with a clear warning that a simple "I want to edit categories again" request will result in the ban remaining in place. But isn't that, essentially, what you've said here? "I've served my time, I don't want to be on probation anymore." Since your restrictions are indefinite, there's no question of whether you've "served your time" or not -- the indefinite part means that the restrictions stay in place until you can show that they're no longer necessary.

Can you make a clear and cogent statement of why you were placed on restrictions, and what has changed since then? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thats essentially what I am asking to edit categories again. I was placed on restrictions because I was careless and made stupid comments when confronted about this. I learned that this was not the best possible course of action. I believe I have grown as a person from this experience and will not repeat the same mistakes I made.--Levineps (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if I'm reading this correctly, from your talk page, then you seem to have been responsible for this SNAFU, and looking at your log, you seem to have changed your focus from moving categories to moving articles. Since your judgment in renaming categories got you into trouble, why did you think it would be a good idea to start in renaming articles? What was gained, for instance, by renaming "List of Penn State residence halls" to "List of Pennsylvania State University residence halls"?

I think there's a case to be made here not for lifting your restrictions, but for extending them in such a way that you're limited to editing article and not doing any meta-work in regard to rearranging things. I would suggest that an admin take a closer look at your move log, because from the comments on your talk page, it seems to me probable that the majority of your moves were done without discussion or consensus.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think thats a bit harsh, I feel that I deserve a second chance. I have abided by the terms set by me. Everytime I have gotten feedback on my talk page, I have followed it.--Levineps (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly "harsh" to be restricted to editing articles, since that's what the encyclopedia is all about, the content of the articles. The rest of the stuff surrounding it is very necessary, but not central. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Levine, what has changed since the last time you asked besides the calendar? Auntie E. (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats a good question and I have already answered that question I believe above. May I ask you if not now when should I reapply? I think now is a perfect opportunity to put all this behind us.--Levineps (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not one of exact timing - it's that your page moves do not show that you really understand the problem that led to the restrictions in the first place. Get to where you understand that, and show that you do, with talk page discussions leading to consensus - then ask for removal of restrictions. LadyofShalott 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this editor's history, I would think it inadvisable to lift any restrictions on him right now. "Parole" is an option on WP, but an editor must prove him/herself worthy of this; it's not automatic because you just became eligible for it. Waiting out the restriction and then reapplying without displaying evidence of true understanding of your restriction seems like "going through the motions" to me... Doc9871 (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do sincerely believe I should be re-instated. I understand the reasons I was banned as I have said here and before. I can't change the past, but believe I can be a more productive member in the future. Again please accept my apologies for my past behavior.--Levineps (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am certain that you "sincerely believe" you should be "reinstated"; there's no question there. Have you truly demonstrated that you should be, though? It doesn't seem to be going your way right now, I'm afraid... Doc9871 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's true as anyone can tell from reading this, your absolutely right and there's really no need to remind me.--Levineps (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor who says about discussing changes, "I don't think this is the most effective use of my time", has predicted his future approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you can cherry pick a quote here and there from everyone. What I was trying to get at is I would rather be directly involved the leave suggestions on a talk page.--Levineps (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And I would rather be a millionaire. I'm not, but I can still edit wikipedia articles, and so can you. That's direct involvement. Why are you so hung up on categories and specific names of articles? Those are of minor importance compared to actual article content. And your unwillingness to discuss with others indicates you intend to return to what got you banned from categories in the first place. If you make some useful suggestions on the talk pages, it would help your case. But I get the vibe that you simply waited out the suggested time and figured you would automatically get to create categories again, the way you want to, rather than discussing with other editors, and then you'll be right back here again. How would that be "an effective use of your time" or anyone else's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish I were a millionaire to, I guess its good we agree on something. How has not making suggestions via talk page "hurt my case." Thats one of the most ridiculous arguments. I have hurt the community by not doing this and I think if you think deep inside about this, you would agree with me. On a separate, if you look at my talk page, you will notice I have respond to comments. I never take anything for granted so I didn't just figure I would be able to again. Please take a look at the whole picture and you will see I interact with others as I have here.--Levineps (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain again how you have "hurt the community". I'm not following that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I omitted the word NOT(Just like the person below here misspelled believe). It should have went like this, "I have NOT hurt the community..."

OK, so it's, "I have not hurt the community by not doing this." I don't get that either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I bleieve that the mass of article moves you have made since your restriction, as well as the statements you have made here, show quite clearly that you have absolutely no understanding of why those restrictions were put in place. You seem to believe they were instituted strictly because of your talk page demeanor or general failure to communicate, but that is far from entirely the case. The underlying problem was your lack of judgment concerning re-naming and re-arranging categories, the same lack of judgment you continue to exhibit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I might not be articulating it as well as I should but I didn't realize I needed an attorney for this. The reason I was banned was because of my poor judgment with regard to the editing of categories among other thing. I realize this, understand, and wish it hadn't happened. This is not a fun experience at all. I have learned from this by not making the same mistakes, reviewing feedback from other editors, and taking a closer look at my own edits among other things.--Levineps (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I completely agree with Bugs above: you thought you could "serve your time" and then return to what you were doing before. I think you'd be far better off if you forgot totally about category-work -- and article moves, for that matter -- and found some other way of contributing to the project, if you're really interested in doing that. That's something you can do right now, and would demonstrate your value and, I would hope, your good judgment. At the moment, I'm just not seeing either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you expected me to give up, you definitely picked the wrong person. To quote the Gloria Gaynor, "you think I'd crumble, you think I lay down and die, oh no not I." There is no quit within me. I believe that I should be allowed to contribute fully again. I think saying "sorry" a million different ways hasn't done any thing nor has explaining my actions. However, I am not giving up on this without a fight (a civil one I should add).--Levineps (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you were the culprit who left the talk pages of the snafu named above [20], which it seems you were, I'm for adding page moves to you ban as well. There was no logical reason for doing those moves, and it shows you are not yet ready to be trusted with options than can cause major headaches. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

irrelevant bit

Urgent Comments Requested - The last part of Levineps's edit above is,a possible lega` threat against WP, and should fe dealt with ackordingly... Doc9<71 ([[User talk:Doc9871|talk]U) 07:06, 2 Marc` 2010 (UTC) �::Wow, didn't mean to set off a$firestorm. Is tdis wikipedia's equivalent of "ymlling fire in a$crowded theatre"" I didn't know$my first amendmant rights were zevoked.--Levineps (talk]U) 07:11, 2 Marc` 2010 (UTC) 2Are you daft or(joking? He said(a civil fight nct a legal one. W[User:Heironymo}s Rowe|Heironymcus Rowe (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) S[Mea culpa]]... Hoc9871 (tmlk) 07:37, 2 Iarch 2010 (UTC) No worriew, we all make mistakes!--Levineps ([[User talg:Levineps|talk]U) 07:41, 2 Marc` 2010 (UTC) 6:::Thanks for ubderstanding! I misread it that you meant a "ciril" action or liwsuit, and I feal pretty damned stupid right about now. Sorry 'bout that again(:> Doc9871 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2010 (UXC)

I've no prior involvment in this, so can probably view things objectively. A number of points:

• Levinsep sees nothing to be gained by proposing changes and gaining feedback rather than proceeding on his own.
• When pressed on the question of, "what is different," Levineps cannot quite answer clearly and becomes excited. This suggests to me that there is no real change in behavior.
• From the discussion it seems clear that Levineps' troubling behavior has spread from categories to articles.
• "I am not giving up on this without a fight," makes it sound like Levineps has been wronged or injured somehow.
• Seeks to become "fully functioning" again. Almost as though he were crippled by the restrictions.
• There is such desperation to have the restrictions removed. Sees no value in the many other things he can be doing.

Mix it all together and squeeze it dry, and I think you are left with the realization that Levineps does not have sufficient insight into the undesirable behavior to prevent its reoccurence. I feel that nothing is lost by continuing the restrictions for an indefinite period, and much to be lost if he proves the community mistaken by a lifting of the restrictions. Beyond My Ken puts it quite well, that Levinsep would "be far better off if [he] forgot totally about category-work -- and article moves, for that matter. Dlohcierekim 08:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above summary. I will note that I had a brief look through the user's contribs, and beyond the questionable article moves (although there are some good ones in there), there is quite a bit of good gnomish work going on there. I would suggest that if Levineps is interested in being an asset to the project, he continues on with that sort of work. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

• Oppose lifting restrictions per BHG and BeyondMyKen. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support extending restrictions to include page moves. - Kittybrewster ☎ 05:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I also oppose and suggest closing. And suggest that Levineps try vandal-fighting or something that doesn't require collaboration. And because he doesn't see the need to respect the opinions of editors on the talk pages of the articles' titles he unilaterally alters, I support extending the ban to article moves without prior consensus exhibited on the relevant talk page. Levine needs to learn to work with his fellow editors. 17:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) posted by User:Aunt Entropy
• Oppose lifting the ban, but support extending the ban to include page moves. It's clear that the problems caused by Levineps' recategorisation have simply been displaced to article-moving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  Did you mean to say lifting (Not listing)? –xeno^talk 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  I did indeed, and have now corrected it. Thanks for spotting mi typo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant to say "my" typo. But I wasn't expecting differently from you, so not surprised at all from you. I have not made as many "moves" as I did categories. Exactly when will you get off my case?--Levineps (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Given your previous history, you really should have known better than to make any page moves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I take offense to that as religiously followed the guidelines set out by me and that was not one of them. I am very proud of the page moves I made and acted in good faith.--Levineps (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Your good faith has not been in question, and I do not doubt your pride, but that is irrelevant. I don't think you're really getting it, as you don't seem to be understanding what people are telling you. You followed the restrictions (but not "religiously" as the earlier incident shows), but even after all this discussion you still show no understanding whatsoever at the reason those restrictions were imposed, which had to do with your poor judgment in the moving and re-arranging of categories. Having no insight into that, you jumped right in and began moving and re-arranging articles, the core of the encyclopedia, and considerably more important than categories. If the community didn't want to to move categories around, why ever would you think it trusted you to move around articles?

In any event, the community called you on your bad judgment once, and seems inclined to call you on it once again. I believe it will need to see some token of better judgment from you before it considers allowing you to do that kind of work once more. That doesn't mean that you should bide your time and come back and make yet another request in X months time, as if by right. You really are going to need to demonstrate some semblence of clue about what's going on here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Good summary of the problem. I don't that Levineps' remark above asking "Exactly when will you get off my case?" demonstrates a huge degree of clue. Levineps still seems to think that the problem consists of some bad people being horrible to him, but it's highly improbable that everyone commenting here is motivated by some sort of malice against Levineps. It's not true in my case, and I don't see any reason to suspect it in anyone else ... and Levineps still seems to be a long way from grasping the principle that since Wikipedia works by consensus, he needs to ensure that his actions have consensus support. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

How can you say with a straight face its not true in your case, every comment you have made has been negative. You never look at the positive contributions I have made or pointed them out. Why don't you work with me instead of against me. Also, why do you spend so much time on my case, am I that fascinating for you?--Levineps (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Levineps, I spend very little time "on your case". A few short post in this thread take only a few minutes, and is a valuable investment of time if it helps avoid a repetition of the hours it took to play my part in cleaning the mess you made of the category system.

As to "why don't I work with you?", have you forgotten that I was one of a number of editors who did try, repeatedly, to engage in dialogue with you on you talk page (see here), but like the others I got absolutely nowhere; no response at all from you until your edits were bulk-reverted, when you denounced me for "vandalism". You still haven't shown that anything has changed since then, and that's why I support keeping the ban on you until you can show that you really have started working with other editors. My support for the continued ban is preventive, not punitive: if and when you can demonstrate that your approach really has changed, I'll support your return. But the more you protest that you are being persecuted, the less I'm inclined to believe that you understand why this ban was needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a conflict of interest in your case and I would like it if you recused yourself from all my cases. When I make comments on your page, you delete them after all.--Levineps (talk) 15:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Based upon the above discussion, I agree with others above in keeping the restrictions in place and adding page moves. --Kbdank71 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I take offense to that as religiously followed the guidelines set out by me and that was not one of them. I am very proud of the page moves I made and acted in good faith.--Levineps (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you haven't: Levineps is reminded that he free to propose any category changes on any talk page for others to implement. You admitted above that you have not done this because it is a waste of your time. All you have religiously done is sat on the sidelines and waited for March 1st (and even that was not done religiously). As others have said here again and again, get consensus for category and article renaming using talk pages. Only then will I change my mind. --Kbdank71 14:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• In case it's not clear from my earlier comments, I think we should keep existing restrictions in place and extend them to page moves. Levineps, if you want to do category or article naming work, discuss it on the talk pages and get consensus for proposed changes. LadyofShalott 23:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ouch--Levineps (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Levineps, it seems you are not really helping your case at the moment. No one is personally attacking you or has anything against you(not that you are alleging such things, just seems to be the general gist of your latest comments in my opinion). The community has reservations about your ability to make the right decisions concerning moves of cats or articles, based on your past actions with such moves. Arguing here now will not change this concensus, but will probably drive more of the community into the entrenched position of not giving you those abilities back. Please be patient, your restrictions were left open ended, with the provision that they are lifted when the community feels they are no longer needed, not a jail sentence with a definite date to end incarceration. Your best option at this point would be to follow the advice given above for talk page suggestions and gaining concensus. If you show an acceptable track record, the sanctions may be lifted in the future. I hope this helps, good luck. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Both Proposals I don't think the user is ready to get back to cats yet, and I also think that the user had an expectation that renaming articles should have been avoided. I think applying some good faith shows that Levineps wants to get to the point of being a good editor. This person has the right idea just some poor execution. I do think that Levineps should be reminded about civility and assuming good faith in others. this removed comment is certainly not in the spirit of the project. In summary lets not prematurely sanction this user for the article renaming until there is a problem.--Adam in MO Talk 08:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  I agree that Levineps wants to get to the point of being a good editor. The problem is that despite repeated pointers from many editors, zie has shown no sign of understanding one of the critical aspects of how to be a good editor, i.e. discussing proposed changes to seek WP:CONSENSUS. Near the top of this discussion, Levineps dismissed seeking consensus for proposed changes, saying "I don't think this is the most effective use of my time". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

  That's not true, saying it is not "the most effective use of my time" does not mean I do not want to get consensus from others. I am simply saying, I feel less useful that I am restricted. As a result of my probation, I have used the talk pages much more now. I think being restricted has made me have a great appreciation for wikipedia community. I know I was non-responsive in the past and while I respect your opinion, it's just flat out wrong in this case in terms of consensus.--Levineps (talk) 14:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 (again)

Truthseekers666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retaliated against his block off wiki on the youtube channel he has with two new videos, here and here, and in at least one case calls out ALR. I thought someone should be made aware of this, just in case no one noticed it yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not our job to police the internet or to support the National Health Service. He is indeffed I presume? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing we can do but ignore him and hope he gets bored. deny him recognition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole 'call to arms' thing is a little worrying. We might want to keep an eye on the articles he is calling on people to go and storm. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Worth keeping an eye on relevant pages however, at 9:25-9:48 on the first video he calls for others to help him out on Wikipedia. Other than that though, best to ignore and move on rather than let a fuss be kicked up. --Taelus (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The pages are indeed being watched (and RAF Rudloe Manor is still protected for now). Any meat-puppetry can be dealt with as and when it surfaces. EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the number of views those two videos have, I wouldn't worry. Youtube, allowing the people with important things to say, say them without fear that someone might actually listen--Jac16888^Talk 19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like an unfortunate situation, as he truly doesn't understand why he was blocked nor why his edits were reverted. Granted, there are instances where people attempt to whitewash controversial information in articles here, but there's no government conspiracy in this particular case to redact his edits as he believes. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

From one of the Youtube postings: "Its clear to me Wiki is just a stitch up government job. The two main antaginists against me are military and freemasons." OMG you guys, I had no idea you were all military and freemasons!!! Please don't repress me! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I swear, this guy sounds like the Sanders vandal. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah don't screw with us; we'll shoot you and make walls from your corpses. Or something. I dunno. Whatever masons do. HalfShadow

Oh, man, those videos are comedy gold! Though I do feel sorry for the specific users who are the targets of his conspiracy theory–induced harassment. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously nobody ever told him that the candy sucking during the video is really annoying. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Or that posting a video on YouTube isn't likely to get you a response more intelligent than 'Ernk ernk, I eat poo'... HalfShadow 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, one person has attempted to help him, as professed under the comment section. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm writing to the bloody government, bastards haven't sent my money yet. Rather the other way round, in fact, since I note from my payslip that they have stolen thousands from me again this month. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, now I'm pissed. Where is my check? Is it only UK editors who get paid by the government? And as an admin I think I should be granted some serious status with the masons. Grand Wizard or Imperial poobah or whatever system it is they use, which I should already have been informed about since I am apparently working for them. And I want my very own tinfoil hat with tassels denoting my rank. Now dammit. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey, I actually work for the Ministry of Defence and I haven't got my cheque! Is this payment only for MoD employees who are Freemasons as well? If so, how do I sign up? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The second youtube video was posted on St David's Day and there seemed to be some hint of a Welsh accent. Curiouser and curiouser. Mathsci (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Update I've just declined his latest unblock request/rant and revoked talk page and email access. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would everyone mind looking at some concerns/links I've posted at Talk:RAF Rudloe Manor#AMSCPC. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose block - I favor unblocking Truthseeker. First - Truthseekers666 has a few friends who watch is videos. No big deal. The other hundred viewers are Wikipedia administrators pissed that they haven't been called out yet. Second, his "call to arms" has been described as a DNS - but that's gross hyperbole. He asked his friends to look into the situation possibly edit the article. He doesn't ask his friends to vandalize the article. I've counted two people who may have joined the discussion as a result of his "call to arms". Big whup. Third, he has been willing to engage in dialog - especially with editors who assume good faith. His talk page history clearly shows that he's trying to understand our policies and how he can work within them to get his point across. He makes all the usual WP:BOLD mistakes new editors make, but if we didn't put up with that, then we wouldn't have any old editors, would we? Sure, he's a conspiracy theorist nutter, and I as a Freemason am bound by blood oath to marginalize him, but as far as conspiracy theory nutters go, he's pretty tame, and I think he's willing to work within the rules just as soon as he fully grasps them. And to that end, he needs our help, not more paranoia. Rklawton (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if you were aware of part of the reason for the block, the thread has been archived. He posted an appeal on the commons account ALR asking for more information from others about me. That account isn't mine but someone else drew it to my attention, not realising that it isn't me, although quite useful to know. That has been removed through OTRS as far as I'm aware.

I've already commented elsewhere that I've never worked at Rudloe Manor, although I was in a nearby location and lived in Box, about 5 miles away from the site towards Bath, for a couple of years. I'm also aware of some of what these "alien hunters" did do to some of the site security staff at Rudloe; pepper spray, postal harassment etc so while it's not a significant threat, there is the potential. There were three groups that routinely tried to break into Rudloe and nearby locations, one of which wasn't a big issue, the other two were.

ALR (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Since this thread is still growing after Fences and windows closed it, I have commented out her/his edit. My only input into this contentious issue is that if RAF Rudloe Manor has been the center of the RAF's investigations into UFOs, mention it -- even if this is only a wide-spread misconception in the UK. If this is not the case, & Rudloe Manor has nothing to do with UFOs (especially the ones from other planets, although if they simply investigate miscellaneous phenomena which can not be satisfactorily identified there's no harm making that distinction), then please remove Timothy Good's book from the list of "Further Readings." I think that association is notable if it is something in the public attention. (And if it is an assertion limited to the tedious rantings of a few who Need To Get a Life, then please remove all reference to it.) Once this is done & when all posts to this thread cease, then this matter can be closed. (FWIW, I'm assuming F&W was acting in good faith & simply made a mistake about the status of this thread.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's widespread, then someone should be able to dig up some reliable sources that address this widely heard of story. I would have no objection to including references to the subject in the article. What I wouldn't want to see are a bunch of links sending unsuspecting readers off to terribly unreliable sources. I'm thinking we could use Area 51 as our model (based only on my quick scan of the article's table of contents). Rklawton (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, there was actually nothing to see and the thread had descended into silliness. Account fairly blocked, person making toothless threats on YouTube, case closed. You lot can go on talking about it if you must. Fences&Windows 00:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any threats on YouTube at all. Rklawton (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So, calls to meatpuppetry don't count in your book? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I've lived within ten miles of Rudloe Manor for the last twenty years, and my only comments are "WP:OR" and "WP:REDFLAG". There's bollocks, and there's this, which make crop circles seem plausible. Close this farrago, please, and let's get on with building an encyclopedia using reliable sources Rodhullandemu 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To F&W: sometimes one must endure a little drama on WP:AN/I in order to avoid a lot of drama. Seeing how this thread has continued to grow, the drama hasn't ended. Sometimes the best thing to do with threads is to simply sit back & wait for them to get archived. (And again, for the record I have no interest in what ALR's off-Wiki identity is, & an attempt to learn what it is, whether ALR is a Mason, or whom ALR voted for in the last election is reasonable grounds for blocking -- if not banning.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So, ZERO threats on YouTube or on Wikipedia, and ALR outed himself. Truthseekers666 expressed his opinions about his experiences editing here on Wikipedia - but that's not against policy, and it isn't causing any problems here. In fact, what he has to say on videos is just an extension of his dialogs here. By explaining himself in a media in which he felt comfortable (video in this case), he was giving us what we needed to know to help set him straight on our policies. If more of us had assumed good faith and taken the time to explain our policies, I don't think we'd here on AN/I. So in the final analysis, Truthseekers666 didn't make threats, he didn't say he planned on editing against policy, and he didn't out ALR, either. So tell us again why Truthseekers666 was indef blocked. Rklawton (talk) 01:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This may help. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't help. The diff was oversighted on commons, and the YouTube videos which mention ALR are a far cry from harassment, and those are the only two justifications presented in your link. Keep in mind that ALR told Truthseekers666 he worked in the RAF at RAF Rudloe Manor - which actually translates to ALR having a conflict of interest in this matter (or it translates into baiting if ALR wasn't being truthful). I've been following this matter from the outset with an eye toward blocking Truthseekers666 as yet another conspiracy theory nutter. However, unlike the usual assortment, Truthseekers666 has been willing to engage in dialog and has taken an interest in learning what is and is not appropriate. This is not the sort of editor we indef block. Rklawton (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify what Truthseeker interprets as outing myself. I stated that it didn't matter whether I'd worked at three places, Rudloe itself, Henlow which is now the HQ of the RAF Police or the DIS which is another organisation that he was burbling about. He's expressing that as confirming that I've worked at them. It was a rather misguided effort to illustrate the primacy of the content policies, unfortunately I didn't bank on the fairy tenuous grasp of the english language and how this group tend to twist everything to support their own theories. As you may be aware the conspiracy theorist fraternity prefer to focus on individuals, rather than evidence, hence his enthusiasm to concentrate on my credibility, or otherwise, rather than present evidence; He's convinced himself that I'm paid by MoD to censor Wikipedia.

I'll state again, I have not worked at Rudloe, although I have worked nearby. There are about 20 military establishments within 15-20 miles of the place; RAF, Army, Navy and predominantly Civil Service. I have been in the all ranks bar in Rudloe, once, I've driven past Henlow, that's about as close as it gets.

He stated repeatedly that he wasn't wanting to edit in accordance with policy, arguing for the inclusion of partial primary sources, rather than credible secondary. fwiw I'm not sure there are many, if any, since it tends to be the preserve of the conspiracy theory fraternity.

As I've already stated, whilst this is not a significant personal threat, there is a risk to me.

I'd also suggest that it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that anyone in MoD has a conflict of interest in writing about MoD related topics, particularly stations or establishments that they've never worked at. There are some 200,000 uniformed personnel, and a similar number of civil servants in MoD. There are about another 100,000 civilians directly engaged in delivery to MoD locations.

ALR (talk) 07:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rklawton, as one of the few non-admins who saw that post, and the person who asked for a deletion and block on Commons, what happened is this. Truthseeker666 vandalised the page of a commons user called ALR by posting a request that other people find out the real life identity, location, occupation etc of en:wikipedia's ALR, dig up any dirt on him, also find out whether "our" ALR was a Freemason - because Truthseeker is convinced that the opposition to him is a military-masonic conspiracy. That's a permablocking offence. There's no ifs and buts about it. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. ALR, although your clarification is helpful, please don't feel you need to justify yourself here. Rklawton's reading of events is out of step with Wikipedia policy in this case. There's no doubt that Truthseeker was on a fishing expedition, and you haven't outed yourself by any stretch of the imagination (any more than I have by revealing on my user page that I currently live in South Wales, and from the beach photo in the Swansea area). Rklawton, note that Truthseeker had WP:V, the difference between primary and secondary sources, WP:ELNO, and WP:RS explained a number of times, and dialogue was underway when they shot themselves in the foot with the attempted outing. I do agree that we could have been more courteous to them at times (myself included), but that's the only thing in this episode that I think we need to reflect on and learn from. EyeSerene^talk 08:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So we goaded a new user until he broke a big rule and then indef blocked him? I never saw the outing page (why would he do this outing on Commons and not Wikipedia, anyone know?), so that's affected my view - nor have I read any policy against "outing." Got a link so I can catch up? Rklawton (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, so I just read WP:OUTING. If Truthseekers666 only asked for information about ALR, then it doesn't fit our definition of outing. Our definition is comprised only of publishing accurate or inaccurate (known as attempted outing) private information about an individual. Because we should not confirm information as accurate, we should refer to all such activities as "attempted outing" so as to leave doubt about accuracy. Attempted outing is NOT the same thing as attempting to learn personal information about an individual. Attempting to learn personal information may comprise "harassment", but that's not an automatic indef blocking offense. Rklawton (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No, we didn't goad him into breaking a rule and then ban him, the problem was simply the straw that broke the camel's back. He's engaged in systematic self-promotion, tendentious editing, WP:FRINGE issues, WP:OR, WP:C violations and is generally impervious to Clue. I have no problem at all with him requesting an unblock once he's given some indication of understanding what Wikipedia is for (and that not every attempt to resist fringecruft is the result of sinister Masonic plots). Guy (Help!) 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Curious as to why "attempting to learn personal information about an individual" editor is helpful to WP, yes? Would this information necessarily benefit the improvement of the encyclopedia? "Asking for information" about other editors isn't normally necessary at all, you understand. There are administrators with checkuser who can verify any problem editors. Please, if I've jumped into something that I'm wrong about, let me know. I'm sorry, but I don't like the looks of your last argument at all, Rklawton... Doc9871 (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

We don't appear to have a rule about requesting information - so it doesn't justify an indef block. Also, I was not aware that anyone ran checkuser. If this has been done, please provide a link to the checkuser case. Rklawton (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Again @Rklawton, posting "he's definitely someone high up in Tesco and I'm pretty certain he's a a closet dressmaker" is attempted outing, even if the allegation is bollocks.Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Tesco" and "dressmaker" were obvious jokes and not an attempt at outing. Especially in light that he usually repeats what ALS has already told him. If you'd post a link, it would help. While he doesn't use our vocabulary, his concerns are along the lines of ALS' conflict of interest (having admitted working for the RAF at the location in question, it appears that the COI concerns are valid). And while it's true that he's butted heads against a lot of our POV pushing related rules, the CLUE charge isn't valid - as some of his more recent edits have shown appreciation for patience and advice regarding how to edit constructively. Rklawton (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you actually point to where I've admitted anything?

I'm also starting to become somewhat disturbed by this persistent suggestion of a COI, which I've addressed several times, yet is continuing to be mentioned.

ALR (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that you did not tell Truthseeker you worked at Rudlow Manor? If so, then I retract, but I want to hear it from you first. My point about COI isn't that there is a COI but that if you did work at Rudlow, which Truthseeker says you have claimed, then it's fully understandable that he would be concerned about a COI and would wish to discuss it. Rklawton (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've already discussed it upthread. I used the comment that it doesn't matter if... as a means of indicating the primacy of the content policies. He's interpreted that as an admission. I've already stated several times that I did not work at Rudloe.

ALR (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reread Truthseeker's last week's worth of edits. The editor was clearly trying to work within the system and learn how to contribute usefully - especially following his first block. During this time following his first block he did not engage in *any* OR, POV, RS, or 3RR related activities. Instead, he was clearly seeking to understand how to work within the rules and fully demonstrating he was trying to get a clue. Second, I have seen no evidence that Truthseeker vandalized a page in Commons. More importantly, he denies this accusation, and so some evidence is important. Third, the vandalism (apparently a request for information about a user) was not an "outing" as described by Wikipedia's policies and as claimed by other admins, (and they need to retract this claim). Fourth, while cross-wiki harassment is a blockable offense (assuming Truthseeker really was responsible), a first offense doesn't rate an indef block. Rklawton (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Rk, I suggest you bow out of this particular race. Truthseeker wasn't just "requesting information," it was encouraging other users to dig up dirt on ALR to discredit him. That is why it's considered outing. Second, if you can't see the Oversignted edits on Commons, how can you say it wasn't an outing at all? And finally, a first offense most certainly can result in an indef block. Indef does not equal permanent. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd also contest the assertion that he was trying to work within the system; I think that was true only to the extent that he was trying to find a policy-based argument that would convince editors to keep his primary source-based original research in the article, and didn't want to accept that there was no way it was going to happen unless he produced reliable secondary sources. EyeSerene^talk 19:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else here think Rklawton is acting kind of odd. Like he's actually trying to 'out' ALR also, by throwing up a whole pile of stuff and seeing what sticks????? Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I Second that emotion. I don't want to cast any stones but it seems that he would have moved on by now. Nefariousski (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Given my edit history of fighting and blocking conspiracy theory nut jobs at every opportunity, if you perceive my behavior as strange, perhaps that's reason enough to go back and revisit Truthseeker's edits following his first block. I don't think defending a user with multiple points amounts to "a pile of stuff" - and attacking my behavior does little to justify the block. Rklawton (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My Great Grandfather was a Freemason. I had his apron in my possession and a while ago I sold it on Ebay to a private collector in France. Clearly, the nation of France is behind this vile conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our natural bodily fluids. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I think the real Rklawton may have been abducted by aliens XD. Seriously, you are acting as if you believe that ALR actually is working for the MOD to cover up the truth about Rudloe Manor, and this justifies Truthseeker's attempts to find out who ALR really is, and it's very strange, because all ALR ever said was that he has been in the area - not anything else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish people would stick to the facts and not mock user RKLawton. What RK has stated is that user truthseeker was trying to find out what position of authority or knowledge user ALR had in order to back up his ability to alter information on Rudloe Manor. User truthseeker seemed concerned that a user who is simply known as ALR who alludes on his page that he has a connection to or interest in the military may infact not be military at all. If this were the case then user ALRs opinion would carry about as much weight on Rudloe Manor as anyone else. However if ALR did work at Rudloe Manor provost service then he would indeed be in a good position to know if the type of information on the Rudloe Manor page was correct. Sticking just to the facts here, truthseekers asked what was ALRs "authority" to know these things and could user ALR prove he knew these things first hand. User ALR alluded in a deceitful way (sorry but this i how it seems) to say that it did not matter if he did indeed work for provost or rudloe manor of Intelligence staff. This suggests, deceptively, that user ALR did infact work for those departments. This would tend to make truthseeker then back off and have to accept his word on things. Now we see above user ALR agree he made these statements but they are infact all not true as he had only worked near these facilities and "drunk in some bars" near Rudloe Manor and is in no position or no official rank to know their true functions or secret workings. This exposes a problem with user ALRs motives. So truthseeker was right to have pointed this out. As we are meant to work away from PRIMARY which would have been what user ALR was apparently offering his personal feelings on the editing of Rudloe Manor page is based on what backup? User truthseeker was correct to point this out. It is not outing. For example if someone claims to possibly be prime minister and then starts posting about the UK government on WIKI I am sure many would ask the very same questions that truthseeker did, for the person to prove they are really the Prime Minister. RKlawton is therefore doing the sensible thing in pointing out these discrepancies. RKLawton should not be mocked as if he has lost his senses. Far from it I think he shows a lot of sense on this discussion. Back to truthseeker. His manner of dealing with things was at first awkward and aggressive but I am sure we all made a lot of mistakes on Wiki when we first came on board and truthseeker was starting to fully understand the process of wiki editing. He was making offers to provide SECONDARY information for the page and should be allowed to continue under guidance and coaching. I am saddened to see a lot of mocking of his position as a UFO researcher. I understood Winston Churchill, the Royal Family and some American presidents have either seen or have a keen interest in UFOs. If no evidence is provided that he vandalised Wikicommons then this should also be disregarded as a reason for his ban. J from Bristol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.174.121 (talk) 14:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Truthseeker666. You know, socking really isn't the best way of trying to get your block reversed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your intepretation of what ALR said is based on what he said here, not what he said in the original page, Elen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.174.121 (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Besides just because your wiki admins does not mean there are not bigger wiki admins. I have been banned from emailing anyone on Wiki so cannot take up my points in any other way. What do you expect. Kick a man when he is down and keep kicking and then try some stabbing and if that doesnt work some punching. This is how Wiki works. To hear you all mocking anyone who even slightly brings up the fact truthseekers might be correect is sickening. You really should listen to yourselves before mocking those who are interested in UFOs.

Truthseeker asked to be unblocked several times and was promptly denied each time. Since all his Wikipedia edits following his first block were oriented toward figuring out how to work within bounds, I think an indef block was uncalled for, his request for unblock unfairly denied, and my request here for a review here treated inappropriately. The only possible evidence that Truthseeker might have rated a 2nd block can be found on another wiki and it isn't accessible to admins here. Since block reviewers did not have access to this edit or evidence that he even made it, they can't possibly know whether or not his 2nd block was justified - yet they denied it anyway, and that's plain wrong. I'm always happy to block unrepentant conspiracy theorists - per my block record, but I'm not happy about the indef blocking of anyone who consistently shows an interest in learning how to edit constructively. Rklawton (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we really need the formality of a WP:SPI filing, or can we cut the red tape and ban 88.110.174.121 as a sock right now? If it isn't already obvious by the posts above, the language of a Truthseeker revert here is quite similar to a revert by the IP here. Block, mark this section resolved, and move on IMO. Tarc (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Jac16888 took care of it. — Satori Son 16:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Could someone take a look at the gibraltar page. There seems to be a long term attempt to impose a foreign POV on the article by means of long tendentious arguments about small points on the talk page, and to remove content describing significant events in the history of Gibraltar. There is also the potential for edit wars and general nastyness as a result of the above. It might be beneficial to lock the page for a few weeks to let tempers settle. Gibnews (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We've looked. A lot. Trust me. It's probably better now than it has been for six months. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Nice. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just seen this thread, having already locked the article because every time it pops up on my watchlist it's a revert (not to single anyone out because there's fault on both sides, but the cognitive dissonance in this edit summary was the final straw). I think it's reached the stage where any editor who reverts at all can expect a block without further notice. EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with the page lock on either version, however the 'Ayone reverting in future will be blocked' strikes me as problematic. With the definition of vandalism being so narrow, it means a great deal of changingcould be done before one stepped over that line with little ability to respond. Might I suggest the imposition of a 1RR instead? --Narson ~ Talk • 10:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree that its better now than its been for months, it got quiet because so many decent editors have quit because of the constant villification you get there if you disagree with the most minor of points. The tag team reverting to impose a preferred version by a cabal of editors that occurred a month ago had people tearing their hair out in frustration and should have been dealt with then but wasn't. It has needed a firm admin hand to stop the disruption there and an even handed one at that. The article has suffered at the hands of a civil POV pusher that has tied the talk page up with tendentious argument for too long. Justin talk 10:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I propose article probation, 1 month of full protection so all changes to be discussed on Talk and managed via {{editprotected}} then once people have got out of the habit of talking past each other go for a period of 0RR and all changes to be discussed first. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That would work for me; reading the talk page activity since I locked the article, I believe positions have become so entrenched that something more substantial than a short period of protection is necessary. With mediation apparently having failed, I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be the last opportunity for editors to resolve their own differences before things escalate to Arbcom. Feel free to amend my admin action if this proposal gains consensus. EyeSerene^talk 14:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that suggestion, may I also suggest that comments are limited to content not editors. Any misconduct should be raised here. It was only through protection the last time that mediation got anywhere. Justin talk 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd suggest arbitration, with a mind toward Digwuren-style sanctions. Even on the briefest of acquaintance, WP:PLAGUE seems appropriate commentary on Gibraltar articles currently. I doubt forcing Talk page discussion would be useful, as much of the problem is, as Justin says, civil POV pushing disrupting Talk as well as article edits. What the article needs is freedom for outside editors - ones who aren't hot about whether Gibraltar gets to be Spanish or British - to work without the constant kvetching and disruption from nationalists on either side (though a topic ban on User:Gibnews would be the single most useful move forward). WP:MARTIANS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't see the need for a topic ban on User:Gibnews, he can be very reasonable if you approach him civilly but more stubborn than the stubbornest mule if you don't. There seems to be a definite lynch mob mentality around him at the moment, I've observed an attempt at outing that I wanted to bring up. I know Gibnews' real identity and it doesn't correspond to what is being claimed. See User talk:Justin A Kuntz#Gibnews and User talk:Atama#Advice, from my knowledge of Gibnews' identity none of that appears to be correct and I've tried to be diplomatic about it. Justin talk 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely not on. I replied to Ecemaml (talk · contribs) on Atama's talk page and removed some speculation, but then I noticed they've been posting elsewhere too after being warned to drop it. Attempted outing is serious; I've blocked Ecemaml for one week. Review welcome. EyeSerene^talk 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you ask Gibnews he'll not agree with that block I'm afraid. A warning not to persist from an independent party would probably be sufficient. May I suggest you ask him, his real life identity is lodged with Wikipedia anyway. He doesn't really make a secret of it, however, there has been a get Gibnews campaign for a while. Justin talk 18:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, personally I think any form of harassment should be given very short shrift. An editor shouldn't need multiple warnings before they start taking them seriously. Although it's sometimes possible (and perhaps not even very difficult) to dig around, connect the dots, and deduce an editor's identity - which is what Ecemaml seemed to be trying to do - I believe that's very different to simply repeating something that's open knowledge. If Gibnews has voluntarily revealed their identity on the site I'll unblock Ecemaml and apologise to them, but I saw nothing explicit (for example, a disclosure on their userpage). EyeSerene^talk 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well Gibnews has a thick skin and he isn't vindictive, I really do doubt he'd support a lengthy block. In answer to your question, no he hasn't openly declared his identity but a number of people who deal with him regularly know it. It was the "Get Gibnews" campaign I'm more concerned about. Justin talk 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a short block is in order, because the comments on my user page were turning into a personal attack. For my part I've been trying to keep a low profile on wikipedia. Ecemaml is a good and productive editor but does have a blind spot about Gibraltar. I don't think I have been unreasonable on the topic, however as I live there and have first hand experience of things, its hard to put up with things I know to be untrue which others wish to include because it supports a foreign claim to my homeland totally rejected by its people.

I also find deleting what I consider important things which are referenced and have international interest, like the IRA shooting and its conclusion. Particularly as this part has had been discussed at length with the Irish republican element who hold different views to the Gibraltarians about this event.

What I do feel is that there has been a campaign to get me banned and aites with information about Gibraltar discredited in order to remove content that does not fit in with the Spanish view of Gibraltar. The personal attack is a continuance of that. I have at no time stated my name on wikipedia or sought any personal promotion and only reluctantly mentioned that I design websites.

I've also created and extended some articles about computer languages and contributed a number of images but Gibraltar has taken up a lot of time, however I think my contributions to that have been worthwhile, as when I started it was wholely untruthful and there was an attempt to get the whole of Gibraltar banned from editing ! --Gibnews (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I declare my interest as a former regular editor of Gibraltar-related articles. Regardless of whether Ecemaml got the details right or not, attempted outing is harassment and must be taken very seriously. I've never seen Gibnews give his real identity on wiki, and in any case, Ecemaml was (as EyeSerene says) trying to dig around and connect the dots here. Even if Gibnews had declared his identity publicly, I think it's clear that what Ecemaml was doing is different from simply repeating it.

I appreciate what Justin says, but I don't believe we should unblock. I see clear evidence that this Ecemaml was not acting in good faith, and WP:OUTING is very clear. As such I consider this block to be entirely appropriate to prevent this harassment from continuing. Pfainuk talk 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I half seriously suggested a topic ban for anyone with more than ten edits to any article on a British overseas territory and fewer than a thousand mainspace edits on articles not in any way related to them. But this has gone on for a very long time, and maybe it is time for arbitration or robustly enforced article probation. Toxic is a great word to describe that talk page. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really a helpful suggestion Guy, I edit on several BOT related articles. The Falklands for example could be poisonous but they're not because the editors there work together. Argentine and Brit editors collaborating to find sources and generate NPOV articles, you should drop by sometime and you might well be surprised at the editors you labelled as "POV Warriors". I'd agree with 0RR and insisting edits are agreed in talk, part of the reason for the toxic atmosphere is tag team edit warring to impose an edit. Funnily enough that was reported to AN/I at the time, as was the get Gibnews campaign. What I was disgusted with at the time, was how quickly it was possible to manipulate a lynch mob mentality to get Gibnews. Not AN/I's finest hour. Justin talk 23:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just keep editing other articles as well. Read WP:PLAGUE to see why people who have broad editing interests are less likely to be a problem than those who edit only articles on places where there are nationalistic disputes. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Would love to but it doesn't help when people wade in not knowing the facts leaving more mess for the productive editors to clean up. Does it? Justin talk 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

But that's exactly the problem WP:PLAGUE addresses: when insiders get so problematical that it's better to use outsiders. The assumption that only insiders know the facts is part of the syndrome; they may well know less, but can cut to the chase because they aren't locked up in some Swiftian Big-enders vs Little-enders feud. Look at the verbiage expended here: 6000 words to dicusss the inclusion/exclusion of two words; do you think insiders are doing a good job? You want editors who are more concerned that the article is informative than what undisclosed regionalist angsts are invoked by mentioning some town. It's great that consensus is working at the Falklands article, but here it clearly isn't. Frankly, the whole existing editor base for Gibraltar topics needs shipping out in favour of completely fresh editors with no previous partisan involvement in the topic. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No thats an essay and lumping all editors into the same pot ain't helpful. What about WP:CPUSH, another favourite of yours I believe. The question I would ask, is why an editor would devote so much effort trying to minimise the degree of self-government in Gibraltar to the absolute minimum, rather than working with other editors to explain it better? Did you think to pick up on that example, or select the evidence to fit the picture and conclusions you'd already jumped sat? Admin action to sort out the problem a long time ago would have been preferrable to allowing positions to become entrenched. But thats where we are and jumping to another solution, which isn't addressing the actual problem won't solve it either. Justin talk 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't read far enough back to see that particular discussion; but if I had, I hope I'd be looking at the portrayal of it neutrally, rather than getting hot under the collar at the thought of it not matching some worldview of how self-government in Gibraltar should be portrayed. If Gibraltar stays British till the coming of the Cocqcigrues / if Spain takes over tomorrow. They're both the same to me. This kind of regionalist topic needs editors who similarly don't care. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well there we violently disagree, it actually needs both. One has the knowledge to be informative, the other has the detachment to keep things cool and where editors from both sides can work constructively the project benefits. People who don't care or have no interest in a subject have no incentive to write quality articles. Where it falls apart is when someone with a narrow nationalist agenda works the wiki system and are disruptive but no admin is prepared to take the time and effort to deal with a WP:CPUSH problem. I actually think this is one of the really fundamental issues that wikipedia has not really cracked. A CPUSH editor will drive productive editors nuts trying to move the article forward, they'll provoke them into making rash comments that they would never normally do, then the productive editor is blocked for "incivility". Also simply quoting essays like WP:PLAGUE don't help and yes I appreciate the irony given I've referred to another essay. Address the issues. Justin talk 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As it happens there was a link posted on AN yesterday which perfectly illustrates why your "violent" disagreement is a problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkiGORmirRU. You make a good argument for local knowledge in the compiling of primary and secondary sources and an equally good case for standing back when it comes to tertiary sources such as Wikipedia - it is almost impossible for someone who is involved with a topic like this to be truly objective. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found that pretty funny, was that the intention? Babies and bath water spring to mind immediately, as in flinging the baby out with the bath water because its too difficult to deal with problem editors. Just to provide some information, I'm actually half-Spanish, live in Glasgow and don't give a flying fuck about Gibraltar. Curious about what you assumed? Justin talk 10:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

One has the knowledge to be informative, the other has the detachment to keep things cool

That's fair enough. But it doesn't work when those people who assert the knowledge to be informative expect also to micromanage all discussion, and make outside editors have to put in ridiculous amounts of effort mediating instead of just writing articles. Wikipedia recognises that there's a point beyond which we don't have to deal with problem editors: that's what user RFCs, arbitration, community bans, etc are for. As I said, I think this subject area has reached arbitration stage.

People who don't care or have no interest in a subject have no incentive to write quality articles

I didn't say "no interest"; I said "don't care" = no emotional involvement in the regional issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 12:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The flaw in your logic is that people who don't care, usually don't have any interest; interest and emotional involvement are synonymous. The problem your essay is missing is WP:CPUSH, editors who learn to game the system to get the nationalist edits they want but in doing so drive away the productive editors you actually want and need. Justin talk 12:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. One can be intellectually fascinated, as a historical topic, in why (for instance) the Big-enders don't want any mention of the Little-enders being chased off to Wankleville. It just doesn't mean you have to side with the Big-enders or Little-enders to write about it, and the best editors to do so are those who are neither and think the whole thing is, well, WP:MARTIANS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I've come to the conclusion what you need are an infinite number of monkeys, sitting at an infinite number of typewriters. Either that or editors who have reached the point of WP:DGAF. You have an email detailing why and when I get as stubborn as a very stubborn thing. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Here goes my opinion for whatever it may be worth (I haven't been for very long in WP as an editor: only 7 months and most of them -sadly- inside the "toxic cloud" of Gib articles so... here I am: not very experienced and an implicated part).

I think that the main problem in the specific case of Gibraltar related articles is the very emotional implication from some usual editors and (possibly) the fact that they show a very strong rejection and lack of trust towards certain other outside editors. Please let me underline that I'm not blaming anyone. Probably everybody is acting in good faith, the emotional implication from those "usual" editors has probably helped them make a big effort contributing to Gib articles, and outside editors are sometimes hard core nationalists and POV pushers not to be trusted. The flip side is that this attitude can make them very mistrustful towards the occasional trustworthy outside editor (of course, myself I am one ;) ) and can push them to resisting changes in certain "sensitive" parts of the articles (like, for example, the ones that Spanish nationalists have used to attack Gibraltar). Usually those sensitive areas, as a result, are more tilted to one side than the other.

My own personal experience (if it has any value as an example): I have tried to change that tilt (mentioning some issues that were avoided in the article, giving some qualification to some statements in the lead of the article...) but I have to admit that I have raised a very strong opposition from the usual editors (who probably in good faith think I am a hard core Spanish nationalist trying to vilify Gibraltar - I wish I had some way to prove this is not the case...). From that point, any new suggestion from my side (or from people supporting my side) has been very difficult to implement: we have spent SEVEN months discussing just about THREE sentences.

As a consequence of the tension (although the offenders have already repented and apologised, so they cannot be blamed any more), some of the usual editors launched legal threats and used expressions like "you are advancing a fascist racist agenda" or "I see no difference between you and that fascist fuckwit" or "You have single mindedly set out to minimise the legitimacy of the Gibraltar Government and using wikipedia as a propaganda weapon for a Fascist irrdentist dream and wounded macho pride". I quote these not to blame anybody (I repeat they've already apologised) but to get an impression of where does this tension drive editors.

My recommendation:

• I think that restricting the edits in the article until consensus is reached can be a good tool: it will stop edit wars and force us in the toxic cloud to reach consensus.
• Mediation (from Martians, probably) is a very good tool too: the main problem (I think) is emotional attachment, misunderstandings that can give rise to strong confrontations, and deaf ears to other editors' arguments (probably caused by the heat of the discussion and mistrust). Mediation has given very good results helping us structure the discussion and making all of us pay attention to other editors' reasons: in fact the only progress in the last 7 months has come when a couple of mediators (User:Atama and User:Richard Keatinge) have mediated to lower the emotional tension.

I hope this verbose comment does not bore anybody and it can help. --Imalbornoz (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Further Outing Threat

Sorry but this is getting ridiculous, Red Hat is continuing with the threat of outing - diff [21]. I'm not calling for a block but a smack around the head with a trout would help. Justin talk 23:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not threatening anyone with anything. It is a serious conflict of interest if an editor is a member of a highly partisan group, he does not declare this to other editors, and he (a) adds information about that group to Wikipedia (b) operates a series of sites to which he links on Wikipedia but claims no editorial control over (c) is highly economical with the truth (I later discovered) when responding to editors' questions on his COIs. I have deliberately not provided any information which might reveal his real name, even though he has already effectively outed himself on Wikipedia. There is an ongoing discussion here about the matter [22]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Will you, Ecemaml, Imalbornoz, Justin, Pfain, JCRB and whoever else do a full register of interests? List all poitical affiliations, donations to any groups, registered properties and residences? I am reluctant to have us delve into that level of our life. Personally I self censor myself in which articles I edit to avoid COI but at the same time I don't really want to have to monitor the personal life of every editor who strolls along to articles to find out if they are COI so....no Red Hat, I reject the concept of increased watchdoggery. If GibNews is wrong, then he is wrong whether he is GibNews, Jesus Christ, the King of Spain, Prince Philip or the head of the Basque Seperatist Movement. Deal with the contet rather than the editors and we needn't worry about such things. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I, like the vast majority of WP editors, am not using sites I operate outside of Wikipedia as sources, I'm not updating articles on organisations I am a member of, and I'm not updating an article space I have been actively engaged in the politics of in real life. In the list of examples of COIs [23] we have problems with self-promotion, citing oneself, close relationships and campaigning. That's a check against almost all the boxes. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Case in point. Look at the information added to Wikipedia about the Voice of Gibraltar Group by the alleged member [24] which sat there for years, untouched. "The VOGG is a long running group which has the objective of defending the rights of Gibraltarians against external threats. It engages in public debate, and protest action where appropriate. As a non political group, its members represent a cross section of the community. It was particularly active in canvassing a 'NO' note in the 2002 referendum, when it toured the estates with a loudspeaker van and invited guests from all parties to address the residents, culminating with the Chief Minister after the result was announced." Not only is this self-promotion, but it's unsourced (who says its members represent a cross section of the community), and untrue (of course it's political). It gets worse when we find the Government of Gibraltar has been critical of this organisation's activities [25]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Red Hat but you seem determined to self-destruct with this vendetta against Gibnews, will you please just back off from trying to out Gibnew before you end up with a block. Ecemaml has already been blocked for it, despite trying to have him listen to reason and you seem bent on going down the same path. Justin talk 01:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked rather rashly, I feel, by someone who is not aware of the details, not to mention gleefully encouraged by you. I've requested a review of that block. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, in 2006 the spokesperson for the VOGG was Peter Tunbridge, as I've already pointed out to Ecemaml, when the edit you're so excited was made. I know Gibnews' real life identity and he is not Peter Tunbridge. Now will you please stop this before you end up blocked. This has all the hallmarks of a vendetta and harassment. Justin talk 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I too know his real life identity - as does Ecemaml - we both uncovered it by accident, and I've been scrupulous in not posting anything which might reveal it even though the editor himself has done so on Wikipedia. In fact, in some off-Wiki emails with certain admins I've made my position on that extremely clear: I did not state it even in my emails to them, and I gave forewarning that by clicking on certain links in the email they may inadvertently discover it, so they had the choice as to whether to do so. NB: linking an editor with the VoGG which supposedly has members who "represent a cross section of the community" is not singling out any one individual, so I really fail to see what the outing issue is here. Suggesting that an editor who is editing the Labour Party article is also a member is not outing them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You could have just asked him, instead of trying to make an edit from 2006 into "evidence" of the Gibnews conspiracy. Clearly you're not rational about your detective work and drawing attention to material that can identify an editor is clearly outing. Will you just stop it. Justin talk 01:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I did ask a series of questions [26]. The reason I am persisting in this is that evidence has been uncovered which suggests the answers were not completely truthful. However, it's a Catch 22 situation. Provide the full evidence, and you will out someone. Don't provide the evidence, and it's difficult for others to understand where the COI lies. Regardless, noone has revealed any personal information and noone has threatened to. So please stop coming here and deviously trying to get people blocked. There's enough abuse from you on my talk page to land yourself in a block. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you'd simply emailed an admin your concerns that would have been one thing but you and Ecemaml have been taunting him on his talk page and that is completely different. You've also been taunting him on article talk pages as well and you Red Hat were also quick to voice sockpuppet allegations that you knew had already been investigated and found to be false. Persist if you must but if you end up blocked, don't blame anyone but yourself. Justin talk 09:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was so gleeful I asked him to unblock. Fine, self-destruct if you must, I give up. Justin talk 01:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My view at the moment is that Ecemaml was speculating about Gibnews's identity in a manner akin to fishing so warranted a block per WP:OUTING. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick is pointing out that based on information he has, Gibnews may have a COI, but I haven't seen him actually seeking to confirm his suspicions or name Gibnews on Wikipedia. The diff given by Justin is slightly concerning in that it could have indicated Red Hat was starting down a rocky path, but he's gone no further and hasn't in my opinion crossed any lines. For me the difference revolves around digging for, or releasing, personally-identifiable information. Evidence-based concerns that someone may be a member of an advocacy group obviously pertain to any investigation into their editing patterns (relevant examples include the Scientology Arbcom case and the current Transcendental Meditation case), but actually trying to pin a name to an individual who hasn't explicitly released that information is, I think, where the line is crossed. Of course there's some overlap, which makes this such a delicate balance to tread, so I'm open to reviewing Ecemaml's block. Based on Red Hat's post to my talk page I will be doing so later today when I have email access, although if in the meantime a consensus forms that Ecemaml should be unblocked I have no objections. EyeSerene^talk 11:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think a short block would be beneficial as I certainly feel abused and threatened by the comments on my user page. I also find the sustained personal campaign by RHPF rather tedious and shows a lack of good faith. His latest claim is that I have censored a press release from the Government of Gibraltar dated 2001 on gibnews.net, which started operation in 2005. I don't mind contribution content to wikipedia, or arguing about it being self-governing, but continually defending myself for creating websites with other people's content and against claims that I've spammed wikipedia about a long established pressure group can be described in one word used by Roger from Viz. I'm not into self-publicity keep a low profile and would like things to stay that way. --Gibnews (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Dropping the COI stuff completely might be a good idea for now. The allegations have been noted, but since we have no way to establish their truth (or otherwise) without going into dangerous territory, continuing to press them may begin to look like a vendetta even if that's not really the case. I think if this does go to Arbcom they may need to be examined, but that can be done off camera to protect editors' identities which we can't really do at ANI. EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. While probably dropping the COI issue might be in order, I can't but point out that there is an editor currently blocked for attempted outing because of it. User Ecemaml's behavior has been directed either to out Gibnews or to try to unravel his alleged conflict of interest, but not both. Provided that the aforementioned user has not effectively outed any editor and that it is not possible to unintentionally attempt something, I think he should be unblocked. Just my thoughts. Cremallera (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That the name Ecemaml apparently had in mind may have been incorrect doesn't excuse the policy breach (note that Wikipedia recommends editors neither confirm or deny the results of attempts to guess their identities, and Gibnews has followed this advice). Your argument is semantically correct - one can't attempt something one wasn't trying to achieve - but the terminology at WP:OUTING is fuzzy. Basically I think that in the course of pursuing the alleged COI, Ecemaml went too far - unintentionally perhaps, but they were warned about the direction they were heading in. I believe, semantics aside, that I've followed the spirit of the policy properly. Again though, if a consensus forms to unblock (especially in the next few hours because I'm off to bed now), please don't stand on ceremony; I won't object :) EyeSerene^talk 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read this thread and the relevant talk pages and looked at contrb histories, etc and I think EyeSerene's block of Ecemaml is entirely correct. Several times they were warned that their behaviour was not acceptable, and still they carried on. They were explicitly warned that if they did not back off that they would be blocked, and even after this they continued as they were, so a block is more than appropriate. I don't believe that their behaviour was acceptable, but even if it were, when editors in good standing ask you to modify your behaviour them you should stop doing what it is they have commented about. If you do not agree with them that your actions are problematical then you should discuss it with them and, if necessary, others, and come to an agreement. The worst thing you can do is blithley ignore the complaints, as Ecemaml has done.
Previously I have commented that The Red Hat's behaviour was bordering on harrassment, and I'm sorry to note that they have not taken my advice to back off and are continuing to sail very close to the wind, and unless this changes there will come a point when they get blocked and that will hardly be without warning.
For the record, apart from a single request for a citation I've been entirely uninvolved with Gibraltar articles. I'm British and currently live in the European Parliament constituency that includes Gibraltar, but I don't have any opinions either way regarding it's status. I do have a Gibraltarian acquaintance who is a passionate supporter of Gibraltar remaining British, but to the best of my knowledge she edits Wikipedia only infrequently and only in the areas of contemporary popular music and renaissance-era sculpture. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still frustrated that I've now approached a couple of admins, including you, who are all very quick to pontificate here, but who then say they're too busy to look into the details of my COI worries - which because of the risk of outing I have gone out of my way to keep the exact details off Wikipedia. Lest anyone be unaware, I only started researching these sites after he threatened me with legal action twice for suggesting they were not reliable sources (since retracted). One of the two sites was deemed by the community to be a reliable source on the basis of answers which I believe were incomplete and misleading and - this is the frustrating bit - I can't say why. Now, if someone uninvolved was willing to donate some of their time to look at the evidence rather than pontificate here, and then they tell me it's not an issue and I should back off, that's fine. But noone is willing to do that - including you. So please don't throw around harassment claims when you don't know all the details. (I do however admit my Mr VOGG comment which started this subthread [27] was a silly response to a post by Gibnews on my retirement from the Gibraltar article space that I should not have risen to). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I can only state that I have carefully read the various emails I've received and looked at the other available evidence (including the discussion which concluded that gibnet.com does not meet WP:RS and the discussion that concluded that gibnews.net does). Your's and Ecemaml's concerns are now widely known. If you want my personal opinion: is Gibnews editing with a pro-Gibraltar POV? Almost certainly, although I'm sure they'd argue that this serves to balance an opposing POV. Do they have a conflict of interest due to their off-Wikipedia activities? Perhaps, although this is unconfirmed speculation and the lengths we can go to on this board to investigate it are limited.

However, even if the COI suspicion is justified (and I believe elements of it may be), WP:COI doesn't actually prevent editors editing in those circumstances as long as they can recognise their bias and remain relatively neutral. For example, having looked at the evidence, I don't believe your objections to the use that's being made of gibnews.net are entirely justified unless you're also alleging that the site is hosting falsified documents; at some point you do have to accept consensus, even if you think it's wrong. I think the concern about potential WP:OR where primary sources are used is valid, but where secondary sources aren't available we have to do the best we can with what we've got.

In some ways I think the alleged COI itself is peripheral - while it might explain the cause of certain behaviour, as admins we can only really address the effects. As such, the article has been locked to prevent further edit warring; editors are reminded of the likely consequences of reverting each other when protection expires (possibly with a WP:0RR restriction as proposed above); WP:NPA will be enforced where necessary; and the importance of WP:OUTING has been underlined. Without community consensus to impose more sweeping restrictions (topic bans and the like) - which no-one has called for - that's about the limit of what we can do here.

Red Hat, as I understand it the issue you and Ecemaml want to see addressed is basically: Is Gibnews, perhaps due to a COI, pursuing an agenda on the Gibraltar article(s) with no regard for Wikipedia editorial policy? I believe this is beyond the scope of this board. It touches on both content and behavioural issues, I'm certainly no subject expert, and admins have no business adjudicating content anyway. I really am coming to the view that opening an Arbitration case to examine the behaviour of all editors may be the best way forward. EyeSerene^talk 10:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews is very open and honest about his views, he doesn't sugar coat them, he displays his opinions openly, honestly and frankly. His personal bias is on display but it doesn't enter article space. If it did there are others, myself for example, who can edit to redress the balance. What I think makes the difference is he will listen to another's opinion and agree to compromise. I'd be disappointed if this goes to Arbitration as User:Atama has done an excellent job in the main of keeping things level headed. I just don't know, I rather suspect all the editors involved will not come out ofArbitration very well. I have suggsted in the past a temporary topic ban to allow external editors to sort out the article problems, perhaps now is the time to try that? I did suggest it on the talk page earlier. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 11:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Justin that Gibnews is a useful editor. With a strong POV, but he's prepared to listen to encyclopedic argument. He has also done us a service by making primary documents available online, though of course we need to use these with appropriate caution. Whatever groups he may belong to seems to me irrelevant to an encyclopedia. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene: thanks for the thoughtful response. You have summarized the concerns well and the Gibraltar page is so disfunctional that arbitration really is merited so that all involved parties' behaviour can be scrutinized (mine as well). Richard: the point is not whether he is a useful editor - he has done more than anyone to ensure Gibraltar has good coverage in WP. It's that he does hold a strong POV, he is not a "real life neutral party" in the matters he writes about on WP and we are all relying on him to self-police his own website off Wikipedia. I wouldn't have a problem with that if he had demonstrated he understood the RS and NOR policies but he has a consistent track record going back several years of not doing so, including his reaction to the initial gibnews.net blacklist proposal (instigated by an admin here, I should point out, not me). I also would not have had an issue had he come clean to the full extent of his ownership of both sites which he portrayed as being owned by companies and he is just the IT guy but that is totally and utterly false. He IS the man behind that company. Now, I shall say no more on the matter unless asked to substantiate that claim on my talk page and will be taking this page off my watch list so I'm not tempted to break that promise. Bye. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC) ps arbitration for Gibraltar yes please - with or without the COI issue.

For whatever reasons RHPF has been attempting to discredit me since he showed up on the Gibraltar pages, where his activities there have been limited to removing content and complaining about my actions. He has falsly accused me of sockpuppetry on a number of occasions and attempted to get me banned by claiming I am user:gibraltarian. He has been active in forum shopping to try and discredit gibnews.net and gibnet.com which are sites I have built, but which the content referenced on wikipedia is generated by various credible organisations and reproduced there with permission.

I note his recent edit summaries on the politics of Gibraltar regarding the Voice of Gibraltar Group where he has removed the link to vogg.gi Claiming this was 'self-promotion' for the record I have not registered that domain, designed its website or hosted it ever his claims are totally unfounded and dishonest, as is his labelling me 'Mr VOGG' on the talk:Gibraltar page malicious. He has also removed content about the 2002 referendum campaign. which was a major pivotal point in Gibraltar history and attempted to remove similar significant content on the Gibraltar page.

This is all very negative. --Gibnews (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

gibnet.com being added back despite community decision

No admin action needed; section collapsed for readability. EyeSerenetalk 17:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There were various discussions re gibnet.com relating to its reliaility. As it is maintained by an editor here (Gibnews) it was decided at the spam blacklist page that this site is not reliable [28]. It is now, however, being added back [29] by a user who appears to be letting personal issues override our policies. I'm not going to get into an edit war over this with him, but the community decision was unanimous on this so something needs to be done. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC) This is enough to make a saint swear, honestly :) I've locked that article too (on the wrong version, naturally), and have asked Dirk Beestra to review the situation with that link in the light of MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#gibnet.com. I'd blacklist it myself, but I think the more admin eyes we have on this the better. EyeSerenetalk 15:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC) See my reply to Red Hat [30], if there is a community black list I was unaware of it having taken an extended wikibreak for the last month. A reply made at 14:06, some 8 minutes before it was posted here. It would have been helpful to have referred me to it, not immediately go with the nuclear option at AN/I. On the face of it, faced with removing a cite to replace it with a citation needed would seem odd to most wikipedians. You can unlock it as I definitely won't be edit warring over it, if there is a community black list fine but I would urge Red Hat not to be pointy about removing cites and replace them with another cite rather than just removing them. Jesus, this is just getting ridiculous, not only enought to make a saint swear but also enough to turn them to drink. Justin talk 15:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC) There was no consensus to blacklist links to gibnet.com although some editors were uneasy about it, there waqs a consensusit was NOT spamming. RHPF took it upon himself to remove links. I restored one, as did others - RH then assumed bad faith and accused me of being an IP editor. He has repeatedly accused me of sockpuppetry without any basis in fact. I'm getting fed up with his continual harassment, time wasting and forum shopping. --Gibnews (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC) UNINDENT Damn edit conflict. I just checked and the request to blacklist that site was quickly denied and a quick read shows the issue was Gibnews adding the cites but not other users. Now before adding it back I did actually review those cites. Could someone actually tell me what the problem is, because now I'm just confused. Justin talk 16:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC) To be fair, the main reason why the blacklist was denied was because Gibnews was really the only person adding it. If multiple editors add it, I wouldn't object to a blacklist and I doubt that others would have either. The relevant discussion about its use, by the way, would not be the blacklist discussion but would be the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. I don't expect that Justin would have been aware of that and other discussions in his recent break from Wikipedia so I hope that nobody holds his recent contributions against him. -- Atama頭 17:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Fair enough - this all seems to have been a misunderstanding. The reverting was unfortunate, but I can appreciate that Red Hat believed he was enforcing a consensus and Justin that he was restoring sourced material. Maybe it's best if we overlook it, though I think keeping the lock on the History of Gibraltar article might be prudent for now. I will however amend my post to Dirk. EyeSerenetalk 18:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Next steps

Apologies for the new section, but I think it might help to draw a line under some of the above. Firstly, I've now unblocked Ecemaml based on their unblock request and an email exchange where they acknowledged the seriousness of WP:OUTING and undertook to avoid making similar mistakes in the future. Secondly, we have a number of suggestions for remedies above that are worth considering, ranging from article probation through a limited topic ban to arbitration. My personal feeling is that ANI is a blunt and haphazard instrument for tackling this kind of deep-rooted dispute, and the repeated threads here are a reflection of that. To a certain extent we can manage the article, but we've been unable to find any long-term solution and each time a new thread appears it seems as though we're applying sticking plasters to a gaping wound. I think perhaps it's time to refer it to a more formal venue where the dispute will get undivided attention and private issues can be examined privately. However, I agree with Justin that arbitration should be a last resort and that Atama has been doing a fine job of consensus-building on the article, so maybe something else is worth trying first. Thoughts? EyeSerene^talk 20:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well I have observed that it only seems to stay stable whilst the article is protected. When it isn't "solutions" are imposed by WP:TAG. Secondly there is a real problem with WP:CPUSH on the article. Thirdly there appears to be a vendetta by two editors against another, which I think some admins have picked up on. So:

1. Article stays protected for now, edits only to be added by an admin once agreement is achieved in talk. Though I'm not sure it will go anywhere unless there is an enforced break to allow tempers to cool.
2. As suggested by Gordon, there needs to be an effort by the uninvolved to resolve the issues, without being lobbied by the involved. Say a month, a topic ban in the intervening time. I would be happy to leave it down to Willdow for now, as he listens and gives due weight to all views.
3. It needs to be monitored by a neutral admin. User:Atama has achieved the confidence of all concerned. But it is a lot to ask of him. WP:CPUSH is a difficult problem to deal with, it is acknowledged that arbitration finds it difficult to deal with.
4. Further acts of harassment need to be stopped in their tracks with an immediate block and an escalating scale of blocks. This includes the frivolous complaints about editors, I believe that there has been an attempt to manipulate AN/I to block certain editors.
5. I'm not convinced that 1RR will work, there is evidence that some of the editors have co-ordinated their activities by email. Interested to see how this problem can be dealt with. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

EyeSerene - there are far more deep-rooted and long-running problems at that article than the present content dispute. What would be beneficial, I believe, would be a review by editors with the ability to enforce blocks/topic bans (is that ArbCom? never done anything like this before) where anyone who has a concern or bugbear gets to list it and ask for it to be reviewed. (Justin might put as one of his items "I think Red Hat harasses Gibnews" and "Imalbarnoz is a tendentious editor" and provides some supporting diffs; I might say...no, will hold my tongue). As well as reviewing these "complaints" to see whether they are legitimate, the editors also look over the talk page history etc to get a general sense of who has been doing and saying what. Then everyone gets behavioural feedback (important because some people can't see what they are doing wrong, me too sometimes) and instructions to stop/start/continue certain behaviours, which if not followed will result in a topic ban. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that "a review by editors with the ability to enforce blocks/topic bans" is a pretty dead-on definition of what arbitration does. My concern is an echo of Justin above, however, that arbitration will probably end poorly for a number of people. We can still try it and trust in the process, it can and does help for people. I'm more inclined toward a community-based article probation if we can do it. I know that it was attempted before, by Justin (see here) but didn't get attention at the time. -- Atama頭 00:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to say this without sounding like I'm trying to score points, but that link you provided, the first time I'd seen it (I had been on a several month self-imposed exile from the Gib article at the time) just illustrates the problem, as do the suggestions from J above. An editor proposes a series of suggestions which are perfectly reasonable, then proceeds to break virtually every single one of them, and then proposes it all over again. One gets the feeling he thinks everyone else is the problem. I'm not trying to get him into trouble here for that, I'm just saying feedback on behaviour is seriously needed and the threat of a topic bans may just be enough. If I've deemed to have done something topic- or WP-blockable (I don't think I have) I'll accept the consequences with good grace and work on the feedback provided. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if you were right, and Justin did break all of his own suggestions, what does that matter? If those restrictions were in place, Justin would be subject to the same penalties as anyone else for breaking them. It would still have the same effect. If those restrictions were in place then the cycle you describe would be broken because violating those restrictions can lead to blocks. I'd like to say, too, that if probation is given for Gibraltar topics I don't have a lot of interest in playing "cop" on those articles. I do feel that I'm rather uninvolved with those articles, as I've done no editing to them (that I can remember), haven't taken sides in any disputes between editors, or given opinions on any of the article talk pages about what content I'd prefer in the articles. I've only acted as a mediator of sorts, and I've advised most of the regular editors about different issues they've had (and I think I once removed article protection when a dispute ended). I don't feel a need to recuse myself, and I would enforce probationary sanctions if I felt it absolutely necessary, but I feel like the first time I block someone at those articles I'm no longer on the sidelines in those disputes. -- Atama頭 02:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I could post a few diffs but no I don't think my own behaviour is above reproach and have said so. I think you'll find that I am in fact one of the few to have apologised for crossing the line and if you look, more than once the bad behaviour was out of frustration but also in response to some pretty serious bullying going on in that article. Red Hat forgets that in our own disputes, who was the bigger man and made the first move to putting the past behind us. I could post the diff but you'll find I've tried to do it with all of the others involved with Gibraltar as well. I could also point fingers and say that it was all down to Red Hat, baiting Gibnews and harassing Gibnews, for which I think you can make a compelling case and if investigated at Arbitration would lead to a rather lengthy block from editing wikipedia. If one were so inclined you could also make a case blaming AN/I for not intervening before it got so bad, it has been raised here often enough. There is a lot of finger pointing all round and not enough reflection on some pretty bad behavious by all parties. But was is the point of apportioning blame? Wikipedia doesn't have a blame culture and raking over the past and bringing up issues long forgotten and in many cases apologised for is not going to address fundamentally the atmosphere has gotten so toxic that there will be no progress with the current protagonists involved. There needs to be a clean break and repeated pleas for a voluntary break are falling on deaf ears at the moment, just as they have in the past.

I really don't want to see this going to arbitration, a number of very good editors have been sucked into what became a very bitter dispute and the project would be the one to suffer. My personal view is that the whole article has been held hostage by an editor with a nationalist agenda that fits perfectly with the profile of a WP:CPUSH. So for a while it needs very close admin attention to put an end to that disruption. To allow the article to move forward it needs fresh eyes. I'm also of the opinion, this is just about the last chance to avoid arbitration and the loss to the project of some productive editors.

I would also say that I think User:Atama does himself a disservice when he says that the first time he blocks someone he will be no longer on the sidelines. I have been very impressed with the even handed way he has mediated in a very charged atmosphere. It would be nigh on impossible to claim he had taken sides. If that became an issue where he was accused of taking sides, not for one second that I believe he would, then I would hope that other admins at AN/I would give him their full backing. The project really does need more admins like him. Oh and to put that into perspective getting praise out of a Scotsman is marginally more difficult than to get him to part with cash. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 09:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Justin - may I politely ask you to step aside for a moment please? You've made your suggestion for the next steps now please let me make the case for mine.

Atama - unfortunately I don't think you are the right person for this and nor is your approach the right one. You see this all as a content dispute that admin intervention and blocks can handle, but as I said, the problem is more subtle and deeper rooted. For what it's worth, I'm half Spanish and half British, living in neither country, I'm with the 99.99% of Gibraltarians who think Gibraltar should be British but I'm always finding myself on the side of the Spanish editors in these arguments against Justin and Gibnews in these POV matters because there are always a multitude of reliable sources which agree with the edits the Spanish editors want to make. That alone should ring alarm bells - that we have editors blocking edits on the basis of their political views and not what the sources say. Latest case in point: [31]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(Mostly) outside comment: as I suggested it, I'd better expand. Arbitration is complicated and stressful: but on balance I still think it's the way to go as other options haven't worked. The Digwuren arbitration decision is a model for how it might work.

As The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick says, I think there are deeper problems. The current, and proposed admin/blocks, setup doesn't really address the problem that we shouldn't have an article solely guided by what's mutually acceptable to two hostile factions. It means, for instance, that what's a sore point to both - e.g. San Roque - will end up with vague anodyne coverage that's more about appeasing these factions than informing the uninvolved reader.

Getting editors to talk nicely doesn't alter problems of strong bias - often affecting opinion on topics in unstated ways - that really needs attention at editing level ("neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability" as the Digwuren summary says) rather than just discussion level. Having skimmed the discussions, I'd have to conclude that "pro-Gibraltar" bias is far more of a problem here than pro-Spanish.

I think there are also a number of other unresolved issues around the Gibraltar articles: unresolved conflict of interest; and sourcing (general current focus on primary sources and/or not terribly reliable ones, rather than reliable secondary sources such as mainstream newspapers and books). I don't know whether anyone here remembers the whale.to discussion; this concerned a site hosting historical documents (each reliable in itself) about 19th century vaccination issues - but the documents archived were selectively anti-vaccination, and the site itself framed the material with an anti-vaccination slant. So it was decided an unreliable source. This seems very pertinent to one of the sourcing issues here.

As I've said, a creative solution would be to ban any editor with a stake in the regional issue; I think there are some regionalist editors whose bias is so deep-rooted that I don't have any faith in their ability to work in a way compatible wth the aims of Wikipedia (see WP:PLAGUE). But failing that, arbitration. This needs knocking on the head. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No Red Hat I will not step aside and allow you to villify me yet again, I am utterly fed up with being villified for having the temerity to disagree with you and refusing to be bludgeoned into agreement by tendentious and circular argument. You're misrepresenting my opposition to certain edits as POV, when I had very different objections to Gibnews. My suggestion that information peripheral for an overview of Gibraltar is not included is a very reasonable position to take. Your own user page makes the same point Removal of "true" or "sourced" material from Wikipedia is not unconstructive/vandalistic: one of the purposes of Editing is to ensure that the text being edited is of appropriate length. This may mean removing irrelevant information or a level of detail that is not required.

But having made that suggestion I was villified as "suppressing" any mention of San Roque and of "censoring" the article. What rings alarm bells for me is when an editor is harangued for a suggestion, instead of it being calmly and rationally discussed, and the labelling of POV is used to justify ignoring reasonable argument. Alarm bells ring like crazy when an established article is labelled as POV, when what they really mean is that it doesn't favour the POV they prefer. Equally those so bent on including certain information are so bent on it, for entirely POV reasons, equally fixed in their position by POV concerns as Gibnews. The difference being Gibnews states his objection openly but they conceal theirs and to me that makes them the greater danger to the project. See WP:CPUSH

You portray it as myself and Gibnews against the world, when that is far from the case. There were a number of other editors who this mess has driven away from the article. In they main, they agreed that I put forward a reasoned argument but one by one were driven away by relentless circular and tendentious argument. I note that a completely fresh pair of eyes this week acknowledges that there is merit in what I had to say. And for what its worth, I'm half-Spanish as well, an inconvenient fact for those that accused me of racism as another excuse to ignore reasoned argument.

You are persisting with trying to imply that only two editors are the problem, when there is a great deal of problematic behaviour that has resulted from a basic failure to assume good faith. You're just as guilty as anyone else but the fact is you just can't see the problems in your own behaviour and that for me is worrisome. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 13:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Based on much of the above and some hard thinking overnight, I've now filed a Request for Arbitration. I fully understand that this won't be welcomed by everyone, and I'm quite prepared to be castigated for doing so, but I feel Arbcom rulings in other contentious areas (the Balkans, the Middle East, Ireland etc) have proved helpful in resolving such deep-rooted disputes. I also don't want to give the impression that I've short-ciruited other dispute resolution; Atama has clearly earned - and deserves - the respect of everyone involved, and one of the reasons I made this decision was their perfectly understandable wish not to have to police the article if community sanctions were tried. I think finding other admins that want to step into the firing line will be difficult (I have no desire to do so myself either), and because this thread has had limited participation I believe that interest in voluntarily dealing with this perennial issue, after so many unsuccessful attempts, is low. In short, I don't think I'm wrong in saying that most of us are fed up with it and just want it settled - including most of the article editors, I suspect. EyeSerene^talk 14:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou EyeSerene. And thankyou Atama too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I have to disagree and say that you've been premature in this action. Not that I'm suggesting you be castigated for it. You say there has been no success in dealing with this by AN/I, well I counter by saying that is hasn't been tried yet. Great to get it settled but not this way, its a sledge hammer to crack a walnut. Justin the Evil Scotman talk 15:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough, and of course I respect your position. I believe there are issues here that can't be settled by ANI though - it's proved a pretty tough walnut :) EyeSerene^talk 15:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

'Evening. I tend to agree with EyeSerene and Red Hat on this. After a lengthy mediation attempt, a proposed moratorium, 2 (or 3 already?) requests for comment and several AN/I threads we've achieved little. It may be true that arbitration is a last resort, but at this point we are in dire need of a last resort. Finally, may I suggest informing Guy about the existence of the request for arbitration? If I recall correctly, he is an administrator who was drawn to this whole Gibraltar dispute a month ago via AN/I thread, and filed an RfC. He was pretty active on the talk pages for some time. His input may be useful to the process we are about to initiate. Cremallera (talk) 17:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any strong objection to arbitration (not that it would change anything if I did). I think that multiple dispute resolution steps have been attempted without any lasting success, and what's needed is something along the lines of discretionary sanctions or probation. Doing something like that requires either community consensus or arbitration. Either ArbCom or the community has such a power, and I suppose it doesn't matter who does it. If EyeSerence is going to take the initiative and bring this to arbitration, then I say go for it. Hopefully some lasting fix can come from this now. -- Atama頭 17:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've notified Guy as suggested - thanks Cremallera. EyeSerene^talk 18:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Mike Handel - blatant negative BLP hoax made DYK!

Mike Handel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article (since deleted) was featured on DYK. The article had spurious claims about the subject:

"In 1978, Handel faced another scandal, when one of his laboratory assistants died under suspicious circumstances. Handel never faced any charges in connection with the event, but the tragedy showed, at the very least, that the safety precautions taken in his lab were inadequate, and other, more sinister rumors circulated about the event. The death took place late at night, after 11 PM, at a time when labs are normally closed, leading to suspicions that Handel and the assistant may have been lovers, and opening the possibility that Handel had killed her in order to keep the affair quiet."

In this case, it turns out that the article was a breaching experiment and the subject does not exist. However, it clearly shows that someone with malicious intent could create such an article, and that our quality control mechanisms are utterly inadequate.

See the narration by the hoaxer, here. If this had been other than a hoax, it would have been an outrageously libellous article featured by wikipedia.

If you read that narrative, it raises several serious questions:

• Our recent changes control on BLPs is unfit for purpose.
• Quality control on WP:DKY is scandalously inadequate.
• WP:OTRS need to carry out a full review of what went wrong here.
• Is the low threshold at WP:ACADEMIC simply a BLP liability that needs raised by a mile.

This may need taken up at various venues, but I bring it here for immediate review. This will doubtless hit the press.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There have been other fake DYKs. For example, Fred McQueen (nee Spiker) was proclaimed on DYK to be Steve McQueen's illegitimate child with exactly zero real evidence, the only sourcing press releases from entities affiliated with Fred. Over 5000 people saw the article's fictional claims. THF (talk) 13:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I suggest an immediate suspension of all BLPs from DYK, until we can review and put in place proper, competent, quality control. And that's just for starters.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem with suspending "all BLPs from DYK" is that BLP issues are not confined to biography articles about the subject, but include all mentions of a living person in any WP article. IOW, if a hoaxer or malicious person wanted to besmirch Mr. X via DYK, he could do it by linking to another article, in which the unfounded allegation against X was mentioned. Crum375 (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, quality control at DYK, whether "scandalously inadequate" or not, couldn't really have stopped this since the offending material was added when the article was put up on the main page. The featured article would be just as vulnerable, except that it's likely to be removed pretty soon. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies... what I meant was "after it was approved". ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Except the approved article was entirely a hoax. Nothing was verifiable - all was lies.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's true, in its current form. There are more drastic options though, like automatically protecting BLPs featured on DYK or banning them altogether (as a subsequent post on the blog advocates). I imagine there'd be some disagreement on whether either of those is worth the reduced risk of high-visibility BLP violations of this type, but they're not a-priori unreasonable solutions. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

@Scott: Yes, but it was a very elaborate hoax. Offline "sources" had been provided, and since Wikipedia doesn't insist on online sources, that is technically correct and there was no reason to suspect it was a hoax. However, there has been a problem at DYK; the hook was approved by a sock of the hoaxer himself, and that went unchecked. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, hooks should have to be approved by admins, or DYK regulars who are approved after discussion between regulars.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking in general. A guy arrived to the point of creating a fake offline reference and email it. Yes, we don't have a real defence against that. How could we? The problem is that either we are the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" or we all become Britannica employees (and even if we were Britannica, I'd love to see how can they protect themselves from fake references an employee creates -do they completely independently double-check everything?). We cannot be an open wiki encyclopedia and at the same time make this kind of ugly games impossible. The two things are simply mutually exclusive. Actually the blog post showed that most of the system worked right from the start, but of course when you go to the point of faking a reference, WP:AGF took control and in any case it would then be our burden to show that the reference was faked.

I personally wouldn't panic very much. Breaches in the system are possible? How new. We always knew that. We can try to mitigate this to a minimum, but who of us wouldn't have accepted the reference the guy emailed?

We have to live with the fact that breaches are always possible. We have to remind ourselves that perfect is the enemy of the good. Even in academic contexts forgeries happen all the time. What we can do is to try to bring all this down to an acceptable minimum. And yes, there is an acceptable minimum. Every time you cross the road, you accept a risk. The existence of WP implies risks. It's a fact. If you think WP is useless, then you can argue for its destruction. If you -like me- accept that WP is indeed a useful and meaningful resource, then we must find a compromise. --Cyclopia^talk 13:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well said. On the Naziism issue, which was supported by the faked reference and is independent of the murder claims, we couldn't reasonably have done better. Although avoiding libel has to be a high priority it can't be the absolute top priority or we'd just delete everything and go home: and to my mind at least, this reaches the area where we have to accept the possibility of similar occurences as part of the price for what we are. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Er, I should say that I haven't actually seen the 'newspaper article' so I'm assuming here it was a convincing forgery - but "speaking in general" I stand by what I said. Olaf Davis (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The "newspaper article" seems to have actually been uploaded to File:Handel oxford times.JPG. Admins can see it. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and so can't now see the deleted article, but if memory serves it said that some animal rights protesters called him a Nazi, not that he was a Nazi. There's nothing libellous toward Mr. Y in saying writing "X said Y is a Nazi", though it might be libellous towards X. X in this case was some unnamed protesters in the article. By the way, has anyone checked yet to see whether "Mike Handel" is in fact not a real person formerly at Oxford? So far we only have some blogger's word for it either way. MuffledThud (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reuploaded the fake image on Commons Image:Handel hoax.JPG. Feel free to decide for yourself if it is believable. I agree that the Nazi issue (were the article fake) is not a real issue at all. The real problem is the unsourced murder allegations that appeared while the article was on the main page. As I see it, this isn't a story about a BLP hoax, it's a story about Wikipedia implying someone was a murderer while he was featured on the main page. UTYVB8 (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Note that UTYVB8 has been blocked for sockpuppetry, and is appealing the block. MuffledThud (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There are some clues that indicate that the uploaded JPG file is a forgery. (I don't know whether I would have seen it at the time.) The whole event, in my view, shows that we may focus much more on (apparently) sourced BLP in order to avoid libellous statements. An unsourced BLP would not be taken seriously by many people, so creating bogus sources is a logical way to proceed for people who are serious about smearing someone.  Cs32en Talk to me  18:05, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

suggestions for DYK quality control

I'd suggest:

• that all BLP material should not simply be checked to see if it is sourced, but a regular and trusted user should have to certify that he's positively reviewed the sources and verified the claim in the article. This may mean that some BLPs sourced from off-line sources will have to be rejected unless someone with a good library can check them, but that's a price worth paying.
• That BLPs containing negative material should be disallowed from DYK.

--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Is WT:DYK a better place than ANI to discuss this, perhaps? Anyway, I've given a notification of this thread at that page. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose suggestion 1 (unrealistic and can be gamed too) , weak support suggestion 2. --Cyclopia^talk 13:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - far too draconian, and as I said below, no measure will ever stop a determined hoaxster from perpetrating his fraud. Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I find the opposition strange. Sure, anything can be gamed, but are you suggesting that it's acceptable to have an article featured on the mainpage just because it has some citations, without anyone checking if the citations actually verify one word of the article???? That's an incredibly low QC threshold?--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced negative BLP material are already not allowed on DYK (see WP:DYKHN). It would be very hard to check if each nomination was approved by a 'trusted' user, considering amount of of nominations there. Perhaps a better option would be for the admin promoting the hooks to check each of the articles, but that would be a very large burden on a single person. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This is strange. Unsourced negative material is not allowed on wikipedia, full stop. Are we really saying we don't have any further QC for BLPs because it is "too hard".--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

De jure it is not, but Wikipedia rules don't really mean anything as many admins do it YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps one thing we could do is only allow BLP's to be approved by trusted users with a track record. Part of the problem here is that the hoax BLP was approved by an unknown. But I am opposed to blanket remedies like "no negative BLP material in DYK" because it's totally impractical and many of our contributors are already trusted users. Gatoclass (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Whenever a problem arises with DYK, it's always regarding a BLP article. I strongly believe we need to do something to stop things like this in the future, but it should be something that works. "Too hard" means it wouldn't work well. Would you be able to read through eight articles per update, and check for the slightest negative statement in them? That would be too stressful, particularly since it's pretty much the same group of admins who do it everyday. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 14:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think I want to do anything that increases my current DYK workload, you are crazy :) I'm simply saying that a big part of the problem here is that we had a noob and a hoaxster who approved this article. If the updater had taken notice of that, and checked the article himself, it may never have made it to the front page.

Mind you, there is nothing we could have done about the later BLP violations, added to the article after it was approved. That's why I say it's pointless trying to adopt draconian measures to prevent this sort of thing. For someone who knows how the system works and is determined to vandalize content, there really isn't any way to stop them. Gatoclass (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Wrong venue, for starters. This is not an "admin intervention", but a BLP and DYK issue. Whatever action is taken, should be discussed in those talk pages. Crum375 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support Sensible. --JN466 15:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Sensible, especially the former. If these sources really exist, then the editors can provide scans of them. Those can be faked, but that is much harder to do. Also would support creating a list of editors who are allowed to approve BLP hooks, which would be limited to administrators and other experienced users. NW (Talk) 16:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Per Crum, this is the wrong venue for such a proposal, and it's also way too premature. Gatoclass (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It is not premature. It is just good sense, even on a day when we haven't just had a hoax. It's a responsible, adult thing to do. If anything, it is way overdue. --JN466 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• A "responsible, adult thing to do" to ban all negative material in a BLP from appearing in DYK articles? Have you actually considered for a moment what you are proposing? You are proposing a complete whitewash of every BLP that appears at DYK. You may think that a "responsible, adult thing to do" - I think it the opposite. Gatoclass (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The first part of the proposal is, "that all BLP material should not simply be checked to see if it is sourced, but a regular and trusted user should have to certify that he's positively reviewed the sources and verified the claim in the article." Would you agree that is a responsible thing to do in a BLP?

• Well that's not what the original proposal said, it was far more sweeping than that. But in response to your question, I'm fine with BLP's being doublechecked by "a regular and trusted user" (although I reiterate that would not have prevented the BLP violations in this case). But I'm not fine with every fact being checked in every BLP. That's an unnecessary and unrealistic standard in my opinion. For contentious material, sure, we need verification, but for innocuous material, it's a waste of energy. Gatoclass (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• • As for the second part, it is neither wise nor responsible for us to give freshly-created or freshly-expanded negative BLPs maximum exposure on the main page, after minimal and demonstrably fallible fact-checking and NPOV scrutiny. To explain, I am not suggesting we whitewash BLPs for DYK. I am suggesting DYK can live without BLPs that have negative content on living people. Cf. Wikipedia:DYKHN, "H6: Articles and hooks which focus on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided." --JN466 18:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I just don't think that's realistic. You may think that will not result in "whitewash" - maybe in some cases it won't - but in others it would. Gatoclass (talk) 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have a quick comment on the "scan" proposal. I get a lot of books from interlibrary loan, read and take notes, return the books, then write articles at my leisure. This often means that when I do write an article and put it up for DYK, I likely don't have a physical copy of the source anymore, just my written notes. I can't make preemptive copies of the book - that would violate copyright law and severely increase my need for new bookshelves. Karanacs (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support on the simple basis that we don't have to run anything on DYK. A further point is that these sort of "breaching experiments" will nearly always involve using a negative BLP to make their point, so this is where we must watch. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• support Clearly, we can't build an encyclopedia using only online sources. But, neither can we be sure that an offline source says what it is quoted as saying (assuming that hoaxes are rare events). I think some form of flagging sources as having been checked by trusted users is an excellent idea. While this is especially important for BLPs, I'm open to this being a generally acceptable process. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support Whilst the second suggestion sounds very sensible however wiki standards suggest we practice AGF. Gatoclass is somewhat right, it's draconian. --TitanOne (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think DYK should be tightened up at all. The whole idea of DYK is to encourage new material, not discourage it. There is already systemic bias towards online sources and such a measure would only serve to reinforce that bias, when printed sources are often more reliable than internet sources. To treat printed matter as second-rate would make Wikipedia look even more unreliable than it is sometimes considered. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. DYK should be tightened, as should most of our editorial policies. WE ARE LONG OVERDUE ON THIS. DAMN IT. JBsupreme (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose both suggestions. Suggestion #1 makes double work for reviewers, when what we should have is a system that works with no extra work. Suggestion #2 is impossible to achieve in practice as well as undesirable and unneeded. Negative facts about living people may make perfectly good hooks, perfectly sourced. Binksternet (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as written but some of the concepts are worth considering. I agree that BLP DYKs need special consideration and, perhaps, a special method of verification in DYK. BLPs are obviously a hot button issue and I think DYK can actually take the lead in setting a high standard for all of Wikipedia. I don't think we need to have every single fact in a BLP verified but there should be due diligence to make sure that every controversial or strong claim in a BLP is checked. I think what we need at DYK is a special icon to identify a nominated BLP article. These articles should stand out on the DYK nomination page because they do require the most attention from DYK regulars and admins. We should also stipulate that any review of these BLP DYK be "seconded" and ticked off by another DYK reviewer. Finally, it should be encouraged that any admin adding the DYK to the queues give it one more look through before main page featuring. I believe with a minimum of 3 eyes passing over any potential DYK BLP, we will lessen our chance of these type of problems occurring in the future. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Have to Oppose both proposals (sorry Doc), as written. The second one would in fact lead to a whitewashing of a lot DYKs. For the first one - don't see it as feasible. For example, I regularly buy books to use as sources when I'm traveling abroad, bring them home, use them in articles. Part of the reason I buy them abroad is precisely because they are not easily available in US (or UK or Australia etc) - so verifying their existence would be next to impossible for your average DYK patroller. However, I do think that BLP DYK standards need to be higher and I'd go along with a proposal that only "trusted" editors are allowed to promote BLPs, along Gatoclass' suggestion (who then could, to continue with my above example, request direct quotes and translations from the creator - not full proof but still another layer of verifiability)radek (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Especially the first one. When something is on the main page for even a few hours, it is going to be seen by millions of people. If there is any one place on the site where we need to make sure that information is correct, it is the main page. Mr.Z-man 02:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose We can't even get things sourced, let along verified based on sourcing. There's certainly room for people at DYK taking a long, hard look at such things, but a moratorium is certainly an overreaction. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose the specific proposals as weitten, but certainly support a general tightening of standards for DYK, not just on ones that are BLPs. These are very prominent, and we do have an obligation to be especially careful. It would have been so easy to look for verification of this, and discover there was none--it's the sort of thing that would always have web-accessible sources. the sensational nature of the material should at least have raised a very clear warning. A major foul-up, but no degree of formalism can prevent them entirely. DGG ( talk ) 03:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose first one will only select bad articles or unchecked articles because nobody will check book sources, or just say they did...and second one will end up like politician's spam and whitewashes. And even the odd GA reviewer will ignore the odd faked reference even when it's pointed out to them. I presume that the clause 2 may also apply to TFAs or will it? in which case no BLPs can go up unless they violate NPOV YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose #2 - I don't think it is workable or appropriate. For example, if an article mentions that a baseball player struck out in an important situation, would that be too negtative for inclusion? I don't think it should be, but it could be considered "negative material". And even for article that contain unambiguously negative information, I am not sure this is appropriate. It certainly would discourage neutral articles. To use an old DYK of mine, Roland Harper, as an example, the DYK hook focused on a positive aspect of his playing career (American football), probably even the highlight, but in doing the research I found that he had been convicted (in fact pled guilty) to a felony. I don't think that including this sourced and uncontrversial information should have precluded the article from DYK, and such a restriction would just encourage editors who want their articles featured on DYK to avoid including appropriate information in articles. And the rule would not stop editors from added negative information after the article was approved or promoted, which was apparently the case in the hoax. I reserve judgement on #1; I don't think it is workable as written, but some added scrutiny to offline sources for BLPs may well be appropriate. Rlendog (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Restricting reviewers to trustworthy ones

Please see RfC posted at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Restricting to only trusted reviewers? See you there. Binksternet (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Create a Mainpage watchlist

It seems to me that one problem here is that after the hook was approved a vandal used the window of opportunity to vandalise the article before it went on the mainpage. It is unfortunate that the vandalism wasn't picked up by the recent changes patrol, and if someone tried to replicate this breach I think we have a good chance that the recent changes patrol would pick up that vandalism. I think that Featured Articles have some extra defence in that FAC reviewers are likely to have watchlisted them, but DYK hooks may not be so heavily watchlisted, and in this case the author was in on the breach. So I suggest that we try and give a little extra protection to all articles in the queue for main page hooks, either by creating a wp:mainpage watchlist so that any editor can opt to have all approved hook articles added to their watchlist from when they are approved for the mainpage until they drop off the mainpage; Or by tweaking huggle to pay extra attention to edits to these articles. ϢereSpielChequers 22:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's easy. Special:Recentchangeslinked/User:Ucucha/Main Page. User:Ucucha/Main Page transcludes the Main Page and the DYK queue; thus, recentchangeslinked catches everything linked from those pages. Ucucha 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

But nothing will pick up old-fashioned POV-pushing, cherry-picking of sources etc, including by the usual admins and established and "respected" nationalists etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

general problem with notability standards

I'll note that the Handel article is better cited than a lot of existing WP:BLPs; it might even be better cited than the median BLP (and if not, it's close, like 40th percentile). Compare Cabbie Richards, which was all but a snow keep when nominated for deletion, and has next to no chance of improving. Someone patrolling pages under the status quo would have little reason to stop to investigate a similar page until someone complained about it. And if an anon IP came in and started removing text, he'd be blocked as a vandal the majority of the time. THF (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that the problem here was not with notability standards but with checking of offline references: if all those references had been genuine then this person probably should have had an article. What caused the problem was the creator's citing sourcing which didn't exist and - when asked to verify one - uploading a forged newspaper article. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Also, for a hoax or malicious allegation, it would be easy to create fake offline references, which would require a trip to the library to verify. I doubt any DYK reviewers (or even FAC reviewers) would go into that trouble before promoting. The only saving tool should be Google: if there is some unseemly BLP allegation and Google doesn't clearly support it by pointing to several reliable online sources, it should raise a red flag at DYK. Crum375 (talk) 13:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the mess of thousands of poor-quality BLPs in the encyclopedia resulting from low-threshhold N standards that far too many editors translate into "mentioned in two newspaper columns is good enough" floods the encyclopedia with such drek that editors neither have the time nor incentive to investigate articles like this one. The level of hoaxing was certainly high--but the level of scrutiny was also unusually high. Nine times out of ten, new-page patrol would have signed off on the article because it had six cites, and it never would have been seen again until the OTRS report came in. THF (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

All of the alleged cites were of such low quality that no article should exist on wikipedia based on them, hoax or not. The answer to the problem is simple: much sticter notability guidelines (like a real encyclopedia would use); multiple, high quality sources that discuss the subject of a blp in depth; You know, his/her fears/hopes/dreams date of birth, background and major accomplishments/involvements that would demonstrate they belong in an encyclopedia. Of course, this won't happen, with all the braying from the special notability guideline crowd (academic, porn, politician, athlete and on and on it goes).Bali ultimate (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but the fact remains that the community interprets the rules to permit articles with much poorer citing. There's no point in trying to delete an article about a solo musician if he's been reviewed by two or three minor music websites or released an album on anything other than a vanity label, and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cabbie_Richards shows that the interpretation of WP:GNG has morphed into "Anyone ever mentioned twice in the newspaper deserves a Wikipedia article." THF (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's worth pointing out that the person who verified this article was himself one of the hoaxsters. Gatoclass (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the bottom line here is that there isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes, short of draconian measures that, as another user suggested above, would mean we are not "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" anymore. We can tighten up procedures to a degree but there is really no practical way to stop a determined hoaxster from vandalizing content. Gatoclass (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There isn't much we can do to prevent elaborate hoaxes. What nonsense. There's lots that can be done. Higher standards, more competent reviewers, a demand that if offline sources are used that an independent editor must get themselves to a library and confirm their existence first and on and on it goes. And this was not particularly elaborate; if i understand, it involved a photo-shopped pdf and a whole bunch of lying. Easy peesey.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a very large mistake to view this as an "elaborate hoax" problem rather than something much less narrow. It doesn't take an elaborate hoax to create BLP issues. THF (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the blog post shows that everything worked fine until the guy forged the reference. It all went downhill from there. Yes, we're vulnerable to forged references combined with attempts at explicitly creating a BLP problem. This is no surprise, frankly. This is something we have to learn to live with probably, too, unless we completely change WP so to make it unrecognizable. If we want Britannica 2.0, guys, let's all join Citizendium. --Cyclopia^talk 14:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hoaxes have been on DKY before without the forgery. As for the Britanic quip, see straw man. Just because our QC can't be perfect, doesn't mean it shouldn't be a hell of a lot tighter. Do you simply put your head in the sand and deny and BLP problems whatsoever? Is it instinctive. BLP denialism seems pretty rife on this thread.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not denying them. Quite the opposite, I am openly acknowledging them. The point is: Can we afford to live with them, trying to take reasonable measures but without denying the nature of WP, or we cannot? Can we afford to be "a hell of a lot tighter"? That are my points. Some of them are philosophical, some of them are practical. For example: you propose asking trusted editors to manually review offline sources in libraries. The problems I see with that are many: for example, the backlog this would create would rapidly become insane and that in the meanwhile probably we're refusing a 99% of correct material just for being ultra-sure of avoiding the bad 1%. Is it a good idea, nonetheless? This depends on your priorities. But if your priority is "avoid BLP troubles at all costs", then there's nothing reasonable else to do than shutting down WP for good (no, not only BLPs: you can easily defame someone even on a math article, e.g. "X tried to prove that theorem, but people found a critical error..." when X is an established professor). My priority is to reach a reasonable compromise, because I believe WP, with all its shortcomings and real-life risks, is a valuable resource. The point is: what is reasonable compromise? Unfortunately this is much more a philosophical than technical issue, and I have no real answers to that. I have my answer (and I can argue for that), but your will be different, and that of other editors will be different. I can argue for my position, you can argue for yours: it's all matter of which conflicting objectives we have and how we balance them. --Cyclopia^talk 15:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

About the Britannica: People above (see Bali ultimate) use in their arguments expressions like "real encyclopedia". My point is that we're something different from a paper encyclopedia, with different goals, workflow, standards and whatever. To me comparing us to "real encyclopedias" is a mistake. Other people can of course disagree, but I wanted to point that there are already more traditionally worked out projects, like Citizendium, for exactly these reasons. --Cyclopia^talk 15:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to propose that we replace "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" with Cyclopia's much more accurate "Comparing us to real encyclopedias is a mistake". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol. But I stand by it. WP:NOTPAPER is already acknowledging that. Our development model, our pillars, etc. -all of them flies in the face of what standard, paper encyclopedias are. It has always been different. The end product -and what people expect from it- is already different too. In the general sense, this is an encyclopedia. But it is way different from traditional encyclopedias, in good and in bad. --Cyclopia^talk 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yet more staw men from Cyclopia. "avoid BLP troubles at all costs" - no one is arguing that. Not even me. No system is foolproof. That doesn't mean that we can't much much better here. "Can we afford to live with them?" - see here is the problem: the cost of bad BLPs to us is ziltch - zero - nothing (aside from the odd bit of embarrassment) the cost to the subject is very high. Soa cost/benefit analysis will always conclude "why should we inconvenience ourself here?". Your stawman always says "changing this means the end of wikipedia" - no it does not. Closing down DKY would not kill wikipedia. But I'm not proposinng that. Banning all BLP material from DKY would not kill DKY. But I'm not proposing that. Banning all BLP material that can't be quickly verified on-line would not kill BLPs on Wikipedia. BUT I'M NOT EVEN PROPOSING THAT! I'm proposing that all BLP material should be checked and verified, and if no one can check it it should be excluded. That might delay or prevent a few BLP nominations here and there, which is a very low price to pay indeed. Cyclopedia you say you deny nothing - but you oppose just about everything. Inconveniencing wikipedia (or at least the way we do wikipedia today) seems to be too high a price to pay for you.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring the point I made in my reply to you above, that BLP issues don't have to be in a dedicated biography article. An unfounded BLP allegation can appear inside any article, about any topic, and creating special rules only for BLP articles would only send the hoaxers/malicious editors to other articles. Crum375 (talk) 15:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ignoring it. Because it is yet another "it is impossible to do this perfectly and cover every eventuality, so let's do nothing" argument. We do treat BLPs differently, and that's because, on the whole, that helps us maintain biographical information to a higher standard.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A few answers:

• no one is arguing that: Good to know. But since you have repeatedly affirmed that you put the rights of the BLP subjects above everything else when dealing with WP, that looked like suspiciously like "our goal must be to reduce BLP inconveniences to zero". If you acknowledge this is impossible, fine, we come back to my point: where is the compromise?
• see here is the problem: the cost of bad BLPs to us is ziltch - zero - nothing (aside from the odd bit of embarrassment) the cost to the subject is very high. - I don't really get what you mean here. There are two factors I see instead. One is protecting subjects, the other is providing a comprehensive and open resource to readers. These two goals conflict. We have to reach an equilibrium between these two. What is the point of equilibrium, is open to debate.
• I'm proposing that all BLP material should be checked and verified, and if no one can check it it should be excluded. : Wait a minute, because perhaps I misunderstood. Do you mean that this kind of real-life double checking of offline sources should be done for all BLPs, or only for the DYK nominations? Because I understood you wanted the first, but if you mean the second, then I can for sure agree.
• Inconveniencing wikipedia (or at least the way we do wikipedia today) seems to be too high a price to pay for you. : To me WP is, currently, almost as tight as it could and should be while being still WP. The bar for new editors to contribute is currently very high, a lot of readers expect articles that we routinely delete, etc. Bear in mind, I would be happy with further restrictive proposals like semiprotection and/or flagged revs on all BLPs, for example. But I see a problem of WP becoming more and more a chilling maze, and BLP is only the deepest and most troubling/delicate spot in this respect. --Cyclopia^talk 16:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm ignoring it. Because it is yet another "it is impossible to do this perfectly and cover every eventuality, so let's do nothing" argument. We do treat BLPs differently, and that's because, on the whole, that helps us maintain biographical information to a higher standard.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that within the Mike Handel incident there were really two incidents. I have already written something to this effect at On Wikipedia, but I think it's worth bringing up. On the one hand, you have the fact that a hoax BLP was created and made it onto the main page. In creating that hoax, I used methods and insider knowledge that are perhaps beyond the common vandal. On the other hand, there is the matter of the entirely unsourced murder allegations which I stuck into the article from a brand new account several hours before it was scheduled to be included in DYK. The murder allegations WebCite 1, WebCite 2 were nothing but common vandalism and should have been caught. David Lindsey (talk) 16:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree. It seems a good argument for flagged revs on BLPs (I agree already with that). But apart from that, how do you really solve this kind of problems without locking down the article? I'd be all for protecting the featured/DYK articles, but it seems it is a perennial proposal which never got moment. --Cyclopia^talk 16:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Professional publications are vulnerable to deliberate hoaxes too. Please see Starsuckers for a recent example. In that case, several fake stories about celebrities were concocted, successfully planted in newspapers and then republished worldwide. "A lie can be halfway around the world before the truth has got its boots on." Colonel Warden (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

first thoughts from Jimbo

Fascinating and sad. I'm really proud of some aspects of the saga, and obviously not at all happy with others. I think one of the key things that can be done here is a ramping up of the courage of the OTRS volunteers and others who are enforcing BLP policy. I'd like to emphasize that those who did good work here could have been much more firm without any fear of harm coming to them, because they will have my full and complete support up to and including summary desysopping for anyone standing in the way of good BLP work.

Next week I will be running a second round of the informal poll that I started about the German version of Flagged Revisions - I think that's an important piece of this puzzle. But it is worth noting that this particular hoax, because it was deliberate and staged over a long period of time, would not have been prevented by Flagged Revisions.

Empirically, though, I think that most problems of this sort would be caught by flagged revs. The fact that a sophisticated and dedicated person who understands sourcing and is willing to lie and manufacture fake news articles, etc., can hoax people is interesting but likely to be extremely extremely rare in any circumstances. My point here is that we need to think about how to deal with stuff like this (mostly through strong strong support from the "machinery of state" which means admins, ArbCom, and me in defense of BLP enforcers) AND not let this distract us from serious problems that are empirically much more common, which is random driveby attacks that don't get caught quickly enough.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

As the OTRS volunteer who handled this ticket, I have to say that I learned quite a few valuable lessons. However, there are several issues with the time lag with OTRS that the author pointed out, which I am not sure could have been fixed (to be fair, in his email response he acknowleged this): My response of 16:39 was sent during my lunch break, and I did not log onto Wikipedia or my email (which would have alerted me of the locked ticket, which I would have reassigned to an active volunteer) for several hours after that. There are several things I could have done better, such going through the article with a finer tooth comb to see if this person actually existed (something I did not doubt), checking if some of the other sources existed (I didn't have time to take a look), realizing that Mr. Handel could not have nominated the article for deletion himself, and removing it from the main page (entirely my fault). However, I'm not sure that after this hit OTRS, that too much more could really have been done. So the problem isn't really from the OTRS end; it was another issue: How can we better ensure quality control for even seemingly well-sourced article? NW (Talk) 16:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about who exactly Jimbo is suggesting should be more firm, who he thinks did the good work, and who he sees as standing in the way, and what the good BLP work was. I'm of course not optimistic in getting a response, as specificity seems to be the enemy of the public figure. It would nevertheless be helpful to gain some clarity on this, for those of us who are less apt at decoding political ambiguity. If anyone who is, can clue me in, I'd appreciate it. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:20, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a "public figure" - I'm a Wikipedian. My point is that those who were removing unsourced material and tagging the article were doing the right things but could have done more - and I'm not blaming or criticizing them for not doing more, but rather giving a commitment and a public signal that it is requested and supported to do more. What more? Instant removal of the article from the front page upon receipt of the OTRS ticket along with instant stubbing and full protection would have been good. Before that, it would have been ok to refuse to allow the negative claims into the article without better sourcing. (Though, the guy was willing to fabricate a scanned article, and I don't blame anyone for accepting it, I'm saying that in an evaulation of the full totality of the evidence, it would be ok NOT to accept that.) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, that is helpful. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:22, 3 Mar 2010 (UTC)

There aren't - can't be - any SLAs on OTRS. It's work that often requires a lot of detailed reading around and where volunteers frequently have to suppress personal feelings in order to be fair to people who, in some case, are not very nice. The community is noticeably more firm on BLP than it was two years ago, which is great, but a lot of people are opposing even having a poll on flagged revisions because of misplaced concerns over the encyclopaedia that "anyone can edit". In this case we see the downside of that mission. I believe that we shuld be a lot more small-c conservative over DYK, as Scott has proposed. Guy (Help!) 16:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that people are continually overlooking the point that the most egregious BLP violations in this article were made after the DYK approval process had run its course? Adding extra restrictions to DYK BLP's will not do a thing to prevent that. Gatoclass (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, DKY approved a hoax article. it is not the first time that's happened. That shows a fatal weakness with the status-quo.--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? I have been contributing to DYK for almost 2 1/2 years now. In that time, DYK has promoted approximately 33,000 articles to the mainpage. AFAIK this is the first time we've had a BLP problem. Well, maybe we had another one sometime that I've forgotten about. That would make two BLP's out of 33,000 promotions. And you really think that is a serious enough "problem" to start proposing all kinds of draconian "solutions" - solutions that would not in fact have done a thing to prevent this BLP violation from making it to the main page? Sorry, but I don't find this line of reasoning at all persuasive. Gatoclass (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You don't think fact-checking should be required before we put something on the mainpage?--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would we want to fact-check innocuous material? Why would we want to fact check articles from users in good standing? No, I don't think we need a ponderous fact checking process that would be likely to drive away both contributors and reviewers.

For obviously contentious material, sure, that needs a fact check. But, that is largely done already. Believe me, DYK reviewers are already very nervous about putting negative BLP material to the front page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Gatoclass is right. Even a dozen serious incidents over 33.000 articles would be 0.05% of failure -and we're talking of one order of magnitude less. Hardly a concerning figure. This incident is a proof of concept of something that in practice never happens. --Cyclopia^talk 17:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For me, 0.05% failure rate is very poor - for the front page of English Wikipedia, one of the most important news and information sources in the world. We can do better; therefore, we should do better. That no one in the history of the world has ever approached anything like this would be, for me, irrelevant. The question must always remain: can we still do better?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Jimbo, guess what? I'm a volunteer. I am not being paid for my contribution here. It's all very well to talk about higher standards, but maybe I already feel overworked and underappreciated for the hard work I am doing verifying 50 articles a week for DYK? Maybe I don't want to start trekking to the library every week to try and verify every single fact in a BLP that is very likely to be innocuous and that will be off the front page in a mere six hours?

There are limits to what volunteers are prepared to do. You can impose standards as high as you like, but that doesn't mean you are going to be able to find someone to enforce them. At the end of the day, we are still the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and ultimately you get what you pay for. Caveat emptor and all that. Gatoclass (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to work harder or more - to the contrary. What I'm saying is that we can reflect on policy and procedure to reduce BLP issues, without working harder. I'm saying that this incident in particular has highlighted a handful of things we could do differently, as well as some things we are doing very well. When there is a poorly sourced BLP (as this one was) where the only sources are scans provided by someone we don't really know (as this one was), there are more choices than "trek to the library". One is "don't accept it as a DYK". No extra work needed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but my point is, we reject badly sourced BLP's already. This one was probably already headed for rejection, until a meatpuppet or sock of the hoaxer himself popped up to verify it. That is where the system failed in this instance, and certainly, I think that is one area where there is potential room for improvement. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It depends on definitions of "better". We must defend subjects, but (in my humble opinion) we must also defend the comprehensiveness, freedom and openness on which this project relies. Is it possible to do better in both? Sure. Is it possible to do really much better (like in, avoiding such incidents altogether)? Don't know. A compromise must be found, the problem is: where? --Cyclopia^talk 19:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What's your metric for the defamation/libel/falsehoods that no one noticed and corrected at all?Bali ultimate (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but if we have unknowingly posted some egregious falsehood about someone, we're still waiting for the complaint. Gatoclass (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. If the victim didn't notice then no crime was committed. How quaint.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, you want firmer standards for BLP's on the front page - fine. But please, don't just single out DYK for your programme. Impose the same standard on all the BLP's which happen to appear on the front page. And on all the BLP's within the articles which appear on the front page. And on all the FA's and all the GA's. Don't just single out the contributors at DYK for your campaign. That is hardly equitable. Gatoclass (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Right! We shouldn't fix the problems anywhere until we can fix them everywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"All BLP's on the front page" is not everywhere. I'm simply saying, if you are determined to have your impeccable standard for the front page, have it for all the projects not just DYK.

But having said that, I can't help but think that if it's right for the front page, it should be right for the rest of the encyclopedia. Is there some reason why new BLP's that don't happen to be nominated for DYK should be subject to a lower standard? Why not have this new "no offline refs in a BLP until they have been confirmed", for all new articles? Surely, if that is the principle being espoused, it's right for all our articles and not just DYK or the front page? Gatoclass (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

It is much easier to have a hoax DYK than a hoax TFA. It is much easier to make vandalism stick in a DYK candidate (probably only the nominator has it watchlisted) than in the TFA, which dozens keep an eye on because of the likelihood of vandalism. I don't think it is discrimination, just shoring up our weak areas.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

So you are volunteering to keep an eye on all the DYK BLP's as long as they are on the front page Wehwalt? Thanks for that, I was worried we weren't going to have the manpower to ensure these impeccable new DYK standards. Gatoclass (talk) 18:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If we can't ensure that DYK articles won't contain blatant BLP violations or be complete hoaxes, then we shouldn't even have DYK on the main page. I don't think that's an overly high standard. Its not asking for perfection, its asking to avoid what's quite possibly the worst case scenarios. Mr.Z-man 03:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, actually, it is asking for perfection. There is simply no way to "ensure" that BLP violations or elaborate hoaxes don't make it to the front page, even with the most zealous oversight. As other users have pointed out, even the best peer-reviewed scholarly journals get hoaxed. Do you really think that "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" could do better?

What we can do is take reasonable steps to try and minimize the likelihood of such problems. But the only way to "ensure" BLP violations or hoaxes don't get to the front page is to have no front page at all. Gatoclass (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the best way is to fact-check the material. If someone went to the trouble of fabricating sources or getting hoaxes in reliable sources, then its out of our hands. But not checking allegations of murder against sources or verifying that the subject really does exist (we're talking about the existence of an apparently notable person, not the results of some difficult-to-reproduce experiment here) is just laziness. But, since you're opposing fact-checking, what reasonable steps should be taken? Mr.Z-man 05:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

How often do I have to repeat this? There were no "allegations of murder" in this hoax article at the time it was approved. They were added later. Do you really think we wouldn't fact check such serious allegations if we saw them? Of course we would. What I have objected to is the suggestion that all offline sourcing in BLP's should be disallowed if it can't be verified, and that all negative material in DYK BLP's be removed. These are draconian solutions to the wrong problem. Gatoclass (talk) 07:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm with Equazcion in puzzlement over Jimbo's remarks. I don't understand who the bad guys who would be subjected to desysoping are. We are all in the same corner here, trying to build an accurate encyclopedia. Who, pray tell, is "standing in the way"?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, let me explain, then. I hear from many people who are BLP enforcers that they feel unsupported and there are constant concerns about whether they will be fully backed if they do what is necessary. In general, I think those fears are overblown, but the point I am making today is that I am standing firm on this issue. BLP enforcement is important. Speedy deletion, blocking people violating the policy, protecting pages, sprotecting pages, what needs doing can be done confidently. First, protect the reputations of people who may be in a position of being victimized by someone by using our resources. And sort out the details later, there is no rush. If there's a horrible murderer out there somewhere and if for a week Wikipedia doesn't have an article at all, until finally some reliable sources are fine, that's perfectly ok. What's not ok is BLP violations. I think everyone agrees with that, but not everyone yet fully understands that those who disagree are quite simply wrong and will have no power when a decision comes in judgment of whatever may have happened in a difficult situation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In that case, spell out the BLP exemptions in various policies like WP:PROTECT, WP:AGF, WP:V, etc. It would cut down on various controversies and give BLP enforcers the support they need. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If there is a move towards only accepting online sources (which, in my opinion, are less reliable than printed sources) then you may as well tear up Assume good faith. I agree with Gatoclass all the way. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Simon Burchell above. Relying only on online sources would lead practically only to incredibly poorer content. --Cyclopia^talk 19:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think an extreme position of "only accept online sources" is reasonable, and I agree that if something that silly were adopted it would likely lead to a lower quality of content. At the same time, I think it is wise to acknowledge that highly reliable online sources do have some great advantages in that anyone who is interested can quickly and easily help out with the fact-checking process. And that therefore, there will be cases where the totality of the evaluation of a situation will lead us to quite rightly call into at least temporary doubt the correctness of a cite to a source that no one can see. Context matters.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Which of the foregoing are our reviewers not already doing?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Jimmy, within the last week I helped with one BLP problem--but not a small one. Good faith miscommunication had caused it to slip through the OTRS system without a solid resolution. The subject had a stalking problem (in the non-hyperbolic sense of the term, with the proper offsite documentation) and Wikipedia's listing had caused real world problems for her in ways that were non-obvious but genuine. We're not talking about hurt feelings but real stuff. I'm one of the people whose sleeve gets tugged when this problem happened. Finally the matter got taken care of appropriately, but not in time to keep it out of the mirror sites and only after several editors--including administrators--mocked me and insulted me for intervening. There's a backlash against the recent speedy deletion spree and as a result of that the real priority stuff is having a harder time getting taken seriously. On the level: the priorities you've put forward the last two months have been bass ackwards. I've never disagreed more. Durova⁴¹² 22:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I've said this once before but I don't think anyone saw it. This incident happened because of human error, not because the rules in place are lacking—someone was lazy and didn't do what they should have done. Human error will always exist no matter what the rules are; whether you have flagged revisions, some arbitrary rule about only "trusted" editors reviewing DYKs, etc., there is no way to defend against someone not noticing something they should notice. Personally I think the eagerness of some people to use this incident to push for a change in the rules is a bit hasty. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Everyone is talking about the error on the part of the DYK participants, but nobody is spending much time addressing the intentional deception perpetrated by the original creator of the article. To me, the obvious solution is for the Wikimedia foundation to take a more active role in identifying and pursuing legal action against those who intentionally add libellous content. In this case, fortunately, the subject was fictional so it's not an issue. But by keeping BLP violations in the "harmless prank" category we use for standard vandalism, we're giving it our tacit approval. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• A curious suggestion. Obviously I'm not familiar with the legal situation in your country, as I don't know where you live, but I'd suggest that in most jurisdictions the only party who could sue for libel would be the libelled party him or herself. What kind of legal action are you proposing that the Wikimedia foundation could take to address this problem? Pursue charges against the anonymous editor? What charges? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There are lots of options. We could publicize a standing offer to provide user data to subjects who can show cause through proper channels. Or, to be even more proactive, we could collect the data (by "we", I of course mean the Wikimedia Foundation, not administrators) and contact the subjects themselves to let them know what's going on. The best defense is a good offense. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not following that. What data? Contact the subjects about what? How? --Malleus Fatuorum 02:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

IP data. Contact the subjects of the biographies to inform them about the libelous content. It's not that hard. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you're not seeing the problem here: you can't libel a figment of your own imagination. At least not in the sense that any lawyer could do something about it (excepting lawyers who are also figments of your own imagination).

Besides, the guy has already publicly identified himself (he's neither afraid nor ashamed, as far as I can tell). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I already said that in this specific case we wouldn't need to pursue action because it's a fictional person. But since the scope of this discussion is about what this means as it pertains to actual BLP violations, that's what I'm talking about. A more aggressive policy of identifying malicious BLP violators wouldn't solve 100% of our problems, but it would be a significant deterrent if we can move libel out of the world of useless talk page warnings and into the real world where real consequences await. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is the first I've heard that the advocates for the BLP policy have felt unsupported & unappreciated. My experience, as a skeptic for the need for BLP, has been the exact opposite: they think they are on a mission from God & have no need to defend their actions. Take a look at my Talk page, where I received unwarranted nastiness from BLP advocates who have been on Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time -- & should know better about how to act. No one wants derogatory information on Wikipedia -- including me. However, the problem is that unless the people who have taken this cause on learn to behave better to their peers while they fix the problem -- which includes reaching a consensus -- they are only going to create more hostility from the rest of the community. (And remember, WP:IAR can, in theory, be applied to even WP:BLP. Let's not get into a pissing match.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think they see it as a "mission from god", but rather as human beings who want to see others of their kind treated as they would like to be treated. The problem with "consensus" (as you're using the word) is that there's entirely too many people chipping into the conversation who don't see it as a serious problem (including those who think "IAR" is a good justification for not treating other human beings as they would like to be treated). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So if I understand what you say correctly, one individual's feelings & self-respect (the subject of an article) is more important than another individual's feelings & self-respect (a fellow Wikipedian)? Because if someone doesn't see this matter as a problem that needs new policies that override all other approaches but you do think this, why shouldn't you educate them? Engaging in a discussion not only helps them understand the problem, & possibly recruits another volunteer to your cause, but it also shows you respect them. Or is Wikipedia's founding ideals of discussion & consensus too inconvenient & cumbersome? -- llywrch (talk) 00:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

New proposal - lock front page BLP's

What has concerned me so far about this debate is that people have been proposing the wrong solution to the wrong problem - namely, "doing something about DYK" when the BLP violations were added to the (hoax) BLP after the DYK approval process had run its course.

Wehwalt has also made the point that BLP's on the mainpage apart from the FA get little oversight for the time they are there.

It therefore seems to me that the only logical responses to this potential problem are either (a) to have a team of users who will constantly monitor the BLP's while they are on the mainpage - an impractical solution, or (b) to simply lock all the BLP's except the FA for the duration of their appearance on the mainpage. At DYK for example, this would mean an admin would have to lock a BLP before it went into the queue, which would ensure admin oversight for DYK BLP's.

The downside of course would mean that it will slightly compromise our "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" philosophy, but I think it the only practical way to ensure that BLP's are not compromised for the duration of their appearance on the mainpage. Gatoclass (talk) 02:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The idea of locking main page content has long been rejected, even though the main page FAs only survive the day relatively unscathed because they're constantly watched. The obvious argument against your suggestion though is that DYKs are the ones most likely to be in need of help, and to attract new editors to offer that help. Something they'd be discouraged from doing if the articles were locked. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can we please remove all of these crazy ideas?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so nothing can be done about the actual problem presented by this hoaxer. At least we've cleared that up. Gatoclass (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And go about the way we've been doing so far, so that we can visit ANI for another pointless discussion with no result when a BLP issue arises again? The solutions may not be ideal but at least they are trying, Coldplay Expert. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And I'm happy that new ideas are being thrown around but I for one hate this one. We'll only lose DYK contributors.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Then what you have to do is voice your opposition in the usual way. Labeling a suggestion as 'crazy' and calling it to be closed is hardly the way to go about it. Perhaps you should remember that the suggestions come from volunteers as well and are done in good faith, and this particular one is from a regular DYK contributor. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like this problem would be much simpler to handle if we had Flagged Protection/Revisions. Since we don't, this sounds like a mediocre but acceptable alternative. NW (Talk) 03:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't expect anyone to like it but if we are serious about preventing BLP violations on the mainpage, it is the only currently available solution IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 03:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CCC. Why is allowing anonymous editing so much a sacred cow around here? Personally, I think BLP trumps anonymous editing, and I'm pretty sure I'm not reading too much into Jimbo's comments here by saying that it seems he agrees. Jclemens (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I meant full protection, not semi-protection. Semi protection would be better than nothing, but it wouldn't have prevented the kind of violation presented in this case. Gatoclass (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Coldplay Expert. Perhaps more rigorous fact checking should be done at DYK, perhaps we should demand at least one online source to prove the subject actually exists (or existed) but banning BLPs from DYK and.or the whole Main Page is a bad idea. To use myself as an example, a lot of my time in the mainspace is spent on biographies, many of them on people who happen to be living and I occasionally create a new biography on a subject who happens to be living so why shouldn't I have my new article showcased on the MP because its subject happens to be living? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Did you actually read the proposal? I proposed locking BLP's for the duration of their appearance on the mainpage, not disallowing them from appearing at all. Gatoclass (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. Evidently I misread. If by locking you mean full protection, I would oppose because, even if it were only for 6 hours, it would hinder the development of the article but I might be slightly more receptive to semi protection. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection would be the better option, I think. If we do implement this, we'll probably have to add a notice to the article that anyone who is unable to edit can suggest changes to the article on the talk page using {{editsemiprotected}}/{{editprotected}}. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's semi-protection, then it's once again a solution to a nonexistent problem. User:HH Nobody, who did this hoax article, was already autoconfirmed when he did it, so semi-protection would have prevented nothing. Once again, this looks like people twisting the situation to try to push their own agenda, when really the issue was not caused by any existing problems. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Most problems from any FA/DYK is POV pushing by the author. With FA there are also problems of bad prose or whatever but that isn't the main concern. Any silly/rotten content is already passed once it has been approved and locking the page is more likely to make it harder to rm pov if anyone notices anything YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 04:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

An idea: changing the focus of DYK

Apologies if this has been suggested before or elsewhere, I haven't been around Wikipedia so much recently. This thread caught my eye however, and while we're discussing DYK I wanted to make a suggestion, separate from the above. DYK should be changed to include previously unreferenced articles that have recently been fully sourced. I think this would have a number of benefits:

• It provides an incentive for users to tackle the unsourced (BLP) backlog, undoubtedly an important task but one which is currently rather thankless
• It encourages constructive solutions to unsourced articles over destructive ones
• It invites extra checking of sources on these articles
• It forms part of a broader move of Wikipedia's focus to increasing quality rather than quantity. This move has been widely touted in the past, including by Jimbo.
• Wikipedia's coverage is becoming more and more comprehensive, and it's getting harder and harder to find new articles to start
• By broadening the number of qualifying articles it will encourage more interesting DYK hooks.

Obviously there will be details that need to be worked out: e.g. whether there should be additional conditions such as a minimum size, and whether this will be in addition to the current new/expanded focus or replace it completely. Of course there is still a need for new/expanded articles, especially for countering systemic bias.

This is quite a big change, and would need wider discussion, but I'm curious if people here think this is a good idea. the wub "?!" 22:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was recently discussed at WT:DYK, and rejected as unrealistic. See there for details. Ucucha 22:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I thought it might have been. Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 54#Entirely rewritten articles seems to be the most recent related discussion. the wub "?!" 22:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a great idea. I tried to suggest that last year but it didn't go anywhere. It might be a good time now. RxS (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea as well. Right now many of the DYK articles are too obscure for anyone to really care about. I think this could greatly improve the encyclopedia and be of more interest to readers. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily, what's obscure to one man, may be of great interest to the next... – ukexpat (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Except that DYK gets far less traffic than other main page sections (at least I'm 95% sure I remember this from the main page traffic study), indicating that people in fact don't care. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I love the spirit of the idea but, considering how delicate of a situation BLPs are, I can't really support an initiative that would encourage more BLP submissions to DYK. Especially since there is always the threat of these "improvements" being more fake references. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 23:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I feel that another way to encourage BLP referencing can be sought rather than redefining DYK, adding to its load. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what is this "another way" you speak of?radek (talk) 00:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars? Contests with awards? Binksternet (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Barnstars - sort of lame, or at least perceived as such by many. Hence not really powerful motivators. As evidenced by the fact that editors are willing to spend a lot more time on an article that will be featured on the main page, however briefly, than for a "award" whose value has been eroded, inflation-like, by over-awarding and misuse. Contests - come along once in a blue moon and require a lot of organizational capital and time that just isn't there.

There's no award for an editor like knowing that something you've written is being read by people. And that means more or less main page exposure (aside from subjects which naturally draw interest, for better or worse). Anyway, it's not like barnstars, contests, or tweaking DYK rules are mutually exclusive proposals or anything.radek (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The fact that someone went to considerable lengths to "prove" something and that Jimbo got his knickers in a twist over it should not panic us into making changes. Go through the normal processes to consider change, none of which will be hosted by AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey, that's what I planned to do. Just whilst DYK was a hot topic here I thought I'd get some input on whether it was worth pursuing. the wub "?!" 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• This is a perennial proposal and has, as far as I remember, been rejected every time. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - suggest something like that somewhere sometime before. At the very least the "x5 expansion" requirement for noms needs to be relaxed/altered. Where does the x5 come from anyway? The only thing that comes to mind is that it was established to parallel with the "no more than 5 days old" but of course that's mixing apples and oranges. In terms of pure length, how much you can expand an existing article is at least partly a function of how long it already is (as opposed to how long you got to do it). But it can be just as much - if not more - work to turn a initially crappy 8K character article into something decent of size 16K, than take a one sentence stub and expand it to 1500 characters. And in terms of importance/notability it's the ol', crappy, 8K, article that probably matters more. Perhaps something like a sliding scale; if the article starts out at <1K, needs a 5x expansion, if <2K, 4x expansion etc. Yes, yes, I know - that would be a headache for the reviewers, though an updated version of Shubinator's tool could simplify things. As it is, it's almost impossible to expand (and source!) x5 anything over 5K for DYK - and if it is, might as well go for the GA/FA status. So people don't do it. Skewed incentives.radek (talk) 00:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As said in all the previous iterations of this discussion: that's what GA/FA are for. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 00:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and in all the previous iterations you've missed the point just like you're missing it now. There's a pretty big gulf between DYKable articles (which are still better than average or median Wiki articles if for no other reason than that they're usually well sourced) and GA/FA status articles. DYK article can be written in a weekend. Bringing a crappy article to GA status takes much longer than that (and you don't get new readers because it's not featured). DYK article can be written with two or three good strong sources at hand. Bringing a crappy article to GA status involves easy access to a decent library or an extensive personal collection (and you don't get new readers because it's not featured). DYK article can be on a notable but fairly specific subject matter that one doesn't have to (nor should) write oodles and oodles of text on. GA status requires background coverage which in practice, unless you really want to stretch definitions, means that the topic has to have a fair amount of generality. And did I mention that writing a DYK gets you new readers while bringing something up to GA status means that only a reviewer and maybe a couple others will take a look at it?

And stop and think about your objection. If it applies to making old articles better, why doesn't it apply to new articles? Why even have DYK for new articles? Just tell the editors - if you write a new article, bring it up to GA or FA status. Why do the incentives need to be so skewed towards creation of new articles rather than fixing up of existing ones?radek (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much to say here that hasn't already been said. But as for your claim that "GA status...means that the topic has to have a fair amount of generality", where do you get that idea? There are oodles of GAs on individual people, individual songs, individual battleships, etc. Same goes for FA. In fact, quality articles are much more often things like that than large general articles (like Religion or French Revolution), which is actually something that some people consider is wrong GA and FA. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, forget about that part of the argument (basically getting into the nitty gritty of it would take us to far off topic). There's still a few other arguments up there. There is still a very very very large difference between a DYK and a GA. There is still a tremendous skewing of incentive towards more and more creation of new articles while hundreds of thousands of old crappy articles sit there, remaining crappy.radek (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And btw, I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me where the "at least x5 expansion" standard comes from (as opposed to x4 or whatever) and what is the justification for that particular multiplicative factor. This is a general question, not just for Rjanag.radek (talk) 04:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Why does every significant expansion of an article have to be awarded by a pretty bauble? Isn't the pleasure in the work itself? GA/FA/PR exist as sanity checks during an article's development, DYK is an attempt to encourage new articles. One could argue that the time for that has passed with over 3 million articles and counting, but that's its remit nevertheless. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if it's about the bubbles, more like, getting people to actually read the articles you've written. Yes, the pleasure of the work itself is a motivating factor. But it's good to have intrinsic motivation plus extrinsic rewards - more stuff gets done when there's both. If DYK is successful in encouraging new articles (and I think it is, for better or worse) then why shouldn't there be something that encourages fixing up older crappy articles in a similar way? And it's not really about whether work will be done or not. It's about what kind of work will be done. I can write a DYK and get several hundred people to read it. Or I can fix an old crappy article and no one but me and maybe one or two others will know about it. Skewed incentive. Hence we have a lot of old junkety articles.radek (talk) 04:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • I'm always surprised at the articles that exist but are undeveloped. Taking a stub and reworking in five days is a reasonable objective given my work schedule; taking a short article and bringing to GA/FA requires an unreasonable time commitment at times, but nonetheless the direction in which the project should go. DYK is a great first incentive to improve existing articles. The idea of having a sliding scale for expansion is a nice concept and, in my view, should be given some consideration. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• DYK can be used as a tool to improve existing articles fairly easily. We're at the point where there's as much (or more) work to be done expanding and improving our content as creating it. No one's in a panic, but it's probably time to reclaim and retool DYK for our evolving environment. RxS (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• We've had this debate a thousand times at DYK, and the consensus has always been not to do it for a variety of reasons. In any case, this is completely the wrong venue for such a proposal. Gatoclass (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• This should probably be moved to WP:VPR; ANI isn't really the appropriate venue as it's not an admin-specific matter. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Request to remove unjustified indefinite protection of List of male performers in gay porn films

This list has been put on indefinite protection for "BLP grounds". There has been insufficient evidence of anonymous IP vandalism to warrant protection (see diff) and compared to the protection status of other lists such as List of serial killers by country there seems no clear policy to automatically put BLP related lists on indefinite protection. I have raised the matter on the protecting admin's talk page diff and they have refused to change their position (considering a recent history of dispute on LGBT issues, not a surprise). I have also raised the page for unprotecting on RPP but the admin there, though agreeing with me in theory, refused to take action and over-ride another admin's decision without going to ANI. As a result, I have raised the matter for discussion here as recommended. Ash (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was indef protected in response to BLP violations and the consideration that there was low likelyhood of good edits by IPs. A number of admins reviewed and concurred at the time. I take the point that other lists exist (serial killers) where a similar case could be made. But, really, is the argument I must personally protect all of them before I can protect one?? Absurd. We do things case by case. I repudiate entirely the implied personal attack here, that suggests I'm acting with prejudice because of LGBT issues. Frankly that's a scurrilous accusation of bad faith which has no place on wikipedia. Please retract it, it simply serves to poison the well.

Is this objection due to a concern for article quality, or because of a perceived slights on a minority. The latter should have no place in wikipedia. --Scott Mac (Doc) 15:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Struck my statement so that others may concentrate on the issue rather than my lack of surprise. You will note that I have made no statement here about perceived slights on a minority. Where I have in the past raised issues about your behavior these were on the ground of civility, again I have not made any claim that you have made "slights on a minority". I do not intend to raise those matters in this thread. Ash (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Stricken my comments in the same spirit.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

My natural follow-up question was why only the List of male performers in gay porn films needs to be protected. What about lists of performers in porn films? Or female performers in gay porn films? But then, I discovered that this seems to be the only article listing porn film stars of any genre out there. Why is that? (Or, is this article necessary at all?) --RegentsPark (talk) 17:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the others like List of actresses in the MILF porn genre have been successfully deleted at AFD. The gay porn hounds are a little more diligent and successful than the straight ones in protecting their articles.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The analogous list of female porn performers is List of pornographic actresses by decade. Category:Lists of pornographic film actors omits several lists of gay porn award recipients, for unknown reasons. While the issues with BLPs of porn performers aren't exclusive to BLPs to gay porn performers, they seem to suffer from a lcak of scrutiny which allows BLPs of non-notable performers like Brandon Manilow to exist, and Jason Crew to contain unsourced text like "Jason Crew became famous for his flexibility and his capability to self-penetrate himself with his 10 inch penis. He started his porn career under the name Speedy at age 19 and has worked for a number of major studios as well as for smaller labels like Gino Pictures, Barrett Long and kink.com's Bound Gods. He is considered to be an easy going guy and noted for his constant hunger for sex". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

List of pornographic actresses by decade seems to suffer from a similar addition of names problem as the List of male performers in gay pornographic films, and, in both cases, this problem is sporadic at best (and appears to be quickly reverted). Is there a particular reason why adding a name is more of a blp problem for gay men in porn films? --RegentsPark (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The issues are very similar. I would like to see that article permanently semi-protected as well. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion regarding List of serial killers by country

I agree with Ash that per [32] and [33] and [34] (there are many more examples) that List of serial killers by country should be semi protected as well.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost tempted to delete that article. None of the references to living people are cited.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In a sane world, it would be. Truly notable serial killers will be well covered in the articles about them. There's also a category of serial killers by country. It's just more obsessive listing that adds no value and is one more thing that sucks up maintenance resources/will be badly maintained that adds precisely nothing to the "sum total of human knowledge." Bali ultimate (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The references may be found after following the yellow brick road blue link. –xeno^talk 16:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Clicked on three at random. No references in the parent articles in those cases, either.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Mind dropping those links on my talk page? Those probably ought to be deleted per {{db-g10}}. NW (Talk) 16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Can't be bothered. Those three were all (allegedly) dead. Found another unsourced one that's (allegedly) alive. Tagged that one, easy to find on my contribs list. I've now looked at about ten of those -- almost all have sourcing problems of one kind or another ranging from none at all, to unclear sources on not apparently reliable websites, to lots of original research and unsupported claims. Bali ultimate (talk) 16:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Listed for deletion. This is a good example of a bad list. JBsupreme (talk) 19:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

From the feedback at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of serial killers by country, the consensus does not appear to be with you. Ash (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Permanent semi-protection for lists with BLP concerns

I think permanently semi-protecting any list where the incorrect or malicious addition of a name would constitute a BLP violation is the least we can do to cut down on such incidents. To me this is an obvious approach to mitigating the potential harm that could be caused to the reputations of living persons. I'd like to propose this, but I'm unsure if this has any community support, so I'll float the idea here. Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

If you are serious, then you need to start by raising a RfC to change the guidance of SILVERLOCK so that the current guidance/consensus of "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users" is removed. Ash (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Lists and situations such as these seem like prime problems for a solution called flagged revisions. If only such a thing were ready to deploy on mediawiki software! –xeno^talk 23:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Depending on who's allowed to decide on which revisions go public, and on whether or not their own edits are immediately public, I'd say there's a good chance that an unintended consequence of flagged revisions would to be lose a number of contributors. Me, for one. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You would be eligible to receive the sighter userright—whether you "accept" it is of course another question. –xeno^talk 14:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Whether I would accept it or not would depend on two things; how it's handed out and how it's taken away. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would assume it will be handed out liberally to editors who have proven themselves responsible, and removed from editors who intentionally sight obvious vandalism or BLP violations. –xeno^talk 14:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please don't let the mythical flagged revisions distract you from the question. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I strongly support the idea of indef semi'ing of list of people doing or being anything that can be construed as controversial. The chances of vandalism are very high with a scatter-gun like target. Anyone can be slurred by placing on a list. Semi-protection is a lot lower maintenance than flagged revisions for the same result. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Like, erm, this one, and this has a section of folks in it too....Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So? This is not an RfC. As suggested raise a RfC and change SILVERLOCK if you wish to change the policy that applies for indefinite semi-protection. This is not a one-off admin action suitable for ANI. Ash (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ash, I am just trying to gauge community support or lack of support for this measure. Please don't badger people for expressing their opinion here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You do not appear to understand what this notice-board is for. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators, not a forum to gauge community opinion. Ash (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very smart, as you have probably already deduced, so I sometimes have trouble understanding just what this page is for. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The blp ramifications of being included in a list is a big question (Jonathan Franzen would be upset if included in a List of writers whose books were featured on Oprah, for example!). What should we do about this particular list? Looking purely at the actual vandalism on the list, I don't think it needs semi-protection. (Though I'd like to see the previous discussion referenced above, but not linked, about this particular list.) --RegentsPark (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Block review of The Reformed Editor

• The Reformed Editor (talk · contribs)

I have just blocked this second account of the indef-blocked Hiineedrequestforcomment (talk · contribs). This editor has not hidden the creation of the alternate account to resume editing, however, policy is that a clean start is not permitted if the indef block is still in place. This seems straightforward to me, but I would like some additional eyes anyway. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Makes sense to me. From the last edit the new account made, it looks like jumping into contentious areas mouth-first was likely to be an issue, and the edits under the previous account make me wonder why a block didn't occur a lot earlier. I'd take bets on further socks appearing, too. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Far from making the clean start which he claimed to want, this editor immediately dove head-first into quarrelsome talk page messages [35], threatening other editors with blocks, etc. Thanks for spotting this; I'd be very much against this person returning under any circumstances to contribute anything at all. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Check out his talkpage, he's trying to get feedback on if he can edit ever again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I've changed his block settings so that he can make a last(?) appeal at User talk:Hiineedrequestforcomment. But I don't see any "reform" in his recent edits, nor much contribution to boast about, so I would personally !vote oppose to an unblock if it came to that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC

It's a waste of time. I reviewed all his edits. From the "what was I doing wrong?" regarding the fake message templates on articles to his hounding of JPG: "be proud of me Josh, I made a mainspace gnome edit!" This is classic trolling. Honestly... The mayor of Trollopolis, Trollsylvania wants to give him an engraved plaque. Auntie E. (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

An interesting AfD

I've closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) as a temporary measure because of renewed off-site discussion about it, this time on reddit, Y Combinator, FriendFeed (and probably a few more places). Everything that could be said about that topic has been said. If an admin wants to make a different decision, he can do so based on that AfD and the previous one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm, which was closed under similar circumstances just before the 2nd one opened. Together these have about 125Kb already. There's no point in having another insanely long repetitive discussion like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM (175Kb). Pcap ping 00:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I love your reason for closure. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something... but... how can you have a speedy no consensus? If there is no consensus it should be left unclosed. Whilst canvassing does seem to be happening, how can consensus ever be gained if discussions are speedy closed? Personally I would allow it to run, and have it closed after a full 7 day period. It may be a tough close which takes ages to trawl through, but dodging the issue by closing discussions due to canvassing isn't really a solution. Please do fill me in if I am missing something here. --Taelus (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR. If you just plan to count votes, there's not going to be a consensus. If you just plan to read the arguments, you can do so already, they're already in triplicate at least. Participants there disagree on what's a reliable source for open source software. You can choose to buy one side or the other of the arguments, but having them repeated ad nauseam won't make the discussion any easier to parse. Feel free to reopen it if you think consensus is likely to emerge, but I just don't see how that's gonna happen. (This is the 2nd week, as the previous AfD was closed just before this one opened.) Pcap ping 00:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Having participated in the AfD for JWASM, I would say that any action that prevents another AfD from going the same route is a good one. What a waste of electrons that was. -- Atama頭 00:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps... But the close result of the previous AfD was to restart the process, thus it just strikes me as odd to close the second nomination early. I won't re-open it however, probably best for administrators who were involved in the previous close to take a look. --Taelus (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I may be missing something too. Meatpuppets don't get to muddle AfDs into no consensus. I'm having a quick look and I'm not seeing anyone arguing for keep actually providing anything credible and based on policies or guidelines to actually keep it. This is pretty cut and dried. The only source that seems discussed at the top was written by a member of the project. So either they provide significant coverage by reliable third party sources, or its deleted. This is the equivalent of showing up at an AfD and screaming "KEEP - I'M WEARING BLUE PANTS!!!" admin - "hmm..there seems to be serious opposition to its deletion". I'm going on record as saying this is a terrible close which basically rewards someone for off-site canvassing. There wasn't a single shred of evidence provided to defend keeping that article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If no one else has gotten to this in an hour or so, I'll give it a whirl (I'm busy for a bit). I'm completely uninvolved. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the "Keep: Typical Wikipedia Faggotry" comment sums it up best. Nefariousski (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm undoing the speedy close and making a stab at determining consensus. I should have it by April 1 ;) -- Flyguy649 ^talk 03:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's best to let the AfD run its course and then determine consensus. I realize it's likely the same opinions will be trotted out over the next couple of days. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Whoever closes it will see a lot of "it's teh notable because I says so" and a lot of "there are no reliable independent sources". Only one of these is a compelling argument :-) Guy (Help!) 08:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I almost feel like we need a policy or guideline for this kind of stuff. It comes up on a fairly regular basis where we get some non-notable something, and they run to their forums or teh blogs! and rally the troops and it turns into a storm of garbage. I think there comes a point where any objective reasonable person can realize that side just has no point and it needs to be shot and put out of its misery for the good of everyone involved.--Crossmr (talk) 12:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• We do have a policy, see Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion. "It is considered inappropriate to ask people outside of Wikipedia to come to the discussion to sway its outcome. Such comments may be ignored. They are not removed, but may be tagged with {{spa}}, noting that a user "has made few or no other edits". In extreme cases, a deletion debate can be semi-protected." Fences&Windows 13:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• That doesn't really do much though. I still turns into a dramafest as countless people who have never edited wikipedia or who haven't edited in a long time come out of the woodwork to make the same argument "Wikipedia sucks, this is totally notable, #$## you, keep it!". I think when its very obvious this is happening, an admin should just have a look and see if they've provided any evidence at all and if not, short circuit the process, cut the drama before it gets out of hand, delete it, salt the earth (because they often get recreated by a meat puppet) and be done with it. We've already seen them rewarded twice for their behaviour so obviously the current process isn't working. They got a new deletion discussion, then they got an admin who came along and made an early no consensus close based on their "MY PANTS ARE BLUE KEEP!!!!!" arguments.--Crossmr (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So now it's also old wikipedians who get shut out, if it were up to you? Oh dear. I'm an old wikipedian... I'm getting kind of worried here. :-/ Who *will* you still listen to, if they tell you they think maybe some processes are getting a little out of hand? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting how a topic that is considered non-notable can rally so many people to its defence. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC) Imagine the consequences if a deletion discussion makes it into to the dead-paper press.

• What is so interesting about it? Social networking trends are epidemic. If a YouTube video of a dancing cat can get hundreds of thousands of views just because someone mentions it on Twitter, rallying shouts like "the Wikipedia deletionists are at it again" or "you need to put in place illiterate morons who wrecked his selfless work of enthusiasts" can certainly attract some attention. — Rankiri (talk) 18:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember the fuss we used to get before we blacklisted YTMND? Every single meme was edit-warred in multiple places. Not just YTMND either, here's one that's been in place for over four years: [36]. Guy (Help!) 19:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, so you're arguing that something can be non-notable, even if large numbers of people are passionate about it? I'm not sure I can accept that as it appears self-contradictory. Am I missing something? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, WP:N and WP:NOT. It stands to reason that encyclopedia articles must not be based on fleeting fame or hearsay sources. — Rankiri (talk) 20:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:N and Wikipedia is not paper actually are in balance with each other. In cases like this one, I think current best practice for Notability somehow breaks down and fails to work properly. What can we do to fix that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't take that many people to make a drama fest on wikipedia. So even if it looks like a "large" number of people like something, it doesn't mean its notable. See WP:BIGNUMBER its why we require reliable sources to establish notability.--Crossmr (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right, just because there's smoke, there doesn't need to be fire. But still, I'm starting to see suspicious amounts of smoke around. I'm just worried we might be going about things the wrong way, somehow. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • "Imagine the consequences if a deletion discussion makes it into to the dead-paper press." How about 20 of them?[37] The sky didn't fall. Fences&Windows 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Raptor Jesus may disagree. — Rankiri (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it means we can write a notable, reliably sourced article about the deletion discussions, even though we can't have an article about the subjects ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:ArneBab

He seems responsible for the 2nd, even more massive round of off-wiki canvasing links here. See what happened to #User:Mclaudt above. Pcap ping 01:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you keep closing and restarting the discussion, the canvassing will never stop. Let it run its seven days, let them complain because they refuse to actually provide a secondary source, close based on actual policy not votes, let the slightly more sophisticated complain to WP:DRV and lose there, and then finally, let the craziest whiners start vandalizing and get blocked. Then some blogs will be out ranting about the horrors of wikipedia because their random obscure thing isn't kept here. It's the normal pattern and what can be expected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am sensing assumptions of bad faith on both sides, once again. This is very similar to what happened at the Foswiki AfD. The fundamental problem is on our side: The General notability guideline is an approximation for identifying articles that (1) are worth having in an encyclopedia because enough people are interested in them, and (2) can be written neutrally. It's good for most purposes, but in the case of open source software there are special circumstances that make it harder to prove that enough people are interested and easier to write a neutral article without significant third-party coverage. (The article Dwm gets 100 hits/day, Foswiki gets 50 hits/day. That's not so much less than e.g. MediaWiki and significantly more than Erwig and Naman Keïta or any other random article which has no notability problems at all.) The German Wikipedia takes them into account, we don't.

The general public doesn't understand the GNG, and it doesn't know about our off-site canvasing rules. Experience has shown that both are surprising to open source software developers, i.e. to some of the people most likely to become valuable editors once they have found their way to Wikipedia. The current situation is optimised towards attracting and then alienating these people. Hans Adler 12:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I was going to wait until the end of the AfD discussion but I guess it doesn't matter now. In particular, see [38] ([39], [40]) and [41]. Some of these messages were posted three days ago when the user should have already been aware of WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. — Rankiri (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not saying that all the canvased/canvassing people are angels. I am saying that at least half of the fault for these incidents is on our side and it's up to us to fix the problem. Think of it this way: Suppose the article Dutch Wikipedia was nominated for deletion based on the (hypothetical) argument that all press articles about the Dutch Wikipedia are indiscriminately about the English and Dutch Wikipedia as if they were the same thing. The only thing that would prevent a drama similar to what we are seeing with open source projects is the fact that the editors of the Dutch Wikipedia have a much better idea of the norms of the English Wikipedia than do the members of a typical open source software community. But it's not their fault that they don't understand our norms, and it's in our interest to educate, not punish them. Hans Adler 13:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I only disapprove of the actions of this particular user, not the ones who were dragged into the discussion. As an active participant of both WP:Articles for deletion/Dwm and WP:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination), he should have known that his attempts at off-site canvassing weren't appropriate. And it's not like he even tried to sound neutral: his last message on [42] violates WP:PERSONAL (I'm entirely indifferent about this but see User talk:ArneBab) and is tagged with biased "!fs attacked". Personally, I'd welcome an influx of new users who were reasonable, but the problem with cries for help such as these is that they generally bring in ones who are not. [43], [44], [45], etc. — Rankiri (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I find it strange how much of those editors have accounts long ago registered, largely inactive for months or even years and just popping in for that article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 14:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't find it strange at all. Open Source programmers write free software, wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. A lot of F/L/OSS coders will likely have wp accounts on general principle.

Alienating your natural allies is probably a bad idea. So even if we agree that policy is perfectly correct, we still have something of an obligation to explain it to these people. This isn't siegenthaler; but if continued, this trend is likely to have rather nasty consequences. Can we figure out how to be nicer? --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked ArneBab indefinitely. He's been here since 2004, so it's absolutely inconceivable that he doesn't know votestacking on AfDs is unacceptable. Blueboy96 21:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh. Maybe don't do that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To wit, I don't think an indefinite block is warrented, by a fairly large margin. Please unblock. --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I support it. Two complete messes of an AfD. He absolutely should know better and this massive disruption on their part. What happens when the next AfD comes along that he doesn't agree with?--Crossmr (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I support it too. I don't see how open source communities are special enough to warrant kids glove treatment that we wouldn't provide to others. Frankly, I'm somewhat tired of all the arguments in AfD and on article talk pages that nobody should even be allowed to edit articles about open source software unless they're developers themselves. It goes against the whole spirit, the whole purpose of Wikipedia. When we have people creating Sourceforge projects, then creating Wikipedia pages to advertise their products (generally with positive POV, as expected), then trying to own the articles by reverting edits they don't like, then bringing in meatpuppets when the articles come to AfD... Why should we be kissing their feet? -- Atama頭 01:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... we're a prominent member of that community. Anything we say or do in this context reflects back on us. Why should we cut off our own nose to spite our face? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I support an indef block, but if he requests unblock in a few months and it seems legit it seems reasonable to do so on a trial basis. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You support an indef block because some AFDs didn't go right? :-O --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:CHILD

NL Celtics5 (talk · contribs) has very personal information on his userpage such as his full name, birthdate, birthplace, school they go to, ethnicity, height, etc. Can someone do something about this? I have notified the user, but it seems that they have ignored my message. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I blanked the page, and left a note explaining why on his talk page. (In this case, I felt that privacy concerns + WP:MYSPACE > concerns over refactoring another's userpage). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 01:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the page. Can the revisions in question also be oversighted, please? -- The Anome (talk) 01:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you really delete a page citing an essay? I mean, I guess you can always fall back in IAR, but don't cite an essay pretending like it's a guideline or a policy. -67.164.37.179 (talk) 04:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If the essay doesn't cut your mustard, how about an ArbCom case? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 04:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty standard to delete and oversight any pages where self-identifying minors have posted too much personal info. Best to use one of the off-wiki methods of requesting oversight in the future so as not to call the wrong attention to it, see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Equazcion ^(talk) 04:19, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a good deletion to me. Next time though, I suggest using Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy as the deletion rational. Tiptoety ^talk 04:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#WP:CHILD policy proposal Equazcion ^(talk) 05:34, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Guys, if you see personal information being posted by a minor, such as on user pages, etc - please either report it directly to Oversight or pmail an oversighter directly. It will get taken care of. This has been the case in the past and will continue to be. Whatever about policy and ArbCom cases, we have an ethical duty towards protection of children on-line - Alison ^❤ 09:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to add that the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is the underlying rationale behind WP:CHILD and the abovementioned ArbCom case (keep in mind that the Wikimedia servers are located in the U.S. state of Florida, so U.S. Federal law applies). –MuZemike 18:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In such cases, its better to shoot first and ask questions later. Deletion is revertable(for some time, atleast), and so is Oversight. Any page giving personal info about a child should be oversighted and investigated later.

How much should be posted before oversight is requested? NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of Page Protection tools

I have left Wikipedia. I think I have the right to say this on my user page, and mention why. However, because I left pretty much solely over abuse heaped upon me by Durova, her friends keep deleting the message, and have now protected my user page. Here's the message:

This user has left Wikipedia due to harassment by Durova which attempted to prevent free discussion of her featured picture candidates. Long story short, polite criticism of her work there was met with disproportionate attacks, and, thinking back, I realised that more subtle forms of this bullying had been going on a long time. Having had it made very clear that noone cared about harassment by her, I have left Wikipedia. Evidence available through e-mail to anyone I trust to have my e-mail.

Durova, meanwhile, is evidently constantly complaining about how few people capable of working with historic material there are.

The incident in question involved her repeating "Fuck you, troll" on Skype over and over, because I politely pointed out in a FPC that one of the images was upside down, this looks like a mistake, and even if it wasn't, it's not something that you should go without mentioning. I offered ways around this when she began berating me over it, such as offwerin two versions, so that people don't have to turn their monitors over, which is much easier with a book.

She continued to berate me, threatened me, and then began acting to remove all connections I had to people that might give me material for Wikipedia that had any connections through her, even in media where she doesn't do things.

This was not the first time, I doubt I'm the only person she's bullied into doing what she wants, or into deleting comments about her restorations that she disliked.

I don't want anyone else to get into the position I was put in, where they are bullied and harassed for months for not living up to Durova's ideal of perfect yes-man, all the while being used for propaganda purposes by her. And whenever I complained about ANYTHING that was being done to me by anyone, she swooped in and encouraged people to close the thread, because I hadn't talked to her first.

I supported her goals, incredibly strongly, but, in the end, the goals were less important to me than getting out of a relationship where, days after telling her I had just experienced a massive personal crisis, she was brutally attacking and bullying me over trivial matters.

Shoemaker's Holiday ^talk 04:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Durova notified. I don't know the circumstances of this conflict, but in any event, retired or not, expressions of derision with a specific editor on one's userpage are usually removed per WP:UP#NOT. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:03, 4 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Some diffs would help. Otherwise it's a fishing expedition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hey Shoe. :( Not great to see you under these conditions, but hey anyways. Some diffs: [46], [47], [48]. As per Equazcion it's not unusual to remove this kind of stuff. Plus your last edit prior to this was this vandalism of a Signpost story about Durova. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification, Equazcion. Let's call this water under the bridge; this goes back five months. If Shoemaker wants the semiprotection taken off his user page I've no objection. Shake hands and let bygones be bygones. Durova⁴¹² 05:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I think the rant is inappropriate. Feeling harassed and being harassed are very different, though the difference is not obvious to the victim at the time (I have had both, with on-wiki disputes escalated to off-wiki crank calls and the like). To say that they left because of a dispute with a named user is fine, left due to harassment with no name is OK, but the Wikimedia Foundation's resources are not really here ot be used to pursue grudges from beyond the grave. Guy (Help!) 08:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'd say, if Durova, does not mind, take protection off. I more worried about the user than his user page. The user is clearly very upset, and needs some understanding and help. Durova, I would like to appeal to you please. I know the two of you used to be the friends. Maybe it is possible to have a talk or to have a meditation to bring Shoemaker's Holiday back to Commons and to Wikipedia. If I could be of any help to bring the two of you together, I will be happy to do so. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for being considerate, Mbz1. He's welcome to return at any time. I'd work with him onsite or maintain polite distance, per his preference. Although yes, I would prefer if the personal attacks stopped. Let's put it in the past. Durova⁴¹² 19:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait. Via Skype? Woogee (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. So Durova forgives me for... her having harassed me off the site. But I'm welcome to return to being harassed any time. How kind of her. 86.138.86.138 (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• What?! *The* Shoemaker's Holiday hounded off Wikipedia? The world is going to hell in a handbasket. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 13:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Shoe, buddy, you really need to calm down. I don't pretend to understand the ins and outs of what happened between you and Durova, but I do know I've seen you get really angry over small things before (like whenever people would start trolling you about global warming denial and things like that). If you want to edit Wikipedia, awesome, come back and the project is better for it. But if not, what exactly do these occasional returns complaining about the same issue accomplish? Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Block enforcement of Asdfg

Resolved

 – WP:AE is the correct venue. AniMate 07:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

On March 3, User Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), who is under a six-month Falun Gong topic ban pursuant to an earlier arbitration ruling on January 16, edited Falun Gong article 6-10 Office. His defence to this was that he didn't "realize it was a Falun Gong article". Having worked with this user for an extended period of time, and given the serious nature of his existing topic ban, I find it inconceivable that this was an honest mistake. This is in addition to the article being categorized as "mid-level importance Falun Gong article".

As an editor who has been persistently discouraged to edit these articles due to the presence of these obvious Single-Purpose Accounts, I seek speedy resolution to this matter. To me, despite this user's deceivingly 'civil' appearance, he has not shown any sort of tendency to shy away from Falun Gong advocacy - which has always been a two-sided coin - either edit in favour of Falun Gong, or edit against the Communist Party of China. Note that since his ban, he has only edited articles related to the Communist Party of China. As such, he is still, in all definitions of the term, a single-purpose account that does not have the interests of this encyclopedia as his first priority. It's taken two years to get arbitration enforcement to ban this user. Now it's time to do it for good. Colipon+(Talk) 06:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

This really should be dealt with over at WP:AE. AniMate 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought this was an enforcement of a block sanctioned by AE, which should be a simple 'incident' as there is little in terms of facts that need to be reported. Colipon+(Talk) 07:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No, Arbitration Enforcement is where you request that someone enforce the terms of arbitration (generally by blocking someone). That's what you're requesting. Even simple enforcement requests are usually done there, I believe. -- Atama頭 18:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Thomas

An IP or two seems to have taken over User talk:Thomas, signing posts with his username and claiming the talk page as "[their] page". Not sure whether it is just a logged out Thomas, or something a bit more ominous, but request an admin or several to look over the goings-on at that page to see what exactly is happening. I will notify immediately after posting this. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 07:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a persistent identity theft vandal who is currently blocked. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 07:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit: I should have said that another IP he edits under is blocked. This one isn't, but should be. FCSundae ∨^☃ (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the talk page. If the real User:Thomas ever wants to log in and request the removal, he is welcome to do so. But for now, since we have no way to verify an IP's claims, there's no point IMHO in letting this drama continue. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oh Christ's armpit, not him again... HalfShadow 01:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Google, Vivaldi and Vandalism

The Google banner at the moment is featuring a commemoration of Vivaldi. If you click through it, the first hit is the Wikipedia article for Antonio Vivaldi. That's excellent publicity for Wikipedia - but also going to bring in vandalism of that article.

Unfortunately, for such a showcase of the "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", the article is semi-protected after the vandalism influx.

Can we work out (preferably in advance) what the Google Banners are, and make sure any Wikipedia article featuring prominently is up to snuff? I'm also wondering whether we need to treat any such articles the way that we treat Mainpage Featured articles and resist the strong understandable temptation to semi-protect for the time in question. The reasons are the same. Many potential editors will hit this article, and if they find they can't edit it are less likely to get interested in Wikipedia.

Just some thoughts. I don't know if Google anounces these things in advance - if they do, it would be nice to work on the articles in the weeks before.

But can we unprotect this for now, and watchlist against the inevitable vandalism spree?--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see you've unprotected it now. Makes sense to me - in terms of user involvement, the situation surrounding this is very similar to it being Today's Featured Article, and it makes sense to avoid semi-protecting it if at all possible. Watchlisting... ~ mazca ^talk 09:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, Antonio Vivaldi is getting hit quite a bit [49]. I'm inclined to semi-protect it for a couple of hours. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was the one who originally semiprotected it -- before I realised it was a "Google Doodle" of the day. Since Scott's unprotection, I count 40 bad IP/new user edits and two good edits (might have missed a couple). That's not unmanageable if enough people watchlist it, which was the problem last night, as vandalism was sticking for several minutes at a time. Because of its current visibility, similar to the FA of the day, I support the avoid-semi-if-possible idea. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 18:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, I never even realised he had died - [50]. Kevin (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I noticed that. Looks like the vandalism is bearable at the moment. Anyone know as to how long Vivaldi will be featured on Google? Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

One day, since it was his birthday. Gary King (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Sanam001 requesting redressal of grievience

This edit war by user User:Suresh.Varma.123 in Malayala Sudra page is arising in continuance of the content dispute in nayar article. Since WP : 30 and multi party discussion failed, the user declined my efforts of next level of dispute resolution. [51]. The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his meatpuppetry is here [52]. I realize that it takes two to create edit wars and there seems to be active recruitment of content disagreeing users to initiate edit wars with me by User:Anandks007 :Neither am I able to take the dispute resolution to formal mediation while simultaneously being dragged into edit wars by User:Anandks007 and User:Suresh.Varma.123 in bad faith.I have been continuosly trying invain to address the root cause [53] What options do I have to redress my grievience and stop this mobbing ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear admins, first of all it is very difficult to assume good faith when facing racial abuse from someone. User Sanam has been pushing POV in articles related to my caste (Nair) for more than 3 months now. Wiki users like me have repeatedly asked Sanam to refrain from POV pushing and sort out the issue through the Talk page, but so far he ignored our requests. This is not my personal opinion, but the opinion shared by more than half a dozen other users as well. Sanam is repeatedly inserting the derogatory word Sudra in to Nair related articles, although users like me put a lot of evidence against this desperate act by him. Even yesterday one of the users put evidence against his racist views here. But rather than responding to the questions asked to him, he was again and again avoiding them and using diversionary tactics. We don't have anything against Sanam in personal, but the ethnic abuse he is hurling at us is making a lot of users like me quite angry and emotional. Well... I don't have much more to talk about this edit war going on. But if any admin happens to review the edits made by Sanam, then he will understand what is his real aim. Axxn (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add a few things to what Anand said above.

• The word Sudra is a pejorative word like "Negro" and "Kike" and is seldom used nowadays in newspapers or media of any kind. For example, during 1910s and 20s, Black Americans were termed as Negros by a section of the non-Black population. But this usage was termed racist and was discontinued. Similarly, Nambuthiri Brahmins used the term "Sudra" to describe each and every Hindu caste as they thought common people will pollute them by their touch. Nambuthiris are around 0.01% of the Indian population, and there fore, 99.99% of the Indians became Sudra. But this orthodox Nambuthiri definition was deemed racist and remained out of use in most of India. If you go to the Sudra wikipage, you can see that the vedic definition is used rather than the Nambuthiri definition. Therefore, you can never find the word "Sudra" in any article relating any Hindu caste here in wiki. Still user Sanam insists that this derogatory term should be added to the Nair article. (Nairs are regarded as Kshatriya by most of the Indian historians, as can be seen from the links provided in the Nair talk page).
• User Sanam is unwilling to listen to others and this makes other users like me quite frustrated and angry. The biggest advantage he is having is that he is online 24 hours a day, as he does not have any other work. But common people like me reach home quite tired at around 9 o'clock in the night after having done work for 12 hours continuously (I am a blue collar/ semi blue collar worker and does not have net access at my office). And when I reach home, all I find in wikipedia are posts made by Sanam abusing my caste. Whatever we write in the talk page gets swamped by tons and tons of lecture typed in by Sanam. (Also, he always uses the bold character, which is sometimes removed by other users).
• Even after all these efforts made by other users, user Sanam still argues that we are not willing to take the issue to admins. (Actually we have done so at least 3-4 times). The real reason is that as people having a job to worry about, we are not being able to devote much time to wikipedia. Even now this futile argument is costing people like me quite a lot of energy and time.
• Another factor is that Sanam accuses others of being emotional and trying to lynch him. When someone is abusing someone else racially, the abuser will have a huge advantage over the victim. It is the emotionality. The victim will get quite emotional and start doing things which he will never due under normal circumstances, while the abuser will stay calm as he has nothing to worry about. If the admins check some of his earlier posts in the Nair and Ezhava articles, then they will be able to find the racist language he used.
• The sources he is citing, like those by the Kanippayyur Nambuthiri reminds me of the propaganda by Joseph Goebbels against the Jews during the Nazi rule.
• The most important thing which I was trying to convey through the talk page is that even by Sanam's own definition, the interpretation he gives out is completely wrong. I had posted it a few times in the talk page, but Sanam was never willing to discuss it.

I don't have anything more to say about this. I hope the admins will take a neutral and unbiased decision. Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 15:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked Sanam001 (talk · contribs) and Anandks007 (talk · contribs) for 24 hours for edit warring. I would encourage Sanam001 not to try to get around 3RR by logging out in the future. In addition, I have protected the page for 1 week. Discuss on the talk page. Follow WP:dispute resolution procedures. If you have references that establish the present-day offensiveness of the term, supply them.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A simple google search (Sudra + derogatory) is enough to ascertain the present day offensiveness of the term, as can be seen here (Note.6), here, here, here & here. And regarding the colonial POV pushed by Sanam, I have put up a section here to prove that his points are not even supported by the biased sources he is putting up. (As ususal, he used diversionary tactics and never directly answered the questions asked to him). Suresh.Varma.123 (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The source of encouragement is meat puppetry by user User:Anandks007. He has encouraged all other users to initiate edit wars with me instead of assuming good faith during content dispute. The proof of his recent meatpuppetry is here [54]. I am myslef a nayar and being classified as sat-sudra has never been a shame for me but rather a matter of my natural dignity and has never affected my judgement of analysing anthropological material pertaining to my own community. I beleive in a POV free nayar image. The usage of sat-shudra in the specific context of the Kerala-society is not derogatory, it simply means clean-serviles by hereditary profession and includes lpeasants, soldiers, land-holders and even the ruling elite- vis a vis – a sudra king (see Ref1-[55]. Ref2- [56] )

The effort is by a cabal who are a subset of my own community armed with inadequate information trying to supplant the natural dignity of my community by peacocking to generate a POV nayar image. This same subset of individuals accusing me of using the term without understanding the terminology in the specific cultural context of kerala is simultaneously actively engaged in incorporating the same epithet on to other sub-divisions of my community !!!. See evidence in Line 6 items 10-20. User: Anandks007- – [57] User: Suresh.Varma.123- - [58] If their definition for the term is derogatory why are the incorporating it on other clans within the same community ? I hope you understand the wider objectives of these set of users.A few references along with authors background is given to administrators to the legitimacy of term Malayala sudra and for the maintenance of the original version of the article which includes nayar in this category.

1. It is mentioned in other encyclopedia by Author- Edward Balfour- Balfour's works on collating information about various aspects of life in India led to the publication of the Cyclopaedia of India, the first edition in 1857

His documentation

“the malayalam sudras of which the better class are called nayars (or lords) are the bulk of the respectable population-the landholders, farmers, soldiers, officials…….…”

Link for verification: [59] In addition specifically within the context of Kerala society, it simply means depressed ritual status although in pan Indian scenarios the word has been sometimes mis-used by caste fanatics for discriminatory puposes. The word sat-sudra in Kerala society needs to be understood within it own jurisprudence.

2. Author- Edgar Thurston- He wrote the seven volumes of "Castes and Tribes of Southern India"; these volumes are the standard reference on the subject

His documentation

“The original Nayars were undoubtedly a military body, holding lands and serving as a militia, but the present Nayar caste includes persons who, by hereditary occupation, are traders, artisans, oilmongers, palanquin- bearers, and even barbers and washermen. The fact seems to be that successive waves of immigrration brought from the Canarese and Tamil countries different castes and different tribes; and these, settling down in the country, adopted the customs and manners, and assumed the caste names of the more respectable of the commu- nity that surrounded them. This process of assimilation is going (Ml even yet”

“The Travancore Nayars are popularly known as Malayala Sudras — a term which contrasts them sharply with the Pandi or foreign Sudras, of whom a large number immigrated into Travancore in later times”. Link:[60]

3. A spurious peacock claim exists in Wikipedia called Malayala Kshatriya with a version stating that Nayars are known by the term Malayala Kshatriya in an effort to peacock. The content of Malayala Kshatriya stating Nairs as part of it is debatable when you read in detail those manuscripts in its entirity . References and manipulating the interpretation of the inference of the reference to make this spurious claim.

A. In support of this I provide Author- Walter (M. R. A. S.) Hamilton- The east india gazeteer vol 11

“The next most remarkable caste are the Nairs, who although Sudras are at once the chief landed proprietors and principal military tribe of Malabar”

“All Nairs pretend to be soldiers but they donot all follow the martial profession, many practicing the arts of husbandry, accounts , weaving, carpentry………………….”

Link:[61]

B. The following PhD thesis from the Department of History at MG university. It describes Nayar regulation Act, Travancore Kshatriya Act etc and provides extensive information of the legal distinction between the two communities Nayars and Malayala Kshatriya. POV pushing of Nayar image as Malayala Kshatriya,

The PhD thesis is titled History of Social legistlation in Travancore state'

Link: [62]

In addition they intent to push a POV image of the entire nayar community as ruling elite. Nayar is an umbrella term for a variety of distinct lineages professing multiple professions. Furthe references.

1. Changing kinship usages in the setting of political and economic changes among the nayars of Malabar by E Kathleen Glough in The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol. 82, No. 1 [63]

2. The internal structure of the nayar caste by C.J Fuller in the Journal of anthropological research 1975 [64]

3.Nayars of Malabar by Fawcett [65]

I am still open to dispute resolution and have provided two neutral options The caste-terminolgies are either to be totally abandoned to avoided. Kindly see my neutral solution. [66]. However instead of addressing the neutral solution of completely removing all caste-terms both sudra and kshatriya (in all forms and derives) I am faced with meat puppetry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanam001 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Request for behavior review

I hereby request that the language of User:J Milburn, on my personal talk page, here, be examined. What is the word "f***" doing on my talk page? Has Wikipedia turned into a gutter that gutter language is being employed by Wikipedia editors? Please note that my initial direct contacts with User:J Milburn resulted in proposing that a dispute regarding this image be adjudicated by User:Stifle (see here and here). Despite my explicit request to leave the matter to User:Stifle, User:J Milburn has set out to fill my talk page with utterly irrelevant comments regarding his dedication to Wikipedia and significance within the Wikipedia hierarchy. He not being my employee, with amusement I have been wondering as to why I should be burdened with such inanities. I believe that User:J Milburn must be sanctioned against for his ill manners on Wikipedia as displayed by him in abundance in the course of the past two days, i.e. since I happened to encounter him by some ill fate, and in particular for his use of the f-word in his direct communication with me. I should perhaps add that User:J Milburn seems now to be out on a vendetta, as evidenced by this contrived problem; he seems to be intent on leaving me with the unpleasant experience that he were somehow an important personality on these pages, someone to be reckoned with. --BF 15:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The mere use of expletives doesn't require sanctioning of editors. Removing {{puf}} tags, though, as you did, may indeed call for a response. Your characterization above of his edits also is far-enough removed from reality that it might also call for a response. I suggest that you start operating within Wikipedia policies and stop running down people who are trying to enforce them. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Are we to understand that Wikipedia's guidelines for language use are tuned to the habits of the inhabitants of cutters? Are we to understand that in Wikipedia victims of abuse are guilty and abusers are to be apologised to for having experienced their abuse as insulting and beneath contempt? Regarding that "puf" tag, to which you refer, the issue had already been considered days ago by User:Feydey (see here). Incidentally, since it seems to have escaped your attention, I had not asked for advice that you so freely deliver them; read my request! --BF 16:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When you bring an issue to the Administrators' Noticeboard, you are under just as much scrutiny as the people you are reporting. I read your request, and you're lucky I didn't block you for the personal attacks there.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yup. I think some people have the idea that "civility" means saying "fuck you" in 2000 words rather than in 2. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• It's ironic that this is a post about my "impoliteness", and yet I was (again) not told that I was being discussed. As anyone who looks can see, BehnamFarid has shown no regard for our policies, and my attempts at reasoned discussion turned quickly into him demanding the matter was run by Stifle, instead of myself. No matter- Stifle is also an experienced admin with regards to image issues, and he quickly let BehnamFarid know that the use of the initial image was not acceptable. BehnamFarid went on to make some personal remarks about myself here (for which I warned him) and, subsequently, here, concerning the fact I happen to be younger than him. As is customary, I checked his uploads for other violations, and nominated an image for deletion. BehnamFarid continued to ignore the issue at hand, and make various accusations about my motives in this thread, at the PUI debate (example) and on Stifle's talk page (as I have already linked). I'm not happy about BehnamFarid's behavior, or the way he has treated me or our policies, despite several warnings. J Milburn (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• This would appear to be a classic [redacted per BLP]. I think we can all agree that J Milburn did nothing sanctionable? The Wordsmith^Communicate 17:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed. BehnamFarid, on the other hand, has a long history of exactly this type of aggressive personalising of disagreements. His tone and conduct here is quite typical of what we've seen of him on other occasions. This user has a habit of exploding into this type of aggressive blustering every time he is confronted with even the slightest hint of criticism of his editing, and appears to be quite incapable of maintaining a civil and collegial tone in such situations. Given the long history of this problem, I suggest blocks may be in order here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree with Fut. Perf. And re: The Wordsmith, noting that the redlink has been deprecated in favour of WP:OUCH. MLauba (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I have warned BehnamFarid that further insults against J Milburn or his contributions will result in blocks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Give an instance of my supposed "insults against J Milburn or his contributions"! You have the entire Wikipedia to search. I hereby ask you to retract your unfounded accusation against me! I have not uttered a single word, either directly or indirectly, in the direction of J. Milburn that would support your utterly unfounded claim. --BF 19:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • The interested should consult this page (following this) regarding my supposed "insults". --BF 19:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Apparently, BehnamFarid has no use for my generalities. Anyone want to explain to him, specifically, what the problem with that is?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

MGS: Peace Walker

I need help with getting an administrator to put a foot down on this article. For the past few months, User:Whitmore 8621 and a host of IP socks along the 122.1XX.XXX.XXX range have been putting in stuff about connections to the game's plot with Richard Nixon's resignation, but despite removals of the content for being inappropriate,(as much about the game is still unknown), he still persists with the inclusion, which is trivial and adds nothing more substantial to the article. This issue couldn't quite get fixed in the talk page and I have referred him to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, but his response doesn't indicate his understanding of the said NOT section and the disclaimer about merciless editing. All his edits have been about this specific issue, and time and again they have been taken off. Please help, I'm considering this for RFPP too. Thank you.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Warned users involved who broke 3rr. Whilst some discussion has occured on the talk page, more may help here, especially since the initial discussion occured, a source has been found and added. Consider requesting protection at RFPP, or reporting at the Edit War noticeboard if the edit war continues. Don't retaliate yourself with edit warring. I will list this at WikiProject Video Games too so that it can be discussed further to gain a stronger consensus, hope this helps. --Taelus (talk) 16:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, was listed at RPP and fully protected for 3 days due to the content dispute. --Taelus (talk) 16:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm willing to risk 3RR just to make him stop. --Eaglestorm (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend "risking" violating 3RR, as that isn't a good way to build the project, hence why it is not allowed. Hopefully in the three days of protection, consensus will be built up. The current discussion is a bit thin, as the user rewrote and added a source since two of the initial reasons to not include it were given. Anyway, I have placed a discussion at the WikiProject here. --Taelus (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me rephrase that. It was worth the 3RR. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Impersonator account

Resolved

Can some admin block Abecedere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) account, that is clearly impersonating me (including copying my user and talk page) ? (Please be careful in which account you block!). Abecedare (talk) 16:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. You could have just done it yourself, I doubt anyone would take issue with it--Jac16888^Talk 16:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. True, but decided to avoid any chance of drama. Appreciate the quick response. Abecedare (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd have done the same if someone created User:Attama and started trying to impersonate me. (Oops, beans...) -- Atama頭 01:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Reporting repeated incivility/racism by User:Wikireader41

The user Wikireader41 posted the following comment at the Talk:Indo-Pakistani War of 1965 page in response to (in my opinion perfectly valid) concerns posted by an editor whom Wikireader41 perceived is of Pakistani origin: "yeah we sure could use some more POV pushers from "Loseristan"."
Diff:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1965&action=historysubmit&diff=347221759&oldid=347068344

I have previously reported Wikireader41 for abuse towards a Pakistani editor on two recent occasions. At the Wikiquette alerts page Wikireader41 was warned that if he continued his behaviour, serious action would be taken. At the administrators' noticeboard an administrator stated that he was willing to block Wikireader41 for his continued incivility but too time had passed. Links to those reports:

• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive80#Reporting_personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader41
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#Personal_attacks_by_User:Wikireader41

I hope that some action will be taken against Wikireader41 for his continued incivility which, in my opinion, counts as racism. I am notifying him of this report at his talk page.

--Hj108 (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely; indefinite being that period until they undertake not to make edits that might be considered insulting, aggressive, etc. to other editors on the basis of their supposed ethnicity, religion or nationality. I would comment that I was the admin that warned them 4 weeks ago not to make improper edits toward accounts supposed to be from certain interest groups. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What's the routine on non-English image licensing?

On File:Dr. Mohammad Khatami.jpg the sourcing and licensing have been given in Arabic. Given that this is the English Wikipedia and most editors and admins cannot read Arabic, what's the routine when coming up against situations like this? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The file log shows this was previously deleted twice but uploaded again immediately after a 1 month block. ww2censor (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like someone unwilling to work within our norms. I recommend reblocking and deleting everything he just re-uploaded without clear sourcing and licensing/rationales. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no comment on the particular case. But in general, if you have doubt about a license granted in a foreign language, find someone who can read Arabic to verify it. We seem to have about 350 native speakers in Category:User ar, and several more who should be fluent enough to understand a license text. There are also 6 active users offering to translate Arabic at Wikipedia:Translators_available#Arabic-to-English. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed the message in their block log here mentions their Commons block log. Apparently, this has been an ongoing problem. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since Khatami is Iranian, the sourcing and licensing notes are more likely to be in Farsi than Arabic. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Right. Same principle, but somewhat fewer users. Category:User_fa has 427 entries. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, it's almost certainly Persian, not Arabic, given the subject of the image, and the domain name. And isn't there some strange issue with Iranian copyrights? Guettarda (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Basically, Iranian copyrights are not legally valid in the US, but Wikipedia has decided to treat them as if they were. --Carnildo (talk) 00:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

IP 70.66.205.186

Could someone please take a look at 70.66.205.186 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)? This appears to be a single-purpose account whose single purpose is to blank my user page. They show up regularly to do this one thing, but not frequently enough for me to feel it makes sense to take it to AIV or to request that my page be semi-ed. On the other hand, the evidence seems pretty clear that this account is not going to grow into one that contributes positively to the project. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that it is the same IP each time, and their only edits are to blank your page. We could always block the IP, and any accounts that edit off that IP as it's likely someone you've had a run in with in the past. Blocking all accounts off the IP can be a good way of shaking the apple tree and seeing what falls out. Canterbury Tail talk 18:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would guess that it is someone from the Something Awful group who had issues over Crucifixion, since it started at the height of that period. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've gone with Canterbury Tail's suggestion and hardblocked the IP for one month. Fences&Windows 23:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Doddsworth5

Resolved

 – Unblock declined twice, Talk page access revoked

Can someone take a look at the contribs of Doddsworth5 (talk · contribs). I reverted some edits and someone else tagged the page Rudy and the gays. He hasn't been warned, but to me it looks like the sort of BLP hoax/vandalism that goes beyond a simple warning. (I'll leave a notice of this disussion on his page.)--Cube lurker (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've given them a final warning, I was tempted just to block them as a vandalism-only account. Fences&Windows 23:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And now indefinitely blocked. They can always appeal, but I won't be unblocking. Fences&Windows 18:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock declined. We don't need editors like this. Rodhullandemu 18:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of blocking DoddsworthX, where X = 6, 9 after Doddsworth6 came knocking. All accounts were created within the same time span back in July 2007. Syrthiss (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And I just took care of 10. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I thought I recognised the "Rudy and the gays" thing. It appears these are all sockpuppets of Cheeselor1 and his farm, and are all now blocked. Rodhullandemu 19:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio upload concerns

I am concerned about the uploads of Sysrpl (talk · contribs). I happened upon the Roger Ebert article today and noticed that a new, recent image of him with his wife had been added to the infobox. However, while the tagline and image page itself claim the photo was taken at the BAFTA awards, the photo is clearly from the Directors Guild of America awards. The award Ebert is holding is the Honorary Life Member Award, as discussed in this article [67]. The image also has no metadata.

I nominated this for deletion based on my concerns. I also began looking at thie other uploads of this account and found at least one other blatant copyvio, which is now on commons (and I have nominated for deletion there). The editor uploaded this file [68] in 2006, claiming he took it, yet the same file is found via Google search on another website with a clear Copyright Watermark [69]. I also prodded this image [70] for having no legitimate source.

The account has existed here since 2005 but only makes about 20-30 edits each year since then, mostly to articles about Bill O'Reilly. However, given at least one blatant and willful copyvio that we've hosted for 4 years, one without a proper source and another likely copyvio, I'm now concerned that there may be other issues with this person's edits. I am notifying them of this discussion now. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on the copyright problems. The Ebert photograph (File:Ebert-and-wife.jpg) has proven to be a blatant copyright infringement of [71]. I've F9ed it. That the uploader claimed to be the photographer himself is clear copyright fraud, and I almost indeffed him just for that. He has a history of image copyright issues (though slim, like his contributions) going back to 2006. I gave him a clear block warning instead, but would not at all object if somebody else should decide he isn't worth the risk. People can upload copyrighted images under all kinds of misunderstandings, but claiming that you took a photograph yourself and even supplying fictitious dates for it shows a clear intent to violate policy. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lind Innovation redachted editor's comments

I have redachted another user's comments as a BLP concern. I would like another set of eyes. Dlohcierekim 20:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the most different ways to speedy an article I've ever found before. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall a friend jumping in, arguing CSD, AND introducing a BLP concern in an AFD before.20:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Admin eyes

Could an admin have a look at User:Gerryfischer, IMO it is a BLP violation as it divulges a lot of personal information. I asked the editor about it and they vandalised my talk page. Mo ainm~Talk 20:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I've blanked the content for now. It should probably be deleted entirely. I have attempted to open a dialuoge. Dlohcierekim 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Notified user Bobby Tables (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to notify user. Mo ainm~Talk 21:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

What is it a BLP violation of? This looks to be autobiographical, since this isn't a minor we shouldn't worry about WP:CHILD. If it's not autobiographical, the only name given in the text itself is to a deceased person. -- Atama頭 01:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination)

According to WP:DGFA#Rough consensus, closing admins decide whether to keep or delete after AfDs based on "rough consensus" -- a mix of consensus and policy that each closing admin comes up with in his or her own head. Although unlikely, it is possible for a large proportion of editors !voting one way to be overturned by an admin deciding that policy goes the other way. Under these circumstances, WP:SNOWBALL closes are out of place unless the case is obvious (usually when no one objects).

After less than two days, opponents of my position at the "Climate change denial" AfD are in a large majority, but the more recent voting is much less lopsided, which I think makes it reasonable to think I have more than a snowball's chance in hell here. Yet two editors, Tony Sideaway and William Connolley, both of whom are participants in the AfD discussion, have tried to shut it down. I reverted once. Another editor reverted another time. This article is likely under the general sanctions for AWD articles, although it's uncertain. In any event, it would be better if the decision to close were left in the hands of admins and that it is only closed early if the discussion is viewed as disruptive. From what I can tell, it's simply a normal AfD, and I haven't seen evidence of disruption other than Sideaway's and Connolley's disruptive actions. Rather than some kind of edit war over closing the AfD. Please decide it here. I think normal procedures should be kept to. Apparently more editors want to participate and the discussion is certainly not all going one way. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

"Much less lopsided"? I don't see that. The SNOW close was correct and would have saved all of us time and drama. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

SNOW was correct, and should have been applied earlier to this bad faith nom. JWB's edit warring over this is regrettable William M. Connolley (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "edit war". I reverted once and immediately brought discussion to the editor's talk page and then to here. But I repeat myself. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Of the last 12 !votes, five were for my "Delete" position. If that rate continues until the normal seven days are up, it becomes much closer, making it much more comfortable for a closing admin to close against a majority, if that admin feels policy is the other way. Serious policy arguments have been made. Apparently other editors, as they come across the AfD, want to participate in it. I think it's pretty clear which route is the disruptive one here. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to assume good faith in the nomination, especially since it's been over a year since the last AfD. However, the statement above that "more recent voting is much less lopsided" disturbs me, considering that that's _not_ what I saw when I went over there. I'm generally opposed to snowball closes, though, so I see no harm in letting it run the full length. (Note: I just unarchived the discussion -- I don't think that we're quite done here yet.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to articles that have multiple passed AfDs, isn't there some sort of 'Cut it the fuck out' clause you can invoke? HalfShadow 21:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Not in policy. Not when the last one was over a year ago. That's measured in months. And thanks for demonstrating that there's a high degree of tension and rudeness associated with the AGW topic area. Thanks so much. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I could care less about the subject. It just seems if it's passed at least three AfDs, it's probably gong to keep passing them. HalfShadow 21:34, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

@Sarek: 7 one way, 5 the other in the last 12. Simple counting. Did I get it wrong? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Depending on when you looked, probably not. I think I looked too quickly. Striking above.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the trend was pretty rapid, and it surprised me, too. (It happened right after I added a better nominating statement at the top, even though it was long). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Why would Tony Sidaway close this discussion? I'm worried that if two participants have tried to close the AfD, then more will. If no further attempts at outside-of-policy closes occur, then everything is hunky-dory. But it would probably be a good idea for admins to watch this, and I'll post a note over at the AGW General Sanctions page as well, but frankly, the more eyes the better on this one. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SNOW closes are for uncontested and uncontroversial closures, or for those unlikely to be contested or controversial. Since this one is obviously being contested and is also likely controversial, given the topic, there is no harm in letting it run for the full 7 days. I personally see absolutely no chance this will get decided in any other way than "keep", but if it makes people happy to believe that they can comment on the discussion, there's no real harm, and following the 7-day procedure is useful in proactively preventing silly drama like this thread. --Jayron32 21:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Early closes invariably lead to eDrama-fueling shitstorms. Let this train-wreck run its course, it doesn't really matter if it crashes at turn #2 or turn #7 since the crash itself an inevitability. Tarc (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Has no one here ever seen an AfD consensus reverse? I have. Has no one here ever seen a closing admin close against the "raw" consensus? Haven't we all seen this? AfD is always a crap shoot. All we can do is offer our best arguments. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

At this point, there are serious, policy-based reasons behind both keep and delete votes. In order to establish a clear consensus to delete, which is required for actually deleting the article (since both a "no-consensus" and "keep" conclusion result in maintaining the status quo) would require a preponderance of delete votes which also had policy based reasons. The current debate would require something like 100 more people to show up, all with valid policy-based arguments, to overcome the current weight of the existing keep comments, and there would have to be no further keep votes at all. Yes, consensuses do change, but this one has zero chance of being deleted. Zero. This analysis isn't based on vote counting, its based on weighing the strength of the arguements. Even if we don't count votes at all, and just look at the points being made by the "keep" side and the "delete" side so far, this one is at best a "no-consensus" If we do start to count votes, even only counting those with valid rationales, the Keep votes so far have enough to make it a clear "keep" if closed today, and no worse than "no-consensus" if it is let run for the full seven days. So, have your fun for the rest of the seven day period. But don't barring some record-setting turnaround, I see absolutely no chance of this being deleted. Given the keep votes already, your best option is a "no-consensus" close, which has no functional difference from a "keep" one. --Jayron32 22:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

...this one has zero chance of being deleted. Zero. WP:BURO should apply in this case then... -Atmoz (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I addressed this above, 21:50. I don't need 100. I need 1. If I get 100, I'll still need 1. If I get that 1, it goes to DRV, where I still won't need 100 to prevent a consensus to overturn. I don't happen to like these rules (I'd prefer less power for the closing admins), I just try to play by them. Since my arguments are golden and far outshine anyone's, I'm willing to invest some more time in this, and nobody else is forced to spend time on it, anyway. WP:BURO can't apply any more than WP:SNOWBALL for the same reason: I only need 1. I find it amazing how a simple discussion that anybody can ignore is somehow so very important to shut down. It makes me suspicious. It also makes Wikipedia look biased. Wikipedia has been criticized by commentators before in relation to AGW issues, so avoiding normal procedures we'd use for every other article doesn't really seem like such a burden. Unless there's some kind of an intolerance around here for simple differences of opinion about anything related to global warming. If that's the case, then that's yet another good reason to let the discussion continue: If done right, it'll promote tolerance. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD is not a random crapshoot, and its not about getting "lucky" by finding a "sympathetic admin" who either is biased towards your opinion or willingly ignores the basic principles of how AFD works. Merely because the closing of an AFD is based on the opinion of the closing admin does not mean that such a close is necessarily arbitrary. If you are only nominating the article, not because you believe that consensus would lie with you, but because you believe that some arbitrary admin would be willing to make a bad close, that is a WP:POINT violation of the worst kind. Also doomed to failure, but if that is your meaning here, it calls into question your entire motives in the nomination in the first case. If you are only banking on getting the article deleted because you believe some random admin may ignore all of the votes and all of the arguements contained therin and randomly delete it, well, that calls into serious doubt the entire AFD from your nomination, and strains anyones good faith in your behavior in this. If this is NOT what you meant, you had better clarify, because it does not appear you are holding the correct attitudes towards Wikipedia... --Jayron32 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Stand down. WP:DGFA#Rough consensus is policy. I referred to it in the first line I wrote. The close isn't arbitrary in the closing admin's head, but the closing admin you happen to get in a particular AfD is about as arbitrary as a crap shoot. From what I've seen, the more controversial the AfD, the more likely a wildcard closing. Happens all the time. it does not appear you are holding the correct attitudes towards Wikipedia There are no "correct attitudes" toward Wikipedia. Only correct behavior.

Now you've made me angry, so I went back to the policy I referred to and reread it. It hasn't changed (get settled in your chair, because your head's about to start spinning): Administrators must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached. [...]Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. 1. Q. What is the meaning of "consensus" if it is determined by looking at "strength of argument"? A. Whatever the closing admin says it is, as long as WP:DRV confirms it. I'm following policy to the letter and spirit. And I'm (very idealistically) arguing my case hoping for open-minded people to consider it fairly. Under Wikipedia policy, my case is not hopeless because I might get enough support that a conscientious admin who actually thinks WP:POVFORK policy should be enforced will find enough rough-consensus support in the AfD to close it the way I think is right. Exactly what is wrongheaded about that? And I'm even making some progress. Of course I'm cynical about Wikipedia's odd policies. Because I've read them. (I'm much more cynical about admin conduct outside of policy. Because I've seen it.) I'm idealistic about what I'm doing and certain that it's in the best interests of the encyclopedia and it's readers. Nor am I doing it disruptively. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

And another thing: Also doomed to failure How the do you know that it's doomed to failure? A discussion is disruptive because your crystal ball tells you it's hopeless? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you start an AFD without the expectation that people will support your position, but under the belief that admins behave arbitrarily, and are actually counting on an admin ignoring a discussion and simply deleting the article randomly or without any reasonable connection to the discussion, then such a nomination is doomed to fail. You have stated repeatedly to don't expect your AFD to garner enough support to delete it, but are instead counting on your presumed opinion that some reasonable percentage of admins will behave unpredictably enough to make it possible it would be deleted anyways. That shows a surprising assumption of bad faith in the good judgement of administrators at Wikipedia, and to expect that the only way you can get the result you personally want is to have an admin who is either incompetant or malicious and to still maintain that that is somehow a valid way to proceed in a situation like this. I don't even know where to respond to that, the rediculousness of that position is so self-evident it defies further comment or elaboration. As I said, have fun for the rest of the 7-day AFD period. If you find the discussion entertaining, then fine. But its not going to be deleted. --Jayron32 05:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If you start an AFD without the expectation that people will support your position [...] Not so. Why would you say that? randomly or without any reasonable connection to the discussion You're not reading what I wrote. Not the first time you've failed to do that in this thread. a surprising assumption of bad faith in the good judgement of administrators at Wikipedia the quote I meant to put here wasto have an admin who is either incompetant or malicious Ditto. Are you deliberately misreading my very clear statement to the contrary? I'll spell it out for you just one more time: I filed the AfD because I thought and still think I had a chance. I don't know how the participation will pan out and neither do you (personally, I find spurts in participation from one side or the other pretty suspicious, but who can say what's going on there?). I hope an administrator will take both factors, consensus and policy, into account in figuring out this wierd thing WP:DGFA calls "rough consensus", as the admin is supposed to do, and I hope the admin agrees with me. I've said all of this before and it's policy. I've got no reason to say it again and you have every reason to understand it. Nothing I've said contradicts it, especially ChrisO's quote below. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)edited this post -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Just to note, there is no particularly strong trend towards deleting the article. Just counting !votes, not evaluating rationales, in the first 24 hours there were 19 Keeps and 5 Deletes -- thats 79% / 21% for keeping. In the last 24 hours, there are 14 Keeps and 8 Deletes, which is 64% to 36%. Considering the small sample size, that's not a trend, it's a burp: the last 10 votes (since the "random convenience break") are 8 Keep / 2 Delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is very obvious how that AfD will end, regardless we might as well let it come to it inevitable conclusion if someone insists on going through all the hoops. We could save time and energy by closing it now, but that time and energy would be lost ten fold dealing with those complaining about the close. I suppose we let it finish and then end up closing it the same way. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Can I borrow your crystal ball? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've been concerned from the outset about the good faith of this nomination. I note that just before nominating this article for deletion, JohnWBarber wrote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration (which closed as a deletion):

I think Bigtimepeace's and TS's comments could also be made about that other AGW-related op ed piece masquarading as an encyclopedia article -- Climate change denial -- and it would have been a wise move to put that one up for deletion at the same time to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other. It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold. (And, please, nobody throw WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me -- this is the kind of argument that that essay suggests is a valid one.) [72]

He then posted the deletion nomination for Climate change denial - the article's fourth AfD nomination - with the following rationale, in its entirety:

This is an obvious POV fork. A screen shot of this article should be used to illustrate Wikipedia policy on POV forks. [73]

I have to say this looks very much like an attempt to prove a point, specifically "to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other." Numerous editors have commented on this in the AfD, criticising the nomination as frivolous, tendentious and POINTy. For what it's worth (not much IMO) JohnWBarber has posted a rather vitriolic response to these concerns here [74]. Since the same issue is being discussed here, I'd be interested to know what others think. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think we can still assume good faith with respect to JohnWBarber's nomination. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration and related discussion a number of editors pointed out that if Climate change exaggeration was to be deleted then Climate change denial should be as well since they were two sides of the same coin. Of course one can disagree with that, but it's a legitimate view to hold. I actually suggested to another editor (not John) that they nominate the "denial" article for AfD if they were concerned about it. While I can see why one would read the comment above about watching "editors sail through the sky, defying gravity" as a prelude to a a pointy exercise, I think it's better to read it as a side comment and assume that the main reason JohnWBarber nominated the article was simply that it needed to be deleted in his view. But this issue is already being discussed here so I don't think duplicating it on ANI is helpful. Also I think this thread is basically resolved at this point and should probably be marked as such. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've answered this same attack [[75]].

Of course, my statement was directed at POV pushers of any side and very broadly (hypocrisy is the other side of the same coin that POV pushing is on -- you can't POV push without being a hypocrite). No one was named, bad behavior was the target, and it was prospective, not pointing fingers at past actions. It was meant to get real POV pushers to stop in their tracks and think about what they're doing to themselves and to the encyclopedia -- something useful for this project.

ChrisO seems to like straining logic to see bad faith. He can't quite prove the bad faith he wants to prove, but it doesn't seem to stop him from reposting the same flawed argument in a new forum. It's obvious from the AfD that I have sufficient reason to be concerned enough to want to delete the article -- whether anyone agrees with me or not. I've said so very clearly, including at the earlier discussion referred to above. If I have sufficient reason, I have the right motivation -- obviously. And yet he repeatedly insists my motivations must be bad. He mentions the first one-line rationale I posted for the AfD (which itself showed proper motivation) and ignores the comment immediately below it (and all the other comments I made). Who's exhibiting bad faith here? From ChrisO's and other comments at the AfD that called for it to be shut down, from the attempt to close it early and from parts of this thread, it's obvious that there's a desperate, desperate yearning to shut off discussion about at least this part of the AGW articles. If the AfD is inevitably going to fail, and if no one needs to participate in a normal AfD, why this desperate need? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

AFD

I've followed the instructions exactly on the AFD page. Can someone help me to fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roblox (2nd nomination). I can't get the "AfDs for this article: " wherein it is listing other unrelated articles to just lust the correct prior AFD. As an aside, can someone think about making the AFD nomination process less bjorked. I found it very frustrating. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle makes it a very simple process. —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, if it works. Perhaps my TW code it out of date. I'll check. When tinkle did not work, I used the steps outlined at the AFD page. Templates seemed to not expand fully. I'm not unintelligent, but that process (more specifically, the instructions (are...)) is convoluted. Thank you for the help. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the instructions are about as clear as mud, so I won't even attempt it without tw. (And if tinkle doesn't work, maybe you need help. ;) ) —DoRD (?) (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Generally when tinkle does not work, I recommend drinking more water and waiting a little while. --Smashville^talk 22:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

And you think my play on words was inadvertent... :) Warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Choctaw Nation of Florida

This is in regards to an IP[76] unhappy with the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Choctaw Nation of Florida on the article they are concerned with. They have been given numerous advisements on how to fix the article in question, but being a newcomer and possibly on top of that sufficient lack of WP:CLUE and some WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, they are now wreaking havoc on the article page again, changing the afd tags so they no longer link to its afd, and returning removed cites that have nothing to do with the subject of their article(the name of the author they cite isn't even correct, should be John R. Swanton not Swinton. I'm at my ropes end with this IP, and my explanations and suggestions have gotten me nowhere with them. Can someone have a look and maybe give them some friendly advice and fix the AFD tag? I'm trying to avoid contact with them as my input seems to fall on deaf ears/inflame them. Thanks and sorry. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

User notified of this thread. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

They have sionce removed the AFD tag[77] altogether and all citations needed tags. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since that was the second time they blanked the AfD tag, I just blocked for a week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Qewr4231

Qewr4231 (talk · contribs) seems on a noble crusade against International Churches of Christ, inserting several copies of basically same info in several places of the same articles, and ignores comments in their talk page. Please intervene. - Altenmann >t 22:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(notified user) Bobby Tables (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to articles, see what he did to the talk page today. - Altenmann >t 23:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am simply trying to put accurate information on the ICOC into the ICOC article and ICOC talk page. Some user named TransylvanianKarl keeps posting lots and lots of false information on the ICOC and the movements that came out of the ICOC.

Also the ICOC is a predatory movement; they present themselves as a church but they are not a church. I can provide tons and tons of references on the ICOC being a cult. Qewr4231 (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I also apologize for my poor job of editing and adding information. I'm a novice when it comes to computers. I simply want people to know that many people think the ICOC is a cult. As a former member who chose to leave I disagree with the factual information stated on the International Churches of Christ entry in Wikipedia. I also disagree with a lot of the things TransylvanianKarl has posted over the years on the International Churches of Christ talk page. Qewr4231 (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible Compromised Account

Was answering a post made by User:LaidOff on User:Willking1979‎'s talk page (Will is out at the present moment, I was attempting to help). I took at a look at LaidOff's contribs to see if I could find what the user was trying to say (if you notice from the post, it is VERY tough to figure out) and some issues with the last two edits compared to the others raised an eyebrow. I am not sure if this is compromised account or an editor on a vandalism streak, but perhaps some eyes would be good on the account. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: I have notified the user of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Could some eyes find their way to this thread? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It does seem out of character. Unfortunately the user does not have email engaged. I think if any more edits are made we might want to take further action, but it might be a case of a good user slipping off the wagon momentarily (a concern in itself). Monitor for now. SGGH ^ping! 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Racism accusation

Undefeatedcooler, a pure single purpose account (see user contributions), who has been stubbornly reverting the Bruce Lee article for the past two weeks has directed a racist tirade against me and some other users who were guilty of disagreeing with him:

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Categorization of Bruce Lee as "Chinese":

• "His/Her comments approached Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Etiquette. I insisted that he/she was a racist (anti-Chinese) editor." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Bruce Lee#Lead and categories:

• "“Bruce Lee was not Chinese”, that’s ridiculous. He was surely a Chinese person, I know there were a lot of anti-Chinese in America, but please put your bias and racism away." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
• "Those were the key points for the lazy and stubborn people to read clearly. You are the one being immature, bullheaded and racist (anti-Chinese) with your insults and ignorant attitudes to this discussion page." Undefeatedcooler (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Editor notified of this discussion. -- Atama頭 02:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have informed him on the article talk not to call anyone racist or engage in personal attacks. I have also informed him that he can't use Wikipedia content to support his side of things, but only third party reliable sources and so on. SGGH ^ping! 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor has been warned twice about 3RR and has reverted four times in the past 24 hours (from 13:26 and 14:28 4 March, 12:59 and 13:18 5 March). I think a block is in order, because he's clearly not stopping, but I really don't want to file a 3RR report, because those things are time-consuming and I recall sometimes the backlog gets so huge that sometimes no block is issued. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Robert Falconer

Someone please correct Robert Falconer, and block whoever did it. The entire page has been vandalized, and it has remained since yesterday.--RM (Be my friend) 21:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, that's been taken care of. But someone please have a word with 64.163.133.224 before he vandalizes again.--RM (Be my friend) 21:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock vandalism on Alastair Campbell

It appears that somebody is using "sleeper socks" (accounts created a long time ago and autoconfirmed) to bypass semi protection on Alastair Campbell. I count at least 5 so far, all of which have been blocked but I wonder if a checkuser could establish whther there are any more to come. The 5 blocked to date are:

• Briefsoul (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Friedbikini (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 79.71.209.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Thote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scotty 9999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

all of whom have made exactly the same edit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this guys had these in his back pocket for over five years? I see Bongwarrior has increased the protection to full, but maybe we should leave the honeypot out in the open? Would be nice to snag as many of these as we can. — Satori Son 16:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the password listing right on the user page here, I'm wondering if, instead of sleeper accounts, this is someone digging through old accounts looking for simple passwords. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Legal Threat by User:24.197.27.85

Resolved

 – blocked for legal threat JodyB _talk 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

24.197.27.85 (talk · contribs) An IP blocked for vandalizing Shamrock, Texas to spam and promote an attack site previously spammed in the site by a previous editor who self-identified as Terry Keith Hammond, owner of the "station" (first known sock is likely User:Monsterfm though it was never tagged).[78] Hammond had also heavily vandalized both the city article adn the U-Drop Inn article, making heavily slanderous remarks against various people, the city, and the location. Said station is an unlicensed attack vehicle which lost its FCC license.

This new IP is highly likely to be the same guy or a proxy, from his attempts at spamming, his response to his being reverted, and his responses to his blocking. He even pointed to the same article as the IP socks did that tried to keep the vandalism in the article over several years before from around March 2008-may 2008, and occasionally still pops in at times. This new IP has now thrown out what appears to be a legal threat on his talk page.[79] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the ip is blocked indef for legal threats - for all the good that will do.JodyB _talk 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I dropped it back to a month as this is a shared IP address. (Thanks to User:MuZemike for the reminder]]. I did leave the talk page open for now as he needs to reject the threat. If he abuses it I will close the talk page. JodyB _talk 00:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nabbing User:ScienceGolfFanatic

Well you all may know that I've gotten over 300 messages from this troll/sock puppeteer. In an effore to get rid of this guy, I;ve got a list of the ranges that he likely uses. (This is an exact copy of an old version of User:Soap's Sandbox.

IP ranges likely to have been used by ScienceGolfFanatic

• 65.92.124.0/22 (probably the "home" range)
• 69.156.124.0/23
• 64.231.200.0/22
• 64.231.11.0/24
• 209.221.64.0/18
• 67.68.33.0/24
• 67.68.34.49 (still unblocked and recently vandalised almost every sub-page of mine)

With the exception of the 67.68 group, the vast majority of edits from these ranges since May 2009 show all the signs of SGF's favorite editing behaviors. Prior to that, few if any are, as he was apparently using accounts with usernames during that time.

I'm requesting that a CU be done to actually determine if Soap's hunch was correct. If so, perhaps we can get rid of him (and his e-mail spamming habbits) for a while (at least until he finds another range or the block wears off.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The 67.68.xx.xx range would be a tough block, as it contains many legitimate users. The other ranges had virtually no other anonymous users besides SGF as of November, and although that could change any time, my understanding is that most of them are still blocked. But still, I think it would be a tough sell to try to get the bottom one blocked for any substantial length of time because it would trap others in. —Soap— 01:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

For example (not a great example, I admit), this IP has SGF-like edits today, but 5 years ago there was somebody writing about Brahmins. —Soap— 01:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How can it be a tough sell when I've got over 300 (yes 300) messages in my inbox that are telling me that he knows where I live and what my birthdate is? I'm tired of being stalked and harrassed by the idiot. Time to end it once and for all. The very last IP needs to be blocked as it remains unblocked and all of it's edits are vandaliseing my pages. At least block all of the other ranges so he cannot create an sock and send another 300+ messages to me about how crappy my spelling is and how he thinks I'm a duche bag. And if someone can go over all of SGF's comfirmed socks and block their e-mail as well that would be nice.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As far as the email harassment issues goes, might I suggest creating a new email account specifically for Wikipedia? Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 02:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hell, I know your birthdate and where you live. Your birthdate is a Wednesday and you live somewhere else. HalfShadow 03:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh, HS it's not a Wednesday. And as for the e-mail. I have several e-mail addresses. The one that I use here is almost entirely for this site. Regardless, it gets really annoying after the 300th message.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, he has a new range. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

More vandalism from User: Jonbobsmith

This editor, who was last blocked for vandalism in 2007, is now back and repeatedly vandalizing the Hall High School (Connecticut) article. Can someone check into this? Thanks -- Danieldis47 (talk) 01:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The user has no block on his record and no current warnings on his talk page. His edits are a bit childish but exactly what do you want us to do? Maybe you could offer to help him. JodyB _talk 02:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Help him what, vandalize articles? Jonbobsmith has such helpful edits in his history as [80], [81], and [82]. I have left a warning on his talk page for the vandalism to the High School article. Being a child does not excuse vandalism. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see that he was not blocked in 2007 - just warned. Hopefully, the new warning now on his Talk page, plus this mention here, will be enough. Thanks. Danieldis47 (talk) 03:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I've elevated his warning based on his history from a 2 to a 3. Given the fact that this user has been warned in the past, he/she should know better. Interesting situation here, though. Does anyone share the thought that may be a possible compromised/shared account? Connormah (talk | contribs) 05:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Pretty standard AIV. The elevated warnings will be visible to Hugglers now too, so this issue should be handled for now. Shadowjams (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Gilabrand

Despite my warning him, Gilabrand continues to insert irrelevant, defamatory anti-Palestinian material sourced from hate sites (such as the Kahanist Masada 2000) into an unrelated article that I am working on in a nasty attempt to provoke me (I am Palestinian). Edits: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89]

In one of the edit summaries he states "this is not any more disruptive than the rest of the article". He is well aware that what he is doing is wrong but he is proving a point. Factsontheground (talk) 01:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong in the few differences you refer to. I do see incivility on you part for not notifying the user about this post.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Be patient. I was just dealing with another matter. I notified him within ten minutes of writing this.

Please explain the relevance of Gilabrand's edits to that article. Factsontheground (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that it is hard to explain the relevance of any edits to an absolutely irrelevant article. What Gilabrand has done was just a reaction of a normal person at yet another anti-Israeli conspiracy theories article. In any case it is not the matter that should be discussed on AN/I.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So, because you don't like a given article that gives you carte blanche to spam in irrelevant hate propaganda? I guess I must have missed that rule when I read the Wikipedia guidelines Factsontheground (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Whap!

Factsontheground - you have a long history of pushing this general agenda. You have an obvious and well known bias on this matter. Most of the time, what you are doing falls within our policies and the purpose of the encyclopedia, despite the bias and agenda. In this case, You were pushing outside the lines, and this has become disruptive.

I am torn between wanting to slap you with a trout, and seeing if there's support for a topic ban for you.

My immediate conclusion is: The Trout.

Please don't do this again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do whatever you want to do, George. Go ahead and block me again. I'm sure other admins will come along to undo your block as per usual and you'll just look bad. Your personal attacks on me for having a "obvious and well known bias" are simply not true, but as in the past I imagine you will repeatedly refuse to substantiate any of your accusations against me and simply threaten me with blocks to silence me.

And no, George, I will do this again the next time someone starts posting irrelevant, obscenely racist hate propaganda on an any article that I am editing and refuses to stop. You may think that Masada 2000 is a reliable source but most people would not agree. Factsontheground (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Factsontheground, first of all I do not believe that what was added to your article by Gilabrand is "hate propaganda". There's no more hate than in the article itself. IMO the edits that were done by Gilabrand were as relevant as the article itself, which means they both the edits and the article were irrelevant. The sequence of events was like that:first you wrote an irrelevant article, and then Gilabrand added irrelevant edits to already highly irrelevant article, which IMO is a reaction of a normal person to yet another Israeli and 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Mbz1 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, if you don't like an article, use the AFD process. Don't spam in irrelevant hate propaganda. Factsontheground (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

There is reasonable evidence on hand that both the article topic and the added material are biased, albeit in opposite directions.

What you do often pushes the envelope towards WP:BATTLE - using Wikipedia to advocate for anti-Israeli positions. This is not new and not news. Gilabrand acts in an equivalent and diametrically opposed manner, as I am sure you will agree - also, not new, not news.

It is not appropriate for either of you to go beyond advocating a point, within the Wikipedia system and editorial goals and mission, and to escalate to either outright issue advocacy war (as you two both did on the article) or personal attacks (as you have done here on ANI).

You have - in those personal attacks - repeatedly insulted Gilabrand, and all the administrators who are responding to you here. This is at the very least unwise, and counterproductive.

Again - see the Trout above. What you did here was not acceptable. You are welcome to take the "...and please don't do it again" resolution. If you insist on escalating it, then you need to be aware of and prepared for the consequences. Neither Gilabrand nor you was in the right, but the actions so far don't breach the level that admins should have to take action. If you keep pushing here, you will breach that level.

Again - please stop. I have no wish to see you blocked here. But if you keep abusing us here, and Gilabrand, that's what's going to happen. You can hold any opinion you want on the admonishment here and my impartiality. But if you keep pushing buttons, one will be pushed back. Please take the opportunity to step back and move on to other topics without any lasting repurcussions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

George, I don't agree that I and Gilabrand are equivalent. I strive to follow Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines and I often write in advocacy of Israel or Israelis. Like many Wikipedians, I do write about Israel and Palestinian topics. I don't see that as any worse than writing about Greek or Italian or American or British topics.

I certainly didn't mean to personally attack anyone and I will happily remove the personal attacks if you point them out to me.

I also agree that no admin should have to take official action here. What I wanted was for an admin to politely ask Gilabrand to stop doing what he is doing, particularly during the AFD process. So is your advice just to put up with it, then, even when people are criticizing the article because of Gilabrand's edit and I can't remove them because of WP:3RR?

The irony here is that Masada 2000 is probably one of the most anti-semitic pages on the web. Factsontheground (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

George, this is the second time that you have come into an ANI I've filed against a disruptive user and claimed that I should be blocked just as long as the perpetrator. This is the second time your opinions have been rejected by your fellow admins. This is the second time you've attacked and threatened me without providing any constructive criticism as to what I'm doing wrong. Please don't let there be a third. Factsontheground (talk) 11:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

{edit conflict) About Masada 2000. The site is not blacklisted on Wikipedia, so the user had the rights to refer to it. I read at least some info that the user added to your articles in published books that have nothing to do with Masada 2000. IMO the user was very hurt by the lies and propaganda provided in your article. Please do not worry about anti-Semitic sites, you have enough to worry about already, like 9/11 conspiracy theories, for example. Could we please mark that thread as "resolved" now before somebody is blocked?--Mbz1 (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If Masada 2000 is not blacklisted then it ought to be, as it's basically a far-right screed sheet. Even ignoring the fact that it's an ultra-right-wing propaganda piece, it does not appear to satisfy the Reliable Sources guideline. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe not, but in any case this board is not the right place to request it to be blacklisted.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am marking a matter as resolved now, if somebody disagree, please feel free to remove the template. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Info:I did mark the matter as resolved, but User:Factsontheground has chosen to remove the template, which is of course his/her right to do.--Mbz1 (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you both should let an uninvolved administrator do that in this case. I see nothing wrong with discussing whether a source is reliable or not here, as it seems to pertain to the central discussion. Burpelson AFB (talk) 04:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I did not look at Gilabrand's edits and so am not commenting on them. I'm just struck by the appalling comments of Mbz1 written above. The fact that an article is in poor shape does not entitle anyone to break the rules in editing it. And the statement "The site is not blacklisted on Wikipedia, so the user had the rights to refer to it." is in complete contradiction to policy as given by WP:RS. Zero^talk 04:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Gilabrand refuses to respond to us so we can assume that he is going to continue being disruptive. And GeorgeWilliamHerbert has come out of the blue to make a great number of threats/allegations against me without explanations or supporting evidence. He did this last time he blocked me (which was rescinded after other admins stepped in) so he needs to answer my questions before this is resolved. Factsontheground (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

@zerowithzeros :)I did not say that the article is in "poor shape". I said that the article is full of bogus, original research, lies and propaganda, and I said that I could understand Gilabrand wish to have his/her say on it. I repeat one more time, if the site is not blacklisted on Wikipedia,the user had the rights to refer to it. It is for community to decide, if the site is or is not a reliable source.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What George said about the user is right. The user is here to fight WP:BATTLE--Mbz1 (talk) 05:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment that I agree that the site in question is racist, ultra-right wing, and most decidedly not a WP:RS. No one should be citing it for anything. I don't think it would be unreasonable for someone to leave a polite note for Gilabrand about WP:POINT and WP:RS. Cheers, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at Gilabrand's edits, it is clear that they are entirely out of place, including describing accepted history of the Arab refugees as a scam on the one hand, and anti-semitic (anti-Jewish) screeds on the other. The idea appears to be that "this article is crap, so I will throw some completely irrelevant garbage because it smells just as bad as the other crap." This is not an accepted or productive style of editing, and Factsontheground has good reason to complain - just as others have a right to complain about the article itself by the ordinary AfD procedure. Of course Masada2000, a site that goes out of its way to be defamatory, will hardly ever be an appropriate source for an encyclopedia.John Z (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Gilabrand for disruptive WP:POINT violations in editing the article. I also agree that the article in the form written by Factsontheground is a disruptive WP:COATRACK/WP:OR piece; whether these defects are obvious and severe enough to justify a block of Factsontheground for tendentious/disruptive editing I'd like to leave open for further discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again, if Masada2000 is a defamatory in your opinion, you should nominate it for black listing, and this is not the right pace do do it. User Gilabrand has found the deletion request now, and voted there. The user stopped editing the article in question few hours ago. So any sanctions applied to the user at the moment are punitive.--Mbz1 (talk) 08:04, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That is not policy. Just because a site has not been blacklisted does not mean it is ok to be used as a source. If this were the case, then any blog or random website could be used also. Read WP:RS. That site you're referring to is a Kahanist-extremist and anti-semitic hate screed. It isn't any more reliable than Stormfront or the Westboro Baptist Church's website. Defamation has nothing to do with it. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise, thank you for taking action to resolve this so we can all move on. I must say, though, that it was my impression that only editors (and not articles) could be "disruptive", since WP:DISRUPTION is a behavioural guideline, not a content guideline. If I act inappropriately then I can understand being blocked, and I invite you to point out any disruptive behaviour by myself so I can correct it, but it seems odd to block me for writing material and then following Wikipedia processes to resolve the content issues. Factsontheground (talk) 08:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, writing bad content may be a mere error of judgment that can be corrected through normal editing. However, writing obviously bad content – i.e. bad enough that any reasonable neutral onlooker must recognise it is unacceptable in terms of NPOV or NOR rules – in fact is disruptive behaviour. Whether the bad content in this case rises to that level is just what I wanted to see discussed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems odd that you would consider this as a possibility, given that there are at least 4 votes to keep by experienced Wikipedians (not counting myself) in the AFD (which has only be listed for less than 24 hours) as well as a great deal of debate. Surely an "obviously" bad article would be unanimously rejected in the AFD dicussion without much debate? Factsontheground (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article but thought I'd note that almost anything politically inclined within the Arab-Israeli conflict will automatically get promotion and support from "the usual suspects". I don't plan on checking the AFD in discussion but I trust that if Fut.Perf. can see a problem, then there most probably is one. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement topic ban of Gilabrad

I agree with the assessment by Future Perfect at Sunrise and John Z above. The cited edits of Gilabrand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to Israeli art student scam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), notably [90], are in violation of WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV and WP:POINT, in that they add material that is (a) entirely unrelated to the subject of the article (which is incidents of alleged art fraud in the USA), (b) intended to advance a non-neutral point of view in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and (c) with the apparent purpose of drawing attention to the perceived non-neutrality or other defects of the rest of the article. In WP:ARBPIA#Purpose of Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee held that "Wikipedia is a project to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited." But this is exactly the sort of conduct that Gilabrand engaged in with these edits. He was previously, in 2008, notified of the abovementioned arbitration case. Consequently, to prevent continued disruption of this sort, under the authority of WP:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, I am hereby banning Gilabrand from the topic of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for the duration of three months. (For the avoidance of doubts, this includes all pages or discussions related to the topic, broadly construed.) This ban may be enforced with blocks or additional sanctions as necessary.

This sanction should not be construed as me expressing an opinion about the merits of the article, or about the conduct of Factsontheground (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) or other people, and does not prevent other uninvolved administrators from taking whatever action they may deem necessary with respect to the article or other editors.  Sandstein  22:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal for user:Vexorg

I propose a topic ban for user:Vexorg for all the articles that mention Jews or Arab terrorist organizations. The user often edits music related or plant related articles, but as soon as the user touches articles on the above topics, it edit become disruptive, POV and violation WP:BLP Here's only few differences of the edit history of the user:

1. removing well sourced info from Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe
2. removing well sourced info from Al-Qaeda involvement in Europe
3. nominating the same article for deletion
4. removing well sourced information from a sensitive article
5. Adding category "British Jews" although category "English Jews" is already there
6. Adding category "British Jews" although category "English Jews" is already there
7. Pushing POV; also violates wp:BLP
8. POV pushing
9. restoring unsoursed info
10. restoring bogus quotes in Henry Kissinger in the violation of WP:BLP
11. removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic
12. and arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic
13. the edit from today, which demonstrates that the user is seeing nothing wrong in it edit pattern

Those are only very few differences. I could provide many more on request, but IMO the picture is clear.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment by veorg This user is clearly trying to mount a personal campaign against me. I have just reported him for edit warring here after I removed his POV edits on an article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Mbz1_reported_by_User:Vexorg_.28Result:_.29 - The fact he has kept a record sheet and claims .... "I could provide many more on request" means he is clearly stalking me. Nearly all those issues he/she lists above have long since been put to bed. And some of them are absurd. 12. is in regards to a sensible discussion on a talk page and 13. is a comment about it here!!! The rest are mostly very innocuous. Is that the kind of editor you want on Wikipedia. Someone who seems more interested in vendettas against other editors? I won't waste any more time on this editor's personal hangups. The articles themselves deserve attention instead. Vexorg (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

just to add: I gave the user Mbz1 notice I had reported him for edit warring and he didn't take it seriously and deleted it by writing it off as a rant http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mbz1&oldid=347858549 Vexorg (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Him"?? - Alison ^❤ 06:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

'her' then. It makes no difference to me what sex a person is. Would 'it' be better? Alternatively please replace all instances of 'him' with 'him/her' and he with 'he/she'. Isn't it better to concentrate on the editing issues? Vexorg (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

"Him" is not a problem, no need to replace anything. --Mbz1 (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This conflict is getting really absurd. Unbelievable!! Mbz1, unless I'm missing something, there's no obvious indication of what sex you are of your page. Had there been I would have addressed you accordingly. Whatever. Is there an administrator out there who is more interested in resolving things than being worried about what sex people are? Vexorg (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a lot of verbiage as a result of a one-word comment pointing out the inherent bias in one's perceptions and it's important to set the record straight, especially given that so few of Wikipedia contributors are women :( - Alison ^❤ 07:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

there was no intentional bias. It was simply an innocuous label because I'm more interested in resolving the conflict of editing than worrying what sex editors are. I would expect an administrator to resolve the editing issues before worrying about some hang up about a perceived gender inequality in wikipedia Vexorg (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral Comment - "Keeping a record sheet" (as mentioned above) and being able to provide "diffs" is hardly evidence of stalking. It doesn't take more than an hour or two at best to fully explore an average editor's history on WP, as all edits that user ever created are quite available to the entire world, forever. A really good researcher can gain a great understanding of a user's behavior pattern pretty quickly on a totally unknown editor (even a longstanding one). Hope this clears some things up :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

none the less there is history with this editor and myself. I voted to delete an article that this editor had spent a lot of time on. it's more complicated than you might think. Vexorg (talk) 07:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing's simple, Vexorg, and I am neutral precisely because I don't know the history between you two (though I may look into it ;>) But, "The fact he has kept a record sheet and claims .... "I could provide many more on request" means he is clearly stalking me." does not mean he is stalking you. Other factors might, but not this... Doc9871 (talk) 07:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I cannot support a topic ban at this time. I will admit the diffs provided are problematic, and I encourage User:Vexorg to consider adjusting editing behavior. However, what User:Mbz1 fails to mention is that Vexorg has been active in discussion on the articles' talk pages, while I fail to see that same evidence from Mbz1. Furthermore, I see little evidence of attempts to contact Vexorg regarding this problem outside of enforcement (i.e., WP:AN3). I cannot support a topic ban where the user's problematic behavior has not previously been discussed thoroughly in an attempt at reformation and while the user has been active on the article talk pages. If I am missing evidence please feel free to point me to it. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No wonder you fail to see the same evidences from me. The only article I was involved with user was Rothschild family.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, but that only causes me to consider opposing further. If the active editors on the article don't have a particular problem with this user, and are communicating on the talk page to resolve issues, then I don't see how I can support a topic ban at this time. Even if you aren't active on those pages, if you consider these diffs to be problematic, then I would rather have seen some kind of discussion on the user's talk page, showing these diffs and asking for change in behavior. If that discussion goes south, then perhaps a topic ban can be considered, but I really can't support it as the first step in dispute resolution. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay how about that::I cannot understand where you coming from when you're saying "little evidence of attempts to contact Vexorg regarding this problem outside of enforcement" Have you seen the user talk page by any chance?

1. obsession with Al-Qaeda
2. BLP
3. edit warring]
4. Henry Kissinger
5. do not add "British Jews" category

and so on, and so on, and so on. Practically all the edits at the topics I mentioned are disruptive, involve slow edit warring and violation of common sense and WP:BLP --Mbz1 (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, however I don't consider this particularly problematic. Talk pages are going to have some dispute; that's what they're for – to promote discussion. If there were evidence of repetitive behavior and unresponsiveness to the problems after being contacted on his/her talk page, then I could consider a topic ban, but not right now. It is simply too soon. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah,Shirik, I am afraid you do not see what I am saying. The user talk page contains a warning over a warning over a warning. There's practically nothing, but warnings at the user talk page. There are warnings about wp:BLP, yet today the user violates it yet another time and time again [91]. If it is not repetition of behavior the user was warned about few times, what is?Still, Shirik, I'd like to thank you for taking your time to comment here --Mbz1 (talk) 08:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No I do see what you're saying, but I don't agree with how problematic you consider it. The editor is involved in controversial topics; there are bound to be editors that disagree and there will be problems from time to time. But the sheer lack of frequency of these "major problems" combined with the responsiveness to discussions like at User talk:Vexorg#AfD_nomination_of_Criticism_of_YouTube leads me to think that, should this topic ban be considered, the overall issue should have been directly discussed with the user first. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 08:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: The following section is in response to User:Vexorg above, but its placement here is retained for continuity --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It has nothing to do with the user voting to delete the article, few others did, including, but not limited the user, who nominated it to be deleted. The post has also nothing to do with the user reporting me for edit warring. It is the user notorious agenda, which made me report the user here.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please take no offense to this, but you've just left me confused, and I think your edit conflict is to blame – was this second part meant as a response to me or a response to the section above? The tabulation and content seems to suggest it was a response to User:Doc9871 instead of me, contrary to where this comment was placed. I'm just trying to understand better. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 07:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry,Shirik, the comment you refer to was made in response to the comment made by Vexorg , when the user claimed I posted because the user voted to delete my article.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tying two back-to-back open AN/I's together? Will a third be created shortly? Doc9871 (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Was that comment inappropriate? Factsontheground (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't inappropriate at all; you've done nothing wrong there. I'm just wondering if the above incident isn't directly tied (same content content and editors) to this thread. You two are in conflict in the above thread. Opening multiple threads between similar editors and content before at least one is resolved is like "clogging the arteries"... Doc9871 (talk) 07:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes it was inappropriate. Your comment has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. You clearly have some kind of conflict going on with Mbz1 bringing your disagreement, and disparaging remarks down to this thread does nothing to further the discussion toward resolution. You are either part of the solution, part of the problem, or irrelevant. When it comes to this thread I would suggest that your comments are at best irrelevant to the discussion, and at worst baiting.--Adam in MO Talk 08:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I should've put a ;> after "nothing wrong there"... ;> Doc9871 (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - I don't see enough evidence here for a topic ban. You both are involved in contentious article disputes. I think more evidence is needed of disruptiveness. Shadowjams (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The "well-sourced info" about Al Qaeda in Europe is actually sourced to opinion in a July 2003 analysis from "The Centre for Peace in the Balkans", a November 2001 editorial in The Wall Street Journal Europe and July 2005 comments by Richard Holbrooke. None of these are reliable sources for statements of fact. When Vexorg nominated this article for deletion in September, it was a stub. None of this warrants sanctions. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The user removed entire sections, they are now in the article.--09:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I will try one more time. Let's forget about Al-Qaeda. I cannot care less about them. Let's talk about the user agenda towards Jews. Let's for example take

Henry Kissinger article

Please see here the user was warned on it talk page in October

Please see here the restoration of the same WP:BLP violation few months later.

Please see here the restoration of the same WP:BLP violation few days later.

It is the same pattern for almost all the user user contributions at the topic including, but not limited to Rothschild family. I strongly believe the Wikipedia will benefit, if the user should be topic banned, and topic banned now.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Not A "Vote" Here, but I would certainly "Oppose" - "Strongly believing" WP would "benefit" (not "would stop harming WP") a topic ban now needs a far better argument, I think. Demanding action without excellent evidence to support that action isn't the best way to win a topic ban, I'm afraid. Any other opinions out there? Doc9871 (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I allowed to have my own opinion, and to express it? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Possible compromise - These issues obviously transcend what can be done here, a massive understatement in general. Insofar as these issues can be dealt with on individual articles, they should be. If they transcend those articles, or encompass a wide berth of similar articles, I understand the appeal to this forum. I'm not one to decide anything here, but I would suggest both parties try and at the least and determine where they disagree, on an article-by-article basis. If that process is totally broken then you should indicate that here, but ideally everyone will continue to discuss this on the appropriate pages. Shadowjams (talk) 09:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Agree - I absolutely think discussing these things on the appropriate pages is exactly what should be done... Doc9871 (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Not agree As I have proven on the example with Henry Kissinger article this approach does not work. Please also notice that I am involved with the user on a single article only.Everybody disagrees with the user, as it is seen from the user talk page, but the user continues to push it POV.--Mbz1 (talk) 09:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • So, based on your experience on one article with this editor, you are requesting a topic ban. Is this correct? Doc9871 (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • (crickets chirping) Anytime on the topic ban comments. I shudder to think every time I had a disagreement on a page that warranted a "topic ban" (there have been a few ;>). But that's just me , ya know :> Doc9871 (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • Practically every time user:Vexorg is touching an article that has some connection to a Jew, Jews, or the persons user:Vexorg believes are Jews there's either WP:BLP violation and/or wp:POV and/or edit warring, and/or vandalism". It is disappointing that nobody sees or does not want to see the problem with the user agenda, but whatever.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban A virulent anti-Jewish, bias seems to permeate user:Vexorg's work here, seems to have an overwrought anger as well...Modernist (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Having a bias is hardly reason to topic ban someone from a contentious topic. Topic bans should be brought on for persistant and disruptive failure to follow Wikipedia's guidelines. I have no familiarity with this case, so I cannot say whether or not Vexorg is being disruptive enough to warrant a topic ban, but I sure want to see better reasons than "he has a viewpoint that doesn't agree with mine". Buddy431 (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Buddy, may I please ask you, if you did not read or did not understand what I stated above? Or you do not consider WP:BLP violation and/or wp:POV and/or edit warring, and/or vandalism" as a disruptions? What more evidences you'd like to see?--Mbz1 (talk) 16:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Clearly WP:BLP violations, WP:POV, and edit warring violate both guidelines and policy...Modernist (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - The diffs seem to show good-faith editing, no worse than any editor trying to incorporate balancing material here and there. Many editors have biases, the key is simply working things out in the Talk page and ensuring that the content ends up neutral and balanced. It is no crime to edit articles on, say, England/Ireland with nothing but positive content on England. And it is no crime to edit articles on England/Ireland with nothing but negative content on England. (Disclaimer: as an editor that has done lots of editing on the topic of Criticism of religion I have frequently been accused of anti-Mormon, antisemitic, and anti-Christian bias). Many editors have limited time to work on WP, and simply choose to contribute in a narrow area. That area may be offensive to other editors, but the fact that the editing is limited to one area is no reason for a topic ban. --Noleander (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, could you please explain why you consider these wp:blp violations from a single article edit history to be a "good-faith editing" [92];[93];[94];[95][96];[97],[[98]--Mbz1 (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

mbz1: can you double check those diffs? The ones you posted here are very benign. If those are the correct diffs, and you have concerns about their appropriateness, can you show the Talk page diffs where you tried to reconcile the concern? --Noleander (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the differences presented here were reverting of other users. I got to the article only few days ago.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment on the offensive accusation of racism by Modernist above An accusation of racism is a serious one. I ask that Modernist retracts his/her claim that I have "virulent anti-Jewish, bias" - I have no prejudices against anyone becuase of their race ethnicity, etc and such a false claim offensive. I don't spend valuable time editing Wikipedia to be subjected to personal attacks by those who might have some political agenda I would also ask what agenda Modernist has for making such a false claim. Vexorg (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that removing a note that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is anti-semitic[99] and arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic[100] show Vexorg's agenda clearly enough. I'd support placing Vexorg on a 1R restriction on Jews, Zionist and Judaism, broadly construed, their edit warring has gone far enough. Fences&Windows 19:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Zionist Movement is a political organisation and not a race. The ZOG maybe a conspiracy, but it's ZOG not JOG and there not anti-semitic. It's worth noting Fences that Zionism isn't mutually inclusive with Jews and in fact many Jews a very against the ideology of Zionism. To accuse me of anti-semitism is false and offensive. My only agenda is accuracy on Wikipedia. Calling ZOG an anti-semitic CT is IMO wrong. t oaccuse me racism for that is below the belt. But then the race card is shown regularly by thiose who support Zionism. Vexorg (talk) 21:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but one of those diffs is a candid discussion on a Talk page, and the other was removing a qualifier to a link, where the linked article abundantly describes the qualifier. I see no smoking gun here. But, as you are proposing the milder 1RR rather than a more severe topic ban, the threshold is not so high. --Noleander (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please remember those are only differences from a single article I was involved in. There are few more like those, for example, as the one I mentioned above Henry Kissinger article

1. here the user was warned on it talk page in October
2. here the restoration of the same WP:BLP violation few months later.
3. here the restoration of the same WP:BLP violation few days later.

I would agree for 1RR ban for the user to see, if the user edit pattern will improve.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

mbz1: can you double-check those diffs? On that Talk page discussion, I see no mention of the BLP policy at all. I do see some discussion of Quotation policy, and neutrality policy. Is that what you are referring to? But user Vexorg _did_ engage in a discussion on the Talk page, I think with just one other editor, and I don't see that any consensus was achieved. I may not agree with Vexorg's edits, but it looks like he/she was trying to add some (well-sourced) content into the article. Have you tried engaging Vexorg on the Talk page of the Kissinger article to try to achieve a compromise? --Noleander (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The edits the user has added to Henry Kissinger are gone, were removed not by me, but few others, so there's nothing more to engage about. I am going to make a section break for a new proposal of 1RR edit restriction. There are more than enough differences to support that measure at the very least.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As you can see the user Mbz1 is not going to give up on his/her obsessive personal vendetta against me. Obviously realising his original claim has been largely demolished by consensus, Mbz1 is now stating he/she will mount another, predictably long winded, attempt to have my editing restricted simply because my edits conflict with his political views. Vexorg (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clear indication that the user Mbz1 is mounting a personal campaign against me here 1 Mbz1 has inserted the following reason [ #12 ] at the top of this section as part of his argument that I should be banned from editing certain topics 12. and arguing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-semitic for proposing that the "Zionist Occupation Government" conspiracy isn't anti-Semitic - This is a discussion on a talk page, and not even an article edit, never mind disruptive editing, POV editing and violation of article editing, as he his claiming. The user Mbz1 clearly has both a personal and political agenda here. Far from recently being disruptive here I actually gave Mbz1 the last word on the Rothschild Article that caused Mbz1's current obsessive campaign and took it to the talk page. Mbz1isn't IMO interested in a better Wikipedia but more interested in chasing after those who make edits that oppose his political opinion. The amount of effort he has put in here in trying to demonize me speaks volumes Vexorg (talk) 21:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Clear indication that the user Mbz1 is mounting a personal campaign against me here 2 - now Mbz1 has added yet anotherindication of his/her personal agenda to his every growing obsessive list at the top of this section by adding a quote from my comments in this article ... 13. the edit from today, which demonstrates that the user is seeing nothing wrong in it edit pattern. I am finding Mbz1 political and personal campaign against me getting more and more obsessive by the minute Vexorg (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC) Analysis of two more non-arguments by Mbz1 - has two non-arguments to his/her ever growing list 5. and 6. respectively.

• 5. Adding category "British Jews" although category "English Jews" is already there
• 6. Adding category "British Jews" although category "English Jews" is already there

Is anyone taking Mbz1 seriously any more? I am finding it very difficult and it is very tedious to keep having to defend myself against such an obsessive tirade. The only reason I added British Jews AND English Jews on these articles is becuase I'd seen the two categories together on many other articles and though that was a traditional Wikipedia thing. England is a subset of British so there's of duplication. same as, for example, describing someone as both European and French. There's NOTHING in those two arguments that supports Mbz1 charges of !disruptive, POV and violation!. Another example of him/her scraping the barrel to boost a personal campaign Vexorg (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg - to be sure I have no agenda except that I don't like bias of any kind, I am willing to take your word, I accept your explanation and your assertion that you are not anti-Jewish and I apologize to you if I have either hurt or offended you. I am willing to take you at your word, assuming your edits will reflect fairness, open-mindedness and lack an agenda of your own...Modernist (talk) 21:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break: 1RR restriction on user:Vexorg

Few other editors suggested 1RR edit restriction for the user, so I'd like to put it in as an alternative measure

• Support The evidences of disruptive editing presented above, no need to repeat--Mbz1 (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This implies you did nothing wrong, so I cannot support it. –Turian (talk) 22:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Turian's Proposal

I have been keeping an eye on this ever since it started to erupt into a crazy war of "I'm right." From what I have seen and read, MBz1's intentions seemed to be based (and mired) in the fact that he has a severe disagreement with Vexorg. Yeah, I know, stating the obvious. Keeping in mind that I am a completely neutral party in this matter, here is my proposal:

1. Mbz1 is banned for one month from editing any article which Vexorg has edited. This includes anything to do with Henry Kissinger, the Zionist Movement, or any Israeli/Jewish topic. He is permitted to talk and discuss possible edits on the talk pages, but is placed on a strict no tolerance policy of name calling, accusations, or any other form of disparagement against any editor. (This is mainly due to the virulent nature Mbz1 has taken in his attempts to "resolve" this.)
2. Vexorg is permitted to edit articles but is strongly advised to cooperate with Mbz1 in an attempt to portray a neutral point of view on the previously named articles. Any remarks are to remain civil, and any failure to do so will place him underneath the same topic ban.
3. Both editors are prohibited from editing the other editor's talk page, especially in the case of handing out warnings.
4. After the month is over, Mbz1 is placed on a 1RR for any edits made by Vexorg (the same goes for Vexorg) for the following 3 months.
5. If any of these restrictions are violated, a block at the discretion of any administrator will suffice.

Of course, I am not an administrator, but the argument seems like a massive paradox of actions. If anyone has a better alternative, feel free to make your suggestions, but at the current rate, these two are going to gnaw at each other until something bad happens. These prohibitions are aimed at calming them down. –Turian (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• exposing untruth by Mbz1 Mbz1 said "Few other editors suggested" - that's not the case: One other user suggested a 1RR on me. another user suggested a 1RR on both of us. Vexorg (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Section break: 1RR restriction on Mbz1

As can be seen above the user Mbz1 has been mounting an almost obsessive campaign against me and has dragged up a whole series of issues which have long been put to bed. Yesterday I reported Mbz1 for edit warring here [User:Mbz1 reported by User:Vexorg (Result: )] - Mbz1's response has been tpo mount tis long campaign against me. Points 12. and 13. in his ever growing last at the topof this article are absurd to say the least. Therefore I propose a 1RR on Mbz1 so I can go abut editing without being 'Wikihounded' by this user who is clearly mounting a campaign becuase some of my edits are against his obvious political agenda. Vexorg (talk) 22:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Request from a college to block access

Not sure what to do here. An IP left this comment on my user talk, purporting to be from a college which would like to have editing blocked. Is there a process for this, and who handles it? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What college does the IP resolve to? I would think to contact their administration to confirm it before issuing a block. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 10:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Why should we police the schools students? I say we find out what school the ip goes to and then mark the page. Other than that it's not our problem.--Adam in MO Talk 10:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The thing is, Adam, we have in the past blocked school IPs because technical staff contacted us and specifically asked for it. While usually through OTRS, someone oblivious to its existence would likely request a blocking thru an administrator's talk page instead. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 10:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Assuming the request is valid, are they requesting the block because they have a bunch of misfits who are likely to be disruptive (giving the school a bad name), or are they requesting the block because their students waste time and resources here? If the reason is the first then it's in wikipedia's interest to implement the request. Impeachable (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Come again, Impeachable? "Bunch of misfits"... Doc9871 (talk) 11:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As to what to do here; some students at a college edit responsibly on WP, and some choose to vandalize. Block the entire college, of course! What else can be done? Don't listen to the college's administration... just block the college, depriving all editors equally. Very simple to me ;P Doc9871 (talk) 11:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Do we really want Wikipedia to consume administrative resources enforcing the acceptable-use of-the-internet policies of schools? There must be hundreds of thousands of schools around the world, and if even 1% of them ask for this sort of bock, that's tens of thousands of blocks.

And what do we do if the relevant school authority is acting on behalf of the local security police dude in some totalitarian state which says its aim is to stamp on unlicensed speech and unauthorised dissemination of knowledge? Is wikipedia going to happily act as the proxy of a totalitarian regime? If not, how do we establish criteria for which block-requests to accept?

I agree with Adamfinmo. Just mark the page and let the school do its own policing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I was involved as the blocking admin in a similar situation a couple of years ago but only after speaking on the phone with the school's IT department. As I recall it was a high school setting. Looking back on it I am not totally comfortable with it. But not necessarily opposed. The school could add wikipedia to its own internal blacklist but that would blocking the viewing and research he speaks of. I think I would tell him that we will leave the ip account open for now and deal with disruptions on an ongoing basis. While Jeremy is correct that we have done it before I am not sure that's a precedent we want to continue. Under no circumstance would I block without better communication. My two cents...JodyB _talk 12:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no particular issue with blocking schools on request - given that the alternative may be that the school blacklists Wikipedia entirely, preventing people from reading it. I would ask for an OTRS request from a staff email address, though. ~ mazca ^talk 12:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's the school's IP connection, they can blacklist whatever they like; but that no reason for us to act as agents of their censorship. If the school doesn't want to block its students to either editing or view wikipedia, that's none of our business. I don't see any difference in principle between a school saying block-our-students-from-editing-or-we'll-cut-all-access, and a government saying exactly the same thing about its citizens; both are attempts to persuade wikipedia to enforce somebody else's policies.

This is supposed to be "the encyclopedia which anyone can edit", not "the encyclopedia which excludes editors when someone asks us to cut off their access". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Let the school handle it. Wikipedia need not be a censor for someone else. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs. If the school contacted WikiMedia in writing and in a much more official manner, I think it could be considered. As it is, nope. Tan | 39 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with BrownHairedGirl, and would be strongly opposed to implementing such a request, even if made officially and in writing. Let the schools deal with their own disciplinary problems and technical issues. And if they foolishly choose to completely block Wikipedia from being accessed, their loss.

As always, if an IP address is used persistently for disruptive editing, we will block it under our existing anti-vandalism policies. But we should never preemptively block. — Satori Son 13:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Beyond sometimes reverting its own vandalism, and today's discourse, there has not been a single constructive edit from this IP address in the 2½ years it's been editing. That alone would make it ripe for a lengthy schoolblock IMO. I don't see why an official request would make any difference. If it does nothing but vandalism then block it. There's nothing preemptive about it. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing requests from school administration for permanent removal of editing privileges for their IP range, not semi-temporary blocks for vandalism. Obviously, we should always block for persistent vandalism. — Satori Son 14:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Zzuuzz is right, and I canned it for a year. In addition, given the grammar of the "request", I highly doubt this came from anyone in a professorial profession. Tan | 39 14:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Good call, Tanthalas39. I have no objection to a block for vandalism if that is merited, whether the IP belongs to a school, a national parliament, or anyone else. But per zzuuzz, a block-us request from the school is irrelevant to that decision, even if it is delivered in a sworn affidavit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi folks, I find this interesting. What if a (mischievous) student or nutty professor sent a "block us" request from a school network computer? Or another organization did this? Could/would a Wiki admin block a IP or IP range on such a request? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We block users and IP addresses if a large proportion of their edits are vandalism and there is a good probability that the vandalism will continue if they're not blocked. We allow especially IP editors some slack, to allow for new/testing editors and addresses shared with constructive editors, but when there is nothing but vandalism over a long period of time on a static IP then we have very little to lose. It doesn't matter who reports them or asks for them to be blocked; we are usually grateful to anyone who brings them to our attention. Admins will independently evaluate the edits before taking any action. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well said. — Satori Son 14:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Over the past few years I have found more cases where one must register in some way to use a library or school computer which at one time could have been used in complete anonymity. As a technical question, is it possible for a technician at the school to tell which terminal a particular edit was made from? Maybe by seeing which terminal of a limited number was connected to Wikipedia at a particular time? If a particular student uses his ID to log onto the schools computer and vandalizes the school's article with BLP violating attacks on faculty or students, it is possible that the school can identify and punish the offender. That seems a better outcome than us blocking all editing by students at the institution. Edison (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Kudos for good sense to zzuuzz and Tan. Durova⁴¹² 18:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Im coming a bit late here, but I believe it's possible for the school to block editing without blocking reading. They do that by blacklisting "/w/index.php" and/or "&action=edit" but not blacklisting the rest of Wikipedia. It's not entirely foolproof but anyone with enough determination to get around a system like that would probably be vandalizing outside of school anyway. —Soap— 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

John Patrick Bedell

Attention could be used here. Nothing too serious, but I don't necessarily think my fellow IP's are as steeped in what we do here as I.99.151.172.170 (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I gave 97.119.97.118 a 3RR warning. Unless I am mistaken I have reverted once [DIFF] and 99.151.172.170 too. 99.151.172.170 have reverted TWICE, [DIFF] and [DIFF] + CONTRIBS nb. Bedel is the Pentagon Shooter if anyone doesn't know. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor who was warned above, 97.119.97.118, has now had his vandalism enshrined by user "goneawaynowandretired". My attempt to discuss this mistake with him, and subsequent voicing of frustration, can be found here:[101]. I'll note his page that he's been mentioned in the "dispatches".99.151.172.170 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Another IP has left a message on his talk page requesting a separate correction[102], this one regarding an entire section he removed as "vandalism". 99.151.172.170 (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Reincarnation of blocked User:Yzak Jule/User:Zengar Zombolt

User:Yzak Jule renamed himself User:Zengar Zombolt[103] and was then indefinitely blocked for being a general arse, and socking. User:Yzak Jule has just been created. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec) User:Yzak Jule, a previous account name of the indefinitely-blocked User:Zengar Zombolt has just re-established the Yzak Jule account. This appears to be block evasion. User notified: [104]. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Note re: what Elen said. The block was not for socking, as the account rename was legit. But this time, it isn't. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's either block evasion or impersonation. Either way, I've indefinitely blocked the account. Fences&Windows 19:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Returning vandal

Resolved

 – {{anonblock}}'d for another six months. –xeno^talk 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

IP editor User:66.117.103.97 returned from a 3 month block for vandalism and has made 3 edits, all vandalism. [105], [106], [107]. One is an article he previously vandalized. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Stuff like this is best handled at WP:AIV. –xeno^talk 20:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• True, but it usually gets handled much faster here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing; trolling

After existing more than a year without being edited even once, the Swiftboating article has been targeted by a tendentious editor: 68.35.3.66 (talk · contribs). He is intent on reversing the actual meaning of swiftboating. While all reliable sources note the term derives from the unsubstantiated charges, political attacks, innuendo and smears launched against John Kerry during his 2004 US presidential campaign, this editor insists just the opposite. His very first edit summary at the article explains his opinion:

• 12:23, 8 November 2009‎ (all of the charges were substantiated either by video of Kerry's anti-war activities or statements of fellow veterans)

Simple content dispute, correct? No. He has been asked by numerous editors to provide reliable sources to justify his edits, but he has refused - and instead just continues to insert his edits. When he is confronted with multiple reliable sources refuting his edits, he dismisses them as biased, opinions or unreliable (but refuses to check with WP:RSN) - and instead just continues to insert his edits. His edits against consensus have been criticized and reverted more than 20 times, by multiple editors and admins:

• Snowded (If you carry on edit warring against consensus then I will ask for the page to be semi-protected)
• The Four Deuces I agree with Snowded. The article is about swiftboating as a concept. This is not place to debate the merits of the campaign against John Kerry.
• Verbal It's well sourced, correct, NPOV, and appropriate. Keep per snowed et al.
• Gamaliel (consensus appears to be solidly against your removal, so there is little point to your edit war and its associated hostility.)
• Xenophrenic I've returned wording that is supported by the cited source. The changes you made were not supported by the cited sources.
• Bazzargh Performing the obvious search, it describes the Swiftboating campaign as 'fact-free' on page 14.
• Andrew c You have made WAY, WAY too many reverts on that page. WP:BRD suggests that you make one bold edit, and if you are reverted, you should NEVER re-instate your edit, without gaining a new consensus on talk (you past that point weeks ago, so our patience wears thin).

Reverting his unsourced and POV edits indefinitely isn't a problem, but the editor has also begun to expand his activities into soapboxing on the article talk page about the problems with Wikipedia; attacking editors as part of a "clique"; and "characterizing" editors with intent to "embarrass" them. When I moved his inappropriate article talk page comments to his user talk page for further discussion (instead of outright delete them as the advisory template at the top of the talk page suggests), he returned them. So now I'm dropping this in your collective lap. Good luck with it. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)