Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438

GoRight, a

This is particularly concerning, but the remainder is something that should be sorted out through civil discussion to the point that there is consensus. Edit-warring when there is no consensus isn't helpful - if he doesn't cease with that, then please leave a note as I think a topic ban would then be warranted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

In my defense, here, the edit you note above was a direct verbatum quote from the cited article. In general I prefer to let the original author's words speak for themselves rather than my trying to paraphrase and thereby potentially introduce nuances into the meaning that would be unwarranted. In retrospect, I agree that I could (should?) have been more sensitive to the direct naming of names ... but still the words are those of the article's author and not my own.

I have since moved on from this specific edit and attempted to provide a much more neutral version, [1], that conveys the important aspects of the charge with the contentious aspects having been removed. I have also provided an extensive discussion of why this particular source should be considered

WP:BLP. See [2] and [3]

.

I am a GW skeptic. I do not try to hide this fact. But this fact makes me unpopular with the GW alarmists that frequent the GW pages, of which Raul is one. Anyone who frequents these pages will quickly recognize that there is a small group of editors who work in concert to prevent the addition of material that is counter to their personal POV by taking turns reverting changes from editors they disagree with (thus easily overwhelming an individual's ability to respond under

WP:3RR), which effectively gives them a pocket veto to push their POV by simply disclaiming consensus (many times without any discussion). In his short time here, [4], Solomon quickly faced this group when he was merely trying to correct what he knew first hand to be false and misleading information. His experience was that of any GW skeptic here and he recounts those experiences acurately, IMHO, in [5], [6], and most recently [7]

.

I freely admit to being

WP:BOLD and edit warring are not the same thing. It takes two (or more) to edit war. Again, review my record of reverts and take note of the names on the other side of the "war". I think your will find a great commonality among them. Since my one and only block here I have lived within the limits set forth in the policies and gudielines. In fact, please note that I have thus far respected the demands of User:R. Baley and User:Raul654 as they apply to WMC yet both keep expanding the scope of their demands so as to prevent me from making any contributions related to the Solomon articles. Is this particularly reasonable on their part? --GoRight (talk

) 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, he may cease with that particular edit, but that's not going to stop his general disruption on GW articles. I like the idea of a topic ban, though. Raul654 (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Note - since he's continued to edit war on the Fred Singer article (adding a hitpiece written by ex-Wikipedian Lawrence Solomon about that article) I've warned him that the next time he does, I'm going to block him. Raul654 (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that this editor has engaged in extensive discussion at Talk:William Connolley and gone on to reference those remarks to similar issues at Talk:Fred Singer. Blocking is not justified in this case unless the editor violates 3RR. I suggest you use dispute resolution instead. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect. Disruptive article editing - which he is doing in spades - is blockable. As for the talk page, he only started engaging on the talk page *after* R Baley told him (on his talk page) that is made another edit like it he'd be blocked. (And while he was simultaneously edit warring on William Gray, Global Warming, and Fred Singer). And, if you actually read what he says on tah talk page - he's talking *at* people, not too them -- he has yet to convince a single other person of anything except that he has no desire to abide by our rules. Raul654 (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll add that I also disagree with your threat to block GoRight if he makes the same edit again. You are involved in these articles yourself and you should not use your admin position in this case. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but as the arbcom has stated a number of times, the three revert war is not a license to revert war within limits. If he cannot edit within the expect norms of behavior - and so far, he has not - then he's going to be blocked. Raul654 (talk) 05:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, I have myself had occasion to recently remind you of our long-standing norms against threatening to block users you are yourself in a dispute with. ArbCom has now made the non-involvement requirement more explicit, in two recently closed cases. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, first of all, as I see it, GoRight is within our expected norms, has

sanctions

.

For what it's worth, I probably agree with you much more than with GoRight on many broader scientific and policy issues off-Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I think GoRight is a civil editor with much to contribute. His talk page comments are well-written with reasoning is supported by our policies and guidelines (more so than some but not all of the opposing comments). We have time-proven dispute resolution processes and rules and we need to follow them.--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his talk page contributions are mostly form without content, fluff-pieces propped up by cherry-picked sentences from our policies. It's most obvious in the "global warming causes earthquakes" discussion here, where he insists on adding patent nonsense (or maybe he insists that he was right to add nonsense albeit not insisting on actually adding it any more? Or may be he insists that his insistence is justified?) based on an MSNBC story that apparently he knew had already been withdrawn by other news outlets and that is based on a crank article in a crank "journal". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that which you call "cherry picking" I call quoting the relevant portions of the text as a means of communicating effectively. I have never claimed that the policies don't apply in their entirety. If you feel that there are portions of these policies that I am violating then please, by all means, "cherry pick" them with some discussion of how my material violates them so that we can objectively evaluate the merits of your claim. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing more than a content dispute. The text GoRight added was well sourced, even though I probably would not include it. But threats to block by an involved admin are way over the line here. When exactly did civility become a blockable offense? ATren (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's rather more than a content dispute. The edit cited by

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

14:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It was a cited opinion piece from a large Canadian newspaper. I do happen to agree that it doesn't belong, but it's not so clear cut as you would make it and it's certainly not blockable. I've seen content disputes over blog-sourced criticisms in BLPs by respected editors; this claim sourced to a Canadian newspaper is tame by comparison. ATren (talk) 14:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What it amounts to is that one person writing an opinion piece has made a very serious charge about another person (which happens to involve a characterization of the latter's interactions on Wikipedia, but that's neither here nor there). There are serious BLP concerns (one guy's factual and potentially defamatory statement is not normally to be given such weight in that context) and even without BLP it contradicts the general tenor of mainstream reporting on the matter (see

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We typically don't make such judgements about reliably sourced claims, you know that. BLPs are littered with criticism from ideological opponents from published sources. If you keep acting naive to this fact, people might start accusing you of civil POV pushing. ;-) ATren (talk) 15:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that we are discussing the BLP of Fred Singer NOT William M. Connelly in this instance. The edit I provided was only meant to highlight the fact that the page in question is considered to be unfair and inaccurate by an independent 3-Party source as published in a reliable news outlet. I have explained above (subsequent to your comment here) the rationale behind including the verbatum quote. Given the desire of Raul and R. Baley to "protect" WMC I have offered a much more neutral statement ([8]), yet Raul still objects ... without following the customary rules of discussion by commenting on the Talk page I might add while accusing me of not abiding the rules.

With respect to

WP:RS

I have provided an extensive analysis on the relevant talk pages to jutsify my position. If Raul or others disagree with that assessment let them offer substantive rationale on a point by point basis as to why. A pocket veto of no response followed by a revert, a threat, and now action here is not what I think any of you would consider "within the norms of behavior" on wikipedia, and most especially not for an admin. Do you disagree?

Raul labels me a Civil POV pusher, which I take as derogatory BTW, and which I find particularly ironic since he is doing exactly the same thing only he has the benefit of adminship to boot. Using techniques such as we see here to effectively silence his opposition, especially when such opposition is properly cited, is just as effective of a POV pushing technique as anything I am doing ... not that I agree that I am POV pushing in the first place. Indeed, this is the entire point of the Solomon piece as it relates specifically to the Fred Singer BLP. It is effectively being skewed by Singer's critics here at Wikipedia by preventing his supporters from making appropriate corrections. This discussion is a case in point.

And I likewise object to the characterization of myself as being "disruptive". I am only being "disruptive" to the extent that I seek to add material, properly sourced, which is in point fact within the bounds of Wikipedia guidelines but does not align with Raul's agenda here. Apparently I may be "disruptive" from the perspective of Raul and others advancing their personal agendas on the GW pages, but I am most certainly NOT being "disruptive" from the perspective of attempting to bring a proper balance to the GW pages. Merely posting things that Raul personally disagrees with does NOT equate to disruption. --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

GoRight, BLP applies to all material about living persons regardless of article. Please familiarise yourself with the policy. In general, a single opinion piece is usually considered insufficient for an over-the-top claim like "second most powerful man in the world in the GW debate." --Relata refero (disp.) 21:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

More to the point - nobody said he's been uncivil. He's a a POV pushing edit warrior who doesn't understand or abide by our basic policies regarding reliable sources, but nobody said he's uncivil. He has, however, been highly disruptive, and that is most assuredly blockable behavior. Raul654 (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, re-read what I said - I never said you called him uncivil - quite the opposite, in fact. I object to the link to Civil POV Pushing as if civility is some sort of a violation. The implication seems to be that you object to his civility in this dispute. As to the claim of POV pushing, his text was reliably sourced (even if I agree with you that it didn't belong) so it comes down to a judgement call between editors on two sides of a contentious topic. If repeated attempts to add sourced material is considered POV pushing, then repeated removal of that sourced material would seem to be POV pushing as well, no? ATren (talk) 14:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, assuming what you say is true (and I don't buy it), you are not supposed to block editors with whom you are engaged in editorial disuptes. The community's rules on this are very clear: please see

WP:BLOCK#Disputes. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs}

) 14:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Raul, as for a topic ban, which you mention above, I think only ArbCom can institute one of those; I suspect they would want to see you pursue other forms of

dispute resolution first (as I have already suggested). --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs}

) 14:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the BLP allows for emergency action by involved administrators. In this instance I don't expect that Raul654 will have a problem persuading an uninvolved editor to act. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have provided direct and specific references to both

WP:RS that I have supposedly violated along with a direct discussion of how my contribution violates the indicated point. Perhaps then we can atually discuss the merits of your argument as opposed to simply bickering endlessly. --GoRight (talk

) 15:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, the matter ends here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The, I don't see a clear-cut BLP violation. I see criticism of one notable figure by another quoted in an article. We have tons of that in our BLPs -- just look at articles like George W. Bush --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs}

) 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As the statement in the op-ed is factual in nature, being an accusation of misconduct by a third party, there's no question about it: it's a BLP matter. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the edit I'd cited earlier? There's no need for emergency measures at this point - I'd cited that 2 days ago, and it hasn't continued since...has it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It would help if

Ncmvocalist, this is the William Connolley material that I am writing about:^[9]

• In a
  global warming debate second only to that of Al Gore as a result of his position at Wikipedia.^[10]

As for the Fred Singer diff you provided earlier, I agree with your assessment. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol...that was not the sort of thing we drafted the BLP remedy for, but if an admin takes an emergency action under the BLP remedy based on that edit, they should expect to be squarely bonked on the head.

At this point, if the edit-warring is not contained on that article, then stronger measures may be needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. While I was not the author of that piece above, I have tried to defend it both through reverts and on the relevant talk page, and extensively so. This serves as an example of the lengths to which the GW alarmists will go to censure even the mildest of criticism. They find themselves in the position of arguing that WMC is NOT, in fact, influential which I suppose calls into question his notability ... although I have no objection to the

WP:SPS sources. Prior to my recent actions on WMC's BLP it contained literally NO criticism or negative content which I contend is clear POV pushing by the editors there in light of the fact they are are aware that such information exists. --GoRight (talk

) 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Referred to RfC --Jaysweet (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a merge discussion happening at the above page, and now the users who failed to have the page deleted at AfD are attempting to redirect it during the middle of this discussion, apparently as a backdoor to getting their way. Also, there's some other guy named Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The that redirected it without even bothering to join the discussion first. Whatever side of the merge discussion one falls on, this is wildly inappropriate. S. Dean Jameson 14:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "out of process" redirect. --

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When we're in the middle of a merge discussion, that you didn't even bother to join, after a contentious AfD, that you took no part in, then yes, there ARE out-of-process redirects, Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The. You did something that you had to KNOW would be contentious, in the middle of a discussion that was not even CLOSE to being finished. S. Dean Jameson 15:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion? If I recall correctly, you complained about the result of the AfD (which wasn't actually in your disfavor) here on ANI. When you didn't get what you wanted immediately, you "retired" from Wikipedia, saying you scrambled your password (which you clearly didn't do). Now, you come back just so you can revert a couple times and then start another ANI thread. Whatever discussion is taking place, or was taking place, on the talk page, you didn't seem interested in participating in it. -- tariqabjotu 15:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I posted a notice here that people were trying to "merge" the article without having consensus to do so. The closing admin made an unorthodox statement that you guys tried to spin as justification for preemptive merging, which I also felt was in bad form. I became frustrated when it appeared that some of you were simply trying to bully your way into what you wanted, and yes, I scrambled my password. I then checked back to see how the discussion was progressing, and saw that some of the deletes (as well as one guy who hadn't participated at ALL in the discussion) were at it again, trying to remove the article without consensus. I requested a new password, was given one, and here I am again. My status has nothing to do with those of you who are trying to enforce a merge/deletion without consensus, and during the middle of the merge discussion, though. Please stay on topic. S. Dean Jameson 15:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We can all read what Sandstein said about the closure and it does not say what you suggest. We opened a merge request, as suggested by Sandstein, even though s/he made his/her position clear that a merge was in order; it just needed to be hashed out on the talk page. There were some new people who showed up for the new discussion, with merge again coming out on top (maybe even more so than in the AfD). I'm not sure what you're finally going to consider "consensus" and I'm not sure what you're expecting an admin to do about this anyway (we are at ANI). Unfortunately, there does not appear to be a mechanism for an outside party closing a merge request (as you have clearly demonstrated in response to Anticipation / Tony's move). And it seems to me you're not very interested in how this current "discussion" progresses, given (as I will say again, because it's relevant) you stormed out early on and because you keep pointing your finger at supposedly bad-faith (and "bully"ing) delete voters when no such voters exist. -- tariqabjotu 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Did you read his talkpage? He made it CLEAR that his statement shouldn't be used to justify an immediate merge, but as a recommendation that a discussion about doing so take place. As for what I expect an admin to do, I would hope that if people keep trying to circumvent discussion by enforcing their own will, they would be blocked for it. It's completely unacceptable. S. Dean Jameson 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see

Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The

15:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Being bold has nothing to do with usurping a discussion without ever having participated in any way, shape, or form. S. Dean Jameson 15:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait, if there is an ongoing AfD discussion, how come there is no link to it at the top of the page?? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a matter for ANI; really. -- tariqabjotu 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tariq. Listen, this is very simple: As per

boldly redirected the article. He was then reverted, now we continue the discussion on the talk page. I am not sure I agree with Horologium reverting it back two more times, after all, it is not BRRRRRRRRRRRRRD. But the edit war seems to have stopped, so let's just let it go and continue the discussion. --Jaysweet (talk

) 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, now Tariq is contentiously blanking/redirecting the page. This HAS to stop. In the middle of a discussion ABOUT whether this should happen, people should not be taking such actions. S. Dean Jameson 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit war still seems to be hot. --Allemandtando (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said it had cooled off there had been no reverts in half an hour and I thought the editors had found something better to do. Urgh... --Jaysweet (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Now Fletcher has joined the tag-team blank/revert squad. Is this acceptable in this community? S. Dean Jameson 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Are we going to do anything about these editors tag-teaming in this way? There's no consensus for this action, yet they have worked together to enforce their position. S. Dean Jameson 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, five separate editors have attempted to merge the article, and you have reverted all of them. There was one additional revert (by Everyking (talk · contribs)), but you have reverted five editors six times on two separate days. Maybe you should take that to mean that you are not the sole arbiter of the article's suitability. Horologium (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've offered to make a list of the editors who have opposed you. That they didn't happen to be online when you were trying to bully your way to backdoor deletion is beside the point. There's no consensus to do what you're doing.

I have S. Dean Jameson a 3RR warning. I have no comment on whether I feel there is really consensus or not to merge, but regardless of that, 3RR is not tolerated. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Which I've reverted as inappropriate, unless you warn the other editors involved in the edit war as well. S. Dean Jameson 17:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You have three reverts. The next highest editor, by my count, has two reverts in the past 24 hours. If any of them reach three reverts, I will warn them too.

One reason for the 3RR rule is to prevent a single editor from disrupting a de facto consensus. The fact that three other people are reverting your changes, and nobody is reverting them, should give you pause to question whether you are in the right here. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ouch. S. Dean, none of the other editors you have reverted (or Everyking) has three reverts on this article. But, it's okay. Jaysweet, it's not necessary; S. Dean is already aware he's pushing it. -- tariqabjotu 17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it's the "deletes" and "merges" that have a few people attempting to force their views without consensus doesn't make you any more right. No consensus equals keep. Not delete, redirect, or merge. Those are just the rules. S. Dean Jameson 17:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... S. Dean is now canvassing on the talk pages of some of the keep !voters. -- tariqabjotu 17:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh all you like. You had been citing their absence from the discussion as evidence of consensus, so I am making them aware of the discussion. There's nothing wrong with that. S. Dean Jameson 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Votestacking. --Calton | Talk

17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Inviting the "keeps" to a discussion that their absence was being used as some kind of "evidence" in is not inappropriate at all. And it's not a "vote" but a discussion. I've offered MULTIPLE times to make a list of all the people who made arguments against deletion/merging. They've never taken me up on it. I simply wanted the people with opposing views to be aware that the "no consensus" AfD they participated in was being backdoored by the deletes. Nothing wrong with that. S. Dean Jameson 17:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, everything wrong with that, your martyr act notwithstanding: you've selected only those sympathetic to your minority view -- and no matter how you spin it, it IS a minority view, at best -- AND used inflammatory language to urge them to act in exactly the way you want. That's textbook votestacking, and all the aggrieved bluster or rewriting reality won't change that. --Calton | Talk 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope, nothing wrong with that. I simply asked them to "participate" in the discussion, as they may not even be aware that it's happening, and their non-presence was being used as some kind of evidence. Insult me all you like, the fact remains that notifying people of a discussion doesn't equal votestacking. S. Dean Jameson 17:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization is spin bordering on outright falsehood. You writing, The "deletes" from the AfD on

Reaction to Tim Russert's death are attempting a backdoor delete[11] is NOT simply asking them to "participate" by any stretch of the imagination, and adding meaningless clauses like "the fact is" doesn't make your falsehoods factual, given the evidence is plain to see. --Calton | Talk

18:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you taken any time at all to see how the "deletes" are "spinning" the absence of the "keeps"? Probably not. And informing those who wanted to keep the article that the deletes are backdooring the "no consensus" is simply the fair thing to do. Most probably the thought the no consensus AfD would settle it, at least for awhile. S. Dean Jameson 18:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you taken any time at all to see how the "deletes" are "spinning" the absence of the "keeps"? Probably not. - Don't make up things out of whole cloth; your odd interpretations of actual events are annoying enough. As for your loaded question, it's really hard to see what exists primarily in your imagination.

And informing those who wanted to keep the article that the deletes are backdooring the "no consensus" is simply the fair thing to do. Nooooo, that's not "informing" -- unless your personal dictionary conflates "information" with "propaganda" -- and certainly NOT a fair thing to do.

Most probably the thought the no consensus AfD would settle it, at least for awhile. - Your mindreading attempts notwithstanding, I don't know why they'd think that, considering that the AFD closer wrote, explicitly, Even though there's no consensus to delete, however, there is a consensus (or a near consensus) that this topic does not deserve an article of its own. Accordingly, I think that a selective merger of this article to Tim Russert would be an appropriate editorial consequence of this discussion.--Calton | Talk 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this still being discussed on ANI? Is actual admin attention required here? --Jaysweet (talk) 18:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• I've stated before, and I'll state again: if those who want the article deleted keep circumventing discussion by blanking/reverting, they should be blocked. S. Dean Jameson 18:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ain't gonna happen. They have not violated 3RR. Previously uninvolved admin Friday (talk · contribs) has already indicated that there are not going to be administrative repercussions due to the redirect. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(after E/C; response to Jameson's rant) You just don't get it, do you? There was no consensus for deletion; in that, just about everyone is in agreement. However, there was a CLEAR consensus to do something to the article, since two thirds of the people participating in the AFD wanted to either merge or delete the article. You (and one other editor) have reverted five separate editors who have attempted to merge the article into the main article, as is appropriate. There is no abuse here on the part of those attempting to merge, but you arguably should be blocked for

Disruptive editing at this point. You have been told by MANY different editors that you are in the wrong here, including two who nominally supported your viewpoint at the AFD, but you are not listening. Horologium (talk)

18:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As to why it's still being discussed, you might want to have a chat with Mr Vexatious Litigant, above. --Calton | Talk 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, I got that. No need to antagonize him further, okay? Thanks.

Dean, one advantage of a merge over a delete is that all of the edit history is still there for you to see -- so if a consensus should develop to restore the article, no admin assistance is necessary, you can just restore it.

One option you could look into would be to file a

Request for Comment to try and get additional people involved, which might help establish consensus..? --Jaysweet (talk

) 18:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That is perfectly amenable to me. I just want the disruptive redirects in the middle of an open discussion to stop for now, that's all. Let's hash it out, and THEN make a decision. S. Dean Jameson 18:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter that the articles in DYK are often plagiarized and wrong? Today's list has a fact from Deux Balés National Park which maps the Black Volta River in far eastern Burkina Faso--it's not. The river on the map, in far eastern Burkina Faso is the Oti. The Black Volta is just west of center. I don't think that complaints about problems on the main page are welcomed. But DYK appears to be out of control. Do editors earn rewards for DYK contributions? There is not much time spent fact checking. Even Wikipedia could have been used to fact check this article, and see that it's wrong. --Blechnic (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's not quite the Oti, either. In fact, I think the location marker puts the park in Benin on the wrong side of a divide. --Blechnic (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have felt for quite some time that our obsession with keeping DYK featuring only Wikipedia's newest articles results in a sacrifice in its quality. I really think we should drop or substantially alter the five-day limit. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I do recall a suggestion to use facts from recently listed Good Articles but I don't recall the outcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea--reward articles that have had people work on them and review them. I started a discussion at WP:Did you know, talk.[[12]] I would like to see more people care that the encyclopedia doesn't get its facts straight, and then highlights the incorrect facts along with plagiarized material on its front page. It's something I think the writers who get their facts straight and the writer who don't plagiarize would care about a lot. Because someone of the other kind may be editing along side you discrediting your work. --Blechnic (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should only do two updates a day, and require articles be 2500 characters. Daniel (talk) 06:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insinuate Blechnic that the people currently working on DYK don't care to "get the facts straight". I just spent three hours singlehandedly vetting DYK submissions for eight viable hooks for the current update. I don't recall seeing you there trying to help, nor in fact have I ever seen you trying to help on the submissions page. But you seem quite keen on criticizing the actual contributors who you claim don't "care" enough about the quality.

As for your criticisms - you claim that plagiarism and mistakes are rife on DYK but have only up to now provided a single example. So there is no evidence that this is a serious problem. We only have your word for it. But I must say I haven't actually seen you doing anything to correct any of these alleged problems, so again it appears to be a problem you want somebody else to fix. Gatoclass (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A single example? No, they are all over the place. I just read one article, it's plagiarized.

Beth Wambui Mugo is plagiarized from this page.[13] Maybe it's in the public domain, but it doesn't say that it is. --Blechnic (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the articles written by Carol Spears that appeared on DYK were plagiarized. The article Deux Balés National Park moved one of Africa's major drainage basins to the other side of the divide. I haven't seen a single article on DYK that wasn't plagiarized or wrong. Are you going to correct Beth Wambui Mugo or shoot the messenger? I'm betting Wikipedians will continue to shoot the messenger--it's much easier than finding a solution. Actually, I tried to correct it the first time I found plagiarism in an article on the main page, I got attacked viciously by half a dozen editors and three admins, blocked for a week, and threatened with a ban if I ever tried it again, so don't tell me I haven't done anything.--Blechnic (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the Beth Wambui Mugo is plagiarized, I have to take the rap for that one, I didn't check it thoroughly enough and it should be pulled from the front page and the DYK removed. But I can't do everything. We simply don't have enough people on the project, and while I've picked up many examples of plagiarism, one or two are bound to slip through. But I don't think we get that many.

As for Carol Spears, I didn't know about this case but we do rely to some extent on the good faith of our contributors, and if someone is routinely plagiarizing material it's not unusual on wikipedia for someone to take a while to pick it up. I can't actually recall Spears submitting any articles to DYK but maybe she did. So again, one or two examples do not prove there's a chronic problem. But anytime you do find plagiarism at DYK, by all means inform us so that we can deal with it. Gatoclass (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Carol was the one promoting or suggesting the articles she wrote be put on DYK. I don't know who did. --Blechnic (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have pulled the Beth Wambui Mugo article from the front page as a possible copyvio until further notice. Thanks Blechnic for picking that up. Gatoclass (talk) 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for removing it. --Blechnic (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This a direct product of DYK's current format, the fact that articles appearing there are usually 2 - 5 days old precipitates the ammount of these situations. If DYN is supposed to attract interest to articles, then we should try to rotate it towards Stub/Start class articles that we already have, those are becoming more ignored by established users. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the current system, any article expanded over 5 times is eligible. That is an incentive to work on start and stub class articles. For instance, I took Christopher Smart to 50k and submitted it to DYK. There are many people like myself that do such work. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've seen plagiarism in DYK articles before as well. I feel fairly confident that I could create an article based on plagiarized content and submit it to DYK and it would pass. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Caribbean H.Q., find a way to reward responsible contributors: those who don't plagiarize, who spend the necessary time to write an article, and wind up with just a stub or start class article. It takes me five days to write an opening paragraph for a brochure on a plant pest, and that's after every else has done the research, and I've read their research. Yes, Akhilleus, it would be pretty easy. --Blechnic (talk) 06:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess one step we could quickly take would be to formulate sanctions for those who submit copyvios to DYK. First offence - three month ban from submitting articles to DYK. Second offence - indef ban from DYK. Something like that should help deter users who are tempted to take short cuts in order to gain a DYK award. Gatoclass (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that the DYK medal by itself makes much difference to article-writing incentive. If a person thinks purely along these lines, they would have to write 50 articles to get 2 medals. It's much easier to get barnstars by grandstanding, etc. Writing articles is not an efficient way to get barnstars, in the case of a person who planned their wiki-routine on optimising their barnstar count, they would not write articles. As for things being on the main page, a lot of FAs with blogrefs, non-RS, COI references have made it on the front page. That's not to say anything about articles with deliberately concealed POV pushing etc. A lot of articles are only of interest to the author, or people from a certain country or ethnic group, in which case the person/group can do whatever they want to. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we both know that elides the question of misuse of DYK. The star is used as a relatively low-cost way of attempting to demonstrate "productivity" by otherwise disruptive SPAs. This is not to say I don't submit some of my own and others' articles to the template myself, but to overlook the the incentive structure here would be inappropriate. --Relata refero (disp.) 21:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK are supposed to include hooks that are cited in the main body of the text. With that in place, there should be no copyvios (as cited) and it should meet verifiabiltiy (as cited). As such, there really is no problem with DYK, and there should be no alterations to it. The admin who work DYK put a lot of effort into it and perform a thankless task. Perhaps we should instead take the opportunity to actually thank their contribution that dramatically helps Wikipedia as a whole instead of bringing up issues that aren't actually issues. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As the creator of both articles, I apologise for any inconveniance I have caused. The park coordinates was a mistake, and I completely messed up on that one. As for Mugo, I automatically assumed Kenya was the same as the US in terms of government sources, and I would like clarity on the issue. I was on a wikibreak while all this occured, and I am not cutting corners to work for the 50 DYK barnstar; instead, it is simply an area that I work a lot in. I'm an Editorofthewiki^{[citation needed]} 20:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know Kenya's copyright laws, but why not always state clearly that it is copied verbatim from a source, or simply rewrite it? It wasn't particularly well written, which is how I knew it was a copyright violation or plagiarism or just plain copied and pasted.

Ottava Rima, are you saying that any crap that winds up on the main page to the shame of Wikipedia should be left there? Interesting since not a single person responsible for the crap agrees. Thank you Editorofthewiki for simply apologizing for the park coordinates mess up and saying you blew it. If you need help in the future on West African geography, or fact checking on west African geography, geology, or natural history, let me know. I can usually add some specific details, and link appropriately. I also know some of the geopolitical boundaries, like Black Volta Province is called Mouhoun, and can verify information like this, and often source it. --Blechnic (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, I appreciate what the DYK admins do, but that doesn't mean the system can't be improved. I don't blame the admins, but I do find fault with the system. And just to clarify this: I've been opposed to the five-day limit for quite some time; not just because of this incident. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Using pejoratives to describe pages does not mean that there is a problem. DYK is there to supply interesting information to draw people towards a new page so they can start editing. All that is required is an interesting fact that is provided in the body of the text and cited. If it is cited, it cannot be a copyright violation, unless it is a quote over 300 words (aka fair use). Regardless, your problem seems to be with the pages that happen to be on DYK, not the hooks which are displayed on the main page. DYK does not cover the pages. It only covers the hooks. If you feel that there is a copyright violation, please go to

WP:CP. However, it is the article, and not the DYK, that would be the problem. Your anger is misplaced. Ottava Rima (talk

) 23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll write the word shit 500 times in an article, then put in a good hook, well-referenced, and researched: this meets your criterion for a DYK. No, you've made assumptions that have no basis in actual Wikipedia policy. I could be wrong, please do provide me with a link to the policy that says any crappy article that has a single good line, well-reference can be a DYK. Oh, look, when describing the hooks, here's the language: "While we strive for accuracy and neutrality in all articles, articles dealing with living persons are especially sensitive. Please keep the Biography of Living Persons policy in mind." Notice it doesn't say "accuracy and neutrality in the hook," but rather, "accuracy in all articles." This is what an encyclopedia strives for: accuracy. Keep dismissing its importance all you want, but it just makes Wikipedia look like shit. --Blechnic (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Spamming content into an article is a disqualifier for DYK, and it is one of many things checked. Each article is reviewed before being processed for something as obvious as that. However, it is not the job of the DYK admin to search for every sentence in order to find an unattributed citation. It is not the place of the DYK, nor should it be. DYK deal only with hooks and the size of an article/content needed for such. There is a forum for copyright violations. If you feel that you have found some, please take it there. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Then, by all means, remove that sentence about article content from the DYK page, so that their idea of the requirements conforms to yours, rather than letting readers think the page describe the DYK process and guidelines, instead of you being the only one that describes it. --Blechnic (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I am at a lost to see what you are actually asking. I can quote directly from the page, if you wish, but I am sure that you can easily scan over the page and see that my information conforms to what is said here. Now, I believe your only problem is with the articles themselves, and that you cannot put forth an argument that directly links the DYK process to the copyright violations. So, I suggest that you work with the

WP:CP investigators and you can patrol the DYK candidate list hunting them down if you prefer. Heaven knows that Wikipedia needs eager volunteers willing to scan for copyright violations, and you have made it abundantly clear that you have such desire and eagerness. Your contribution would be a great boon for the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk

) 00:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in copyrights. What I do is something few people do on Wikipedia: I write articles about African agricultural pests and about tropical African vegetation and geography and biodiversity. I think that moving from working in an area where I have knowledge that almost no one else on Wikipedia has, to an area where I don't have knowledge but a lot of people argue against me as if they are experts, is not a situation that would have a positive benefit for Wikipedia. This is a chronic suggestion to Wikipedia editors with any type of rare knowledge: why you don't join in some general pursuit, where many people have knowledge, instead of focusing on that narrow area where we're missing hundreds of major articles? It's curious.

I quoted from the page on Did you know, by the way. It didn't seem to communicate anything to you.

It's clear this is not an issue of great concern on Wikipedia: accuracy. Even though the DYK selection criteria, under "the hook," says, "we strive for accuracy and neutrality in all articles" you're here to fight me to the death that "accuracy in all articles" is not part of DYK. They state it. That long quote is a copy and paste, but, damn, you're going to beat that idea out of me. Please, go beat it out of the DYK page you keep quoting from and claiming it doesn't say what I just pasted from it. But, clearly, Wikipedians think that Wikipedia doesn't care about accuracy, and strives to avoid accuracy, and they're going to go all out to sock it to anyone who thinks that it means something when Wikipedia guidelines say "we strive for accuracy in all articles."

I can't fight you. You refuse to read what's there for some reason, or refuse to believe it, or refuse to acknowledge it. I can only read what's there, and can't ignore it willfully like you might be doing. It's there. That's all. --Blechnic (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Who said anything about anyone fighting here? If I have a problem reading, then I have a problem reading. You feel that there is a problem with Wikipedia. I offered you a place that deals with such problems. You say it is with DYK, but it has already been demonstrated that they only deal with hooks. What exactly do you want? You claim to be too busy working on pages to patrol for copyright violations, but you are here telling us about all of the copyright violations you have found. Could you at least submit those to the copyright violations board so they can be processed? This is a place to deal with incidents that happen based on users. Is there one user causing a problem? If so, please put up the diffs, explain what the user is doing, and make a case. If its some greater philosophical idea or a change, take it to village pump. If you want to aid with the removal of copyright information, take it there. There are plenty of options and ways to act. You already offered yourself as knowing of tons of problems with violations, so I will emphasis the latter once again. As you admitted, you already put in the time researching about all of the problems. Now please finish by submitting it to the appropriate location so it can be dealt with. Thanks. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. I did. I was personally attacked. I was harassed. I was blocked. The problem is not a one incident problem that you can't seem to get beyond, it's an ongoing lack of concern about dealing with the problem. And this needs more widespread attention. Since you're not interested in reading or understanding what I have to say, there is no point in your speaking to me about what you haven't read or bothered to understand. So, please take your own advice and finish by submitting yourself to the proper location, one you're bothered to read and understand. Thanks. --Blechnic (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that if you would have used the copyright violation noticeboard, the above things would have happened. I also believe that your misplaced criticism upon DYK may have resulted from the history you have claimed. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I give up. Sock puppet hysteria, revisiting years of in-fighting, it's not about the encyclopedia's quality. --Blechnic (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with badly maintained DYK largely stems from a poor admin-corps. It is by far more fun to hang out at drama boards and IRC then update the DYK page and check the articles to appear on the mainpage for compliance with policies. In fact, the entire DYK work is done by a handful of admins, and when they are not around, the page does not get updated for many hours after the deadlines. For a while I tried to check articles within the areas of my knowledge and was often pointing out to their poor referencing, POV pushing, misleading hooks, etc. only to get badmouthed by the article's proponents with DYK admins not getting involved for their being too few. It is never too late for ANI/IRC admins to make their DYK editing debut and concern themselves with content of this project. --Irpen 06:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be an administration obsession with drama that interferes with a diversity of needs being well met. What's IRC? Thanks for the post, this was needling me, but I couldn't quite identify it, what is incongruous about Wikipedia: it's stated goal versus the means of actualizing it that has been adopted by many in the community (writing the encyclopedia versus watching the drama unfold). --Blechnic (talk) 06:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC =

Internet relay chat. It's what we had to use for real-time communication before kids had instant messaging. It's still very useful for group chats. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The problem with DYK is a problem endemic to the project as a whole. In the race to create and catalog as much information as possible, the core principles on certification and citation of all information are almost always bypassed. When these objections are noted, the objectors are treated as pariahs who want to destroy content and tear apart the fabric of the encyclopedia.

• The promotion of DYK articles clearly needs to be overhauled. Everyking's suggestion on slowing down that process is a good one. The rules that govern promotion of articles in DYK should be enforced on all articles in consideration without exception. If an article isn't cited, it shouldn't be promoted. The DYK awards process should be suspended since it does not encourage the creation of quality articles, only the creation of more articles. Anyone who is caught plagarizing articles should be prohibited from making future DYK suggestions (and/or blocked completely). Plagarism has never been treated with a soft touch here and I don't know why DYK is under exclusion in this respect. For an editor to plagarize an entire article from another source -even if that source is in the public domain- and then submit that work as their own to DYK is troubling, to say the least. I don't have much confidence that this practice will end with this thread, so again all suggestions should be scrutinized for copyright violations and this can be most effectively executed by slowing down the process, as Everyking notes below. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no proof to verify that copyright issues are a problem, and based on the limited amount of DYK chosen per day, Admin are selecting the best available. There is no just cause to prompt such a dramatic change. There is a copyright notice board. It is sufficient enough. If you feel that copyright issues exist, be bold and report them there yourself. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• There have been several examples cited already. Given how easily these were overlooked, I would call it a problem. Considering the haste in which DYK articles are promoted, I doubt the noticeboard would a very effective tool in combatting plagarism in DYK. Criticizing me for not reporting copyright violations won't be a very effective argument since it doesn't solve the larger problems at DYK. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point out any examples that haven't already been addressed, and please point out where on the copyright violation forum these examples have been placed to show that people are putting them through the proper channels. There is no "haste" about any DYK articles, and all copyright violation articles, if they are to such extremes, have been deleted. The hooks are directly cited. That ensures they are not a violation, and the main page has no actual copyrighted material on it. You are attacking DYK without just cause. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be a bad idea to slow down the DYK process and post fewer articles at a time to ensure better quality. Everyking (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a recently completed discussion that's a little bit related. DYK is used as a process to add interesting content to the main page, a laudable goal. It's also used somewhat as a process of rewards, look how many DYK's I've got! To the extent that DYK is a reward, it will tend to have the same perverse incentives as the recently-disposed-of Award Centre. I've often wondered why an interesting fact added to any article would not be worthy of a DYK. Perhaps a rethinking of the entire process is in order. Franamax (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not about finding current articles. Its about promoting new articles. It would defeat the whole justification of having a DYK . Its not about something interesting. It is about having something interesting in a new topic that would draw people in to editing it. Ottava Rima (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no reason to exclusively promote new articles, rather than articles of all sorts of "ages", in this way. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the main reason DYK was formed was over the fact that new articles rarely get as many views, and would lack editors. That right there is a major reason. Established pages don't need a bump. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Far from the truth. Long-standing articles frequently languish in obscurity, and could most definitely use a bump.

But anyway, we're a bit off-topic for this noticeboard, I think, as this sort of discussion probably should occur on an appropriate talk page. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That is just logically unsound. If a substantial article "languishes" then it is a topic that deserves to languish. New topics need a bump to draw in those who wouldn't have known an article on a topic existed. There is a huge difference between a red link turning into a blue link, and a topic that no one really cares about. All topics have a chance to become DYK. If they didn't, then they probably didn't deserve to be, or no one put the effort. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

DYK Joining threads >>>

There's a more extensive thread at >>> here on the DYK talk page

Please continue discussion there!

--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A new(?) user is deleting referenced material, adding unreferenced information, messing up the whole infobox etc.. On the talk page a conversation started, but meanwhile the article is going through rapid changes.
What to do in a situation like that? I can't solve the situation by simply adding referenced material (which I usually do), because the infobox may contain only one information. Semi-protection does not protect against users with an account.
I'd like to ask an administrator to revert the article to the last version before Idsocol got "involved". The changes since are questionable to say the least. Squash Racket (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Squash Racket, I think it's a little bit early to discuss the issue here as long as the discussion on the talk page didn't end until now.--Olahus (talk) 18:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Just like the new user, you too were editing the article in an arbitrary way as the diffs above show despite having no concensus on the talk page (even keeping the changes of the new user like nothing happened). Squash Racket (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

no, no it hink that I have resolved this issue already.

Just asking: is Smith Jones an administrator closing a thread on ANI? Squash Racket (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he is not. Do you feel that his closure of the thread was inappropriate? Antelan^talk 00:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I got exactly zero answers for my concern mentioned above. The infobox of the article looks messy right now, referenced material disappeared, and I don't want to edit war over it. Please see the page history, you feel everything is just fine there? Squash Racket (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Continued use of edit summaries to insult other editors. Examples: [14], [15], and [16]. After being warned about the edit summaries (by numerous editors besides myself, (although he has blanked his page repeatedly, old version here), he takes his rudeness to the warning user's talkpage instead. examples: [17] and [18] Nar Matteru (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours for a recent, relatively minor instance of incivility: [19]; taken alone, it's not much, but upon review of their edit history and truly extraordinary number of previous warnings, it was the straw that broke the camel's back. If his behavior resumes upon the block expiring, I'd suggest going straight to indef, rather than gradually escalating blocks, as some people just don't get it, and there's no sense spending too much of our time hoping and praying that they will. --

barneca (talk

) 17:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good block. I see you noted the need to remodel their interaction upon the block expiry at their talkpage, but without any persuasive reason (such as, "or the next block will likely be of considerably longer duration"). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point, I tweaked my message. Thanks. --

barneca (talk

) 23:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

IP editor changing BCE/CE to BC/AD

Resolved

-- the bad guys have been blokked.

This may be too trivial for this board, but it doesn't fit anywhere else. 99.225.142.81 (talk · contribs) has been warned repeatedly for systematically converting BCE/CE to to BC/AD. According to the Manual of Style, "[i]t is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." A block may be appropriate. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Probably best on
  WP:AIV, but fair point and blocked for a short time. Black Kite
  01:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

  ...and he's back, this time as Cwyche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

  Blocked. Black Kite 01:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I seek help with removing some personal attacks aimed at me for my off-wiki activities. On Talk:J. Michael Bailey, User:WhatamIdoing states that I "accused Bailey of incestuous child rape." My requests for her to remove this false statement went unanswered, and instead she escalated things to a BLP noticeboard posting which outlines why she thinks I am a bad person and is thus entitled to make such assertions. I responded there, but no one stepped in, and her accusations and rhetoric continue to escalate. This clearly violates Wikipedia policies. I've edited here with all kinds of people who find my off-site activism odious, from white supremacists to alternative medicine practitioners, without incident. Since User:WhatamIdoing refuses to discuss this one-on-one, I'm hoping someone can help me out. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You feel you have the right to attack someone's INNOCENT CHILDREN in a extremely vile and hateful fashion and hide behind "satire" IRL, but start bleating about "personal attacks" and demand protection when someone draws attention to your reprehensible off Wikipedia behaviour on Wikipedia? If you can't take it then you shouldn't dish it out. Exxolon (talk) 01:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• My research is finding some interesting things. When exactly did you decide it was acceptable to refer to someone's five year old son as a "precious womb turd"? Quite frankly there should be MORE documentation of your off wiki behaviour here if this is the sort of thing you think is okay. Exxolon (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• I don't agree with Exxolon. While I don't presume to judge whether your real-life statement was harmful and/or tasteful, it should not influence a discussion in which you are clearly discussing the article in an impassionate, neutral manner, and addressing legitimate questions of sourcing. A person's editing should never be restricted based on a belief that they are morally reprehensible; let them be judged by their actions as editors. Dcoetzee 02:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not proposing any restriction on their editing. If you read carefully they are asking for restrictions on another editor Exxolon (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Yet more hypocrisy. This editor has an advert/post on their site for "TransYouth Family Allies" of which they are apparantly a director which has part of it's manifesto "TYFA envisions a society free of suicide and violence in which ALL children are respected and celebrated." - unless they are the children of someone whose opinions you disagree with in which case they are fair game for whatever crap you feel like throwing at them. Exxolon (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • • I'm simply asking WhatamIdoing not to make things up about me, and I have asked her to remove that misinformation. And if people want to berate me for off-wiki conduct, that should probably happen off-wiki. It's disruptive here. Jokestress (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I had said here that W's behavior had turned outrageous. In followup email conversations, it becomes increasingly clear that W is unable to separate strong personal feelings from the kind of thought that is needed to be a sensible wikipedia editor. Personally, I would think a stern warning is in order; accusing a fellow editor of making libelous accusations is not much different from making legal threats. It appears that Exxolon has the same problem, or has bought into the same "facts"; I doubt that either of these individuals has even seen the actual content that they are so appalled by, but even if they have, that old event that is not documented in reliable sources is not a reason to attack a fellow editor; like Jokestress says, you don't have to like her or what she has done, but off-wiki problems should stay off. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User Yoshihiko (talk · contribs) is back - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive436#User:Yoshihiko. On 21 June he (or she) uploaded a lot of copyright images and laboriously upgraded the article IdeaPad from a factual article to a glossy advertisement. He then went on a recipe rampage, uploading a stream of recipes for Spanish fried rice, Italian Fried Rice, etc. His only response to strings of messages and appeals to stop was to blank his talk page from time to time. Eventually he was blocked for 31 hours and reverted. Now he's back working on IdeaPad again, uploading more copyright images and blanking his talk page. I have reverted it and tried again to explain, but I seriously doubt if he understands English. Can anyone think of what to do, short of an indef block? The name sounds Japanese, but another previous string of edits were to Wuzhou, so maybe Chinese? JohnCD (talk) 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've left her (name ends in "-ko", a Japanese indication of femininity) an {{ANI-notice}} but also advised that she needs to listen to other editors. --Rodhullandemu 22:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I left him/her a message in Spanish. I'll try Chinese and Japanese next as that user seems to have an asian user name. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  21:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't noted the ko. I had thought it was only part of the name. So I left the user a note in three languages first common then Chinese and Japanese. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This user should be blocked for spamming. Repeated attempts to communicate have not done anything; this might. The pages are unquestionably spam. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The user should be blocked. Even attempts in multiple languages has prove fruitless. This user is clearly not here to edit properly this is most evident from her lack of communication. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  22:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• OK, she has yet again blanked her talk page and is still uploading images, and still getting copyright notices. I have blocked her indefinitely, on the basis that this does not mean "forever", but she should heed advice, and talk to us. The ball is in her court. --Rodhullandemu 22:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if this is a child - able to copy and paste, but with no idea how to respond to messages except by blanking them and hoping they'll go away? JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Possible, but all she needs to do is to ask a friend "what does this mean?". I'm wondering why she's contributing here rather than ja:wiki, for example. You might think she'd be more at home there if English is not her first language. Or have I missed something? --Rodhullandemu 23:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I asked her to respond in the kindness way I could. I will translate all to Japanese shortly. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  23:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I thought my Japanese was good enough to translate that but it isn't. Can some one else? Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  23:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The most obvious conclusion here is that they're a Lenovo employee, a Chinese firm, promoting the IdeaPad. The rest is explainable by their being a newbie with limited knowledge of English. They're here because they're looking to promote to the English-speaking market. I suggest we grab a zh admin to explain conflict of interest to them. Dcoetzee 23:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I left a note for zh:User:Smartneddy, an established zh administrator, to point him here and see if he can help (their admin noticeboards seem to be protected at the minute). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a break from admin stuff, for various reasons. But I thought it'd be an idea, during this time, to experiment to see how well our copyright policy is enforced. It was quite enlightening. I removed, per policy, a large amount of

Your second and third link are identical. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed my own incompetence :) Black Kite 01:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• You removed per policy 7, but that states One-article minimum. Non-free content is used in at least one article. How is that relevant? RMHED (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• The "7" is a typo in the edit summary - see below for policies. Black Kite 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a policy specific to lists, just this guideline. RMHED (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Black Kite, I think you are misreading policy. Could you explain the removal of the images? Hobit (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. They fail WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. In fact there couldn't be a clearer example really, and we've been through the "non-free images in lists" thing numerous times (see below). Black Kite 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Not Kite, but speaking as an editor who was extremely involved when we actually started enforcing this in lists of x articles a little over a year ago, The image must not be decorative and must be the subject of commentary/criticism to qualify as fair use. Lists do not get in depth enough to satisfy the second part, and are by definition at that point decorative. There's a couple AN subpages dedicated solely to this, as well as myriad other pages. -

M^ask?

03:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If they're used for identification, then it's not just decorative. That's not to say that any image used for identification necessarily meets C#8, but this misuse of rhetoric is getting a bit out of hand. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – no biggie :) - Alison ^❤ 09:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

User:65.210.117.93 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Anybody an idea why the IP is marking its own host as being an open proxy? I can't see any abuse from this host so far, and it's not actually blocked. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is an open proxy and it's now been blocked by another admin. Chances are, the edit was made by someone who was testing to see if it was open. Some admins on here do that. It's no biggie, so don't worry about it - Alison ^❤ 09:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not at all worried about it, I was only confused, because in general, IP's are blocked because they use open proxies in an abusive way. They won't usually report themselves for a potential abuse. Never mind. --PaterMcFly (talk) 09:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Giovanni33 per request. Daniel (talk) 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked you for a period of one week per

That is not true. I've discussed all my changes, many times, and each time before I make any edit to the page. You are not looking at the right section, even.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Can you provide a link to a comment of yours from this month discussing your reversion of the word "controversial" into the lead? Also, can you please explain your slow edit warring. It appears that you have reverted infrequently in order to evade your "1 revert per week" restriction. Khoikhoi 04:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Funny, if I abide by the restriction, I'm guilty of evading it? That makes no sense. My revert has not been 1 revert per week, either. As I explained, the last time I made that change was on the 9th, and then on the 21st, which is a whole two weeks apart!Giovanni33 (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to your unblock request below: both of those are comments justifying your removal of the image, not your changes to the lead. See

The change in the lead has its own section with three comments from me - and no one else. Am I supposed to have a discussion with myself? No one opposes that change, and I've discussed it as much as possible, logically. It makes no sense otherwise; that I've discussed my change is the only requirement. If someone wants to address any point I've made, I will be sure continue to discuss it. I do not understand how you are able to make up new restrictions for me: Yes, I made a comment right before and right after my edit, true. But where does my restriction say that posting a comment right after I made the change is not valid or does not satisfy the restriction??! It says: "Giovanni33 is limited to one revert per page per week...and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page." And that is exactly what I've been doing. It doesn't give a specific time period before or after. We do have the ability to use our common sense, right?Giovanni33 (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If no one allegedly opposes your changes to the lead, why is it that you keep having to revert? Look at [20] and [21]. It is clear that other people do apparently object to your changes. The parole requires that you justify your reverts on the talk page every single time, and you failed to do that. You might have discussed the image, but certainly not the lead. Khoikhoi 04:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question for them, not me. The later reverts seem to be lazy, sloppy ones, opposing the image removal that also reverted my intro changes. I see no objections on talk by anyone regarding those changes.[[22]] And, no, no where in my restriction does it say I I should copy and past the same justification to a section that no one disputed, after I posted my justification three time, with no response. That is absurd. It would make sense if there was a new change, something different, as that would need discussion and justification. But that is not the case here: I've discussed it and refer to it, and no one has responded with any objections. Again, this is a matter of common sense, and you are making up stuff that is no where to be found in my arbcom ruling.Giovanni33 (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|False block. I'm blocked for not discussing my changes. Completely untrue. Even a cursory glance at the talk page refutes this false claim. See:[[23]] The specific edit I made on June 21st, was discussed here by me on the same day:[[24]],[[25]] The only time I made a change it to before that was about 2 weeks ago, in which I also discussed this:[[26]] The section that you refer to brings up a change that no one is disputing, or discussing, so it stands to explain my edit. Surely, I don't have to copy and paste what I already wrote? That would be irrational. Also, I'm not reverting once a week, either. Like I said the last time I did was about 2 weeks ago, plenty of time for editors to comment and voice any objections or suggestions.}}

And why, precisely, should Giovanni33 get the privilege of having his unblock requests transcluded to WP:ANI? What's wrong with the normal channels? Jtrainor (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Because he's got an active RfAr. Daniel (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Good block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. RfAr is wrapping up. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose block. It appears that Giovanni has been engaging in discussion and has been observing his requirement to not revert more than once per week. Everyking (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose block. The Arbitrary Committee is not a legitimate authority. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• The Arbitrary [sic] Committee is not legitimate? It's a good thing that users of this website have been directly instructed to ignore such reasoning. The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Ridiculously poor block. The fellow kept to his revert parole, and nobody discussed matters with him on the talkpage. If that's an incorrect reading of the situation, perhaps a little more data is required. But on reading the above, I see no reason for the block. --Relata refero (disp.)
• Oppose block: I think he did everything that was required of him, and stuck to the 'parole'. Putting aside the current RFAR, unblocking is in order. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: if not blocked for this, he will be blocked anyway by Arbcom, and perhaps this plethora of legal threats that keep coming from him and we keep ignoring per
  WP:DFTT would be enough? The Evil Spartan (talk
  ) 00:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Good block, of course. Not only did Giovanni33 not discuss the obvious revert, but his block has been supported on his Talk: page by the administrators User:PhilKnight and User:Pilotguy. This is someone who has been blocked so many times that the "older 50" link is actually live when you look at his block log. And why are we discussing the topic here anyway, rather than the usual place, his Talk: page? Why does he get special treatment? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block and perhaps lengthen Why Giovanni thinks he can flout policy and from arbcom rulings concerning him is beyond me. I'm suprised he hasn't been indefed yet. Jtrainor (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • We can impose a community ban for the time-being; but ArbCom are going to impose a stronger and more effective ban soon. So I'll ask the question - is there any admin who'd be willing to unblock? In the absence of a yes, and with even 1 more response of no, I think we're done here - and it could be extended as indefinite. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. User is clearly disruptive, and per above. Lengthen would probably be a good idea. YahelGuhan (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - responding to Ncmvocalist: any extension of the block to indefinite is likely to be reset by ArbCom to one year, and then voted on again by ArbCom at the end of that year. That is not a "stronger and more effective ban", it is a fairer and more effective ban, that will discourage appeals to the community or single administrators willing to unblock, but still leave open the avenue of appeal to ArbCom. I presume you have read the remedies they are voting on? The community can impose a ban separately, but please don't conflate the two. In my view, it is best to leave well alone and let the arbitration close without muddying the waters. This feels like rushing to impose a community ban before the case closes. Carcharoth (talk) 05:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
  • That's a matter of interpretation. Given the limited scope of appeal, and specified duration, I do think it's a stronger measure. Categorising it that way does not mean it's unfair, or otherwise.
  • The community ban does not, will not, nor is intended to affect the Committee's decision. It's (as always) a preventative measure only. An indefinite period is because there is no definite period by which the decision may be enforced. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
• Thanks to Jayjg for telling me about this discussion. Given that I've already declined an unblock, I obviously confirm that in my understanding the ArbCom restrictions have been applied correctly. PhilKnight (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

An editor has been outed, and his real life identity has been revealed. See the talk page Talk:Office_Open_XML#Conflict_of_interest. It began some days ago with this edit by Ghettoblaster (talk · contribs), which cross-matches external web pages to identify the editor. The particular links have been removed, but the identity of the user is still visible. Warren (talk · contribs) also added the person's real name to his post. The identified editor has not returned to Wikipedia since the outing. Here is a message I sent to user:Ghettoblaster, and a message I sent to user:Warren about the incident.

The article is a hotbed of edit waring. I'm not sure if you also want to deal with that issue, but on my subpage is a documentation of the edit waring on one of many content disputes happening simultaneously. The place is a madhouse! Looking down the article history will show more reverts. I note that HAl (talk · contribs) has already been blocked multiple times for edit waring on this and related OOXML pages. --Lester 10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As I pointed out in the

Wikipedia outing guideline. My intention was to inform other faithful contributors that the editor in question in all likelihood had a confict of interest. I have already been informed that I posted my findings at the wrong place and I will add all my findings to the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard later. Thanks. Ghettoblaster (talk

) 10:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the irony of this situation is that these kinds of posts attract more attention than the situation normally would have. It seems this was already resolved on the article's talk page. -- Ned Scott 11:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The links have been removed, but the guys place of work is listed on the first post, and his real name is still listed on the second post. It's still there now. I pleaded with the authoring editors to remove it, to no avail. I was hoping someone here would remove it. It's a sad way for an editor to be knocked out of Wikipedia by having his identity exposed. --Lester 12:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

We have to take things into context. This guy is using the exact same handle for his public e-mail address, and probably other websites, where he lists his real name. This really isn't private information at this point. -- Ned Scott 06:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would indeed like an admin to take notice how several editors aided by quite a lot of anonymous edits repeatly removed information from an article even after 6 or 7 reputable sources to substantiate the information that

open format file format were introduced. I would suggest an admin look into the use of sockpuppets by any of the users that were removing the words free and open from the article. I would note that already twice people with a grudge against Office Open XML have been temporarily blocked for sockpuppeting whilst editting the Office Open XML article. hAl (talk

) 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Ned on this. Context is everything. This is a fellow who has been writing his own bio, posting his own photos of himself, posting links to his own workplace and using a username that is directly associated with him. I think he's basically outed himself and I really don't see how this can reasonably be seen as a violation of the harassment policy which excludes cases where an "editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself". I also agree that posting these kinds of cases to ANI is not the best way to handle it because it's only going to draw heaps of attention to the "outing". I think it's better to deal with it quietly and privately, if possible, Lester. Sarah 02:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The link between the outed editor's real name and wiki name were found externally by Googling, then published on the OOXML article talk page. It could not have been proven without looking at external websites. If that is now acceptable practice on Wikipedia, I will remember that next time. The outed editor seems to have left Wikipedia as a result, which to me is sad. --Lester 02:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Lester, you're not going to stop editors from looking people's usernames up on Google. I've done it myself and I know many others have, too. So I'm not surprised that an editor who suspected someone was spamming Wikipedia with external links to their own articles and writing self-promotional content would check Google and then identify the conflict of interest. Sure, they could have identified the COI in a better and more discrete way but I'm still not seeing an egregious privacy violation that warrants the use of admin tools. You seem to think the guy stopped editing because of this but I think you're just assuming that and I strongly doubt it myself. He was never a regular editor and has only ever edited very sporadically and months apart, mostly (though not always) only returning when he has a link to add to another page, so I suspect that he likely doesn't even know about this issue and will be back again when he has another article he wants to spam. The guy has been using Wikipedia for self promotion, adding links to his own off-site articles into articles, including, I believe, the OOXML article. This is a conflict of interest issue, as far as I can see. After originally seeing this report, I went to the OOXML talk page to delete the edit in question from the history but upon reviewing the evidence further I reached the conclusion that this guy has outed himself and never attempted to conceal his identity. He hasn't tried to protect his own privacy on Wikipedia but rather seems to have been quite open about who he is by using this pseudonym and posting his own "self" images and so forth, so I don't understand what you're looking for here. What is is that you're looking for? Please explain what you would like me to do as an administrator. Sarah 04:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Also, I do agree with you about the edit warring on that page as listed here User:Lester/free&open and I intend protecting it if it continues. Sarah 04:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any serious "outing" here. From what I can see, the user had effectively done that already. Warren removing the information would be largely symbolic since the edit would remain in history. This hasn't enabled anything that someone could not already investigate with fairly minimal effort if they were detirmined to find this individual's name. As was said before, no significant personal information beyond that was released either. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Users referred to

WP:TLDR in mind, since either I or Ncmvocalist will probably be handling it? Thanks.) --Jaysweet (talk

) 15:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to report that the user MauritiusXXVII has insult me on this talk page saying me"xenophobic and racist user". It is not the first time to do it so i would beg some administrator to block him because this behavior is not admitted on Wikipedia. Even he make a call to other users to go against me on this same edition. He has gone beyond the tolerable limits.

He does not like my edition on Chile article but you can check yourself that Chile is painted in green on third world map and it is listed on the developing countries article so he is trying to deny the reality.

He is involved on edit warrings on

I find it hilarious that Sclua is complaining about personal attacks, see the third warning on his talk page about making petty vengeance edits on Chile, all of them reverted by uninvolved editors [29] and my warning for using edit summaries to accuse other editors of lying [[30]].

See the previous ANI thread where Sclua is reported for personal attacks and POV and winds up doing again personal attacks against me and Maurice, questioning my neutrality, implying that it's ok to answer to "you push a catalan POV" with "you are anti-catalan", and a long etc.

Add to this: repeated attempts to remove and misquote sources with a clear POV bias, blanking of warnings on his talk page with complains of harassing against him, and jumping with accusations of fascism, nationalism, liying and POV pushing against anyone questioning any of his sources.

I guess it's time to start a RFCU. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First, I would like to point the admins to my past report about Sclua, which remained unsolved. The situation has got worst and worst. I beg the Admins to seriously take action about this situation.

This user has repeatedly been breaking Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. In the articles

• Erasing references brought by other editors claiming them to be Aragonese nationalist lies" --> Not assuming good faith
• Reverting edits by other users using xenophobic and racist comments calling me "Southamerican" --> Personal attack

He has also made comments such as:

• "They are trying to block me, are trying that i leave to edit, i am suffering mobbing from both users with lots of threatens (...) It is Spanish fascism, worse than Chinese one (...)" here.
• "I think a fascist Spanish hacker has blocked my access" here and here

May I notice to the admins that he was already warned for using this language: "Also suggesting that 'Spanish fascists' are responsible is

A number of users have already warned him because of his behaviour in his talk-page (me included), but he blanked the page.

After calling me "Southamerican" in a clearly despective and disruptive way, he decided to vandalize (there is NO other way of calling it) the article of Chile, just because I have some userboxes in my talk-page related to that Country and that Sclua believed I was a citizen.

He vandalized the article a number of times (here, here, here and here). The vandalism consist in repeatedly call Chile a "Third world country".

Each and every time but the last (which was me), it has been other users who have expressed their nonconformity with these edits as you may see here (user:Kman543210), here (user:Kman543210), here (user:Tangerines) and here (user:Likeminas).

Even another user claims having reported him for this behavior here

It happens that I am not chilean nor southamerican, but my fiancee is... user Sclua is consistently attacking this article simply in order to personally attack me. I consider this a tremendous personnal attack and a lack of respect against other people.

As per

I asked in Chile's talk-page for other users' help to revert what is clearly vandalism and personal attacks against me (and all the people of Chile), something I believe Wikipedia (and his admins) should IN ANY WAY tolerate. But User Sclua blanked it.

I ask the admins to take a look at Sclua's talk-page and see the enormous history of warnings this user has have... All of them blanked each and every time by him.

User Sclua has just limited his contributions to erase, criticize, insult, revert good faith and referenced edits by other users in articles related to Catalonia and to vandalize the article of Chile.

User Sclua is clearly not assuming the good faith edits by other users and is privileging of the passivity of the admins to warn or block him for his disruptive behaviour.

I believe my point sufficiently explained but I am open to bring further explanations and references if the admins desire so. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 18:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are now discussing a

龱

09:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, notice that MauritiusXXVII began with the personals attacks " absolutly ignorant", please see how he demanded me explanations when he still has not any explanation on the page talk nowadays though his huges changes on the article (only after the edition left the message without reasoning), see how he begans to say me "pushes a catalanist or (may I say anti-spanish) non-neutral POV" before i called him "anti-catalanist", please see how he begins to threaten me after just one day from his first edition "you will be reported" please see how he said "Catalan POV and this is not the catalan wiki" before i call him southamerican and when, in fact, i was bringing International Heraldry Academy sources not Catalan ones and he (they both in fact) only were bringing an Aragonese website source (Aragonese Encyclopedia). And notice that Enric Naval lied when said that Periku was blocked due to his request when the reality was that Spanish admin rejected his request.

• If someone tells a lie then is a liar and the phrase "red bars" was a lie, simply. I see Enric naval defending personal insults due to my edits-warring. Incredible incoherence with what he told the other day "Sclua's excuse for being uncivil is that others have been uncivil first, but that's not a excuse for incivility."
• I could fill their both talk pages with a lot of warnings but i am not here to waste my time. They both have cleared references, have made me personal attacks, falsified sources, edited-warrings...
• It is childish only consider what users with all the evenings free to waste on Wikipedia are doing in my page talk and ignore all their bad style .
• I called fascist who was blocking my access to several pages but they both, now, are pretending falsely that i called it to them. They needs liars to supported their points of view.
• The past reported was solved being archived, this is, rejected by its weak reasonings.
• i can say the same to them, they both have repeatedly been breaking
  Coat of arms of Catalonia
  they have been engaging in edit warrings.
• On my page talk only see Aragonese users for obvious reasons and another one who on the Spanish wikipedia say that does not come from Spain.
• Maurice brings a quote that he does not apply The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.
• i think it is incredible that a report for a personal insult ended up with a threaten against me from
  龱
  . This admin still has not cleared the post where i am insulted and where there is a call on other users to go against me so i think his behaviour is cleary biased. No reproach against maurice. It has to see it to belive it.
• if Wikipedia admits personal insults this may be the jungle.--Sclua (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As noted at the top of this board, if you feel someone's being impolite/uncivil, consider posting to

mediation. --slakr^\ talk

 / 10:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The community cannot speak for ArbCom - and this is not an incident that administrators are able to address. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence

This case is still open, and no reason has been given for the page's sudden deletion. The Arbcom don't respond to repeated queries, so I thought it best to bring it here. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The deletion log gives a reason. I don't see any problem here. Friday (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The deletion log says "Personal information concerns. (ArbCom can still see the deleted content; please keep this deleted until they decide how to deal with the outing.". Have you tried talking to

User:Dmcdevit, the admin (and former arbitrator, and checkuser and oversighter) who deleted it? Carcharoth (talk

) 15:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I'll note that

talk · contribs) has not edited since June 3, 2008, so that probably won't work. MBisanz ^talk

16:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully the remainder of the evidence, that which does not contain personal information, will be restored reasonably soon... — CharlotteWebb 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been about a month. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is mention

WP:OUTING or not. It seems reasonable to assume that Arbcom will not close the Homeopathy case without restoring the Evidence file. EdJohnston (talk

) 16:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One would think so ... but the first vote to close was made today.

GRBerry

01:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe they decided they don't need no stinkin' evidence... — CharlotteWebb 12:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Even though I think

WT:RFAR have sat unacknowledged by even a clerk. Skinwalker (talk

) 01:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

They should at least say what they intend to do. They can't be so busy that they can vote but not respond to questions like that. I suggest going to the talk pages of the arbitrators who are voting and asking them directly, but politely, and pointing them at this thread. I second Charlotte's comment: "Hopefully the remainder of the evidence, that which does not contain personal information, will be restored reasonably soon..." Failing that, there must be an explanation of why all the evidence has been deleted, and non of it restored (even copy-pasted restored after redaction, regardless of the loss of page history). Carcharoth (talk) 05:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• There's no urgency, at least momentarily. There's no point asking here because it's a matter that is decided by the Committee - not the community. Would suggest asking the Committee again once the case is closed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I ask some uninvolved admins to look at

This requires lots of eyes - unsourced claims that a living figure have made death threats should be removed immediately and on sight. I cannot stress how seriously such a matter should be taken. If they repeat the claims after warning, they should be blocked immediately. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lots of eyes needed long term, or we're looking at another homeopathy; medical editors can deal with the content if uninvolved admins pitch in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

checking the edits, the editor in question has been warned about the BLP concerns - if they repeat the accusation, they should be blocked immediately without the necessity for further warning. --Allemandtando (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a rotation of redlinked accounts at Lyme disease. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SSP? Carcharoth (talk

) 22:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I considered simply removing it myself. However, this editor has already launched various accusations of censorship as well as personalizing issues quite a bit. I thought that on balance it would be better to have more editors involved, rather than me being the point person not only on policy/content matters but also removing or editing her talk page posts. I've found that when you're in a content dispute and you start removing someone's talk page comments, regardless of how inappropriate, it doesn't tend to go well - even more experienced editors don't react well to it. I've gone through phases where I've tried to "enforce" the talk page guidelines by removing clearly off-topic bloggy posts, and it doesn't work - people honestly feel deep down that talk pages are a zone of complete free expression. As far as I know, BLP is the relevant policy and applies to all namespaces, including throwaway remarks about a living person on the Lyme disease talk page. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell; it is less than optimal for an involved editor to delete that content and deliver warnings. It will be helpful if admins uninvolved with the content can keep an eye on the article, to keep issues separate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to keep an eye on the researcher's article as well. I presume we are not mentioning the name, but those who have been following this know which article I mean. Carcharoth (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you edit under your real name or your real name is easy to work out, then you should take care when editing this article. People who oppose this viewpoint have a tendency to have mud-slung at them up and down the internet. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's already being slung at MastCell; anyone home ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

it seems that we are all working for them (some of us are paid, some of us are govt shills, some of work for the medical companies - take your pick) and they are busy trying to work out who editors on the article are in real life. In addition, some has suggested that If just a few people volunteered to cover certain times of the day, and learned how to go into Wiki and press the “revert to previous button”, then it would be an ongoing thing and we could keep a good version going all of the time. Also being discussed here. --Allemandtando (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Note about the recruiting above: Shine a lite (talk · contribs) signs as Elena Cook. Folks, we're going to need help here; Lyme activists can be aggressive and are well organized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin swing by Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/WorkerBee74 and provide a resolution? A RFCU for another user revealed that it was possible WorkerBee74 (talk · contribs) and a number of IP addresses had !vote stacked on several !votes on Talk:Barack Obama that has perpetuated a general distrust of new users and lack of good faith on the article. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 04:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Barack Obama pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that almost reads like a mini ArbCom case. Well, I think WorkerBee's possible use of IPs aren't addressed on that page. I ran some of the checks, if there are any questions I can answer please let me know. ++Lar: t/c 04:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Just even less effective than an ArbCom case, alas. The rampant edit warring on the article may have calmed down, but the incivility and lack of good faith on the talk page persists. Also, another Obama-related sockpupptry case could do with a resolution from an uninvolved admin. This one adds in the added interest of possibly being a ban evasion by Rex071404 (talk · contribs), aka Merecat (talk · contribs) and apparently Añoranza (talk · contribs), who may have returned as an IP address to a topic that got him an arbcom case and ultimately a ban for failing to comply with the rulings of that arbcom. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 05:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the things WB74 has said in his own defense are worth repeating here:

My concern is that the Sprint IP addresses used to vote could just as easily have been used by Clubjuggle or Bobblehead, or anyone else on that page, to create "bad hand" accounts. It could have been Shem, SCJ, Tvoz, or any other editor. The checkuser admin himself said that there is no direct IP link between me and the IP addresses listed above, so your case is very weak. It could just as easily have been someone else's "bad hand" account.[32]

[This is] a lot like saying, "The guys who raped that white woman were black, and you're black, so we're stringing you up from this lamppost."[33]

Kossack4Truth (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Bobblehead, our intention behind that discussion was to limit edit-warring, so I'm glad we managed to clear that up a lot, at least. But I'm concerned about the issue you've brought up - can you provide diffs of the assumptions of bad faith/incivility you refer to on that page? If possible, please limit them to those occurrences that occurred after 20 June. I'm not going to touch SSP stuff (as usual) - I'll leave that to Lar to sort out, if he still doesn't mind. Thanks :) - Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Jyotinda has been consistently vandalising the page on Arnab Chakrabarty, deleting information about his tutelage under Buddhadev Das Gupta, and then giving a biased version of facts. Examples include [34], [35], [36]. I had left several warnings, which he earlier chose to ignore. Only on my third warning did he respond. Though I personally felt the reason to be specious, I incorporated his viewpoint into the article, giving both sides of the picture. I left a note on his talk page, saying that since the matter was controversial, it was more expedient to retain both views.

Subsequently,

Am I mistaken that the source you are trying to get back into the article here [39] is not authoritative? Even the wording is a bit weasely as "some sources". It looks legitimate to remove this information until you can come up with a more definitive source for the assertion. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have cited three references, of which at least one must be taken as authoritative beyond reasonable doubt. This is a write-up in "The Hindu", one of the most respected daily newspapers of India. The "weasely" words were actually inserted to placate Jyotinda. I think I shall remove the words accordingly. AbhikMajumdar (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Bortholomew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a threat on my talk page [40]. I requested an AfD since a number of cite tags have been removed and no sources added and I've requested for sources on the talk page and felt that there was no point on having something thats not sourced on Wiki. [41][42] Bidgee (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)