Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive545

Ongoing low-level edit war at Montana Meth Project between User:FirstVirtual and several other editors. FirstVirtual is the name of the company chaired by Thomas Siebel which apparently funds the Montana Meth Project ads. Since September 2008, several editors have expressed concerns at article Talk about possible COI between FirstVirtual and the Montana Meth Project article, yet editor FirstVirtual invariably returns to heavily edit the page, removing all criticism of the ads and of their efficacy in reducing methamphetamine use among teens. A similar edit pattern has emerged at Thomas Siebel, with FirstVirtual's edits dominating the page. FirstVirtual also made a minor edit to Siebel Scholars. (Possibly of note: these three articles are the only articles that FirstVirtual has ever edited.) Please assist us with restoring NPOV and addressing possible COI at Montana Meth Project and Thomas Siebel. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 11:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on the edits, but the username is that of a company, and it should be reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention, and that username will be blocked per Wikipedia:Username policy#Company/group names, unless an admin so choses to block them here and now for other reasons. --64.85.214.230 (talk) 11:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I chose to notify the user of the username issue with a comment at their Talk page; in order to give them a chance to change their username and retain their edit history. Whatever404 (talk) 12:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

FirstVirtual continued deleting sourced criticism of their project after your warning, so I blocked them under the username policy.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, SarekOfVulcan. As this problem may resurface if FirstVirtual chooses to rename or form a new account, I would appreciate it if additional contributors would add Montana Meth Project and Thomas Siebel to their watchlists. Is there any specific place that I can go to request that people do this? Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am reporting violations of wikipedia policy by Dreamguy which are vandalism and assumption of bad faith.

1. Dreamguy vandalized the talk page of an IP user’s talk page by his unauthorized and unwarranted removal of the public terminal notice here which was placed on the talk page by the administrator Xeno.

2. Dreamguy left a very nasty accusation against the IP address here showing his very strong assumption of bad faith. I request that Dreamguy face sanctions for his negative polution of the wikipedia community. 207.34.115.78 (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No one is going to give you what you want over this ip. Well done finding your way here so fast, though.

talk

) 23:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, with a click on the WHOIS link at the bottom of the talk page, DreamGuy could have confirmed that the IP is, in fact, assigned to the Calgary Public Library. I've therefore restored the shared-IP tag. Deor (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Further vandalism to IP talk page by Dreamguy here 207.34.115.78 (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Quack. MuZemike 23:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

And blizzocked. MuZemike 23:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Quack for sure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"Blizzocked"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

-izzle, I believe. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I wonder if you know that the word "izzard" is an old-fashioned term for the letter "Z". Combining that with this embedded "izz" biz, if you try to spell "blizzocked" using "izzard", you could have an infinite regression. I bet Snoop Dogg never thought of that. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

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

The second listed user has been found to be a sock of the first, per this CU request. Now, what is troubling here is the apparent purpose of this account. Sure, they start off making some constructive edits, but the main ones that concern me are the blatant personal attacks, as seen here, calling me racist, and here, calling me insane. Perhaps I am a little paranoid, but it isn't without merit. If this second account is just going to be used to avoid scrutiny, it needs to be blocked. Opinions?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's standard procedure: they do enough edits so they have autoconfirmation, then they go nuts. HalfShadow 23:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And obviously they should all be blocked. Presumably that will happen in due course. The admins are on a retreat at the moment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Block the sock indef and block the user for a few weeks. Nothing to talk about. Syn 01:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked indefinitely.

Tan | 39

01:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I brought it here was because it was stated in the SPI that Facto was an established user.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Facto had not edited in almost 3 years. Favortie was created shortly after Facto's last edit. I do not believe that the indefinite block on Facto may affect his editing practices.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 15:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Note, this user was last bought up here in May, due to MOS conflicts Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive539#Rotational.

This user has taken to creating articles in his userspace, which I feel go beyond using it as a sandbox, I feel that it is being used to create his preferred versions of articles, as he does not wish others to edit them. He creates articles in his userspace every few days, edits them for a while, and rarely goes back to them later, this suggests that it isn't just a sandbox.

On 10 May, he created redirects from the mainspace to his userspace articles, which were speedily deleted by

.

states: "While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion."

This discussion on his talk page suggests this, though he refuses to give a definitive answer. Note these are all in his preferred format, which is not MOS compliant.

This is a list of the offending articles, in order of when they were created

• User:Rotational/Berthe Hoola van Nooten - Created 29 April, last edited 1 May
• User:Rotational/Charles Telfair - Created 3 May, last edited 23 May
• User:Rotational/Benjamin Maund - Created 4 May, last edited 5 May
• User:Rotational/William Clarke Wontner - Created 13 May, last edited 13 May
• User:Rotational/Ambroise Tardieu - Created 5 May, last edited 12 May
• User:Rotational/Alan Cunningham - Created 17 May, last edited 17 May
• User:Rotational/Agnes Goodsir - Created 18 May, last edited 21 May
• User:Rotational/Henri Meunier
  - Created 21 May, last edited 2 June
• User:Rotational/Henri Gabriel Ibels - Created 22 May, last edited 27 May
• User:Rotational/Felix Pfeifer - Created 26 May, last edited 26 May
• User:Rotational/Jeremiah Gurney - Created 29 May, last edited 29 May
• User:Rotational/Loÿs Delteil - Created 5 June, last edited 6 June
• User:Rotational/Louisa Anne, Marchioness of Waterford
  - Created 6 June, last edited 9 June
• User:Rotational/Lady Trevelyan
  - Created 9 June, last edited 9 June

I haven't nominated for MfD as they are useful articles, and its about time most of them were moved to the main article space so that they are useful to everyone.

20:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, s/he doesn't seem happy about having them in the mainspace. But they seem good articles. How awkward. I'd be inclined to suggest someone - you? - be

MoS changed rather than creating a shadow 'pedia in userspace. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris}

20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be appropriate for me to move them, as I have been involved with the issues with Rotational for a while. However, if a few people here are happy for me to go ahead and do it, on that basis, I will

Talk

20:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

My view, which is taken from the "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it" message in the edit page, is that the content can be placed in article space - and modified to suit the current MoS. Providing that the origin of the content is acknowledged then it is license compliant. It may be that this scenario may be mentioned to Rotational in the hope of more co-operation, but if there is no such interaction forthcoming we might consider using this editors use of WP space for the benefit of the project regardless of their wishes. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Around about the same time that Jenuk posted this thread (and whilst I was unaware of it) I began moving these into the mainspace. I didn't (and don't) see any need for discussion on this. Rotational has made it clear that he retains them in his mainspace for reasons that are a violation of our

00:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Of the articles you have moved, I have now bought them up to the MOS guidelines as much as possible. Now we wait for the proverbial to hit the fan ;-)

Talk

01:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

When I consider the options before Rotational at this point, I can see little prospect for anything hitting the fan. His editing restriction prevents him from reverting your edits; reverting my page moves will achieve nothing, as his editing restriction still prevents him from reverting your edits, and I don't imagine he fancies hosting MOS-conformant material in his userspace. All we can really expect is a talk page rant; and whilst I welcome scrutiny and discussion of my edits, and I'm sure you do the same, we're under no obligation to respond to him if all he has to say is the same old stuff with a few new insults. Hesperian 02:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Rotational has now moved them all back into his userspace. I think it is time an uninvolved administrator had a close look at this. Hesperian 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am uninvolved and made a polite request there. --John (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. User is making conspiracy charges.--

M^ask?

07:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, since it'll have to be cleaned up, the editors reversion of the move left an absurd number of cross namespace redirects. --

M^ask?

07:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Oi, this has definitely moved into the area of

WP:OWN. While I applaud the work that has gone into creating these articles, user *must* understand that he can't retain indefinite and unquestioned control over content here. If they are good enough to be mainspace articles, and most appear to be so, that is the appropriate place for them. — Huntster (t • @ • c

) 10:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact the user has made no attempt to make any comment on his actions anywhere other than on a random users talk page, says it all really!

Talk

12:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the articles back into the mainspace and protected them from being moved again until Rotational comments on the matter on their talk page or here. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 14:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I support this action. --John (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There was peace and quiet until Jenuk1985 and Hesperian decided to stir up trouble - again. The guideline quoted states While userpages and subpages can be used as a development ground for generating new content, this space is not intended to indefinitely archive your preferred version of disputed or previously deleted content or indefinitely archive permanent content that is meant to be part of the encyclopedia. In other words, Wikipedia is not a free web host. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion. Does "indefinitely" mean more than a week, a month, a year or perhaps even a lifetime? - it is not stipulated, leaving any interpretation open to administrators with impaired faculties. My reasons for working on the articles in my userspace were clearly stated on my talkpage: "They're created in my userspace because that is the only way to edit in peace without being harassed by a band of 8-10 editors who don't like my layouts and have made a crusade of stalking my contributions." There is an implied sanctity about one's own userspace which should not readily be invaded without a compelling reason - it is tantamount to WP rape. The unfortunate combination of over-achieving and impoverished intellect seem to crop up frquently whenever these editors are involved. Improvement of WP is the last thing on their minds. Rotational (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you like to write that again, without the attacks and hyperbole, so we can see exactly what the issue is? ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 09:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would it not have been a good idea to look into the issues before you "moved the articles back into the mainspace and protected them from being moved again" or -radical thought- protected them from being moved from my userspace? The automatic assumption that I must be in the wrong places a great strain on your being seen as a disinterested party Rotational (talk) 10:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be quite blunt, shall we? Userspace is intended as a collection of personal thoughts and correspondence, as well as an off-the-beaten-path area for working on projects. It is not intended that it be a locked door closed to everyone else. Quite the opposite; as with any other location in Wikipedia, it can be edited by anyone. Let me put it this way, Rotational: if you want to keep a copy of those articles in your Userspace (best an earlier version that only you had edited) to change around at your leisure, that is your prerogative. But you cannot forcibly keep these articles out of the mainspace if editors feel they are ready for inclusion. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What Huntster said. I note you haven't withdrawn the attacks (I hoped you'd pick up the hint) and are now spreading them around to include me and my actions. This is not the way to make friends and influence people. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 10:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've stated repeatedly - my aim on WP is to contribute material. It is one of the tragedies of WP that little seems to be possible without cementing alliances, joining gangs, fraternising, sucking up, awarding and receiving barnstars and generally treating the place like a Country Club. All of which is very useful when seeking that Holy Grail of Wikipolitics: community consensus, which means nothing more than getting a few of one's buddies around to register support. Look at how extensive the involvement is of editors in the present discussion - are any really concerned or is it more a case of grandstanding?. No doubt at the end of this the cry of 'consensus' will go up and this issue will be marked as 'resolved'. So are you surprised that I label Jenuk1985 and Hesperian 'trouble-stirrers' - at the end of this exercise WP certainly will not have gained anything. Rotational (talk) 11:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Right, you have issues with Wikipolitics. I can understand that, I think most of us around here do. But there's a specific issue here that I'd like you to address. From what you've said, it sounds to me like these articles you have written - and they're good, very good - are not intended for the mainspace. Or are intended for the mainspace when certain editing styles/patterns/techniques/cliques/etc are changed or abandoned. Am I right so far? Now, you and I both know that change in this place is pretty well impossible. So these articles are planned to sit in your userspace forever, to make the point that you disagree with the Manual of Style and its enforcement. Wikipedia therefore has in its grasp some great articles, but can't have them.

If I'm right, and I'm

WP:DR is another route to consider. You might like to build a userspace essay on what is wrong with the Manual of Style and specifically what should change and why. But fighting the existing model of collaborative editing is a very big thing to take on, and keeping articles in userspace is not the way to do it. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris}

12:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course the articles were written for mainspace - I'm not a tycoon who hides the good art in a cellar so that he may gloat over it at midnight. But that is not the issue - the issue here is whether any editor, and in particular one who has made a crusade of stalking me, has the right or wit to override me and decide when an article is ready to be transferred to mainspace. If you have ever created an article in your user subspace, I am sure you would be heartily offended by such an action. As for "contribute or go away" try to apply that to Jenuk1985, Hesperian and their cronies and see whether they measure up. I enjoy contributing to WP, but not with their likes peering over my shoulder. As I have stated elsewhere, if they have issues with my layout style and truly believe that they have the support of the community at large, then let them step back and allow the chance editor to modify the articles to conform with MoS, but not dog my contributions and pounce the moment I leave. Rotational (talk) 13:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Golly, what a great idea, Rotational! Yes, do let's apply "contribute or go away" to Hesperian, and see if he measures up: 125,000 edits, of which over 100,000 are to the mainspace; well over 1000 articles created; 5 featured articles; and a tiny fraction of the drama generated by Rotational in half the time. Over 20,000 Wikisource contributions; over 7000 Commons edits and over 8Gb of Commons uploads. But apparently Hesperian doesn't contribute; Hesperian has nothing better to do than stalk Rotational. Poor Rotational, who merely wants Wikipedia to use a layout that everyone but him finds butt-ugly, and who has the integrity to stop at nothing to achieve that humble goal. Hesperian 13:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Hesperian, if your 125 000 edits are of the same quality as the ones I've been subjected to, then you shouldn't shout it abroad. Rotational (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. My edits are all crap. Yours are much better. Like this stunningly beautiful sequence of eleven reverts:[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. You must be so proud. Hesperian 14:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you would like to bring my actions/contributions up then I suggest you start a new ANI thread! I have nothing to hide.

Talk

13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You may have nothing to hide - you also have little to show. Rotational (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk

13:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Jenuk985, Hesperian, & Rotational, your comments here are becoming unproductive. (Especially Rotational.) Either discuss the issue -- whether Rotational can store articles indefinitely in his userspace -- or take a break from this thread. Squabbling like this will only lead one or more of you being sent to the penalty box. -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can help resolve the issue, then do so. Gratuitous pontificating from the sidelines doesn't help anyone. Rotational (talk) 07:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I am giving all three of you a warning: work harder to find more moderate language. Discuss the issue, not each other. If that is "gratuitous pontification", then referees calling fouls in a sports game are guilty of the same thing. -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If reminding a user to be civil is unproductive, then I'm guilty!

Talk

00:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Editorial styles vary. Some editors create new articles as stubs. Other editors create new articles in user space, editing then in bits and pieces, fits and starts, sometimes taking months or even years to finish (I myself have done so). We should bend over backwards to accommodate both styles. The oldest of Rotationals articles moved is only six weeks old! Rotational has said these articles are intended for mainspace, and assuming good faith I take him at his word. I think these articles should be moved back to Rotational's user space, and he be allowed to work on them in peace. Paul August ☎ 20:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree the age of the oldest userspace article does seem quite young, but this is Rotational's style in building an article. He'll edit it consistently for several days and then won't return to it. If he ever does, it's only to edit war on style or make a minor change. Good faith wears thin when the editor in question admits the bad faith motive (explained above). --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Loosmark is engaging in edit warring by removing referenced, consensus edits in articles he otherwise refused to take part in the consensus finding process in a meaningful way, and has lately resorted to grossly uncivil 'arguments' on the talk page. In a related article, an RfC was requested, and soon afterwards he resorted to even more personal attacks in that sections.

This user was already warned to refrain from incivility and to engage in meritful discussion and consensus finding. Kurfürst (talk) 11:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks like forum shopping. You are edit-warring against a consensus of half-a-dozen other editors, and since it isn't working, you are trying to exploit the signs of frustration that the other editors are showing -- that's how it looks. Looie496 (talk) 17:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually its a Polish tag team whose members appeared shorty after a Polish editor started reverting sourced edits with the blunt pretext of 'German war propaganda'. The members of the tag team refuse to discuss any specific concerns they may have about the content on the talk page, apart from labeling them variously as revisionism, nazi sources (NB: the sources used were all written by British historians, one from Sandhurst, one from Jane's etc.), controversial or just flat out uncivil burst outs on the talk pages. Their only activity is stonewalling sourced edits. It seems a Request for Arbitration will be necessary because of this attitude. Kurfürst (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish "tag team"? whatever. The sources were discussed at some lenght but i vaguely remember that in one of the talk pages a non -polish editor said that he has the sources you cited and that the things you claim are in the book aren't really there. Was he also a part of the "Polish tag team"?Loosmark (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please also note that user Kurfürst made other bogus reports in the past.[[13]][[14]].Such behaviour is not only unfair to the falsley acused but also to the Administrators who are wasting their time reviewing. There is also this[[15]][[16]] for some background information if somebody is interested in going into it further. In my opinion user Kurfürst should be warned regarding such conduct.--

talk

) 18:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst seems to be in disagreement with almost every editor on both of those two articles, constantly pushes unreable sources or puts the sources out of contest. He also repeatedly makes controversial edits lying that a consensus was reached for his claims when in fact exactly the opposite is true. Worse than that when somebody reverts his edits he accuses them of removing things for which consensus was reached. Among other things Kurfürst also inserted a completely scandalous claim in the Strategic bombing during World War II article that the Polish Air Force bombed Berlin and his source was that Goebbel made an entry about that in his diary. Loosmark (talk) 18:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please note that the claim about the 'Goebbels source' is untrue, the source was Willmott's Great Crusade, considered by one of the most balanced account of WW2. Willmott himself teaches at the King's Sandhurst military collage. Kurfürst (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You wrote this on talk page: For example, Goebbel's personal diary notes several air raids on Berlin in September 1939. which indicates that you think that the Nazi minister for propaganda, a notorious liar, is a relible source. Loosmark (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The history of the Strategic Bombing article [17] easily shows that there are at least 9 (nine) editors that disagree with Kurfurst's edits. Out of those 9 I think 3 are Polish (myself included). For Kurfurst to claim consensus for himself is just the height of arrogance (and it is, in plain language, called "lying"). This is like a 5th bogus report that Kurfurst has filed on involved editors.

talk

) 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Who are these nine (LOL) editors? Actually, the only ones that keep reverting the same information are Radeks (Polish), Piotrus (Polish) Jacurek (Polish) and Loosmark (Polish). They all started to appear in the article, which they never edited before, shortly after the first one, Radeks deleted some 3000 characters of sourced material, with the comment of 'German war propaganda'. Anyone who bothers to check the discussion page of the article sees that they are refusing to enter into any meritful discussion, give their sources, they simply stonewall any constructive work. Anyone who checks their private talk pages will certainly see that they have plenty of blocks, and they are actively supporting each other on any and all disputed edits, or when one of their buddies gets perma-banned, or restricted from bewhich seems to happen often. Also take note that their 'edits' - see a typical example - are merely blatant removal of sourced statements and are aimed to to create an anti-German atmosphere in the article, which also characterized their edits in other articles. Also take note, that at least 3 other editors opposed or reverted their 'edits'. Note that one administrator also reverted their edits, see: [18].

In addition to the four editors you mention above, in the past two weeks you have also been reverted by Hohum, Ja 62, Phillip Baird Shearer, an anon account, Depi89, and Dawn Bard which, counting the anon, makes it 10. Hohum and Depi89 have also questioned your use of sources and your misrepresenting them. So you're very clearly editing against consensus, and pushing POV based on a misuse of sources. For you to take that and turn it around and claim that your edits are being reverted "against consensus" is really something. There is in fact a pattern here: bogus 3RR reports, misuse of sources by pretending they say what they don't say, claiming consensus when it's 9 v. 1, filing false ANI reports. Like I said above, in plain language this is called "lying". (If someone is planning on throwing the AGF back at me, please read the second para under "About good faith" [19] in the relevant guideline).

talk

) 16:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

These four Polish editors are quite clearly organized and wish to own articles by sheer force of numbers. Kurfürst (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfürst would you please stop with personal attacks against Polish editors? Thank you. Also stop repeating that we "refused to enter meritful duscissions", it was already explained to you that there are problems with your highly selective use of sources. You seemed to started editing those articles with the sole purpose of trivialising the crimes of the Nazi's Luftwaffe which bombarded cities killing innocent civilians. And yes no other editor seemed to agree with your claims, non-Polish editors too. Loosmark (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of a drop reality being preserved, I have used the 1994 E.R. Hooton book, a military historian and expert of Jane's, to describe the events of the strategic bombing in the Polish and other air campaigns in WW2. The Polish editors mentioned have no problem when Hooton describes this or that attack, or when I used Hooton to describe some LW were asking for 'terror attacks' (selective, am I?) but they tendentiously remove when Hooton states that a particular bombing was in accordance to international law, or when Hooton notes that some subordinated LW officers sabotaged the higher orders, and changed the targets for military ones, and were sacked for this soon after. So when Hooton describes what they want to hear is OK, when he does not, Hooton is suddenly not OK. Kurfürst (talk) 12:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst is a POV editor who has caused massive trouble on various articles. Just today, he vandalised an article (which I have not edited) which had information he didn't like, and it was cited. He has been blocked more than enough times, at some point, enough becomes enough. Dapi89 (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Take note for context that Dapi89 is a highly confrontational editor who seeks to stalk members he had edit disputes, which he readily admitted himself. He actively seeks confrontation on all all discussion pages, see [20] Also take note that Each and every one of Dapi89's blocks were due to seeking an edit war and personal attacks against me. Kurfürst (talk) 10:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kurfurst, stop lying. The feebleness of your position is evident to everyone. Its you that is the problem Kurfurst, I have never ever had any trouble with any other editor for this long (in fact not at all). And you Kurfurst, have been blocked eight or nine times - once indefinitely, (for Gross incivility) which was reduced to a month on the condition you reformed - which you have not. And six of those blocks were for warring with me.

You only compromise when it is on your terms, otherwise you edit war and make false complaints about those you are attacking. Your edits are distinctly appologist and pro-Axis, and you have been called out on this god knows how many times over these past 18 months.

And that rubbish about me being confrontational is just that. And its fantastically ironic. Your behaviour stinks and you are agenda driven Is is anywonder your edits are policed Kurfurst, and that you simply don't have a good reputation here. Dapi89 (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it speaks for itself that Dapi89 dares to resort to this kind of behaviour even on the Administrator's noticeboard... Kurfürst (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As several editors pointed out, this thread is nothing but block shopping. The only incivility (and

14:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The crocodile tears are somewhat unconvincing. I have reviewed your talk pages - the coordination between is evident. See: Loosmark [21] See: Jacurek, and [22]. See Piotrus and Piotrus when Jacureck's roll back rights were revoked. Secondly, in the said article, one Polish editor turns up, reverts a mass of sourced statements, with the commant of 'German war propaganda'. Curiously, immidiately afterwards, 3 other Polish editors turn up, they keep deleting sourced statements, but refuse to discuss it on the talk page. Coincidence. When consesus is formed via discussino with other, reasonable editors, they still keep reverting, and the only comment they gave for their reverts are 'no cosensus', 'controversial sources' and 'POV pushing'. Who are we kidding, really? Its the same song every time - and yes, the DIGWUREN listing is one these tricks, you seem to try to use it against all editors you have dispute with - a rather ironic suggestion from an editor who otherwise simply refuse to enter any kind of meritful discussion on talk pages on the actual content of articles. Kurfürst (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ok I've to agree with Piotrus: some admin should act. Kurfürst is constantly lying that a consensus was reached when it is 100% clear from the talk page that's completely untrue (unless consensus for him means he's in consensus with himself), plus the repeated baseless accusations against Polish editors are simply defamatory. @Kurfürst: how is the editing of the

Battle of Belgium (1940), Supermarine Spitfire operational history, Messerschmitt Bf 109 going? Are you still arguing and removing sources there? Loosmark (talk

) 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I checked the diffs, and I'm not really convinced they constitute "gross uncivility". Proper block shopping needs much better diffs. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Lucy-marie (talk · contribs)

The user above is edit-warring about the use of flags on dozens of Formula One related articles. This stems back to this discussion at WT:F1 where it was in general agreed (after a very long discussion) to have flags distingushed for where the race was actually run, i.e. races in Germany would have the German flag in the infobox, regardless of the official race title (i.e if it was under the European Grand Prix title). This appeared to be OK until Lucy-marie began edit-warring and changing them back to the original version despite the consensus. I told her to stop here and she appeared to have stopped. However, despite being in knowledge of such discussion, she appears to have started edit-warring again, see [23][24] and even marking a controversial change as minor.

It appears Lucy-marie has edit warred before, see this discussion on her user page from March. I don't know if a block is in order here, but I don't think Lucy-marie's actions are construction. I would revert, but don't have any intention of getting into a revert war. D.M.N. (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see the discussion on the talk page it was partly-resolved and the use of the national flags in place if the EU flag was discussed and deemed to be inappropriate and confusing. The user who reverted did so against the consensus of the discussions on

) 12:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as a casual viewer on this particular subject, if the purpose of the flag is to show where the race was run, the specific national flag would surely be better than the EU flag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The flags concern the European GP and not a second German grand Prix or Second Spanish GP. The San Marion GP took place in Italy, but the San Marino flag is still used.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it sounds like the dispute is not so much about which flag to use, but about what the actual purpose of the flag is - to indicate the location, or to indicate the "sponsor". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What is the purpose of the flag supposed to be? What information does it add? --John (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Formula one rules prohibit the use of the same race name more than once throughout the season, e.g. no 2 Italian Grand Prix, so we Have the San Marino GP and the Italian GP and accordingly the flag of San Marino is used to represent the name of the country in the race title. This is the same principle for the European GP the FIA use the European Flag on their international broadcasts for the European GP just as they used the San Marino Flag for the San Marino GP even though it was actually in Imola, Italy. as such we need to be consistent and follow the same rules as the sport uses or we are misrepresenting the subject.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A nation's flag is not the name of a race. The original complainant states that the purpose of the flag is to indicate the physical location of the race. You're saying its purpose is something to do with the name of the race. Obviously, there is disagreement about the purpose of the flags. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The original complaint surrounded a nation or nation-like entity which does not exist, the pacific. The discussion evolved into use of lags in general and it was concluded that the name of the race was the flag that should be used. This is not possible for the Pacific Grand Prix so has no flag attached.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If the flag does not show the physical location of the race, what useful information does it provide? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It indicates which Grand Prix it represents rather than where the race physically held, this is done to enable easy identification of the races in lists and to disambiguate from other races held in the same country.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the complainant disagrees with what it means, and as a casual observer, I would lean toward his argument. For comparison, consider the 1992 and 1993 World Series. It would be liking placing the U.S. Flag next to the games in Toronto just because MLB is based in the USA. It's useless in that case. But in any case, this looks like an unsettled content dispute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you put the Spanish flag next to the Catalan Moto GP, us because it was held in Spain, I do though see your point with world series but that is a wholly different sport.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It depends on what the purpose of the flag is. That's what seems to be in dispute. Presumably at some point the original complainant will come back here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I should note the person that first changed the flags on Formula One articles was Andrwsc on March 20th, see here for an example of his edit. The reason given was "use flag of Japan for Pacific Grand Prix, instead of inappropriate Flag of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community, of which Japan is not even a member". He's been doing this for dozens of articles outside of Formula One and sport as a whole, which suggests to me it is a Wikipedia wide issue - has a central discussion taken place about flag issues such as this one? Besides, it doesn't lean away from the fact that Lucy-marie appears to have edit-warred, against consensus on the above articles. D.M.N. (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The changes I made were in-line with consensus and why wast the other editor not pulled up on their reversions on 22 May, this strikes of one rule for me and one rule for the other user.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The complainant claims you are acting against consensus. You can't both be right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The complainant is wrong, in this instance, the discussion is long and complex and has not reached any consensus to change the use of the EU flag, it has though agreed not to use the flag of the secretariat of the pacific community.--Lucy-marie (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, please stop edit-warring. I've told you to stop and discussion yet you are carrying on reverting: [25][26][27][28][29][30][31]. Please stop otherwise an adminstrator could block you. The WT:F1 discussion has AlexJ, Cs-wolves, Chubbennaitor, myself, Falcadore, Petera93, and some others agreeing with the changes (look at the table halfway down that section to prove this). Some disagree, but the majority agree. D.M.N. (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)#

I am simply restoring the original consensus, there currently appears to be little support for the edits which I have reverted, the current discussion are focusing on the inclusion of the use of Flags at all. I also say please stop with the double standards of only singling out my edits and not the other user from May 22. The people you are talking off are opposed by numerous other editors and their voting does not change the consensus, that take virtual unanimity e.g. over 80% of all involved editors.--Lucy-Marie 16:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie, can you see the following bit in the

WT:F1 discussion

?

My proposal is that we adopt the following.

• If a race is named after a geographical entity that is above the level of a country, no flag will be used in the main article and the flag of the host nation shall be used for individual races. Example: The Pacific Grand Prix has no flag in the main article and the Japanese flag is used in 1995 Pacific Grand Prix.
• If a race is named after a country, then said country's flag will be used in the main article and elsewhere, even if the race takes place in a different country. If a flag is required to denote the location of an individual race, the flag of the genuine host country shall be used. Example: The Luxembourg Grand Prix article uses the Luxembourg flag. Individual races use the Luxembourg flag, although if the Nurburgring circuit requires a flag, the flag of Germany shall be used.
• If a race is named after a geographical entity that is below the level of a country, the flag of the country containing said entity shall be used in both the main article and elsewhere. Example: The Abu Dhabi Grand Prix uses the United Arab Emirates flag, because Abu Dhabi is below the level of country.
• If a race is named after something else, no flag will be used in the main article and the flag of the host nation shall be used for individual races. Example: The Glover Trophy shall have no flag in the main article but the flag of the United Kingdom shall be used for individual races.

Would this have support? Readro (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment this was discussed before I entered the discussion so to claim that that is the basis of the consensus is a misrepresentation.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. You were opposing the above, hence the reverts as far as I can tell. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

When I originally reverted I was unaware of this proposal as it was buried in an unwieldy and rambling discussion/vote/mob rule.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

After that bit, I count the following that support (or appear to) and oppose (that appear to) :

• 9 Support (Readro [proposer], Bretonbanquet, Diniz, Chubbennaitor, D.M.N., Alistairjh, Cs-wolves, Petera93, Falcadore
• 3 Opposes (Cybervoron, Mattomatteo27, Lucy-marie)

So, I struggle to see what the problem is seeing as we have a majority *new* consensus. Therefore, you are reverting against consensus. D.M.N. (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussions you are talking of are old and have moved on to discuss the inclusion of the flags at all, the original consensus was reached through voting which is not a substitute for debate, I have yet to hear a coherent argument stating concisely why we should baffle and confuse readers by using a flag that does not correspond to the name of the GP. This hough is not the place and should be discussed on WP:F1. Can you also please stop with the accusations that I am at fault either all reverts are at fault or nobody is. It appears as if there is no consensus as to weather there is a consensus so there is no consensus.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not as of old. Even if discussion moves on, it doesn't mean consensus disappears. Besides, I only see 3/4 people supporting no flags, so the majority would still be with above. This is (for the time being) my final comment here as I'd appreciate some input from outside parties on the above. D.M.N. (talk) 17:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some favour no flag at some favour the Europe flag for the European GP and some favour the daft suggestion of national flags for the European GP. Also a vot wastaken on that proposal before numerous editors had contributed.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A continuation of this discussion can be found on WP:F1.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all happy you've closed this discussion considering you are in it. D.M.N. (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's about the user's edit-warring. They aren't allowed to close it themselves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This is one sided and borderline POV pushing as the complainant is on the other side is the discussion and is in favour of the national flags, rendering them un-impartial. and has descending into a content discussion and should be discussed in the appropriate location on the WIki project talk page not here. Also there is no edit warring occurring, it is a fabrication to state that there is.--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the original complaint was about you edit-warring, so you have no right to close the complaint yourself, without consensus of some kind. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough (even if the discussion has descended into a content dispute).--Lucy-marie (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The other user is now edit warring or at least attempting too I strongly suggest an admin rapidly protects all of the involved pages or this will get out of control very quickly.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly recommend at least 24-hr block for Lucy-marie. Just have a look at the user's contribs and you'll get an idea of project-wide edit warring and showing no indication to stop. This one was less than 15 mins ago even after this and discussion at WT:F1 was started. And the edit summary shows no remorse for editing behaviour. ^LeaveSleaves 19:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me in my opinion i am maintaining original consensus, if you block me you need to block the other user as well or it is double standards just look at the edits which have been undertaken in the last 20 mins, also taking into account the 24 related article edits is wrong as that was a long time ago and have apologised for them.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know were or how (or if) was the consensus about flags reached because i always found the discussion about it a bit boring (and it started already in April if i'm not mistaken). But having said that, in my opion Lucy-marie is 100% correct that we can't have for example a German flag for the European GP, it just doesn't make any sense.Loosmark (talk) 19:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about the content but about Lucy-marie's editing behaviour, which is clearly unacceptable. ^LeaveSleaves 19:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll offer a viewpoint as an uninvolved observer (having watched the initial discussion regarding flag usage with F1 races). How the flags should be used is not the reason for this ANI. Rather, it appears to be here because User:Lucy-marie has edited F1 articles resetting flags to their liking, even though it is not what the F1 Wikiproject decided. Their initial edits that occurred a month ago (such as [32]) were reverted[33] and the user was directed to the discussion at the F1 Wikiproject[34]. The user has apparently come back this week and made the same edits that they were previously warned not to make as per that discussion. More disturbing, in my opinion, is that User:Lucy-marie made yet another round of similar edits after they were informed that this ANI was created. It's these edits that seem to be non-constructive and a problem. --TreyGeek (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

She is known for doing this. I have previously intervened when she was edit warring against a few people, claiming that there was no consensus simply because she disagreed with them. --Deskana, Champion of the Frozen Wastes 22:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucy-marie's editing does indeed seem to be problematic, and sanctions may be in order. As for the topic at hand, I don't have any clue about Formula One, so I'm eminently qualified to make recommendations under Wikipedia customs. I recommend that flags whose relation to the events is not intuitively obvious are confusing, do not serve WP:Dear Reader, and should be taken out. Four-point listings of flag usage rules may be fun to compose and apply, but the're obviously non-obvious, and thus should not be used to decorate an encyclopædia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

94.54.228.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) was recently warned for removal of sourced information and attacks on Kansas Bear (talk · contribs). The IP received a 12 hour block but has returned and picked up right where it left off. Could someone please take a look? Thank you, Kafka Liz (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I've re-blocked the editor and per the 2007 arbitration case imposed a topic ban on all Balkan-related articles from that IP. This sanction has been recorded here and users of the IP address have been notified here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out. Kafka Liz (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Details here and weigh in there on the AC notification page, alleged pressure by Arbcom members in e-mail in regards to the disposition of

) 13:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but we're all baffled too. Is there anything here that requires administrator attention? It seems that a non-Arb sent you a somewhat confusing two-sentence email. Perhaps you should ask him exactly what he means? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• 201.240.89.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) – vandalism, controvertial edits, as on my talkpage by another user, not sure what to do., including 1, 2, 3 – Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 15:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There is the user, as seen on my talkpage, another editor has expressed concern. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 16:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As the user has failed to engage or acknowledge any of the comments left for them, I have blocked them for 24 hours for disruptive editing and left them a block warning explaining the reasons and that they should spend the time they are blocked reading the guidelines that they have been directed to. Mfield (Oi!) 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ramu50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 75.154.186.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ramu50 is an indefblocked user that has been using the IP account 75.154.186.241. The anon has admitted to being Ramu in this post and has said he will be editing on that IP for "1 year+". This is a clear-cut case of block evasion and I believe the IP should be blocked for that year that Ramu plans on using it. If not, some other form of block should be issued to stop the block evasion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It would not hurt for someone else to review the case, but I'll block tomorrow if nobody else reviews. Ramu50 exhausted the communities patience quite badly earlier and seems to be up to old tricks with this IP. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Block on IP 75.154.186.241 was restarted (for 1 month) and the talk page was blocked as well by

User:Rootology. - NeutralHomer • Talk

• 05:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

72.231.253.33 / 74.78.20.70

Bert Schlossberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is a single-purpose account, of a self-styled expert on the Korean Airlines shootdown from a few decades ago; the purpose being to find every possible venue here, to either directly or indirectly promote his book and his website. Is this appropriate? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you expecting anyone to say, "Yes", Bugs? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's been known to happen. Maybe I should instead ask, "What is the appropriate course of action, if any, to address this situation?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(Devil's advocate) Well, he certainly does seem to have a very narrow focus, and his userpage does link to his website (and he's raised an OTRS ticket apparently in order to use his website's material here). However, his recent edits at least do seem to be useful (wikignomery, though within the narrow area Bugs' mentions). I've not gone back beyond the last 3-4 edits, though.

Moonriddengirl has had some interaction with respect to the OTRS ticket; I'd be interested in her views here. I don't have a strong opinion yet, beyond tending to respect Bugs' judgement.

Cheers,

propaganda_deeds

13:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see my name. :) On June 6th, a communication was sent to OTRS; further information was requested. The contributor did not reply. On June 11, I pointed out that a response was still needed and offered assistance. The contributor has subsequently edited but not replied to my note; a search of OTRS shows no signs that he supplied the further information requested. Accordingly, the article tagged has been deleted, and I left him another note explaining how to proceed if he wishes to donate this text. I don't have any familiarity with the material; my involvement has been purely with respect to the copyright question. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the copyright discussion farther up the page, I'm trying to get some clarity on the matter - not about theoretical policy, but about practical application. A year or two ago I raised a similar issue here, about a user who was blatantly promoting his own work. I was shouted down for it, and he was allowed to get away with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I usually don't mix copyright work with other matters, but on occasion will list an article for review at

WP:COIN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

13:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you show some examples of where he is self-promoting? I believe that

WP:COIN is the normal place to sort out if interested parties are behaving in violation of wikipedia policy. Unomi (talk

) 13:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This subject first came up on ANI a week or two ago, related to copyright violation - specifically, posting his own information in blatantly self-promotional articles. As MRG notes above, he has yet to back up his promise to release the copyright on them (hence her deletion of those articles), but failure to follow up raises questions as to whether he is the real author or not. Supposing he is the real author, his website [37] now appears in some 15 articles, and his edits are designed to lead back to the KAL007 incident (and hence to his website), some way or another. He said at some point, when I questioned him about relinquishing his own copyright, that he was willing to do so in order to get the truth out there. [38] Honk! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Stalking and Harrassment of Nassim Taleb by Ulner

I am a connected to the Taleb family (Nassim Nicholas Taleb) whose living biography wikipedia is handling; I only act to correct distortions and harrassment and do not add new material. I would like to report userUlner as obsessed with Taleb and making every single change possible on every item and bickering, in a way that exhibits web stalking of a living person, causing much DISTRESS to Taleb's family. I would like to seek Ulner refrain from further harassment of Taleb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 21:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC) IbnAmioun (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with User:Ulner? I don't see any messages on their talk page, but I may be missing something. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 23:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered that you might have a

WP:COI conflict of interest and that maybe you shouldn't be involved with the Taleb articles? Who cares about minor misrepresentations on wikipedia? They hardly matter but having someone so dedicated to observe your articles sorta raises the suspicions of users that there really might be something unwritten worth knowing regarding the matter. Anyway I'll be keeping a closer eye on Taleb related articles from now on.--194x144x90x118 (talk

) 23:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

194x144, that wasn't entirely helpful. Please

WP:AGF

IbnAmioun - Also, please

assume good faith

about other contributors. You seem to be reacting very defensively to other editors who want to help improve the article. I've reviewed a dozen or so changes and none of them seem to be abusive or vandalism. If you have specific examples that you're concerned about, either on the article or the talk pages, please provide them here.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the help. My problem with User:Ulner is that he seems obsessed (to make 50 entries in such a short span betrays obsession) and he bickers over the smallest thing as he is doing now --any small detail seems to be a stumble to him. There is no problem if you have editors going back and forth on a point but you should realize that someone FROM THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE INDUSTRY (of which Taleb is extremely critical) making 50 edits on a living person without others intervening can be extremely distorting. IbnAmioun (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This basically seems to be a content dispute at Nassim Nicholas Taleb. That article seems over-written, and might be trimmed down a bit. It is a bit laudatory; the guy tanked two hedge funds with his strategy, but that's not mentioned. (His basic concept was kind of cute - buy options on both sides that are way out of the money, on the theory that the market underprices options far from the current price. This pays off when something drastic happens, and bleeds money when markets are relatively stable. Hence his paper "Bleed or Blowup", and his "Black Swan" book.) This needs attention from someone who understands derivative strategies. Is there a laid-off quant in the house? --John Nagle (talk) 06:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The trading strategies are marginal to Taleb thought books and papers. While Taleb published a cherished

The Black Swan) are about knowledge, science and making decisions in life. He is mostly known for his books. His sceintific works are also much about knowledge extremem events and risk, and rarely touches the hedge fund strategy. Yechezkel Zilber (talk

) 00:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The situation is far more serious than you think. Taleb and the Taleb family has been getting threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB. These threats have been reported in the WSJ journal. <ref.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123457658749086809.html?mod=rss_topics_davos#articleTabs%3Darticle</ref> —Preceding unsigned comment added by IbnAmioun (talk • contribs) 08:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the following text from the talk page of Taleb to be a personal attack in violation of Wikipedia policy: "The harassment situation is far more serious than you think, which is why we worry about such obsessive users as Ulner . Taleb and the Taleb family has been getting threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB. These threats have been reported in the WSJ journal.". Ulner (talk) 11:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

IbnAmioun seems to be making legal threats on the Nassim Nicholas Taleb talk page: "You should look at the consequences of obsessive stalking a character" [39], and "When someone like Ulner spends his ENTIRE time obsessed with a subject, this raises issues of stalking that may play a role in a COURT of LAW". [40] He's also accusing the other user of mental disorders. --Anderssl (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Discussed above somewhere.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• "Legal threats on talk page of Taleb" and "Stalking and Harrassment of Nassim Taleb by Ulner" are the two I see at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, sorry, my bad. There was no notice of this at the talk page of the article, so I didn't realize this was already being discussed here. --Anderssl (talk) 21:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Threats from associates of Taleb are apparently a known problem. See [41], where
      J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., a well-known economist, describes his run-in with Taleb and his supporters. Some short-term blocks may be in order here. --John Nagle (talk
      ) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated unprofessional administrator conduct.

Recently I was banned for 24 hours for incorrectly posting to the wrong notice board personal attacks on me and edit warring on the Talk:Ayn Rand. At least two other high level administrators pointed out that the action of me being banned was questionable. It pissed me off enough to believe that wikipedia is corrupt. Enough to get me to retire. Now when a Professor whom I am an fan of and have no connection with in my personal life gets another set of Axe to Grind harrassing Editors on his article when I comment on the inappropriateness of their conduct. Not they, but me get a singled out of the blue with a completely erronious comment posted on my talkpage. 1.[42]

For the comment above and as a by product of my past banning, I have went and attempted to address this with the administrator on his talkpage. Rather then note their oversight and actually reign in other editors who are attacking the Taleb estate rep and are incorrectly using Wikipedia policy to do it. This administrator blamed me and has and obviously will do nothing to address the inappropriate behavior even as it appears to continue. If the administrator was concerned as they claim why no more involvement in Taleb's issue? Say on the talkpage? Why was the issue allowed to be escalated to an

? Well I think that no administrator cared to stop the behavior and would rather comment at the time on mine.
I would like an apology from the administrator in question. Do not bother to blame me or attack me with for this nonsense. I have no control over administrators here in wiki. Their short sightedness and knee jerk and incorrect reactions do not belong to me as I did not have control over them and make them screw up. I would like an apology first for being blocked arrogantly and unjustifably. Also an apology in relation to the article for being separated out from pack for direct and very public criticism, for comments that where completely restrained and appropriate. Comments in hindsight that most definitely were within reason in light of recent information posted to the article.

LoveMonkey (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since I don't know how to defend myself against a statement that telling him to comment on the content, not the contributors, is a threat, I'll just sit this out for now.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's just bizarre. There are serious problems at
    talk
    ) 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The 3-tier diff and link series
Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide Wikipedia:Simple diff and link guide Wikipedia:Complete diff and link guide

• LoveMonkey, you need to provide evidence and links and diffs. I honestly can't understand the point that you are trying to make. Jehochman ^Talk 16:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Why has SarekOfVulcan singled me out and make no attempt to stop the harassment on the Taleb talkpage? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Taleb has already contacted the Wikipedia office. And yet nothing is being done to stop the harassment. Look at the ANI on this page where the editor is reporting Taleb's legal representive for Wikipedia Policy violations. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Why was I singled out? Taleb has a WSJ article about potential death threats. I post a defense that inappropriate behavior is going on by other editors on the article and I am the only one getting comments posted on their talkpage. Why? LoveMonkey (talk) 16:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Why has SarekOfVulcan not addressed the other editors misuse of Wiki policy to frustrate and discourage Taleb representative from posting to address their percieved harassment? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
    • SarekOfVulcan's note to you seems quite mild and entirely appropriate to me. Even if there were other issues with the page, if it was yours that he saw, he was right to remind you of Wikipedia behavioral expectations:
      WP:DR. Administrators, too, are human and not all-seeing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
      17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I am requesting an explaination on how a talkpage can prompt the living breathing human being it is about to pick up the phone and call the foundation. And the only person who get commented on isn't even the target of the living persons complaint.[43] I have every right and justification to complain.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
        • SarekOfVulcan has done nothing to clean up the mess. Why are opposing editors allowed to misuse WP policies to attempt and silence someone's restate representative? Where is SarekOfVulcan at? Making remarks about me on my talkpage. One of the editors had already filed an ANI on here as can be seen above. Where is SarekOfVulcan's involvement. Where is his comments to them? Nowhere. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I do not know what drew SarekOfVulcan to the conversation, but unless SarekOfVulcan is the individual who received that phone call and unless he responded to an investigation only by singling out your edit specifically, I'm not sure that the two situations are related. If he has not accepted responsibility for investigating and addressing any global issues, then he is not solely responsible for addressing the BLP concerns in the article. Such concerns should be taken very seriously and investigated with due diligence, but if Sarek may be approaching your comment as a separate issue. I have read his note to you, and, again, it seems mild; it even says that your comment "is probably on the wrong side" of the proper approach in conversations instead of flatly accusing you of incivility or a personal attack. Certainly, if no other attention is paid to BLP concerns, I would see why you might be upset, but demanding it of this administrator in particular may be misguided. Perhaps if the whole situation were less emotional and you had not recently been blocked by another administrator in a way you felt unfair, Sarek's behavior here might not seem so extreme and objectionable to you? If the BLP concerns are not being addressed, they should certainly be pursued, but you might find it more productive to focus on that rather than Sarek's concerns with this one statement. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
          • (Your repeatedly asking your question may be preventing responses. I got three consecutive edit conflicts in my attempts to answer you and would have given up if I had gotten a fourth. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
            • OK now that is exactly the reasonable and respectable response I have been seeking. I am not OK with getting called out and then having my grievences ignored or sarcastically rebuffed. THANK YOU. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I apologize about the edit conflicts I have been getting them too and they have really made me frustrated. You are an angel. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sarekofvulcan seems to be the spotlight of many unsatisfied editors and complaints, Please see this for other examples of Sareks misconduct here on wikipedia. It is my honest opinion that this user should indeed not have access to any admin tools and I am going to have to file a review of conduct regarding this admin at a later time but in the meantime I'd ask you LoveMonkey Please to discontinue posting messages here for the time being and to let uninvolved administrators review your complaint in peace.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Who is this editor. Who are you to speak to the process and the policies here? Are you still keeping an eye on Taleb's representive? Are you still pursuing getting him blocked from the article or banned. For WP:Policy vios? LoveMonkey (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a little difficult to figure out from the above exactly where things are. If somebody has physically called the Wikimedia Foundation and a Wikimedia Foundation representative has indicated that they will investigate and/or deal with this, then this matter is out of the community's hands and even administrators should leave it to our legal representatives to address. Almost everyone you encounter on this page, administrator or not, is going to be a volunteer, and few of us are empowered to address concerns at that level. If, however, there has not been contact made to the Wikimedia Foundation or a Wikimedia Foundation representative has advised that the community must resolve this, it would probably be best to open a section at a forum established to address these situations, like
    dispute resolution may be necessary (though unless material is poorly sourced contentious text, immediate admin intervention may not be). If there are concerns that material being added is libelous, it may be very helpful to point out a specific problem so that other contributors who do not know who the subject of this article is (like me) would better be able to see why there are concerns. Not knowing anything about him, I mean no disrespect when I say that even if material is negative, it's not a violation of policy if it is (a) verifiable and (b) not overly emphasized. I am very sorry if the subject of this article and his friends and family are feeling unsafe, and I hope that your concerns about the situation can be swiftly resolved. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk)
    18:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Since diffs have been requested, here are some that a quick review turns up:

• "Please stop making the unneccessary attacks on Ulner, he is not a stalker but working hard, in good faith, on a wikipedia article […] If you do want to contribute, please do so in a positive way - you are more than capable - and use reliable third party sources to bakc your arguments. Thank you."
• "Your pedantic wrangling is nothing but a ruse you are here to defame."
• "Do you agree with Ulner on all points there? Why are you defending him?"
• "You know what you are doing, you are all grown up and your motivations can not be masked by your seemingly deficient understanding. I bet your probably abit more then just someone with a passing interest. "
• "Please clarify why you are responding to my comments as such. It appears as if the very devil himself has materialized."
• "Please clarify why you are responding to my comments as such. It appears as if the very devil himself has materialized."
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&oldid=295584044#Your_comment_on_my_Talkpage
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SarekOfVulcan&oldid=295584044#Wall_Street_Journals_comments_on_Death_Threats_to_Nassim_Taleb

This may shed some more light, here.

The actual dispute at hand in the article itself? Apparently it's over whether this person is a "writer" or "literary essayist", and whether he is a "scholar". SarekOfVulcan has no involvement in the dispute whatsoever that I can find. Uncle G (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nassim Taleb picked up the phone and called the foundation (or had legal rep do it) because of the dispute over him being a "writer" or "literary essayist". Gee could someone wonder why I might be frustrated at the handling of this? How does that address why Sarekofvulcan just addressed me? Did nothing before or after until I raised caine?

Anybody? This above appears to diminish the gravity of the situation? And also grossly mispresent it.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what your question is here. It seems to be, "Why was the issue allowed to be escalated to an (sic) WP:Office?" Which, we have no control over. If Taleb called the Office, that's beyond our control. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop

We have been allowing this to continue for some time, in the interest of giving those associated with Nassim Nicholas Taleb an open forum on issues related to

our policy for biographical articles

.

However...

LoveMonkey - you have made numerous threats and negative comments about other editors and about administrator SarekOfVulcan's involvement here. This must end immediately. Wikipedia policy is clear:

Editors should assume that others are working in good faith, unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary

. Comments and warnings made earlier all appear to be consistent with Wikipedia policy and in direct response to your series of threats and abusive messages.

IbnAmioun - this warning applies to you as well. You have described as threats, harrassment, or stalking edits which to others appear perfectly reasonable attempts to improve articles and follow Wikipedia policy. Attacking other editors in this manner is unacceptable behavior, and it has continued for some days.

If there are further abusive comments or personal attacks in this discussion editors will be blocked from editing briefly. This discussion cannot happen in a reasonable and constructive manner if key participants refuse to communicate in an adult manner.

Please communicate what each of your relationships are with the article subject.

LoveMonkey - you refer to being blocked earlier today or yesterday, but there is no block log record of that. Please clarify.

There has been extensive mention of real life threats. However, there is no evidence presented that anyone participating in Wikipedia is connected to those. If Taleb or a representative called the Wikimedia Foundation, please let us know if you have evidence of or asserted any such relationship between editors here and actual real life threats.

Please explain, briefly, and without any further attacks or insults to other users / editors / administrators.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

There are serious problems with the article, about both unreferenced puffery--and the practice of trying to balance it with negative comments about the subject. Rather, a NPOV article needs to be written. A editor who lists "Fields: Scholar, Essayist, Public Intellectual, Statistician, Risk Engineer and Trader" in the infobox is not following NPOV policy, and neither is one who selects negative quotes from reviews. I'm not that happy with Taleb distribution either, which includes the phrase "The term is therefore increasingly used" , wording that typically indicates using WP for original research. I gather from the article on the person that there is criticism to be added here for a balanced article. I would suggest that both Ulner and those who have been called here the Taleb representatives stay clear of editing these articles. Whether or not people with COI should start their own bios, once neutrality is questioned, then they need to refrain. IbnAmioun's complaints amount to a claim of OWNership. DGG (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have made no threats to anyone. Please clarify.

"LoveMonkey - you have made numerous threats"

LoveMonkey (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

DGG it would be an honor to have you edit the article. The issue is that a very busy editor (with a buddy or two defending him) is editing the article in a negative direction. Fights and questions when their edits are shown to do that. No administrator got involved and or has addressed this. They seem to like to comment on my behavior exclusively. And you know I think no one would really be that up in arms with the editwarring (enough to make the issue WP:Office) but the questionable editor is not only misrepresenting Taleb but a Nobel Peace Prizing Winning Myron Scholes. Bad bad misrepresentation of allot of important persons getting inappropriately thrown in the mix, and it really doesn't belong here. Now this in real world context with the WSJ mention of potential death threats to Taleb&family and I would imagine him abit antsy. So much for sympathy for living people, policy here is more important. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(I mentioned this above in a previous Taleb section. We probably need to consolidate Talib discussions on a subpage.) See [44], where

J. Barkley Rosser, Jr., a well-known economist, describes his run-in with Taleb and his supporters. This is a must-read for anybody dealing with this matter. --John Nagle (talk

) 15:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks for the link, John. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The article from Rosser mentions no supporters at all. Why the assertion? LoveMonkey (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently got interested in this article (beginning of June) and I thought it had some NPOV problems. To try to balance the article I added a reference to a short criticism from Scholes. This citation of Scholes is a fair quote from [[45]], and is not as sometimes has been claimed, taken out of context. I tried to explain my reason for making this edit after complaints by IbnAmioun. Later this section about criticism from Scholes was rewritten by Yechezkel Zilber, and I responded that the new sentence written by him was good. This follows the usual procedure of making edits, discussing, thinking, reaching a compromise - which is characteristic of Wikipedia. In addition to the major edit above, I have made some minor edits trying to change the tone of the article to be more compatible with NPOV.

The users IbnAmioun and LoveMonkey have, instead of discussing the content of the article and trying to reach a compromise, responded with personal attacks. IbnAmioun has as well responded with legal threats. IbnAmioun have recently made a very serious personal attack which in the same section talks about "obsessive users as Ulner" and "threats by unemployed finance people who have been stalking them both PHYSICALLY and on the WEB." I would like the personal attacks and legal threats to stop. Furthermore, I would kindly ask IbnAmioun to delete his comment linking me to "threats by unemployed finance people". Ulner (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

These matters seem very complicated and Ulner is correct regarding his complaint this indeed is uncalled for and a personal attack. The section needs to be removed and IbnAmioun needs to be warned regarding this type of behavior, a short length block might also be in order since there seem to be other instances of personal attacks present from this user on the talkpage. Ulners complaint regarding LoveMonkey seems to me to be mostly without merits, some of LoveMonkeys edits may not be 100% civil but they seem to be good faith edits, if Ulner has any definite proof of Lovemonkeys conduct then I ask that he provide diffs. If these matters continue to haunt the Administrators noticeboard then I suggest that the article and its talkpage be Locked for a week to allow parties to cool down.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Having read the talk page of Taleb again ([46]) I agree with 194x144 that the LoveMonkey's edits have been made in good faith. Ulner (talk) 06:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Now in reflection I ask Ulner to go back and look at the Criticism section on the talkpage and how Ulner joined the discussion appearing to argue on behalf of Elroch. Elroch who had just gotten criticized for strongly showing a very nasty personal bias toward Taleb. Elroch's comments and conduct are, or where and could be the cause of such a stir with the Taleb estate. Ulner tacked his comments on at the end of the discussion. This gives the impression that Ulner is now a continuation of elroch.

LoveMonkey (talk) 12:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Again could someone actually address Ulner? And please tell Ulner to address the issues here. Ulner is now making this two discussions one on my talkpage and one here which confuses the whole thing even more.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Having realized that the LoveMonkey's edits was made in good faith; [47] - I tried to respond and explain the reason for filing an ANI report against IbnAmioun on LoveMonkey's talk page - but he thinks the discussion should take place here - so I post my response here: "I would like to reply to your comments on the Taleb talk page: [48].

I added the Scholes criticism into the article, and this section was discussed and subsequently given a new formulation of Yechezkel Zilber [49]. I stated that I thought his new formulation was good.

Anyone who does not agree that this new formulation is good can continue to discuss it in the talk page: [50] - state exactly which sentence they think violates NPOV and propose a solution (for example delete the sentence). Anyone who thinks that a sentence in the article constitutes libel can according to the

delete or change the sentence immediately.

Instead of following any of these possible routes of action, IbnAmioun has responded with personal attacks of differents kinds and legal threats. You write "...AND THEN CALLED INTO QUESTION ANOTHER EDITOR FOR ADDING BALANCE AND NPOV BACK INTO THE ARTICLE." This is not correct - I called into question the personal attacks and legal threats of IbnAmioun - I have not criticised him for trying to add balance and NPOV back into the article."

Regarding your recent comment: "This gives the impression that Ulner is now a continuation of elroch." I have no connection to Elroch - but I probably share some of his opinions about the article. However, this impression does not justify personal attacks or legal threats in any case. Ulner (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ulner notes I wrote "You write "...AND THEN CALLED INTO QUESTION ANOTHER EDITOR FOR ADDING BALANCE AND NPOV BACK INTO THE ARTICLE." This contradicts Ulner comments here[51][52]. Ulner posted at the end of a discussion where editor Elroch made claims that Taleb was patently wrong about some pretty big things [53]. Ulner's criticism appears in context to be attempting to justify what Elroch did and stated. This is the edit where Ulner is critical of User:YechezkelZilber's attempt to balance and be NPOV[54]. Ulner is in essences stating that the obvious mistakes that Elroch made (which are bad) are not mistakes and are justifiable to be included because they are in American Stat (which I believe they are not).LoveMonkey (talk) 15:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I really believe that this argument should be placed on mine or LoveMonkey's talk page, but following his suggestion I place it here:

I thought you were refeering to this edit [55] but I realize now that you are refeering to my edit [56].

Yes, I wrote that "But, by claiming that any statements critical of Taleb are defamatory, you are in effect keeping the number of critical statements of Taleb in the article at a minimum". I thought that IbnAmioun's use of language (example: "user beware") and immediately starting to discuss me, not the content ("By posting an ad hominem attack by Scholes you appear to be part of that wave"), suggested that he was attempting to discourage me from making further edits; see nr 3 here [57]. Ulner (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Note Elroch wrote these whoppers of comments against Taleb and by proxy his place of employment and institutes of his accreditation.
"Taleb is blind, or chooses to be blind to the absolute nature of mathematical truth. It is unlikely that he has ever put in the time (supposing he had the ability) to develop the necessary level of understanding of the theory of distributions and measure spaces, still less their natural context in functional analysis."
And
"Taleb indicates by what he writes that he does not understand either the precise meaning of the theorem or the concepts which are used in its statement, but in his naivety he feels qualified to assert its falsity."
And
"These are rather advanced topics only reached at the end of a good mathematics degree course or in a graduate course, which Taleb lacks."
And
Here Elroch takes a veiled swipe at Taled's ancestry.
"Taleb may be proud of his distant ancestry from an Middle Eastern potentate, but it is worth remembering the anecdote about Euclid who reportedly patiently explained to the first king of Egypt that "there is no royal road to geometry. These days it would be appropriate to replace the word "geometry" by mathematics". Hmmm this one implies that Taleb by being Arab is stupid and not sophisticated enough to know the difference. Go Wikipedia!

Ulner then tacked on the end of this list of very inappropriate comments that the American Statistics Journal was validating some of what Elroch was saying [58].
These comments are defamation to Taleb and the academic institutes that gave Taleb his accreditation. After this Ulner then added to the article the Scholes comments out of context and asked YechezkelZilber for sourcing the context YechezkelZilber added to the article.
LoveMonkey (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I wrote that "I guess that some ot the comments of Elroch above has been mentioned in the articles in American Stat, and hence are candidates for inclusion in this Wikipedia article". I found that Elroch's comments about Taleb's critique of the normal distribution interesting, and I thought that this issue is probably mentioned in American Statistician. This is what I meant when I wrote "some of the comments of Elroch". I never intended to support Elroch's sentences about Taleb's education. Ulner (talk) 16:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

YOU JUST NOW CLARIFIED THAT. After Ibn addressed you in good faith on the talkpage.[59] You never made such a distinction. You just kept editing and arguing.[60] You stated you read and understood and that how dare anyone be upset.[61] You and Editor User:AleXd[62] appear to be tag teaming for elroch. Ibn -again- in good faith pointed this out to you [63]LoveMonkey (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It is easy to misinterpret when discussing non-verbally on the Internet. Still, even when suspecting bad intention of an editor, one should avoid personal attacks, legal threats and try to keep the conversation calm. One should try to be respectful in all communication - for example, on your talk page, you recently wrote "Oh look Ulner is still arguing. No surprise." Ulner (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Still can't take responsibility. Still arguing, still.LoveMonkey (talk) 00:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

LoveMonkey, could you please try to make fewer edits? It makes it very difficult to follow the history like that. Do you not use Preview, or do you just not spot problems until it's too late?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

And could you address the substance of this ANI? Or again are you still only interested in me and not that Wikipedia is being misused. Your comments and behavior are very frustrating and do nothing to address the substance of this. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The last edit to the article was on June 10. Since then, there have only been 8 edits to the talk page, all of which appear to be well within norms for discussion. Therefore, there is nothing to address at the moment.

You, on the other hand, have posted almost 100 times, in several venues, since you first contacted me on the 10th, all regarding this issue. So yes, yours is the behavior that I'm commenting on.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Really then you notice I have already apologized about the repeat edits before your interruption? [64] This previous diff was my second. Nice to see were your focus lies. Low edits without you ever doing anything other then harass me, interesting. The low edits are due to the spotlight now on it. Good you exploit that. As I am done arguing with you, you as a representative of Wikipedia (you are an administrator) have made it quite clear that no matter how obvious or valid the points I make, you will continue with your ridicule and chaste me. Your singling out of me, is not fixing anything and does nothing but frustrate and distract. LoveMonkey (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in this debate whatsoever but I'm dearly hoping the next section will be entitled "Hammer Time" --LiamE (talk) 17:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

There ya go. Egg it on. After I got banned for trying to post ("to the wrong place") when someone made personal attacks (it was called shopping). And with the admins here shooting first and then never finding out. I bet me getting a second hammer is all but done. The policies work in fairly tale land but will get you the hammer when you use them in reality. Oh how dare anyone point out defamation and administrator abuse. God help me for coming to this Professor's defense, stupid stupid me.LoveMonkey (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Way to miss the joke there. As I have pointed out I have no interest in this debate and in fact I dont even know what its about. I was was just scrolling down and passed the heading and a whimsical notion came over me so I expressed it in my post above. If you want to take that as a personal dig feel free to, but as I say I neiher know nor care what has been posted in this discussion so I dont know how you could possibly think it was aimed at you. --LiamE (talk) 18:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. But with the comments about Taleb allowed to stand and not getting addressed and with the way that administrators have harassed and accused me, forgive me for being abit "sensitive".LoveMonkey (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

When you write "But with the comments about Taleb allowed to stand and not getting addressed" I guess you mean comments on the talk page of Taleb. If you want certain parts of the talk page deleted because it constitutes libel, I suggest you open a second ANI section where you post exactly which parts you want deleted. If you mean comments about Taleb in the article itself, I suggest you make a suggestion at the talk page of Taleb. Ulner (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I put in some information about Talib's hedge funds ("Lackluster returns" - WSJ) which was immediately reverted by 83.236.135.58 (talk · contribs). Twice. That IP address edits only the Talib article. There does seem to be a defense system in place. --John Nagle (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

John Nagle, you cited "lackluster returns" without explaining that the fund made 60% before that --and around 100% AFTER that. You should read the full articles before posting matters like that out of context. This is why I reversed. Also I provided gated articles. I saw a comment of yours above saying "the guy tanked two hedge funds with his strategy, but that's not mentioned." WHERE DID YOU READ THIS ? WHERE? WHERE? Do you realize the gravity of what you wrote??????83.236.135.58 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

If you want to participate in the more difficult discussions, it's helpful to register for a Wikipedia account, so that you have a unique identity on Wikipedia. It's free. --John Nagle (talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You act as if Wikipedia is in a vacuum and no one has noticed any of this. As if Wikipedia isn't famous for big nasty issues with WP:BLP.LoveMonkey (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• WP:BLP/N but deletions continue. Struway2 (talk
  ) 20:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This noticeboard is for obvious vandals and spammers only. Consider taking this report to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Do not block yet! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: User claims to be Michael Husbands (This is michael husbands and the info on here about me is not correct and I would like it changed or deleted please) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 20:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Thread above moved from

) 21:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Get a lawyer. It's a complex issue, for all the nasty nuances. It's time for WMF's lawyer to earn his keep and assess the situation. This clearly is not something that can easily and safely be decided by volunteer administrators. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I protected the page and left notes for the alleged

Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) and [email protected]. I'm not sure how much more there is to do, except unprotect the article. Note: the subject seems to have removed cited information about himself. Feel free to unprotect it if so inclined. Toddst1 (talk

) 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take a look at the citation but as long as controversial information is accompanied by a reliable source, then there shouldn't be any problem. If he has a beef with the content, then perhaps he should contact the source rather than trying to whitewash his own article.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the source was the BBC. Toddst1 (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of good form, I decided to take a look at the citations.

original research and should be removed ASAP. The second piece of information is correct and cited properly. The third is questionable and may be just a unique interpretation of the citation, but still may be correct. I would have at least fixed the poorly cited sentence, but alas the page is protected. There was a fourth sentence removed, but that sentence was never reverted back into the article. As of now, the fourth reversion is still not in. As a side note, an anonomous IP was deleting information prior to Golden0098. I can only assume that this is still the same editor, but I only looked at edits made by Golden0098.--Jojhutton (talk

) 03:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The full page protection is a bit extreme considering Golden0098's account is only half a day old and he would not have been able to edit a semi-protected page anyway, semi-protection would have done the trick.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is no longer protected. Toddst1 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little worried about what this user has said.

07:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is clearly related to above problem. 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 07:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But read what they wrote on the talk page. A concern!--

Sky Attacker

07:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are angry about nothing been done against that IP vandal for months. 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to be concerned over the user's comments. I'm a bit suspicious of the username as well as this' user's actions. Consider choosing a username (talk · contribs) has been here for a little over two weeks, and this is his third edit (citing "MoS"). A similar user would be Underscores will be converted to spaces (talk · contribs), who also performed these reverts and in his first edit refers to the edits as reverts and vandalism. This terminology I was not even sure of when I first joined Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The user "retires" saying "I can't stand those lazy Wikipedia admins anymore. Let people destroy the project!". Does this not concern you?--

Sky Attacker

07:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He left having a little hissy fit. He'll be back, or not if I figure out if the account belongs to a previously blocked user.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser?--

Sky Attacker

08:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I will be attempting to contact one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more useful to do something against the IP vandal? 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally cannot do anything in either situation. Post the IP at

WP:AIV. I'm not going to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙

) 08:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time... 김 위원장의 브로큰 엎드려 로켓 (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you don't like it, remove your involvement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Are there any CheckUser's around?--

Sky Attacker

08:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I know a few, but they must be asleep at the moment. But this isn't urgent. Post the IP he's complaining about on AIV and things will resolve themselves in the other thread.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A new account has just appeared and signed an unsigned comment by Consider Choosing A Username. [[65]]--

08:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The username "Acedia Accidia Pigritia" is apparently three Latin synonyms for Sloth (deadly sin). Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 08:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Which is clearly a reference to "lazy admins", and the user has now added a welcome to

same user, but... the user hasn't really done anything disruptive ...yet. Mfield (Oi!

) 08:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has now added the welcome templates to some user talk pages including

Sky Attacker

08:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, regardless of not doing anything on articles being disruptive, the user is instead being disruptive by making so many useless accounts. I have a feeling all three of these users are one in the same. I am just waiting on a message being returned.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that a message returned from a CheckUser Ryulong?--

Sky Attacker

08:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted that message one minute before you did. Nothing's happened. Be patient and go edit an article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:HexaChord and his/her sockpuppets

It turns out User:Consider choosing a username, User:Underscores will be converted to spaces, User:Kim's Broken Down Rocket, and User:Acedia Accidia Pigritia are all in fact User:Juvenile Deletionist, as are a few other user names. These accounts have been indentified by Dominic. Someone should block them so the tags I put on all of their user pages are correct.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm that the accounts Ryulong mentions are all the same. They are also the same as Jungfrau'n Töter, Vördschin killa, and Schweinchen Fick, all blocked already. In fact, having checked the range, I can say with a high degree of certainty that these accounts are all were all created by HexaChord, along with his other accounts Hexacord, HexChord, and Ashba 6. Dominic·t 11:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the listed accounts.. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 12:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Now the issue is how to deal with HexaChord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Earlier we declined the csd nominations she placed on many pages she edited on 30 May. But some may have slipped past and been deleted. Anyway there are no recent edits from that account. HexaChord was upset by FFDs on her "fair use" pictures. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be the case, but she has come back under multiple accounts more than one at a time. She may have retired under one name, but we should not allow her to say that she can edit under any name she wants to and however many she wants to.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by this discussion about how to handle this formerly constructive but now disruptive user. Block, be vigilant for more puppets and move on. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Indef and consider a
  ban – the actions here are equivalent to jerking the community around by the you-know-what (cf. the ItsLassieTime fiasco). Surely this cannot and should not be tolerated here. MuZemike
  16:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the account HexaChord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) based on the information from Dom above. I don't have any objection to the block being tweaked, however, if consensus starts going in that direction so other admins should feel free to do so without worrying about contacting me. Sarah 17:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

10:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I have suppressed that edit. In the future, please do not draw attention to posts with personal information in them, especially disparaging ones like this, by publicizing them in a very public place like this. You should make a

request for oversight. Dominic·t

12:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Article writers' noticeboard

Per a dicsussion at User_talk:Peter_Damian/Established_Editors#WP:Article_writers.27_noticeboard, I'm working on a draft noticeboard at User:Juliancolton/AWN. Feel free to help out. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin just call another editor a dunce in an edit summary here and here where they exlained and not be sanctioned all because an editor doesn't agree with the blatant POV they have shown. BigDunc^Talk 08:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not very nice for an admin or any editor to behave but nothing that requires immediate admin actions. I suggest you take it to

WP:WQA. Regards SoWhy

08:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a POV tag on the article? What is the specific issue? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

See here possible BLP issue. BigDunc^Talk 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. This is not a POV issue, it's a wording issue due to the fact that the sources are in conflict with each other. As regards the "BigDunc(e)" issue, yeh, that was tacky, and WQA is the right place to take it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes is the wording POV or not, I did not add the tag to begin with I reverted it's removal on spurious grounds IMO. BigDunc^Talk 08:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Some users will add a POV tag just because they don't agree with the consensus in the article. I assumed it had to do with someone claiming that not enough (or too much) weight was being given to the conspiracy theorists. If it's just about whether that one guy was "alleged" or "admitted", that's not a POV issue, it's a conflict among reliable sources. And if the guy admits it (whether he's telling the truth or not), then it's not a BLP issue either. What's he going to do, sue somebody? All they have to do is say, "Well, here's where you said you did it," and that would be the end of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I understand user removed NPOV tag against 2 other users will. And replied kindly for a question for comment about notability of the article. If any more "wrongdoing" than that, can you possibly refer more clearly. Kasaalan (talk) 09:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not about the removal of the tag it is the personal attack from an admin. BigDunc^Talk 09:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

If so might not be so cool, but I am not a native English speaker so can you possibly explain what "you're missing an 'e'" means as a personal attack. Kasaalan (talk) 09:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dunc + e = Dunce, which is a word for a stupid person. So BigDunc + e = Big Dunce - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is spelled out by Ice Cold Beer here. Unomi (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I would say that the edit warring over removal of the npov tag warrants a bit of looking at as well. Removing an npov tag with what could be construed as a personal attack as the only ES is unbecoming of any editor, an admin who has previously brought this very sphere of articles to arbcom should be especially careful to live up to arbcoms admonitions regarding maintaining an editwar free and collegial atmosphere. In this case it seems (I haven't been following this closely) that there is a conflict between what various RS state. The correct solution, in my mind, would be to state that there is such a conflict or to choose the more careful wording available. The version that Ice Cold Beer is editwarring to keep is in conflict with text carried by BBC, Reuters, navytimes, fox news, washington post and others. This is silly in the extreme. Unomi (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't prolong the disruption instigated by the banned user. Ice Cold Beer has not been edit warring at all. They are trying to defend the article from a serial puppetmaster who has been banned from this topic, and then banned from Wikipedia. There is no bona fide content dispute here. Jehochman ^Talk 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I took the liberty of informing User:Ice Cold Beer about this ANI topic. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 10:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't know what that means, thanks for the explanation. The word is not cool on the other hand their personal or page based conflict history should also be well investigated. Saying "someone not getting it" in an indirect way definately not nice, and possibly a priviledged user should care better in conflict like this, but not sure if it should result "depowering". Being nice is nice, but wikipedia is not a kindergarten either. Sometimes voicing conflicts openly is better. Kasaalan (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Excirial I had informed Ice Cold Beer in my last post on their page. BigDunc^Talk 10:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The posting of the tag was, itself, a form of POV-pushing. There is no POV issue with the article, nor any BLP issue. It's just a couple of editors trying to prove a point. And trying to get an editor blocked for making a childish play on your name is, itself, childish. "Mommy! He called me a dunce!" Gimme a break. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure how you are reaching your conclusion regardin POV, feel free to explain your reasoning. Furthermore consider what you stated as the first lesson from your previous rfa Spend less time on ANI and more time on other work. Telling an editor that it is 'ok' for an admin to call someone a dunce as the sole message in an ES in the middle of an edit war is just plain wrong. Ice Cold Beer seems to be an experienced editor who is deeply involved in the 9/11 articles both now and while it was under arbitration, indeed he seemed to be one of the parties bringing it to arbcom. Arbcom explicitly stated that these articles should be free from edit warring, respect NPOV and attempt to be as non adversarial as possible. You yourself state that there seems to be a conflict in RS', so surely edit warring to keep in a particular wording which does not respect the sources and is objected to by multiple editors signifies a departure from NPOV. Best, Unomi (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The POV tag was used inappropriately, and your comments about by RfA are of no importance, since I did not seek that job in the first place. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To start off: should I have used that edit summary? Of course not. Was it childish? Sure. Do I feel bad for BigDunc? Not at all. BigDunc is one of a number of users who, when unable to gain consensus for their nonsense, edit war to add a NPOV tag. This is not the first time BigDunc has done this and I'm sure it won't be the last. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

What are the claims you are talking about and what is the nonsense? It appears at least 4 editors have reservation about the neutrallity of the article, so again you just appear and throw accusations around as some sort of justification for you actions. BigDunc^Talk 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no "neutrality" issue. It's a bogus claim. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Not speaking for editors but it appears TheFourFreedoms , Wayne, John, Unomi and myself have some kind of concern. BigDunc^Talk 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make it a neutrality/POV issue. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's unremarkable that admins and others occasionally lose their temper with conspiracy theorists, fringers, and other purveyors of The Truth^TM. In fact the remarkable thing is that it doesn't happen more often.

) 20:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No comment on the content issue, which seems relatively minor and should be easily resolved with a bit of willingness to work together (the proposed versions are not really that far apart). The edit summary in question was unfortunate, but as long as it's not an ongoing, escalating problem I see no need for urgent admin intervention here. Actually, strike that - someone should probably work out which banned user is operating TheFourFreedoms (talk · contribs), and block accordingly, but I'll leave that to someone more familiar with the behavioral quirks of 9/11 agenda accounts. MastCell ^Talk 20:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

@ Boris who would you be talking about with your flippant remark conspiracy theorists, fringers, and other purveyors of The Truth^TM comments that make sweeping generalisations like that are far from helpful. BigDunc^Talk 20:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To BigDunc; with regards to ICB's edit summary, walk it off. Yes, lame joke at your expense, but what's the better reaction? Umbrage or a chuckle? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorists just try to bring out info on governments' covert actions to public view, whether they are successfull or not with the theories they argued. Kasaalan (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

User:TheFourFreedoms is "a pretty good match" with User:Tachyonbursts (indef blocked), according to a private checkuser I requested. Jehochman ^Talk 22:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:DUCK as well. Why not just block and be done with it? JoshuaZ (talk

) 22:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I edit

9/11 articles, so I'm not an administrator as far as this thread or user are concerned. Jehochman ^Talk

22:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Obvious, checkuser and DUCK confirmed socks can be blocked by any admin. It falls under "blatantly, clearly obvious" actions in

WP:ADMIN. JoshuaZ (talk

) 22:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That may be, but

9/11 is such a highly contentious area that I'd rather let somebody else place the block. This is not an emergency. Jehochman ^Talk

23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You might want to ask User:TAway first. :) At your leisure, as the sock is ducking out. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

So here we are, in the rabbit hole that is. We have all the usual mishaps, foremost, the failure of logic. It is not logical to call the whole mainstream fringe; it is fringe to do so. You boys and girls are discussing well accepted terminology which we avoid for the reasons unknown and you refer to this well accepted terminology with most unfortunate terminology which holds libel and defamation of ugliest kind. This sort of conduct is pitiful, to say the least. Now, user User:Ice Cold Beer will act on the related page as it is his own, he will ignore the discussion, he will not participate in building consensus, he'll revert without any valid explanation and break each and every principle stated in ArbCom decision and he will show needless incivility and this appears to be accepted behavior worth of praise and applause? Why in the world the term with thousands of references cannot be added to article, why in the world would the facts about waterboarding of alleged suspect which are topic of news reports over and over and over again be omitted (yes, that is the word) from the article and how in the world can such suggestion succumb to 'twoofer conspiracy talk' and 9/11 agenda? As you examine the 'behavioral quirks' of this post, I'll bid you farewell. Good riddance. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

And no, I'm not the user who has been blocked; I'm the user who endorsed the block forced upon him by the people who are at this point in time banned from 9/11 articles themselves. I've never committed any crime but apparent 'though crime' and I've never broke any rules. And that is a rock solid fact. I felt the need to state it as it is, for those long-lasting editors and administrators to hear, and feel. TheFourFreedoms (talk) 23:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Since no one stepped up, I've gone ahead and indef'd TheFourFreedoms as a sock. Shell ^babelfish 01:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't know the users at all or know the case much, but what proofs you got from check user can you possibly share with the community, since the user apparently denied having double accounts. Kasaalan (talk) 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Details of checkuser analysis are not available to the general audience. That's partly for confidentiality of the user, and partly to not give other potential sockpuppets information that could help them try to beat the system. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If you are sure by check user without doubt then it is fine by me, but any editor deserves a defense before getting blocked (naturally 1 would deny claims whether they are guilty or innocent, but he may be innocent or guilty untill it certainly proved). If he has given an opportunity for his defense on block before I am fine, if he didn't have such a chance and his block is permament, can you at least ask for a defense via mail and discuss with him in private. Kasaalan (talk) 10:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. Another three weeks of disruption by another Truther. Next week, or the week after, we can do it all again - assume good faith, discuss, compromise, fill out requests for arb enforcement, etc. Or rather, someone else can do it all again, because I'm heartily sick of the whole business. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

They're counting on that, don'cha know. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Just gather up the socks and when the laundry basket is full I have a friendly CU who will match them up. Jehochman ^Talk 02:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know that you even need to bother him/her. It took about 12 seconds of reviewing that account's contribs to identify them as a sock with 95% confidence. Checkuser evidence increased that likelihood from 95% to 97.5%. Hypothetical: if the checkuser came back "unrelated", that would actually lower the probability from 95% to about 92.3%. In Bayesian terms, the checkuser is largely superfluous when the pre-test probability is that high. On the other hand, I can understand the desire for technical backup, given the career arc of admins whose judgment of sockpuppetry is only 95% accurate, rather than the 100% which is the baseline expectation. I guess what I'm saying is, feel free to bring these sorts of cases back here, or I'd be happy to look them over if you drop me a note on my talk page. MastCell ^Talk 03:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, I think your critical reasoning skills are in some doubt. Consider your last contribution in this area. You manage to characterize a post where Tom Harrison clearly states "I see grounds to justify it" as Tom Harrison stating he "sees no grounds to justify", as well as stating that 'ignoring discussion is 'constructive'. I do not mean this as a personal attack, but I honestly do not think that your interpretations show you as being wholly impartial. Unomi (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sure I've provided ample reason for people to doubt my critical-reasoning skills over the years. In the case in point, I did make a mistake, which I thank you for catching. I'm sure it won't be the last error that I make. On the other hand, my overall judgment - that your filing was frivolous, misleading, and an improper use of dispute resolution - was rather soundly endorsed. MastCell ^Talk 18:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I sympathise with Tom Harrison and agree with Bugs. That's what they do. It wears good editors down, often involves false accusations (presumably with the hope that mud sticks), and it's making me stay away from such articles, I've got better and more productive things to be doing.

talk

) 05:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Which false accusations? Ice Cold Beer was clearly making a personal attack, admitted to it and made a half hearted attempt at an apology steeped in more bad faith accusations. In truth there should never have been an edit war over the NPOV tag, it should have been left in and discussed properly, but somehow this is being overlooked. Unomi (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Did it look like I was making a "half-hearted apology"? In that case, I've been unclear because I wasn't trying to apologize at all. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Above, Kasalaan expresses some doubt. How do people interpret this edit of his [67] asking for his 'original page' to be unlocked so he can start an ArbCom hearing?

talk

) 11:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

He claims he has accomplished thousands of edits "whether as account, or more often as IP", during the years. He claims, he recently has wrote a letter to the administrator who helped him when he was forced out of community, for unlocking his original page which was locked on his request, so he can initiate ArbCom hearing "which is due to begin for a very long time" however "there was no reply". So as far as I read, if he has taken an account, because his locked account on his own request didn't replied or unlocked, would be a valid argument to create a secondary account, since one cannot use his primary account. But if he tells the truth or not should be seriously investigated. He also made some historical criticism of the admins from user view which is interesting to read. Kasaalan (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hard to tell, but I do like his comment that weeding out vandals of his type is a "tremendous lose for the project". Yup, we need more users with good larnin'. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bugs stop being a smart arse correcting errors made by other editors I assume your qoute above is a dig at another editor who you are far superior too with your good larnin. BigDunc^Talk 12:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I think "smart ass" refers to donkeys, not anatomy. In any case, I humbly accept your analysis of the sitchyation. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, yes, the blocked editor indicates he has, or has had, more than one account. Checkuser could probably figure it out, but the way it works is that it's up to the vigilance of the user community to connect the dots and then submit checkuser requests. That can be frustrating (don't I know it), but there is a degree of fairness in that policy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the most pointless discussions ANI has had this month.--

03:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed Unomi (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

) 10:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like they say they will report the copyright violation here (Wikipedia:Copyright problems for example), rather than taking legal action. Anyway, if it is certain there is an actual copyright violation, it should be removed immediately. There's no need to wait (in fact, it cannot wait) 24 hours. Chamal ^talk 10:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat? No, an editor, probably in good faith, linked a picture from a website which has been branded with the name of the website's ownerer as copyright holder - I assume the editor believed that the website owners also hold the copyright, and I have made that clear to be wrong: "The documents you have linked are from the National Archieves, Kew, and are protected by copyright. The webpage you have linked them from also shows this in the references, giving the AIR referneces in the NA at the end of the page. All of these images are from the National Archieve, Kew. These images are copyrighted, and cannot be published or used with the consent of the National Archieves. Remove them immidiately. That some digitial brand these documents "Archives of M Williams" or "Courtesy of Neil Stirling" may have some unfortunate legal repercussions to these persons, but in no way generate a copyright for documents that were copied via a digital camera in the archieve, and published without consent of the archieve." Its quite clearly referenced to the website owners, and not the editor.

I am familiar with the material and I know also that it comes from the National Archives, Kew, UK, and also familiar with their policy on copyrights - also cited it for the editor - I have ordered many documents from there myself, there's clear (c) notice on each copy. I have absolutely no intentions for a legal action against the editor (how, BTW, I dont even know his name etc.) but warned him to remove the report which I have already removed because of copy vio; he restored it, and if I would remove it would lead to an edit war. But given the copyrighted nature of the image, if he not removes it, I will have to report it through proper wikipedia channels, see: [68] Kurfürst (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

From the Terms and conditions for the supply of copies of records

Terms and conditions for the supply of copies of records

• 1.Copies of Public Records in Crown Copyright
• Most public records in The National Archives are in Crown Copyright.
• There are no restrictions on the use of copies for non-commercial research or private study. Copies, and copies of those copies, may be made and used for education purposes. This covers both teaching and preparation for teaching and/or examination by either teacher or student.

Applications for permission to use copies for publication (including website publication), exhibition or broadcast or any other purpose must be addressed to: The National Archives Image Library The National Archives Kew, Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU

• 2.Copies of Public Records in privately owned (ie not Crown) Copyright

There are no restrictions on the use of copies for non-commercial research, private study or education (as defined above) within the limits set in UK Copyright Law. Copies of non-public records and of published Copyright works held in The National Archives These are supplied subject to the customer completing a declaration form and observing the conditions it contains. Any infringement of these conditions may result in legal action. Any use other than for non-commercial research, private study or education, if approved by the copyright owner, may also require the permission of the image library. The National Archives Copyright Officer will provide further information on request.

This legal threat is a blatant and shameful attempt at intimidation by Kurfürst and is part of a consistent campaign by Kurfürst to discredit a rival website to his own http://kurfurst.org/. His attempts at using Wikipedia policy as leverage in his attempts to discredit a rival website are equally shameful. He has no idea of the arrangements made between Messers Williams and Stirling and the National Archives and, given his propensity for attacking the websites run by Messers Williams and Stirling (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/ -http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spittest.html) and for attacking them personally at every opportunity he has has a clear vested interest in this matter, which should preclude him from any further participation in this "discussion". Minorhistorian (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be an awful lot of hot air being vented here. What happens to 2 'opposing' websites is irrelevant here. Either the image meets WP standards for copyright, or it doesn't. If it does, fine. If it doesn't, delete it. Leave your website rants somewhere else, both of you. --WebHamster 11:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I got things a bit arse about face, but if there are any reservations whatsoever about a link on WP pointing at an external site that may contain copyright infringements then simply remove the link. It's better to be safe than sorry and if there's one link to the subject matter then there will be more. Also if there's CoI associated with the said links then all the more reason for nuking them. --WebHamster 11:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The images you have added to the article are simply copyrighted as Kew's policy clearly shows, moreover, the images are branded with the name of the copyright violator, while giving no credit to the actual coypright hold of the collection (the NA) which is pretty clearly requested by NA and copyright laws all over the world. What they do on their site is their responsibility, but Wiki's regulations for copyrighted images are quite clear - even if there would be doubt, as there is none, it is still you who have to prove that the images are permissable for free use and distribution (nb - something profoundly different from making copies for personal use), but it is absolutely certain that an image containing no clear credit to the (known) copyright holder is not possible to use. Your attitude to portray this violation as some sort of personal feud is simply shocking, but understandable, considering your close association with the said website owners. Kurfürst (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• There's no legal threat here at all. The use of references such as the one removed here is not appropriate; the reference should point to the original document in the archive, not to a photograph of unclear provenence on some random amateur website. CIreland (talk) 11:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
• Don't forget that Wikimedia considers verbatim/exact copies of PD documents and photographs to be PD also.
  talk
  ) 22:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for the use of blatant and shameful attempt at intimidation'. However it should be noted that the editor has shown a consistent pattern of prejudice in this matter starting back in July 2008;

14:23, 13 July 2008 (hist) (diff) Supermarine Spitfire ‎ (Removed claims based on revisionist website; added comments of Supermarine test pilots on Spitfire development)

this is the first time he has raised copyright on archival material as an issue, in spite of his claims that he is very familiar with Kew's copyright rules. For the record I have no "close association"" with Messers Williams and Stirling and their websites; Mr Williams has contacted me once with his concerns over provocative comments being made about his websites by Kurfürst in various discussion pages and edit comments. If the information is deemed to be unusable on Wikipedia I have no huge worries about removing the offending material. My main concern is that an editor who has shown a great deal of prejudice on the issue has the right to arbitrate. Minorhistorian (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

My good faith edits to Paroxetine are consistently reverted on this article and I am accused of vandalism. Harsh warnings, which wrongly accuse me of vandalism, are placed on my talk page. The page is baised against the drug and the FDA source is misinterpretted to suggest the drug should not be taken, while the FDA source leaves that decision to the physician. My source is the most up to date and is neutral. Ddave2425 (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)ddave2425

This appears to be a content dispute, so you should be posting this to the article talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is a sockpuppet of Mwalla who is deceiving you.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive They are just doing this (intentionally deleting FDA statements and inserting inaccuracies and reporting to admin noticeboard eetc) to annoy me because they got blocked for 3 months.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

You should be seeking dispute resolution. ANI is not a drama host. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking dispute resolution with a stalker and multiple sockpuppets who intentionally vandalise articles is not a good idea. I believe checkuser is best option as this user is meant to still be banned but is evading a wikipedia ban. I recommend reading this Do not feed the trolls which is what you are recommending that I do. Your suggestion only encourages drama. I do not believe that you read the archives of the sockpuppet investigation to Mwalla.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a STUPID edit war based knee-deep in POV for both sides, one only wants government reports warning danger, the other, only reports cautioning against use. I've left a comment there about NPOV, and a solution. As to the socking, it doesn't look thoroughly unprovoked on this article, given the loggerheads they've come to. If this article's the only point of conflict for the socking report, I suggest that the user be warned, sent to the talk page, and then blocked entirely if he does anything else again. Persecuting the editor for socking will not solve the content issue, solving the content issue may solve the socking. ThuranX (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong, you are not familar with Mwalla and his following me around wikipedia on sockpuppets and you have TOTALLY fallen for his tricks in causing an argument for me which is his ONLY motive. You have no desire to hear the background. I am amazed at how the admin noticeboard works and how easily manipulated it is by sockpuppeteers and other malicious editors. You even say sockpuppeteering is justified!!! What policy is sockpuppeteering and stalking justified? And I am persecuting the sockpuppet! Are you serious? Unbelievable! I prefer the more investigative formats such as arbcom or checkuser. As this person has already been banned after a checkuser, I believe that I will just reopen another sockpuppet investigation as this is hopeless. I am feeding the troll myself by actually responding here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the tricks is to misrepresent refs, use inappropriate refs or even make refs say the opposite of what they say. So it is NOT POV but is simply fakee data versus not fake data. It is a matter of vandalism versus fighting vandalism but from what I am gathering here at ANI sockpuppeteering and ban evading is justified in certain circumstances such as this and vandalising articles just to annoy other editors who got them banned is not vandalism but just a "differing POV" which should be solved through "dispute resolution". Telling the truth of the situation is persecuting the sockpuppet. The vandalising ban evading sockpuppet is a persecuted victim and those who defend themself against the sockpuppet's allegations are the persecuters! I really give up on wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, first off, I left plenty of caveats in my comment, in case I'd misunderstood part. Second, its' not fake data, unless you're paranoid about the NIH. This makes it clear to me you've got ownership issues with the article, outside of his socking actions. I did not say that he was justified, merely that it appears provoked. So kindly take your hand out of my ass and stop trying to make me say things i haven't said. Finally, I am just ONE opinion. If you want to have a tantrum about one dissenting opinion when you ask for outside opinions, I suggest you find a different hobby, because this is a hobby wherein working with different opinions is a must. I don't see vandalism, I see legitimate citations with a different conclusion than your preferred one, and I see you screaming bloody murder at that assessment, which is not a common reaction among people who are sure they're right. Those people would simply link to a quote which supports their side and say 'he's misrepresenting this source for XYZ reasons.' please do that, or learn to work with others. ThuranX (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The ref was actually on antidepressants in general and had a very small number of paroxetine users. I don't think you edit medicine related articles much but if you read this

18:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, you provoked this with an uncivil "STUPID" remark, and ought to apologize. Moreover, you shouldn't be trying to justify socking by blocked editors. LG, ThuranX is not an admin (and neither am I); you should avoid getting so excited about random comments on ANI. Also, although I believe your case that Ddave2425 is a sock is pretty strong, you ought not to be making accusations all over the place without filing an SPI or requesting some sort of investigation. Looie496 (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Recently,

) 17:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Routine block of IP for 24 hours due to personal attacks and general disruption. IP advised not to insult others when he/she returns.

Chillum

17:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I thought "having multiple aliases" is

sockpuppetry (cf. [70]), or am I missing something? MuZemike

19:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if they are used to support the arguments of the others I understand. --LiamE (talk) 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, only if they are used "for fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes." user:J aka justen (talk) 19:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• I put a stop to it, once and for all. I deleted the talk page, and recreated it as an indefinitely semi-protected page. This editor is retired; there is no reason at all to use his talk page. Horologium (talk) 19:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Child of Midnight and the Douglas Schoen article

) 15:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Johnnyturk has been stalking my edits since being called out by me and other editors for his BLP violating edits on Irfan Yusuf. He was blocked indefinitely for his actions in regard to that article. He was later unblocked on the condition he not edit that article ever again. Since then he has been stalking my article contributions and made most of his edits on various articles I've worked on including: Douglas Schoen, Ham and eggs, Miniature pig, Estella Payton, and Virginia Greer in an apparent attempt to cause disruption. There are lots of articles on Wikipedia and there's no reason he needs to be vindictive and come looking for trouble on mine. I repeat my request that he move on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It is fairly obvious at this stage that Johnnyturk888, previously blocked for introducing negative material to the BLP

WP:NPOV violations. Orderinchaos

16:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well worth noting that while the two editors guilty of deleting most of the Schoen article are eloquent here, they are silent on that article's Talk page[76]. An examination of ChildofMidnight and Orderinchaos's histories reveal they are guilty of the same things of which they accuse others. Anyway, I thank the administrator for taking action to protect the page and we'll see if the two can substantiate their mass deletion of what is on any fair examination uncontentious material. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Both editors are not guilty. By calling ChildofMidnight's edits vandalism[77] is not

assuming good faith and is disruptive! And I see the comment left on Orderinchaos' talkpage isn't much better[78]. Bidgee (talk

) 16:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnnyturk is making problem edits on multiple articles, and edit warring. Rather than full protection wouldn't it make more sense to block the editor that is causing the problem? Full protection should be used when multiple established users are edit warring all with one another, not when the block of a single editor would remedy the problem. That's my opinion anyways.

Landon1980 (talk

) 16:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, User:Johnnyturk888 seems to be editing tendentiously again. Is there consensus for a reblock, or am I missing something? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(after multiple ecs)I've reblocked Johnnyturk for a month and as far as I'm concerned this is his last chance and if he returns from this block to resume tendentious editing of BLPs I think he needs to be banned.

I was actually reviewing this situation myself when he posted this ANI section having noticed some edit warring on my watchlist and recognising Johnnyturk's name from some serious

WP:NPOV, edit warring over things like describing a journalist in passing and without explanation in a biography about another person as a "Communist journalist" [79]. He seems to think that as long as he whacks in a link he can basically write anything about people. I'm rather concerned that someone who was indefinitely blocked for serious BLP violations and unblocked under very strict conditions doesn't seem to have got the message and has simply moved onto other biographies, taking the same problematic editing style with him. He has also either violated or pushed 3RR on Douglas Schoen. I think he is clearly not getting the message that we take BLPs seriously and needs to drastically change his approach if he plans on sticking around. Sarah

16:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Johnnyturk888 gets blocked

Johnnyturk888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User is now requesting unblock, see User_talk:Johnnyturk888#June_2009. Sarah 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I took a liberty of amending the header of the complaint a bit since the issue is more related to "BLP violation and edit warring by the complainer", Johnnyturk888.--Caspian blue 17:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The user was originally blocked indef for BLP violations on some article. Now that they've been unblocked, their first move it to follow someone they were bothering before into further BLP vios on other articles. I don't see why we should let him continue this behavior after a month's time, as he's already shown he can't change.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with this assessment. Orderinchaos 18:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

As the unblocking admin on the previous case, I made it clear to him not just about touching one particular article, but the point of BLP of general. If the user still can't get that, keep blocked. Keegan (talk) 06:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please stop this user. His every edit ruins the pages, and those are escalating. Materialscientist (talk) 23:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

User blocked indef. -download ׀ sign! 00:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

An IP editor proposed User:Andy mci for deletion after blanking the page,[80] which I thought was odd when checking out prods, so I rolled it back. I now see that the page reads as an attack page, and that edits to bring it to this current state started in January:[81] after the page had been stable for over a year. Two edits apparently by the owner of the account are included:[82], which makes me suspect it has been hacked. The last edit of this account before then was in April 2008:[83]. What to do? Courtesy blanking of history and blocking of the account? Fences and windows (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a compromised account to me. Have blocked indef for now. Perhaps one of the checkusers could take a look at this? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is almost certainly too old for a checkuser to indicate anything. Prodego ^talk 01:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect the IP who blanked the page is the original owner of the account, if that helps. Checkuser would show what IP was using the account when it was compromised, yes? Fences and windows (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to explain, checkuser data isn't maintained forever. If it is too long ago, the checkuser people no longer have the data on which to conduct a check. Orderinchaos 02:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:149.254.219.49 Began to vandalise article Joseph Petzval in May, mostly by removing, faking references and deleting/changeing/faking content over persons ethnicity. See:[84]

User:149.254.49.3 Followed in June, making the very same type of edits.[85]

User:149.254.51.39 Again the same edits...[86]

User:87.194.72.40 Appeared on yesterday with the same edit pattern.[87], [88]

Same persons or Open proxys? Is there any chance to block these IPs or semi-protect this article?B@xter ⁹ 09:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It is feasible that the four are the same person. One IP a residential IP address. The other three belong to T-Mobile hot spots. Semiprotecting the article would probably be the best course of action.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to ask a semi-protection or admins will make the necessary actions?B@xter ⁹ 10:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably better to request it. It will be picked up a lot faster.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would consider blocking Jotsko from making edits since he has consistently edited pages without regard to Wikipedia policies. Several warnings for different issues have been posted on his talk page. He has also been around long enough to learn by now.

Also I would look at 67.11.30.147 and 99.52.74.225 since they have been posting non-article material on Clan of Xymox back and forth. Xe7al (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I started contributing to wikipedia's comic project recently, and I believe I am being harassed or at least wikihounded by J Greb. He has commented on every single comics-related change I have suggested, usually quite rudely, on multiple pages. It started on Talk:Dick_Grayson. I tried to break off the conversation and start a new conversation, but he continued to come after me in the new conversation even after I asked him to leave me alone.

I then started a conversation on the general principles involved on

and he started there too. I made some edits and he reverted them, twice.

Then, he appeared on my talk page and started asking about my sources for my pictures (I used the template provided by the project - in fact, by a bot that told me how to do it). This is completely unrelated to any previous conversation. Adding pictures to the comics project is the main thing I like to do. I had just posted that this is what I like to do on wikipedia at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Participants and within 12 hours, he showed up on my talk page to challenge all of my photos.

I thought this was a simple dispute, but when he refused to stop bothering me when I asked, I started to be concerned, and now that he's come to my talk page to contest the majority of my contributions, I feel like I can't do anything on the wikiproject comics, because he's decided to make my life as uncomfortable as possible, following me from page to page.

I'm pretty new to wikipedia, and I was startled to find someone simply following me around, challenging everything I do and ultimately, trying to push all my work comics-related off of wikipedia entirely.

I believe his behaviour covers both:

"Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. The intended outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely."

and

"The term "wiki-hounding" has been coined to describe singling out one or more specific editor(s), and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit (often unrelated), or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor."

I honestly don't know what to do. I've tried fighting back, being nice, compromising, asking him to leave me alone, and nothing works. I hate how bullies run absolutely everything.

(Smallvillefanatic (talk) 05:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC))

I have briefly reviewed the two talkpages noted above, your talkpage and J Greb's. I do not see any harassment in the article/project talkpages, nor specifically any harassment on your talkpage. I also do not see any edit by you to J Greb's talkpage (although someone else has noted your comments here). If you have requested J Greb not to interact on your talkpage, or have otherwise commented to them about your discomfort in their comments and actions relating to your edits, please could you provide a diff? All I am presently seeing is two people involved in the same area of the project having some disputes regarding edits and images relating to that subject - most people, including admins, keep a watch on areas of interest, and are active in maintaining policy and discussing edits to same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this may be a case of me leaving something important out in the post to Smallvillefanatic's talk page. That being -- The images that they have uploaded, and the intent behind them are a good thing. And a fair chunk of them are going to fill gaps in articles that need filling.

My post to their talkpage was not an attempt to bully or berate, and I apologize if it came off that way. My concern was, and still is, that the images need a clear, verifiable sourcing. I was unaware that a set of substitution templates were in use that skipped over including that information, even when all fields listen in the subst are included.

- J Greb (talk) 13:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like there's been a misunderstanding of J Greb's comments and maybe a confusion of policy and guidelines on Smallvillefanatic's part. As LessHeard vanU said, there were no harassing comments. Also, I don't believe there was any wikihounding; J Greb seems to be an active contributor to comics related articles and therefore it's not surprising to see him engaging in discussions on the given pages. Both have acted in good faith, and I think both can discuss the matter peacefully and come to a suitable agreement. There's no need for anyone else to intervene to resolve this situation. Smallvillefanatic, J Greb has (in your own words) "continued to come after [you] in the new conversation" because he believes there's something wrong with your editing of those images and your suggestions. Taking a quick look at the discussions at

ignore rules if necessary). I suggest you read the policies and guidelines that are relevant to the discussion and get familiar with them, so that you can engage more effectively in discussions in the future. Cheers. Chamal ^talk

13:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Mux

Again User:149.254.49.3/149.254.219.49/87.194.72.40=Nton(?)

A new user, User:Nton started to vandalise article Joseph Petzval in the same matter as these IPs 149.254.49.3/149.254.219.49/87.194.72.40 did. [97]See request 2 above Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:149.254.49.3/149.254.219.49/87.194.72.40 Like User:87.194.72.40 [98] Nton also tried to fake the talkpage with the very same type of edits [99]. Is it possible to block this sockpuppet?--B@xter⁹ 14:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You might get a faster response by posting at

WP:AIV. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots

14:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The aforementioned anonymous editor has been disruptively editing a number of articles, namely

• Multiregional origin of modern humans where the ip inserted whole paragraphs of gibberish here
• Recent African origin of modern humans

There is a discussion about the IPs disruptive edits here and other users have expressed concern about the state of the articles at the human genetics project. Subsequent to reverting one of the user's edits, the user has since started reverting my edits from other articles which the user had never edited before and posting more gibberish on talk pages.

) 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Basic vandalism, such as the insertion of gibberish, can be reported after appropriate warnings to

a/c

) 23:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They're not a vandal as such, they're pushing a POV - the multiregional hypothesis - in a disruptive manner and making personal attacks. Fences and windows (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the "resolved" tag (sorry if I'm not supposed to do that) because the issue is not suitable for

) 04:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the complainant that this IP is causing disruption to the page with major edits promoting ideas with

) 14:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin please review the contributions of this IP on the talk page from here on: Talk:Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans#Clean-up? Some of their contributions are becoming offensive, e.g. characterising Out of Africa as the "persistence of scientific Marxist to impose false Jewish dreams eg. walking on water on eg. Chinese people who my have own heroes". Also "you're talking about the "origin of" as the racial resourcers who always point to 'others' (like the 3 papers you want to use to politically pollute scientific otherwise debate)." and "I do not think the sources talk like 'you'. Perhaps those who have to get research grants from politically influenced agendas. I do not finding intellectually independent researcher who before publishing got to carefully consider compatibility of his thesis to post WW2 trauma, Israeli separation barriers, biblical origin and walking o water."; Explaining a problematic edit, "But mitochondrial DNA has only 0.0005% of genome DNA and the mtDNA come from captured bacteria" the IP editors said to "(treat it as a jock [joke] 'be bold' for those kids who spoofing melodramatic PR of mtEve and yAdam in love but 100,000 years apart) You flogging dead horse with the aDNA of thousand year dead neanderthal." The whole approach is very disruptive. Fences and windows (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The user User:[email protected] has this non-free image File:C-bob.png on his userpage, which I'm pretty sure is a no-no.--Blargh29 (talk) 16:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone removed the image. Next time

be bold. Remove the image yourself, and talk to the user. For future reference, it is common courtesy to inform users when you initiate a thread on them on this page (I just informed them). Killiondude (talk

) 17:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• [101] Source has no claim that prostitution is widespread; also prostitution is not illegal (intermediation and child prostitution are, naturally) and source is from ten years ago, yet represented as current.
• [102] highly controversial claim is from unknown "Finnish newspapers", quoted through third-party source and Web Archive. Again, source from 2003 is presented as current.
• [103] Illegal alcohol: straight copy-paste from BBC (note ..began killing people early last month), BBC has no claim about "deaths of enormous proportions" (ie. unsourced POV). Afterwards PasswordUsername added "in an unprecedented pandemic" [104]
• [105] - war criminals are completely unrelated to Crime in Estonia; also extremely one-sided view (see the end of the [106], for example)

-- Sander Säde 08:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am trying to write an article about crime in Estonia that discusses the history of the phenomenon and gives an overview of the situation now. I have discussed this at Talk: in Estonia. I myself have not reverted, as my task right now is to find the pertinent data, statements, and statistics adequate to accomplish this.
  WP:AGF
  is, I think, a clear part of Wikipedia. This should be saved for the Talk discussion.

As for the diffs:

• [107] Source has no claim that prostitution is widespread; also prostitution is not illegal (intermediation and child prostitution are, naturally) and source is from ten years ago, yet represented as current.

1. Sander Sade is wrong. The source does claim that prostitution is widespread.

• [108] highly controversial claim is from unknown "Finnish newspapers", quoted through third-party source and Web Archive. Again, source from 2003 is presented as current.

1. I presented the Estonian government's response to these charges. Note also that the Finnish newspapers are not the primary source I cited.

• [109] Illegal alcohol: straight copy-paste from BBC (note ..began killing people early last month), BBC has no claim about "deaths of enormous proportions" (ie. unsourced POV). Afterwards PasswordUsername added "in an unprecedented pandemic" [110]

1. I meant to include "began killing people in early October 2001." Being tired, I instinctively repeated "early this month." (This was from the article.) A correction would have been in order.

• [111] - war criminals are completely unrelated to Crime in Estonia; also extremely one-sided view (see the end of the [112], for example)

1. My edit summary notes that this is a beginning of the criticism of the judicial system. Please read it. Also read the edit summaries and my comments on Talk. And any administrators willing to look into this should take a glance at the changes made to the edit history of the article – the organized deletionism campaign there speaks for itself. Pretty hard to even begin building a well-referenced article under conditions in which references are being deleted for one undiscussed "
   I don't like it" or trivial
   reason or other. Perhaps assuming good faith rather than deleting everything you don't like being said might go a longer way? I certainly cannot believe that content disputes are to be handled like this.

) 08:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The main point is that an article like

talk

) 08:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained my point. Your accusations are very untoward, and you seem to be having a problem with my edits on multiple articles you haven't touched before. If you want me to produce an article like

PasswordUsername (talk

) 08:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My accusations amount to the fact that edits like these [114] "Children are often molested" are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the random variety vandalism that I revert multiple times a day. Not having enough time to write the article is a silly excuse. Questioning my motives is a goofy attempt to divert attention from the focus on your own edits.

talk

) 09:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It constitutes vandalism – or so you say? Do you even know how many children are molested in Estonia? Are you even aware how many children are forced into prostitution or pimped out to foreign customers in

PasswordUsername (talk

) 10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sander Spade, be very, very careful in using this forum to accuse others of misdeeds, for you and other Estonian editors have been on your own spree of censorship on the

Dialogue

08:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is that "Sander Spade" you are talking about? However, you might want to read the discussion about that in article talk page,

here, before going to claim censorship. This issue was thoroughly discussed and suitable consensus found; I believe it is still there in the article. -- Sander Säde

08:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It's so refreshing -- in a nostalgic sense -- to see that the ethic of And you are lynching Negroes! is still alive and well. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What does the article on

talk

) 08:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it means that something is clearly up. Note how many separate times factual content is being revert (these reverts being mostly one edit after the other, so as not to go up higher on the RR meter for a few editors). It seems that there are editors (including you know who) simply deleting material they did not like. Including patently false claims being made about my edits in the edit summaries and the removal of the entire prostitution and narcotics sections on the grounds that these were

PasswordUsername (talk

) 08:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. If something is "clearly up" then can you explain what exactly, clearly, is "up"? Because you've lost me here. I have no idea what most of what you wrote above is about. Insinuations like "you know who" ... uhhh, ok, I give, ... who? Me? Elvis? No? The bottom line is you're making ridiculous edits to an article which border on vandalism and when called on it resort to ... well, since I can't quite understand the above, you resort to something, anyway.

talk

) 09:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down, Radek. My edits constitute vandalism? According to what grounds?

Dear Radek, you're not making any sense.

PasswordUsername (talk

) 10:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, the above does not make enough sense for to be able to understand it, hence reply.

talk

) 08:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I pointed out in Talk:Crime in Estonia#Disruption without reverting, PasswordUsername has chosen the tactic of inserting *different* spurious threads into the article, one after another. When his poorly conceived additions such as [116] were reverted in one area, he went for another, in the hope that *he* would then be seen as genuinely improving the article while the people cleaning up this lofasz would be seen as censorship-minded vandals bent on edit domination. In this sentence, he appears to be trying to convince AN/I regulars of this "censorship-minded vandals" part. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it up a bit. Tired, as I said.

PasswordUsername (talk

) 08:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And here we have yet another editor (

Dialogue

08:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Accusing others of tedious censorship, and being the nationalist editors is well beyong the line of CIV/NPA (and "somebody else said so" is hardly an excuse). Please consider yourself formally warned to respect those policies (again...?). Perhaps a civility parole could be considered here? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

<-- Uh, Russavia, you realize that you're portraying basic copy editing (yes, it should be "for short" rather than "in short", as I changed it) as "tendentious censorship"? I think this is the first time I've been called a "DICK" for correcting someone's grammar in such a trivial manner and I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later, but bringing this up as some kind of gross injustice is just ... plain ... pathetic. The rest of your comment ... I, uh, don't know what you're talking about.

talk

) 09:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

He's not talking about your minor grammar correction, he's talking about the paragraphs you chopped out. Whether that chopping was justified is a content dispute. But be careful about making false or misleading accusations. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This is intolerable. I have never called Russavia or Offliner neo-Nazis, nor have I called a Wikipedia editor a pig. Yet, Russavia is repeatedly making such baseless claims in obvious attempt to mar my reputation. This is blatant violation of

WP:CIV, and since mud sticks, I can not just ignore it. I must insist that Russavia stop making such accusations, if not voluntarily then under enforcement of policy. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!}

09:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have pesonally seen you say things to that same effect. Of course, you didn't intend to have this diff [117] come off looking that way.

PasswordUsername (talk

) 10:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also insisting that Russavia stop misspelling Sander Säde's name as a sneaky reference to

WP:SPADE

. Once might be a mistake, but twice clearly isn't.

Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Explain what the insinuation is. It sounds an awful bit trollish to make these claims otherwise.

PasswordUsername (talk

) 10:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

What insinuation are you talking about? Do you mean "spade"? That's an offensive term for a black person - as in "black as the ace of spades". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Everyone involved should calm down, stop being nasty to each other and use
  dispute resolution. There are productive ways to resolve your differences about content - this isn't one of them. Any more name calling or other snide remarks about people being a "DICK" will likely result in a time-out. Shell ^babelfish
  09:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• There is no justification for this kind of editing. How is that distinguishable from vandalism? Note PasswordUsername has also been violating BLP in another Estonia related article
  talk
  ) 12:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• I have to concur that inserting unsourced content asserting "children are often molested" claiming a work in progress can only be intepreted as an attack and is inexcusable. There is no room for WP:AGF that this was just working on an article, you can't create one on this topic in one day. This really turns my stomach. Arguing about political views of history is one thing. Asserting widespread child abuse in a country steps way over the line. There is no stepping back from this or rationalizing after the fact. PetersV       TALK 15:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. And I request Russavia cease and desist from personal attacks such as "And need I even mention the worst of the Estonian nationalist editors not currently banned". This is defamatory and such slurs cannot be tolerated. If Russavia has an issue, there are formal means of addressing it. This incendiary commentary is nothing more than character assassination. PetersV       TALK 15:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

P.P.S. As for "I have pesonally seen you say things to that same effect. Of course, you didn't intend to have this diff [118] come off looking that way.

PasswordUsername (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)" this is sheer innuendo, Teinonen has in fact been stripped of honors awarded to him by the Estonian government. Just to be perfectly clear about it, Tienonen republished wartime Nazi propaganda translated into Estonian. PetersV       TALK

15:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. This (and similar edits) violate enough policies (UNDUE, V, BLP, DIGWUREN's Arbcom sanction on battleground creation in EE topics...) that I'd suggest a topic ban for PU on all Estonia-related topics. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

User:M1569

This new editor continues to vandalise British Empire & ignore my reversions of his/her vandalism, by adding more vandalism. GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You might've tried talking to the user a bit more before coming here. One talk page message before this is hardly much. I'm dropping a welcome message on the user's talk page. lifebaka++ 22:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Attention to

List of coups d'état and coup attempts

Could an admin please protect this article. Several IP-adresses as well as SPAs keep adding the recent events in Iran to this article despite it not qualifying as a coup. I have RPPed it, but normal channels seem to be too slow for this. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I put 3 days semi on it, let's see how it goes. RxS (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a similar problem brewing at

List of successful coups d'état, however not yet to the same degree as urgent as on the first article. --Saddhiyama (talk

) 09:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Insults

On the talk page for Paroxetine user literaturegeek, who has ownership issues on the article, has engaged in insults "What a rude dick ThuranX is." This is not constructive.Ddave2425 (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)ddave2425

You may want to check out

Dispute resolution.--Rockfang (talk

) 02:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Also,

chatter

) 02:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jehochman and

David Boothroyd

censorship

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. David Boothroyd (aka former arb Sam Blacketer) in userspace (on my user page and most recently at User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd ) despite the existence of multiple reliable sources from the British press addressing the controversy. He has suggested he will block anyone who includes the material and will only allow selectively restored versions of the Boothroyd article that do not mention his Wikipedia controversy. Coverage in the British national press includes: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191474/Labour-councillor-David-Boothroyd-caught-altering-David-Camerons-Wikipedia-entry.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/wikipedia-sentinel-quits-after-using-alias-to-alter-entries-1698762.html http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/26/wikipedia_westminster_councillor/ Jehochman is now clearly dedicated to preventing any development or discussion in spite of reliable sources. This censorship must end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TAway (talk • contribs) 21:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC) This has already been through three AFDs ( BLP concerns, which has led to its recent deletions, salting, and DRV. Please do not throw the word "censorship" around, especially when the intent is to prevent and negative unsourced information from being added to the userfied copy. MuZemike 21:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC) With 2 and 3 both having been closed after almost no discussion by Jehochman. This is not about preventing unsourced information -- all the information is sources -- but protecting a former Arb and Wikipedia's credibility. The media has covered him on other issues, they are now covering his Wikipedia activities, and we even use Boothroyd's election guide as a reliable source in over 700 Wikipedia articles. The media coverage is there, and this is censorship. TAway (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC) The problem is that there is at least the appearance that what's being protecting isn't BLP concerns, but Wikipedia's rep. The story is out, in reliable sources, the only question is about notability, not verifiability. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 22:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Yes - and isn't it odd how long we had an article on David Boothroyd BEFORE this controversy broke? The article survived the first AfD, then was bought two more times in rapid succession in violation of WP:NOTAGAIN. "Censorship" isn't quite the right word - but it closely resembles a whitewash. Snarfies (talk ) 22:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC) August 2005 to May 2009 is not most people's idea of "rapid succession". Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Jayron32 has userified the article to User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC) After userification, Jehochman selectively re-deleted any versions noting the Wikipedia controversy. He also threatened that any re-creation that included the Wikipedia controversy was a "potentially a blockable action." TAway (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Correct - repeatedly re-creating deleted material is blockable, especially when it involves BLP concerns. I'm unsure what the problem is here. Black Kite 22:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC) How is it restoring "deleted material" when the new sources are appearing after Jehochman's inappropriate speedy deletions? Why is it that the article was immediately speedied after Boothroyd resigned from ArbCom after years of existing, then deletion is accepted as the "status quo" when the media picks up on the scandal? He has salted an article and blacklisted an entire issue under threat of ban regardless of how it develops and continues to appear in the media. That is censorship. TAway (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC) as the references accumulate, the material is no longer deleteable. I have respect for Sam for his work here, but neither he nor anyone is actually helped by censorship. That he was an admin here is relevant to his possible outside notability. Jehochman is operating beyond the limits of consensus here. DGG (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Is it true that there was an article on David Boothroyd before the controversy? If so, for how long? ChildofMidnight (talk ) 00:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Yes. And David Boothroyd effectively wrote it. The article that was created in article space was a simple copy and paste, by an editor without an account, of the autobiography that User:Dbiv had had on xyr user page since 2004-03-31. M. Boothroyd didn't write xyr autobiography in article space, and nominated the copy and paste for deletion in the article's second ever edit. The only significant subsequent expansion of the article came from an IP address assigned to Westminster City Council. If that wasn't M. Boothroyd himself, it was someone who was using M. Boothroyd's autobiography as xyr source, because it gave that autobiography as an external link in the edit. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The article would be deletable with or without the Wikipedia scandal - it isn't censorship to say someone isn't notable, nor is it censorship to argue that involvement in one significant event (related to Wikipedia or not) doesn't change that essential fact. He wasn't notable at all before, and the scandal qualifies as his 1BE. I don't think it is Jehochman that is overly focused on the scandal element here; its the folks who insist on recreating this article only to focus on the scandal element of it who need to find other work to do. Nathan T 00:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC) There shouldn't be an article on Boothroyd or any other marginally notable living person until Wikipedia implements an effective mechanism for protecting such articles from malicious editing. Cla68 (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) So consensus was that he was notable enough for an article until there was substantial coverage of his getting caught sock puppeteering and violating Wikipedia's integrity by engaging in conflict of interest edits? This is fascinating. I move that anyone encouraging this kind of policy violating behavior should be put up for recall. We can't have this kind of censorship and bias on Wikipedia especially not from Admins and ARbcom member. It fosters rot right at the core of our trustworthiness and undermines the integrity of Wikipedia as a quality information source. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC) That of course presupposes that there isn't already rot right at the core. --WebHamster 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, it pressupposes something rather different. See below. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) No, that was not the consensus. The first AFD discussion really didn't apply our primary notability criterion at all. No rationale for keeping makes any mention of reliable sources. We kept the article because it satisfied one of the other, secondary, notability criteria that we had at the time: an arbitrary number related to book readership. I suggested a complete rewrite from reliable sources, but that didn't happen. In retrospect, that could well have been because there weren't actually any to be had. The source of all of the content was, indirectly, M. Boothroyd documenting himself, throughout the entire life of the article, and the second AFD discussion can well be regarded as doing the right thing, in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines on reliability and independence of sources, albeit four years after the subject himself first requested the right thing to be done. Uncle G (talk) 02:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) That's interesting because I'm finding lots of sources that discuss his political activities before his indiscretions were covered very substantially. I'm also finding he was VERY active in working on political subject including some that are very negative in tone about Conservative politicians. Where is the accountability? Where is the investigation and clean up that needs to be done? Do we know all the sock accounts he used? Have we asked if there are more? Who knew what when? Are we to believe that Arbcom was completely in the dark about his true identity? Stop trying to sweep this under the rug and let's root the rot out. If we spend half the time trying to make things right that we do trying to cover up the impropriety, maybe we wouldn't have this problem all the time. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC) It doesn't look good to make wild and foolish accusations of sweeping things under a rug when people are doing nothing more than straightforwardly answering your questions. If we'd spent the effort to make things right, by the way, the copy of the autobiography wouldn't have stood in article space for four years, based upon nothing except what the subject claimed about himself. That is what would have been right. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC) TAway appears to be a sock puppet account or somebody with an axe to grind. The matter of deletion was dealt with at disrupting Wikipedia to make a point before somebody else blocks them. They did not notify me of this thread. Apparently. Their goal is to stir up drama, not to resolve a problem. Jehochman Talk 00:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not a sock puppet and I have no axe to grind. I simply stumbled upon this mess when commenting upon a different mess after finding this board recently. It appears to ME anyways that this is not about protecting a BLP, but is a CYA for Wikipedia. From what I can gather, Boothroyd's article had existed for several years before this last bit of trouble. How does it become deleteable only after it's discovered that Boothroyd had managed to somehow attain a position of trust and power on the project, and then abused that power using sock puppets? The situation -- and Boothroyd -- have been dealt with in reliable sources. Why is this even an issue? It seems obvious that the article belongs on the project. Unitanode 02:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC) To be clear, the above regarding my not being a sock puppet was in regards to Jehochman's apparent ad hominem against the originator of this thread. Unitanode 02:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The reality is that it was deletable right from the start, had we applied our sourcing policy properly at the time of the first AFD discussion. But we didn't. We applied a notability criterion that we no longer have, and the existence of what was effectively an unsourced autobiography in article space for four years is an example of why that criterion, and others like it, were and are bad ideas. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Whatever the reality of the policy issues, this bears the distinct odor of a coverup. I'm not well-versed in the ins-and-outs of policy here, so I'm commenting simply on the appearance of things. Unitanode 02:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Then you are creating confusion, and are not being helpful to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia editors, at least, should be capable of getting the facts straight in this affair. Look what happens when one doesn't. TAway has created an entire house of cards in this section predicated upon false information about when M. Boothroyd nominated the article for deletion and what it was that Jenochman deleted from the userfied article. The consequence is that xyr repeated protestations and accusations here look rather silly when compared to the actual MediaWiki logs and edit histories. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) You're being something of a bully with your accusations of "not being helpful to the encyclopedia." My contention is that the continued removal of any reference to Boothroyd, when he has been prominently featured in several reliable sources now, has whiffs of a CYA by those with much more power on this project. Your accusations notwithstanding, all I care about is whether or not the encyclopedia is comprehensive and accurate. Unitanode 12:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC) No-one is bullying you, and that mischaracterization isn't helpful, either. The fact remains that "commenting simply on the appearance of things" is not helpful to the process of writing an encyclopaedia. Stick to the facts, to what the edit histories and logs actually say, and to the policies. Don't build and encourage fantasies based upon "appearance", such as the one that you put forward above based upon the false notion that the article "became deletable". They waste an awful lot of everyone's time. If anything, entirely the reverse of your notion is true: The article, being based upon nothing but autobiography, was deletable for almost four years, and it is only now that it is possibly, as DGG points out above, becoming not deletable. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Appearances are important, whatever you may think. And your characterizing people as being "not helpful to the encyclopedia" appears to be bullying, whatever you may intend it to be. Boothroyd is now notable, and deleting and salting the target page appears untoward, and looks like a CYA move. My saying so is not unhelpful in any way. People disagreeing with your take doesn't make them unhelpful, by the way. It just means we disagree about the importance of the appearance of things. I think that the appearance of things is quite important. Interestingly, and tangentially, the Supreme Court of the United States seems to agree with that view as well. Not that what SCOTUS thinks really matters here, I just found it interesting that they don't simply discard the appearance of impropriety. Unitanode 17:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Just for the sake of comparison.. the political office held by Boothroyd in the UK is on par with a US "city councilman" - Apart from the bad press for getting caught with "wiki-fingers" (pardon the bad pun).. I don't see how he qualifies for an article. The fact that it was here before just means we have a huge problem with borderline BLPs that noone bothers to read. - and we already knew that. If we had an article for every US city councilman caught in a compromising position - we'd really be screwed. --Versageek 02:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, the problem of the article existing before is that AFD didn't come to the right conclusion the first time around, because we applied a bad notability criterion. It has been partially addressed by the fact that we don't have that particular criterion any more, but constant vigilance is required to ensure that we don't slip back into applying such faulty notability criteria at AFD, and don't formulate such criteria. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The article clearly passes the GNG guidelines based on very substantial coverage in numerous reliable sources. It was borderline before this incident, but there's no question now. There's coverage of his activities as a politician, coverage of his activities in private enterprise it look like, and there's now quite a bit of coverage of his subterfuge in editing under aliases against our policies as he sat on our highest administrative body. We are a major information source, we aren't censored, and we shouldn't pretend that he's non-notable now to hide the truth. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Before this incident it was not borderline. It was an unsourced autobiography, and should really have been deleted alongside the other unsourced autobiographies that we delete all of the time here. The subject even asked us to delete it. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) As per precedent, and possibly a guideline (can't find one at the moment, but I think one does cover this issue), the wish of a subject of an article for the article to be kept or deleted is irrelevant. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC) That's certainly true, because an editor is not allowed to own an article. The real question is whether the article should have existed in the first place, regardless of who wrote it. What I'm seeing here among some of those pushing for keeping it, is as coatracking for criticism of wikipedia. There's already an article on criticism of wikipedia, and that's where this situation belongs, if anywhere. It's likely nothing more than a blip in the real life of the subject. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Without making comment as to this article, this can depend on the level of notability. We now and then do delete BLPs whose topics are at the very edge of notability if the subject asks for this to be done in a verifiable way. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Ah, I didn't know that. Thanks for the info. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Nonetheless, it was autobiography, without independent and reliable sources, and the subject asked us to do what, in accordance with our content and deletion policies, we should really have done at the time. AFD came to the wrong result, and that wrong result stood for four years. The arguments being made by two editors, that that wrong result somehow proves notability, when there was no evidence presented either at that first AFD discussion or in the intervening three and a bit years that multiple reliable and independent sources covering this subject in depth exist (because, as can be seen if one actually reads what is cited below, they did not exist), which is the definition of notability, are clearly fallacious arguments. The existence of an unsourced (in effect) autobiography for four years only demonstrates that AFD went wrong. It doesn't demonstrate notability during that time, and both that thesis, and the further thesis (also propounded) that the subject was notable and now is not notable, are predicated upon a falsehood. (As DGG points out above, if anything entirely the reverse is true.) Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) For those of us too lazy to look up what actually happened, but not lazy enough to refrain from repeating misinformation: WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd "I am nominating this article about myself for deletion as I don't think I make the notability criteria (although possibly verging on them). However I reserve the right to become notable in the future. David | Talk 22:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)" KEEP WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination) "Non-notable, lack of sourcing. Does not meet our present notability standards for inclusion as a WP:BLP. Last AFD was nearly four years ago. rootology/equality 19:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)" DELETE WP:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (3rd nomination) "The individual does not meet our criteria for inclusion. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)" DELETE --Hans Adler (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Uncle G, that's not the definition of "notability" — not in any sense of the word, not off Wikipedia, and not on Wikipedia either — even if you want to pretend that Wikipedia:Notability provides a different definition (it doesn't, it defines "notable" as "worthy of notice", just like the dictionary.) And please don't act like every other notability criterion besides your "PNC" is a bad idea. --Pixelface (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Actually the problem with the old article was that the notability was not sourced and specified. Borderline in as much as "can't really prove it with the sources given (or lack thereof) but plausible enough". Otherwise Notability is more of an on/off switch. Somebody can be notable and we don't have an article just because we don't have access to the sources. On the other hand we can't take way notability once it is established. IE DH has not had an appearance at a professional football game therefore not notable when notability has been established otherwise. Agathoclea (talk) 23:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Administrative action v. outcome Actually there are two separate questions: whether the article was deleted correctly and whether Jehochman's post-deletion actions were appropriate. The complaint regarded Jehochman's actions, not the deletion itself. So let's break this down: The poster lists three sources and calls them reliable: The Register, Daily Mail, and The Independent. Would an editor who knows British periodicals please weigh in? What is our general practice on userspace recreations of courtesy deleted biographies? The poster asserts He has suggested he will block anyone who includes the material and will only allow selectively restored versions of the Boothroyd article that do not mention his Wikipedia controversy. Yet no the poster provides no diff of this assertion. If Jehochman actually did suggest that blocks would be forthcoming, we need clear answers to the first two questions. If at least one of those three sources is reliable, and if userspace recreations are allowable in this situation, and if Jehochman selectively deleted that news and threatened blocks--then a problem exists. Otherwise there's probably little problem, except for one thing: This issue is developing news, and arguably a reputation management issue. Jehochman is a reputation management professional who appears to have acted boldly without requesting the review and assistance of fellow administrators at the admin boards. It wouldn't be good to see this spin out of control with claims of 'coverup', and if mud gets thrown it might possibly stick. So respectfully requesting that Jehochman seek community consensus before taking further action. DurovaCharge! 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC) There is absolutely no doubt that the Mail, the Register and the Independent qualify as reliable sources. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Oh? Had thought there was doubt about citing the Register. Anyway if at least one of them is then question 1 is answered. How about the userfication question? Is it permissible to develop BLPs in user space after deletion and DRV? DurovaCharge! 04:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC) You make some good points, but let's be clear. This is NOT just developing news. This is a subject we've long had an article on, who has been covered in the media for years. There has recently been a major surge in coverage due to policy violating behaviors that are also unethical for a politician. So he's under fire. Not only are we subject to allegations of a cover-up, so far we are guilty of one. All of a sudden the subject was no longer notable right when lots of coverage was occuring that wasn't favorable? This is the worst kind of censorship and it puts us in a very bad light. It also comes at a time when Arbcom is already involved in coddling POV pushers, bias and NPOV violations. So we have a major problem that needs to be fixed. So instead of attacking anyone who questions those trying to sweep things under the rug, we need to take a step back, take a deep breath, restore the article, put in a few sentences about the issues involved, and see what happens. We have this rush to action any time there's a controversy, but cooler, more rational, and more reasonable heads should prevail. Let's do the right thing instead of engaging in subterfuge to cover up for those violating our policies. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC) As the person who had the article usefied, I'm currently thinking about this with both the Mail and Indepdent as reliable and the Register as a source only as a matter of last resort for uncontroversial details. The Mail and Indepdent are pretty clearly WP:RS. Regarding the matter of development in userspace, there's a variety of conflicting precedents about that. Given that the closer of the DRV made the decision that userfication in this case was ok that seems ok. He's given one week to work on it as a time limit. Given that, I see it as very hard to see a problem with working on a userfied version. I haven't seen Jehochman claim that he will delete/issue blocks for any mention of the controversy in question although I've already asked him to clarify what precisely he considers to be a BLP problem. It might help matters if Jehochman would have other arbs or admins take a look at this in more detail since a variety of users seem to be upset with his handling of the matter. In any event, it would be appreciated if users would help contribute to a draft rather than attacking Jehochman or stirring up further drama. (Oh, and the next time something in my userspace is the center of an ANI thread could someone please do me the courtesy of letting me know?) JoshuaZ (talk ) 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Actually Jehochman wrote in an edit summary to your user talk page: "(WP:BLP1E enforcement -- blocks will be issued if same old problems are reinstated.)"[119] DurovaCharge! 04:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, but I don't know what he meant by that. Is the problem using The Reg as a source? Is the problem the Wikipedia matter as a whole. Is the problem some of the unsourceable details about his career that were in the earlier version? Needs clarification. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC) It's one in the morning in Jehochman's time zone. So he probably isn't available to answer that right now. Was it only a citation to The Register that he removed? It's a long page to scour and you're more familiar with it. DurovaCharge! 04:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC) If the recreated page is turned into an attack page, I predict the editors who are responsible will be blocked by somebody else. It won't be me doing the blocking, but I am pretty confident that an uninvolved administrator can be found to review the evidence if a block is called for. Jehochman Talk 11:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Well, it is 1 AM here too... :). Anyways, I can't tell since he deleted the offending edits [120]. But I believe that was the only material in question. I do of course understand the late hour and don't have any issue waiting for his clarification. (Indeed, I sent him a note. I still see this ANI thread as unnecessary). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Actually this is developing news. That's not the only thing it is, but it certainly is that. Do you have an analysis of the numbered questions, please? DurovaCharge! 04:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC) It's not just developing news. Here are a few of the sources that Google News search comes up wit (the first 10 or so predating the latest controversy): 1) [121] Fox News 2) [122] The Guardian 3) Time/CNN [123] 4) [124] The Independent 5)The Argus [125] 6) Wood and Vale [126] 7)Westminster’s Icelandic folly - PressDisplay.com - Oct 13, 2008 has a story on him. 8) Westminster affordable housing row PlanningResource - PlanningResource (subscription) - Oct 23, 2008 Labour member of the committee Cllr David Boothroyd, has branded the move as “a smash and grab raid”. He said: "So many people are waiting for transfer to a ... 9) Local elections good for gay Labour PinkNews.co.uk - May 5, 2006 Gay councillors, Matt Cooke and Alan Dobbie held seats in Labour controlled Haringey and David Boothroyd held his in Westminster. 10) And then of course there's the very substantial coverage AFTER his latest controversy [127], [128] Daily Mail 11) The Register [129] And then there are other stories that I'm not sure are related. There are several tech stories. Is he David Boothroyd, Contributing Editor to Vision Systems Design? Does he write on wireless standards? And I understand he's also an author. So there's more notability based on his book and writings and presumably more sources available on Google Books. And to answer your other questions, Jehochman needs to stop acting unilaterally and in haste. And other veteran editors need to stop covering this up and maintain what's left of our integrity by doing what's right. There's no need for userspace recreations, because the article should be recreated in main space and protected with a couple sentences covering the latest issues so we can all get back to editing and expanding the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Childofmidnight, those are all very interesting sources. Would you move them out of this subsection to the previous subsection please? For purposes of this subthread, all we really need to determine is that at least one of the new sources is reliable. We're already there. The second question is whether it's ok for users to recreate BLPs in user space after they've been deleted. And looking into this a little more, there's also a subquestion: if it's ok to do this in userspace, are editors prohibited from starting work before DRV? DurovaCharge! 04:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I can answer questions 1 and 3, Durova. Question 1, yes, the Daily Mail (second most-circulated paper in the nation) and Independent (a past top British Press Awards recipient) are both ironclad reliable sources. We use the Register as a source in the Essjay controversy article so I am assuming it is fine. TAway (talk ) 04:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Question 3: I was incorrectly blocked by Jehochman for "WP:POINT violations" for having the article (entirely sourced) in my userspace (it was in my user space prior to his inappropriate speedy deletion, but he claimed I had restored it post-deletion), and only unblocked if "you will not restore this content anywhere on Wikipedia." When the article was userfied to JoshuaZ's userspace, Jehochman appeared and re-deleted, then selectively restored revisions without the Sam Blacketer controversy material saying, "Attack page or negative unsourced BLP: Deleted revisions were improperly restored" (it was not unsourced, and only "negative" in that it certainly reflects poorly) and "blocks will be issued if same old problems are reinstated." He then left a message on the userfied article's talk page making clear what he had done: "there were a bunch of WP:BLP problems in the deleted history. These were accidentally restored. I have deleted and selectively restored revisions I think may be acceptable." Let's face it, had the evenly split post-speedy-deletion discussion at the Boothroyd deletion review been allowed to take place as a normal 7-day Article for Deletion it would have been a clear "no consensus" outcome. He has used his ability to speedy-delete and thus force DRV discussion instead of AfD discussion to claim that the book on this issue is now closed. He completely ignored administrator User:SoWhy's attempt to approach him on the matter and instead dismissively pointed to the DRV. By my count, three sysops (SoWhy, Sandstein, and now DGG) have commented with concerns about his protective and anti-consensus behavior during the developing Boothroyd situation. Jehochman has openly stated "our website with its search-ranking-fu does not need to be made available to those who wish to amplify his (David Boothroyd's) problems" ( assuming bad faith of those who hold the story with its coverage to be verifiable and notable). It is my contention that Jehochman is a search engine optimization expert who wants to keep the story out of the search engine results for the sake of Wikipedia and Boothroyd's reputations both. He is obviously about as far from a neutral broker of the Boothroyd situation as one can get right now and is in fact editing with a declared agenda: to minimize the search engine imprint of this story. His actions during AfD (speedying a deletion and denying a full AfD despite substantial new media coverage of a new development) and actions to suppress development of the issue's media coverage on-wiki via blocks and block threats are censorship. TAway (talk ) 04:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Well, let's not rush to conclusions here. Or at least please excuse the ignorance of an editor who doesn't spend much time at AFD. In good faith, Jehochman might have been thinking of the editors David Boothroyd had voted to ban during his time as an arbitrator, who might add frivolous accusations to the substantial material. A portion of editors believe in being generous with courtesy deletions upon the subject's request. Regarding the block of May 27, could people who are familiar with AfD standards comment on the practice of recreating a BLP in userspace before DRV gets underway? Is that an ok thing to do? DurovaCharge! 05:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Not enough in the way of precedent. If it were an unambiguous attack page then recreation in userspace would have clearly been blockable. However, the deletion reason seems to be primarily BLP1E which is not sufficient reason generally to argue against a userspace recreation. I'm not aware of any similar block occasions for such more or less borderline situations such as BLP1E, or courtesy deletion requests. (There may have also been a GFDL violation in TAQway's actions but I'm not sure). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I'm leaving a whole mess of things to the side here and just offering my own view on Durova's second question. As a matter of commonsense, if we in fact do courtesy deletions of not-well-known BLPs (as has happened here) then it strikes me as the acme of foolishness to turn around and allow recreation of said BLP - even in a different form - in userspace. Leaving the specifics of this case to the side, let's think of this from the perspective of the subject of a theoretical article similar to the one we are discussing. The article subject comes to us and says, "Hey, I'm a local politician in Topeka, KS who is barely notable and I don't want a Wiki bio because I'm worried about defamation and having an article about me is not important for Wikipedia/the world, so can you delete it?" We say yes and then do so, but then we allow an editor to develop a new article in user space, presumably for the purpose of one day importing it into article space (otherwise why would would it be there?). At a basic level that strikes me as illogical, and I think the BLP subject in question would be understandably agog that we deleted it and then let it be created again in some other part of Wikipedia for it to be worked on and then maybe moved back into article space later. The particulars of this case are more complex (and I'm intentionally ignoring them to make a general point), but personally I feel "our general practice on userspace recreations of courtesy deleted biographies" has to be "we don't do that." If not then courtesy deletion is effectively meaningless. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Well, couldn't userspace be noindexed? The DRV closer in this instance specifically allowed userspace drafts with a time limit. So the post-DRV recreation seems ok. Not sure about the other one. Striking for now. Need to reverify: thought that was written, but having trouble finding it. DurovaCharge! 05:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I suppose that helps, to the extent that average people know what "noindexed" means and/or are comforted by some techie's explanation of it (I barely know what it means, to be honest). Again I'm just thinking about this from the perspective of a the subject of the BLP who asks for deletion—presumably (most of the time) a person who is not familiar with Wikipedia or even maybe the workings of the series of tubes in which this web site lives. If we say, "Sure, we'll delete that!" and then in following up the person in question somehow sees (maybe on the talk page of the admin who did the deletion) that the article we just deleted has been recreated at some random user's user page....well let's just say it probably wouldn't be fun to respond to that OTRS ticket. The moral component of our BLP policy is (or should be) as much about perceived harm as actual harm—i.e. if a BLP subject says "I'm an unimportant person and this article has done and/or might do me harm" we probably are not going to fight with them about that but rather will largely take their word. Similarly I would not want to get in a conversation/argument with such a person about how they don't have to worry because it's in userspace which is "different," something something something "noindexing," etc. etc. And it still doesn't deal with the fact that an article in userspace is, by definition, something that is being worked on to be put in article space, otherwise we wouldn't have it there in userspace. Like I said there are different aspects to this particular discussion that might complicate matters, but in general I really cannot imagine a compelling argument for saying we can delete a BLP based on a real life request from an article subject and then turn around and put it in user space to work on it so we can later re-create the article we just deleted. In all seriousness I might be missing something but that strikes me as the rub of the matter. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC) What you are missing: that almost immediately after Boothroyd's deletion request he became the subject of national media attention. National media attention in multiple sources completely changes the ballgame. TAway (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Like I said above, "Like I said there are different aspects to this particular discussion that might complicate matters..." This case might be slightly different for the reason you suggest (though this supposed "national media attention" seems, at a glance, to be quite minimal). My two previous comments gave my view on Durova's general question about userfying BLP articles that have been courtesy deleted rather than engaging with the specifics of this situation. I think it's obvious that userfying BLP articles that have been courtesy deleted is, as a rule, a definite bad idea. Perhaps this is an exception or perhaps not, but if it's the former I think it would be a very rare one. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 3 years 9 months is not "almost immediately". M. Boothroyd asked for the article to be deleted on the 8th of August 2005. This is one of the errors of fact upon which you have built your house of cards. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The content related to the recent scandal can be added to undue weight. That's the problem. A public figure, like Chris Dodd can have some scandal content in their biography because there is enough substance to provide balance. I'd very much like an answer to the question of whether it is kosher to userify a deleted WP:DRV. Basically, I think the undeleting administrator was not fully aware of those circumstances and would not disagree with what I did. Jehochman Talk 10:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC) On a side note: Jehochman involved admin? Another problem to ponder, which I have so far not considered, but which strikes me now is this: If Jehochman closed the second AFD as delete (very quickly without the usual 24h SNOW waiting period that admins usually apply), doesn't this mean he is now involved administrator and should not take administrator actions regarding the same subject again, especially not closing a new AFD (like the third one) or selectively deleting revisions of the userfied article) based on said close. Opinions? Regards SoWhy 07:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Trying to solve a difficult problem does not disqualify somebody from continuing to try to solve that problem. You can't just scream "involved!" to get rid of an administrator who disagrees with your point of view. Most of the revisions I deleted had been previously deleted (as best I can remember) before I was ever aware of the article. When the article was userified, I don't think it was the administrators intention to restore those revisions. They included some edits by the HAGGER vandal, for example. I also removed the WP:DRV). Jehochman Talk 09:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I understand that you probably do not view yourself as an involved administrator while I think in the spirit of the reasons you cited on your first close that you were from then on, now having an opinion about what should stay and what should be deleted. A deletion by an involved administrator can be upheld, so pointing at DRV is not really an argument. But my posting was a question to those not involved in the issue at all (unlike you and me) whether my interpretation of IAR/SNOW leading to a seperate decision and thus more than just being judgment of consensus is correct, so I'd like to invite those people to consider this thought/problem (regardless of the issue at hand if possible). From you I'd like to request that you recuse yourself from taking any further administrative action towards this article (userfied or not) and allow an administrator previously not involved in the issue at hand to decide the further fate of the article (you can tag it for speedy deletion as G4 for example and someone will make a decision). It would serve both you and the project as a whole if any rumors of whitewashing can be avoided and not having the same admin repeatedly deleting an article is imho a way to achieve this. Regards SoWhy 10:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I'd be happy to have nothing else to do with this stinking mess if an uninvolved administrator would step forward and promise to keep an eye on it. Whatever leads to the smoothest operation of the project is fine with me. Jehochman Talk 10:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC) My opinion is that this side-issue that you have created only serves to confuse, not to enlighten. The specifics of the case at hand are that the userfied edits that were deleted, as you can see for yourself, with the sole exception of TAway's contributions were all BLP vandalism making various libellous statements about the subject's sex life and sexual orientation. Abstract notions of "involvement" are irrelevant to that, and only serve to further muddy waters already muddied quite a lot above. If an abstract notion prevents someone from reversing/removing an edit where a BLP has been replaced with the word "cunt" (the one piece of vandalism here that I think to be safe to explicitly describe) then the abstract notion is directly enabling the existence of damage to the project. Uncle G (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Applying some simple logic here from my simple mind: (1) If this guy Boothroyd is notable, then he could qualify for a bio article. If not, then delete it. (2) If his own life and career are affected by his abuse of wikipedia, then it could merit a sentence or two. If not, then it doesn't belong in his article. That's not to say it might not belong elsewhere, such as the Criticism of Wikipedia article, as it illustrates some of the flaws in wikipedia's premise, which have been exploited by many, not just that one guy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Is Jehochman involved 'now'? It's a simple test. The level of involvement is simple to determine: is there consensus that Jehochman is involved now? If so, he is, and can't use the tools again without risk of the usual risks that come with that. If there isn't consensus he's involved, he's not. If it is gray or borderline, you probably are. It's fairly simple, everyone. Make your case either way with evidence, or stop alluding to it. T ) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC) My case is above. It's an irrelevant side-issue given the actual specifics here, and extra section headings don't change that. Uncle G (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Yeah, I know, I was just emphasizing that if someone thinks he's involved to just spit it out already with a valid reasoning or evidence, rather than us wasting time more on that bit. I'm actually with you on this. T ) 17:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Notability of the event in the context of the rest of him and BLP This is getting pointless in particular. If he's notable, he's notable. If he's not, he's not. You either are, or you aren't. The sourcing IMHO is beginning to look like he is. I will say again what I said before: the fact Boothroyd is or isn't a Wikipedia user is 100% irrelevant in anything. The fact he screwed up here has zero value in any decisions we make. If the Wikipedia Event he caused gets coverage, there is no BLP violation at the least a one-sentence mention of it, relative to what has been reported so far. None. To totally suppress it from T ) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC) What is the process for restoring an article after it has been to deletion review and the deletion was sustained? WP:DRVRV seems to be a redlink. Jehochman Talk 13:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC) There is no process, as far as I am aware. An article on Boothroyd can be recreated, but like a case involving just an AFD, it must not fall foul of the reasons why the original article was deleted, otherwise it can be speedily deleted. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Typically, someone does a noindex userpage draft, gets a working model that would 'pass' AFD trivially, and brings it back to DRV. If When DRV signs off, someone kicks it back live, and sometimes the old history is merged in (if old content is used) otherwise, new history. Since the draft in Josh's side is used, the history needs to be merged in fully I think when it goes live eventually. Given Boothroyd is a notable politician in the UK that is apparently even getting all over the news for events unrelated to Wikipedia after that mess, I think it's inevitable. T ) 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC) As rootology says. Although, if one thinks the closing admin of the DRV made a mistake in judging consensus, DRV should be the right avenue to contest this as well, although it usually is brought to AN or ANI. Regards SoWhy 13:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Tweaked from if>when DRV, any article that would trivially pass AFD can't under policy fail DRV (politics, social reasons, sure, but we can't judge content inclusion based on such factors outside of policy). 0:) T ) 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) ( vecia 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I said, Recreation in the same form is potentially a blockable action, or perhaps the article will just be deleted again. I really hope it does not get to that point. Not sure I'm seeing a threat there as much as a statement of fact or a warning. I'm not going to block anybody or delete anything further, as this issue is now on the radar of multiple administrators. At the moment I am digging through the deleted edits and some other history where I've found multiple accounts and IPs that appear to be connected to an infamous banned editor. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure whether David Boothroyd should be a red or blue link, but it's odd to suggest that there are not BLP issues here. Leave all of the Wikipedia stuff to the side for a minute. The subject of the article requested deletion—once four years ago (I think before we did that kind of thing, i.e. courtesy deletions) and once more recently. Regardless of how big of a deal this recent controversy is (and I think it's not nearly as big of a deal as some suggest—as of now there are a whopping seven news articles on the issue that I can find, few of which seem to contain any original reporting), Boothroyd is most definitely "relatively unknown" in my view. I'm not sure what the current thinking on deleting BLPs at the request of such subjects is at this point, but in the past my understanding was that this was something that is acceptable and somewhat up to admin discussion per various ArbCom rulings. Maybe the consensus now on this particular case is that there is too much coverage now to not have an article on Boothroyd, but let's not lose sight of the fact that: A) the subject has repeatedly requested deletion; B) the key subject matter can easily be covered elsewhere (since the key subject matter is the Wiki controversy, not the fact that he is a local politician, of whom there are hundreds of thousand across the world); C) BLP is something we all obviously care about—even when it comes to Wikipedians who have articles. To suggest that there is no BLP issue here at all is just bizarre in my view, and I think it would be easier to see that were there not concerns about a coverup of information relating to Wikipedia. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I already commented in the MfD of the userspace draft, which didn't look at all like a NOINDEX draft to work on a better article, but a parking place for the article because it had been deleted at AfD against his own opinion. I already commented on the MfD about how the sources before the wikipedia "incident" only quote him to show the opinion of a member of the Westminster Council, and how he didn't take any of those controversial decisions himself, it was the council that made them. TAway can make as many claims of censorship in his user page as he wants, but those are not supported by evidence, since both the MfD and the DRV were closed by uninvolved admins. Sooo, I'd suggest that is marked as resolved and that TAway heads to WP:DRV to contest the DRV close, and that trying other noticeboards should be considered forum-shopping (and give him +1 kudos of unnecessary drama for every claim of censorship that he makes, please). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Maybe another Essjay-type scandal The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Resolved  – Not going anywhere productive, no administrative actions are required here, and this is not an "incident" ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC) With the already existing coverage of the Sam Blacketer controversy in the media, and on Wikipedia in the form of the relevant article and various discussions such as a large one currently going on above, the apparent news that The Times is preparing a new piece on what's happened and with ABC having caught wind of the story, I'm concerned this controversy may escalate into something, whilst probably not as grand as what happened with Essjay, rather bad. What should we do if this happens? OpenSeven (talk) 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a new and weak project anymore. It needs not shake over any possible negative mention in media. Just do as instructed in Yes Minister, and everything will be fine. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I think it's great if the media wants to cover sock puppetry. This sort of problem is a big issue for many websites, not just Wikipedia. Jehochman Talk 15:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC) As a criticism of wikipedia, all it proves is that being totally open to the public can bite you, and that wikipedia might need to become more restrictive, maybe not as restrictive as citizendium, but maybe some steps in that direction. This so-called "scandal" only shames the sockpuppet, not wikipedia. But it should be a wakeup call to tighten the reins a bit, somehow. I wonder what Wales' take is on all this? Has anyone asked him? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I'm shocked... shocked to hear that sockpuppets have been editing en.Wikipedia. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC) We could rename it "shockpuppetry". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC) And every time we see it happen, it's a case of shock and 'Aw, damn...' HalfShadow 16:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC) It seems that the politicos and mainstream media have taken a fancy to this controversy. The Daily Mail report a few breathtaking inaccuracies, but this goes a long way toward making this situation a lot more complicated. Jehochman Talk 16:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC) To be honest, they're lambasting Boothroyd (fancy the newspapers chastising Labour party members...) much, much more than they are Wikipedia. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 16:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC) As if he's the only one to have done it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Still, at least they're aiming at the right target; this is the fault of the editor, not the site. HalfShadow 16:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC) If he's suffering slings and arrows in real life, it's a fitting punishment, although it still doesn't make him notable enough for his own page. It could be a footnote in the Criticism article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Fitting punishment? Gross. Who elected you, or indeed any of us, judge and jury? The user known as Sam Blacketer clearly erred here, but it was hardly the most dastardly thing we've ever seen on Wikipedia, and now the real-life person might be facing very real-life consequences based in part on some unsurprisingly sloppy reporting by a British tabloid. I hardly think that's something to celebrate, and a bit more sympathy for the actual living person affected by this - regardless of mistakes they made - would be appropriate (and I say this as someone who has never interacted with the person in question on Wikipedia or anywhere else). This isn't a goddamn video game, and this discussion is rapidly moving in an unseemly direction with little regard for real-world consequences. If there is continuing coverage then presumably Sam Blacketer controversy or something similar will stay an article and we'll talk about this situation there. All I see here right now is unhelpful, and not very thoughtful, speculation. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Sam is going to initiate an admin recall of himself on June 15. Do people think his adminship should go? OpenSeven (talk) 16:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC) This is not an 'Incident' and it doesn't require administrators' technical action. Closing, there are other venues for this, if it must go on at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 16:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. David Boothroyd deletion - do we have a process or not? One of the most annoying things about the Wikipedia community is the desire to have instant outcomes when we are supposed to be deliberating thoughtfully. We can see this at Articles for Deletion, where the guideline says: When an article is nominated for deletion, the Wikipedia community may discuss its merits for a period usually no less than seven days, in order to come to a public rough consensus about whether the article is unsuited to Wikipedia. Following seven days of discussion, an experienced Wikipedian will determine if a consensus was reached and will "close" the discussion accordingly. This rarely comes into practice. The idea that we discuss whether to delete an article for a length of seven days is pretty much non-existent. Case-in-point: the recent AFD for David Boothroyd. There were three for this article as follows: First AFD on August 8-August 14, 2005 - 7 days, KEEP - 10 votes total Second AFD on May 23-May 23, 2009 - not even one day. DELETE - 6 votes total Third AFD on May 27-May27, 2009 - not even one day. DELETE - 7 votes total There is no way--no way--those last two deletion discussions should have been closed on the same days that they were opened. The third one was open for an hour and a half. The second one for less than that! The admins closing and deleting under these circumstances are derelict in the guidelines that this community has set up. If there were problems with the articles, they could be addressed. This is a very problematic trend for people to enact WP:SNOW, often not even citing it, to close off debate. Censorship, indeed. -->David Shankbone 17:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Yes it should have run the full period, and yes it was, in my view at least, a mistake to cut it off after one day, and yes it is annoying when we don't deliberate thoughtfully. Jehochman could have handled this better. But crying "censorship" is a major failure to assume good faith and is not really borne out by the facts. In both AFDs Jehochman cited BLP enforcement as his rationale and I see no reason to not take him at his word on that (i.e. I think he had good intentions here), particularly as the article subject requested deletion (twice actually, counting four years ago). We do do, or at least have done, deletions of marginal BLPs when subjects request them, and I think the real issue here is whether or not that was appropriate in this case. If you want thoughtful deliberation, let's stick to that rather than making unfounded accusations of censorship. Also, there's a very related AfD still running and I have a feeling the Boothroyd issue will be resolved over there eventually. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The article was userfied to User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd. —EncMstr (talk ) 17:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Nobody cares that Boothroyd asked for his article to be deleted, just like we don't care that Don Murphy wants his deleted (also for BLP concerns). It's irrelevant. As far as I'm concerned, this is Wikipedia self-censorship, removing articles about incidents that cause us embarrassment. The article existed for four years after a seven-day long deletion discussion. The last two AFDs are completely illegitimate. They weren't open for one day. They were open for less than two hours. There is no possible way that we gained any consensus in that time frame, especially given that there was consensus reached to KEEP when the process was done properly. Admins have to follow the guidelines we set up, and not go around deleting articles based upon their own judgment. I take extreme issue with Jehochman over how he has conducted himself with these AFDs. There is no AGF when our governing policies and guidelines are shirked so heinously. -->David Shankbone 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I concur that the two last AFDs were closed too soon. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Deletion Review is that way. I don't think getting worked up about "censorship" issues is very constructive at this point; if these closures were outside of process or otherwise erroneous, then they should be reviewed by the normal process, not at this noticeboard. Shereth 17:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Wrong - this is an admin issue about not following guidelines, procedures and policies. DRV is separate. -->David Shankbone 17:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I agree that the larger issue of percieved malfeasance by one editor is a seperate issue from the deletions themselves, but the above statements seem to be conflating them. The closure of these discussions has already been mentioned in the deliberation about the larger issue at hand; I'm not sure what this new subsection is adding to the argument. It reads more like a request to review the closures rather than contribute to the discussion about a user's behavior. Shereth 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Like you David I don't agree with the last two AFDs, as I already said. But also bear in mind that Boothroyd asked that the article be deleted back in 2005 in the first AFD, well before any of this stuff went down. At the very least, there is a split in the community about whether we do courtesy deletions of BLPs when the subject requests it, and when the subject is of marginal notability. Don Murphy is not marginal because he produced a massively successful Hollywood film and someone wrote a book significantly about him, Boothroyd is marginal because he is a local politician who has recently achieved some (at this point) minor notoriety for one incident. We can debate about whether we should take the subject's wishes into account in the latter circumstance or not, and we can agree that Jehochman did not handle the AFDs well (though I'm less concerned by that than you are apparently), but don't pretend that "nobody cares that Boothroyd asked for his article to be deleted" because some people clearly do, and because we have done subject-requested deletions before (though I don't have an example at hand). There is a larger BLP debate here which remains unresolved, but things like WP:BLPBAN and the Badlydrawnjeff ArbCom suggest that Jehochman's actions were not completely off-the-wall. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC) There was a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia is not news, and if you want to write news, try WikiNews. Jehochman Talk 17:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Why are WP:SNOW closures even permitted? What is the point of establishing policy if nobody is required to follow them, or even remarked on when they don't? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I've tried Wikinews; an article that was around for four years after a KEEP AFD, and whose subject only became more notable recently, is a problem for you to delete in under two hours, Jehochman. I don't see how you could possibly defend your actions here. It's a slap in the face to the community that has given you trust to follow how we write how things will happen. -->David Shankbone 18:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC) If you feel that way than take this to another level of dispute resolution, but please have a bit of respect for the BLP issue, which is clearly present, and by which these actions are at least somewhat defensible. You seem to be plowing right past that (along with some others). This is a fairly complex situation (particularly as its literally still unfolding in the news and in an active AfD), and I'm skeptical of anyone who tries to make it sound simple. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Bigtime, I see no BLP issues mentioned in this thread that would excuse this behavior. If I want to discuss article content, I will do so at DRV or on the article Talk page. Yes, I think it's irrelevant that the subject wants their article deleted (or doesn't want the New York Times to write that story about them, etc.), and I always have (but I also think FlaggedRevs is long overdue). Here, the issue is with Jehochman deleting, twice, in under two hours, an article that was previously kept--strongly--by consensus. This is not the way we do things. -->David Shankbone 18:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC) That first RfD, 4 years ago, was hardly a ringing endorsement. Notability questions arose even then. After that, the article skated mostly under the radar for nearly 4 years, with only about 80 or 85 edits during that interval. Once the user got himself in trouble and that became public knowledge, then there was a revived move to delete it. You can claim wikipedia is protecting itself, but it's actually that guy who is shamed, not wikipedia, and making a big thing out of it in his article raises questions of BLP violations; undue weight; coatracking; and, frankly, wikipedian narcissim. Unfortunately, the quick closure of the RfD's looks fishy. But the DRV was open for a week, so there was ample opportunity to defend the article. It did not, and does not, belong here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) There are several highly problematic deleted edits to that article by Grawp. The situation here is more complex than meets the eye. I've got a checkuser working on this. Jehochman Talk 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Jehochman has asked me to inform the community that he and I have had prior conflict. That said, questions about the above comment: were the edits to that article substantially more problematic than edits to other borderline notability BLPs that get a spurt of negative attention in the press? DurovaCharge! 18:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC) There are edits in the history that are as problematic as edits can get. As in, worst I've seen on Wikipedia. This article is a very high risk of doing serious harm to the subject. You've seen the sloppy reporting at The Register and the Daily Mail. Do you want to pick up one of those papers tomorrow and see them repeating an unsubstantiated allegation of pedophilia or bestiality? I know for absolute certainty that Grawp has edited this article at least twice, and there are a bunch of other edits that appear to be coming from his sock puppets or friends. Jehochman Talk 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The normal way of handling AFD vandalism is semiprotect, watchlist, and ask for assistance at ANI to deal with remaining vandalism. Isn't that true? BTW there's a question at my user talk also. DurovaCharge! 19:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC) So...you close two AFDs when they've barely been opened instead of asking for oversight? -->David Shankbone 19:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC) By the way, WP:ANI is the correct venue to resolve content disputes. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC) JE, even if there were BLP problems, you could have removed those problems and allowed the AFDs to proceed. Do you or do you not see why your closing two AFDs, in the midst of recent news events, is a problem that violated your responsibilities as an admin, when you should have followed the guidelines and just removed problematic material from the article? -->David Shankbone 18:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I think the whole point of closing the third AFD according the WP:STEAM was done to force a DRV which by default deletes where an AFD keeps. On a whole this is a matter of admin conduct and not anymore about if DB should have an article or not. Agathoclea (talk ) 18:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Agathoclea has hit the nail on the head with this comment. A 50-50 no consensus AfD defaults to keep, but the same at DRV defers to the deleting administrator. Why can we not have a normal, 7-day AfD discussion on a public figure who has and continues to be covered extensively in the press? TAway (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC) This is not about a content dispute, Jehochman. This is about your involvement in manipulating the encyclopedia via speedily deleting out of process twice in a row incorrectly blocking with false rationale threatening editors with blocks selectively restoring versions without certain reliably sourced content wiki-lawyering editors out of a real AfD by throwing DRV in their faces trying to change the BLP and Speedy deletion policies to accommodate and validate your actions to (by our own admission as a search engine optimization expert) obscure search engine results. You were approached by other uninvolved editors (including another sysop) over these past several days and ignored them, so it is now here where it cannot be ignored. TAway (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC) The purpose of this thread needs to be clarified. Expressions of concern about Hockman's conduct belong at certain forums, and debate over the articles' existence or non-existence belongs at certain other forums. As of now, this discussion is an unproductive amalgamation of the two. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC) No, they belong together. Because if there was no debate over the article's existence, there would be no debate over its allegedly too-rapid deletion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 09:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC) No, I still disagree. We have AfD for a reason. And we have <a large number of abuse forums> for allegations of administrator abuse (not that I'm asserting this has happened here, but it's the fact of the matter). To assert there should be unnecessary and encouraged cross-over is not tackling the situation properly. Of course, the problems with Jehockman's response to the content might be referenced in some discussion about Jehockman's conduct, but we should separate talk of the content itself where possible. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Agreeing with Anonymous Dissident. The opening poster raised admin conduct issues, and it was necessary to ask questions about process and policy in order to explore that. Was a bit hard to keep that on-focus. DurovaCharge! 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I sometimes feel that Durova has a longstanding grudge against me. I'd really appreciate if she stopped engaging in dispute intensification. Durova, how about you stop commenting on me. There are plenty of other editors who can provide useful feedback, when needed. Jehochman Talk 19:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC) My initial reasons for starting this thread were 1) to express extreme dissatisfaction with Jehochman's premature closures of the AfDs; 2) to express discontent that our rules of governance were not followed with a "hot" issue; and 3) to raise the larger problem of way, way too many WP:STICK. -->David Shankbone 20:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you, David. To give credit where due, Durova above suggested protection as a better solution to the problem, and I think that is good advice. Jehochman Talk 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry, David, I just discovered this thread and feel like I should pile on. This happens when admins don't follow process. I'm really annoyed with those of us, like Jehochman, who occasionally believe that they don't have to follow process because they know better. (Although I may have been guilty of this once or twice, too.) Seriously, AfDs are supposed to run for seven days. If the first or even the second one had been allowed to, or if DRV contributors had remembered that it is DRV's job to examine violations of process exclusively and restarted the AfD, we would not have this drama. What we should consider is a rule, similar to WP:DP#NAC, whereby any premature AfD closure can be undone and the AfD relisted by any other administrator.  Sandstein  18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC) A reminder While it may be fun to devote time to drama about Jehochman's actions, editors who wish there to be a Boothroyd article are better served trying to work on actually improving the draft. I'm not at all convinced there should be an article but every pair of hands helps make it better. There are now roughly 6 days remaining until this is going to go to the community for some form of decision. Effort should be made into allowing the community to make that decision with the best possible version of an article on Boothroyd, not in bickering. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I'd be happy to, but I've been told by Jehochman that he will block me again if I "restore this content anywhere on Wikipedia." It is not "drama" when a user has been blocked for developing content and told they will be blocked again for continuing anywhere else on the project. Will he rescind his threat and agree to recuse himself from taking actions against editors working on the Boothroyd article? TAway (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I've already said that I'm not going to involve myself further in this matter. I am happy to let others deal with it. Please mind WP:BLP and other relevant policies. Before moving that article into mainspace, get some sort of community consensus to do so. Jehochman Talk 20:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Your recusal is too late. The damage is already done. The draft you thought could not possibly exist won't now get the same attention in obscure user-space for improvement as a proper AFD'd article would have, and due to the massive amounts of half-truths and smoke and mirrors already put out there over this article and its previous histories and 'precedents' at AFD/DRV, any future attempt at resurrection (presumably at DRV?), is just going to resemble nothing more than a procession, fed by ignorance. Too late. Far too late. The job is well and truly done and dusted. MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Recreated article See WP:UNDUE weight given to the controversy? Jehochman Talk 15:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC) In spite of being apparently asked to review this I hadn't paid attention to it the past couple days and began gutting that section. He's plainly notable, but for whatever reason Joshua is homing in on the WMF stuff which is a tiny fraction of the work and press this guy has gotten. The event is obviously notable as an event in the context of his life and should get a due course mention, but not 1/4 of the page's real estate. T ) 15:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Not the intention. I'm simply filling out the article as I get sources. That matter has the most easily accessible sources so it is getting addressed first. Pairing it down is of course reasonable. I don't know why Jehochman thinks that a draft article can have an UNDUE weight problem (it is after all a draft). That's a matter for its talk page, not for ANI. And it presumably isn't a serious BLP violation if the separate Sam Blacketer controversy article(currently up for AfD) isn't by itself a BLP problem. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I posted so people would be aware of the issue. We seem to be having the same debate over and over again in multiple venues. Let's not do that. Let's leave pointers so everybody comes to the same place and we can generate a lasting consensus. Jehochman Talk 22:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Just a side comment since Joshua mentioned book which itself is probably notable. Otherwise he's a local politician, of whom there are literally hundreds of thousands, and he's asked to not have a bio article, which for figures of peripheral notability is, I think, a request we can honor. So if we end up with two articles covering notable aspects of Boothroyd's life, I would hope that JoshuaZ and others who are interested in re-creating the bio would think about whether that's really necessary for our encyclopedic coverage, and if instead we could not do what we have already done for other un-famous BLP subjects and keep the bio article deleted. I think it's a good compromise. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC) The thing is, a lot of the coverage about him is about his work as a politician and political analysis. His books may make him meet WP:AUTHOR by itself. Indeed, it would seem BLP problematic to me if we keep the main article on the controversy to only keep that. It would be unfair in the extreme in portraying what we all agree is only a small part of his activity. He's really quite accomplished. Such a decision would almost make a BLP problem in the other direction (if one believes that he is notable. I'm not convinced of that myself yet. We'll see). JoshuaZ (talk ) 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC) I feel having an article about the person is better than the article about the event. This would address the problem of WP:UNDUE as there are far more items available about DB than just his Wikipedia life. If the book is notable so is the author who has gotten more mention than the book. Agathoclea (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Those are not unreasonable arguments, but the subject had previously asked that his bio be deleted, and it's also quite reasonable to consider that fact, which neither of you mention. I don't know if that request still holds in a situation where an article on the controversy exists (assuming it is not deleted) and it might be worth asking DB once the AfD closes. If he still wants the bio deleted, then JoshuaZ's comment above has the (no doubt unintended) effect of essentially telling the article subject that he's better off having a bio article, and that JoshuaZ knows more about what's fair for the article subject than the article subject himself. That would be odd, but as I said it's possible Boothroyd will feel differently about his bio if we decide to keep an article on the controversy. If he still wants it deleted, we need to address the question about how much we take the wishes of the article subject into account. This is not a trivial question, and we have done these kind of deletions before for persons of marginal notability. It should also be admitted—and I really defy anyone to argue otherwise—that we would never, ever be going into this level of detail about this were it not something related to Wikipedia. I think that's undeniable. So we're currently going down a road where we might have as many as three articles relating to someone of marginal notability who has asked that his bio be deleted, and the only reason we have so many articles and so much detail is because Wikipedia is involved (if the controversy involved Facebook somehow, we simply are not having this conversation). Again I think it's pretty hard to honestly argue otherwise (e.g., there's no way the article ends up userfied in JoshuaZ's userspace if he wasn't who he was), and I think the BLP issues that result from that fact are pretty obvious. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Can you provide links to where the subject requested deletion of the article? I didn't see any objections when it was kept in 2005 and there has been much improved notability since then. And I don't think it sets a very good precedent if we delete articles whenever there's a controversy, especially not when we have a COI regarding the controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC) The subject started the first AfD. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC) And he recently requested deletion again. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Bigtime, what you say is almost completely reasonable except that a) I don't think in any final accounting anyone is going to be in favor of having three articles on this subject. Obviously, much merging would occur if any or all of them are accepted. Also, the problem regarding this having to do with Wikipedia can be run in the other direction: We would likely have just had the article kept and not be having this discussion if it weren't for it having to do with Wikipedia. In that regard, the best thing we can do is to treat the article like it has nothing at all to do with the project and make our judgments either way independent of that. JoshuaZ (talk)05:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC) You're probably right (I hope) that merging would happen once this is all settled, but the fact remains that we're creating a lot more content than we normally would were this is a non-Wiki related situation. I fully agree with your last point about treating the article like it has nothing to do with the project (and that's definitely how I'm trying to think about it), but in a hypothetical situation where that was actually the case I think the article would have been deleted, not kept. If we were speaking of a similar figure (local pol, wrote a book and has been quoted in the media, we had a small bio on them for years) who received some embarrassing press about some actions she took on MySpace (nothing illegal, just embarrassing), and if said person then came to us and asked for a courtesy deletion, I think the odds are very good (though not guaranteed) that we would have done just that and that little more would have been said. I think that's quite analogous to the situation here, except the website in question is not MySpace but rather ThisPlaceTM, and that has made all the difference, to coin a phrase. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Yes. That might very well be the case. But if we had such a small time pol we'd also allow people to try to work on a draft of the article to see if they could demonstrate notability. I'm trying to see that process through. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Well well, surprise surprise, Sam Blacketer controversy has been deleted, the whitewash continues. I assume that's because it would be... inconvenient to have such an article around for people to link to on Sam Blacketer's RfA reconfirmation on Monday...? Snarfies (talk) 13:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC) ...because, as we all know, that linking to the various ArbCom statement, Jimbo and ANI talkpage comments etc. cannot give a fair indication of what happened and what other people have said about it. Or do you not trust people to be able to make up their own minds from such sources? LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Sam Blacketer controversy is still there, still tagged. I just clicked on the link. Finell (Talk) 23:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Only one MfD remaining, for User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd

This is now the only remaining issue for this:

) 13:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How come this page is fully protected? I was browsing around court tv and found this. Just Curious. M.H.^{True Romance iS Dead} 20:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and noticed some oversighted edits, is this uhh some Grawp/Hagger related thing? since the joker is included. M.H.^{True Romance iS Dead} 20:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive542#Catherine Crier and the edit summary used by Deskana when protecting it [130] --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversighters don't have any special ability to restrict unprotection, I don't particularly like the protection summary. A better one might read: "Repeated insertion of private information". Strictly speaking it isn't that, but I think I've made my point. Prodego ^talk 05:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the massive and horrendous amounts of BLP violations lobbed at this article, to the point that people are being aggressively litigated in real life for having done bad things to this article, I strongly encourage no one to unprotect it.

) 05:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd recommend consulting the protecting admin before doing anything. Cirt (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

And I would strongly suggest, in the strongest terms, that such consultation be in public, on-wiki.

T

) 05:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree, based on the problems there (and elsewhere). But there is no need for such a melodramatic protection summary. Prodego ^talk 05:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree it is a bit melodramatic. But it does give one pause, does it not? ++Lar: t/c 06:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that you saw the content of the removed edits. They were not "personal" information. They were pure libel. Hipocrite (talk) 10:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Hipocrite. The insertion of libelous content was the problem. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I have seen the content elsewhere, yes. That is exactly why I mentioned "strictly speaking this isn't [a case of adding personal information]", that is simply the most comment reason for someone with oversight to have to protect a page (outside normal protections of course). In this case, simply substitute libel for personal information, and be on your way. If you doubt I have been at all involved with the Catherine Crier issue, I suggest you take a look at abuse filter 178, which I revamped 12 days ago to catch libel about Ms. Crier. It is not identical to the edits to her Wikipedia entry, but nevertheless, I do actually know what I am talking about. Prodego ^talk 01:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• The vandalism that was recently inserted is not related to the original content that is the subject of Ms. Crier's legal action. Rather, a vandal decided to take advantage of the media coverage to try and get attention for himself, by adding a different libel. There is really no need to muddy the waters here, and no reason to give the vandal any more attention. If you are concerned that Deskana's protection summary is overly dramatic, you should be discussing that with him before bringing it here. Thatcher 11:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I am sorry I don't know which noticeboard I should be using. I'm not sure whether this falls under vandalism, BLP, disruptive editing, edit warring...or some other category.

This concerns the article Wang Dan, which is currently under attack by persistent anonymous-IP editors. Despite coming from different IPs, they seem to be the same person or else have the same agenda. I have been attempting to address repeated attempts to use an offensive label for Wang Dan, add unsourced material, edit existing material to satisfy a POV, and remove material that disagrees with POV. Specific examples:

• Use of an epithet to refer to Wang Dan and adding commentary to cast Wang Dan in a bad light, make fun of him, etc. The beginning of the article has been frequently changed to refer to Wang Dan as "Wang BaDan". According to a quick Google search, the phrase "Wang Ba Dan" apparently means a person without character, morals, etc.

• Adding of unsourced POV material under the heading "Taiwan News" which takes the tone of an editorial and attack on Wang Dan, asking rhetorical questions, trying to convince the reader of a POV that Wang Dan is bad

• Deletion of sourced material without explanation except to say that it is "Wiki propaganda"

• Apparent refusal to engage in dialog on the talk pages

• Diffs (oldest first):
  • [131] (editing to remove phrase "visiting scholar", added copious amounts of "Taiwan News" stuff)
  • [132] (more Taiwan News cut-and-paste)
  • [133] (cut-and-paste from previously added "Taiwan News" stuff)
  • [134] (removal of existing material without explanation)
  • [135] (cut-and-paste previously added "Taiwan News" content)
  • [136] (trying to make Wang Dan seem pathetic, or haughty)
  • [137] (using article to make assertions about "Wiki propaganda")

... it just goes on and on. At this point I don't know what I should do. I have made attempts to contact the users via their IP talk pages, and just now via the article's talk page:

• User_talk:210.50.187.71
• User_talk:211.27.57.22
• Talk:Wang_Dan#Recent_edits_of_Wang_Dan

Please help! I think I am out of my element here, as I don't think I am very good at applying Wikipedia policy and dealing with this sort of issue. I do not see any other editors of this article who can help. These edits keep happening, from multiple IPs, about every couple hours. Please, someone with experience address this problem - I am afraid I don't know what to do. I think it might be a good idea for an administrator to semi-protect the article so that only registered users can edit it, and hopefully this would stop. Please forgive me if my own attempts to address this have caused any problem. Thanks,

Joren (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

To clarify - this has apparently been going on since around June 3. I have been involved since June 11.Joren (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned on your talk, you might want to go to

WP:RFPP and ask for semi-protection on this. Exxolon (talk

) 13:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It turns out that the anonymous IP user visited the discussion page and....posted the cut-and-paste Taiwan News content again, without explanation. *sigh*. Oh well, better the discussion page than the article, I suppose... I'm going to wait and see what they do...if they are willing to talk about it, great. But if they keep adding this stuff to the article, I will request protection. Thanks for giving me the URL to do that! Joren (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Joren has lead an editor to the Talk already, correctly. I did one revert and a reaction to the material on Talk, meanwhile. The talk boils down to a small number of new facts to be verified in/out. Those editors wo do not join the Talk, are in for a

WP:3RR-watch and -block I suggest. -DePiep (talk

) 14:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting semi-protection

The anonymous IPs have resumed the aforementioned edits:

• [[138]] More of the same "Taiwan News" edits

I once again asked them to stop:

• User_talk:211.27.45.47

I will now ask for the page to be semi-protected, using the suggested link earlier. Thanks, Joren (talk) 10:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Help needed explaining COI to ACE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.145.44 (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears you do need help explaining it to him, since you start by saying "Vanity to the max Dude", and go on to be accusatory, condescending, sarcastic, and vaguely threatening. I'd suggest you step away from the conflict and let others deal with it. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(For those following along at home, the issue boils down to whether AllStarEcho's edits to Equality Mississippi are appropriate, given that he is the founder. It's become rather personal, probably due to the political issues involved and the recent drama concerning AllStarEcho's block and unblock.) – Quadell ^(talk) 12:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Kind of makes me wonder who the IP is, since their 'only' edit is here. Syrthiss (talk) 12:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

For the record, a TrustedSource check shows it is registered out of Keyport, New Jersey. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 12:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who raised the COI issue on Allstarecho's talk page, let me state that it is neither personally nor politically motivated. The timing in unfortunate, but I felt it better to deal with the issue now rather than let it lie unacknowledged for any longer. I don't believe any admin action is required here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle's concerns are valid and have been brought up civilly. If no one were fanning the flames, this could probably be resolved rather quickly and easily. But see below. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting.. who is the IP above when it was actually 174.153.251.127 (talk · contribs) that posted the trolling comment on my talk page... - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 18:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Both IPs apparently belong to Sprint PCS. Looie496 (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Ironholds and User:Tryde repeatedly abused our guidelines because they redirected clearly notable people and stalk me. User:Jazeking baits me again and again.Max Mux (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you provide some evidence in the form of links/diffs to show this alleged abuse and stalking? The above doesn't really give anything to go on. Shereth 15:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In Jazekings case please have a look at the disc of International recognition of Kosovo and in case of the others they violated http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Politicians as you can see in their last edits.Max Mux (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Max Mux has been creating dozens, perhaps hundreds, of articles on members of the British peerage. We have been following Wikipedia guidelines by redirecting non-notable ones to the parent title. This is in accordance with
  WP:BIO, which says under special cases "If neither a satisfying explanation nor appropriate sources can be found for a standalone article, but the person meets one or more of the additional criteria, merge the article into a broader article providing context". The articles he has been writing cite no reliable sources and no reliable sources can be found, precisely because they are about people who would in the normal way of things be considered non-notable. Our "stalking" is simply following up his edits, because despite multiple blocks for refusing to get a clue he still creates these articles with invalid sources and reverts us. Jazeking is indeed baiting Max, and considering his past conduct I've given him a warning that if he screws around again I'll personally seek an indefinite block. Ironholds (talk
  ) 15:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with this assessment. Given the limited evidence and nebulous accusations, I see no abuse.

Tan | 39

15:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I also agree - a quick scan of the last several edits doesn't indicate any abusive behavior on the part of Ironholds or Tryde. Unless something more substantive can be brought up here than nebulous accusations there really isn't much to do here. Given that Jazeking has already been warned and eyes already appear to be on that problem, I really do not see any action that needs to be taken here at this time. Shereth 15:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is like deja vu. It's like deja vu. It's totally a notability dispute. The arguments are exactly what they were a week ago. Max thinks all these guys are notable and deserve individual articles, and other users don't. And speaking of deja vu, Jakezing was already indef-blocked once, though for different reasons as I recall. And aside from his frequent sarcastic shots at Max, Jakezing seems to be on the side of consensus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a spinoff from the dispute, certainly. You seem to be misunderstanding here - it doesn't matter that Jazeking is on the side of consensus, ignoring that 1) it isn't a firm consensus and 2) he's never, ever contributed to the articles. He baits max without any interest in the articles as anything more than a way to needle Max. Ironholds (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I was about to point out that Jakezing was unblocked based on a promise to behave, and could be indef'd again if necessary. However, he probably won't be bothering Max for long, given the paragraph below. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Relevant background: Yesterday, de:User:Max Mux has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of banned user de:User:LifePeer. Apparently [139][140] this user had been making trouble creating tiny stubs on non-notable or barely notable people for 3 years before he was banned about a year ago. So Max Mux clearly has problems playing according to the rules of de, which I believe are a bit stricter in this area than our rules. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Max is an extremely discourteous and disruptive user, bent on using Wikipedia as a battleground. See his talkpage history and the ANI report I made on him yesterday. He ignores warnings and edit-wars. Not constructive at all. ╟─TreasuryTag►directorate─╢ 15:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the impression I got from reading the mediation on de. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

He was unblocked about two hours ago, after promising ShellK that he'd behave himself, and he's already reduced everything to ruins :p

not) he's going to have to go, I think. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State

─╢ 15:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically the only promise was to stop using inappropriate sources in the rapid creation of stubs which I don't believe he's violated. This is a different matter although also unfortunately problematic. Shell ^babelfish 16:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well....... together, we raised several concerns, and he was blocked for "disruptive editing" which covered all of them. I think it was fairly implicit in the unblock that not edit-warring would be a rule (particularly since it's a rule for all of us, even those who aren't blocked). ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a lot we have to talk about. 1) What have you done with the german wikipedia? 2) This discussion is not about me. 3) The above mentioned policy doesn't aplly here because of the aleady cited guideline.Max Mux (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Max Mux (talk) 16:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is about you. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This discussion is very much now about you.

Tan | 39

16:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

When you bring a situation or conflict to ANI, the behaviour of all parties is examined. Consensus here seems to be that you are in the wrong - the question is what to do about it. I am not confident, given this users history of failing to follow the rules both here and at de-wiki, that he can be "rehabilitated", as it were. I am of course an involved party, and would be interested to hear the opinions of others. Ironholds (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In the end one way or another we should work that out together not someone decides and the others follow. Instead we should reach an consensus. Do you agree?Max Mux (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I never thought I'd find something to laugh at the second I woke up. Max, you were unblocked just today, right? And you're already causing more disruption, right? I mean, I've taken a look at your contribs and it shows a new article was created by you even when you were advised not to create new articles. Furthermore, Wikipedia is based around a consensus. If the majority of users in a topic or discussion agree or disagree, then a consensus has been reached and action is taken. Just because you don't agree with something, even if it is about you, doesn't mean that it's against Wikipedia policy. I highly suggest you take a break from editing for a couple days and read up on WP guidelines. You're not in very good standing right now, so you need to watch what you say and do. You can start with not making irrational discussions and reporting those who are trying to correct your obviously bad behavior. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 17:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Example 1

Anthony Wills, 2nd Baron Dulverton: He was an active member of the House of Lords, therefore member of the legislature. So we see he is notable. I have written a stub about him that fits the criteria. Why a redirect to the Baronie-article? That is senseless.

• Example 2:

Ross Campbell Geddes, 2nd Baron Geddes: Same thing as example 1.

• Example 3:

The delinking in lists. Wholly senseless. Most of the persons in these lists are notable.

Max Mux (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Max, try this idea instead: a notable person is a person who has been the subject of at least two whole newspaper articles, magazine articles, or books. If you promised to avoid writing about anyone about whom you can't cite at least two newspaper articles, magazine articles, or books, I'd be willing to support allowing you to continue editing Wikipedia, on probation. Right now, though, it looks like the disruption you have caused has far outweighed the useful edits you have made, and since others have tried to get you to follow the rules without success, right now, I think that a long block or an indefinite block is a more reasonable solution. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I try to play by the rules and I wanted that from the beginning. I'm open to work together with everyone as long as the others behave the right way. I don't like to be insulted. I think you would feel the same.Max Mux (talk) 18:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You don't try to play by the rules. You've been told repeatedly of them, particularly

WP:BATTLE, but continued to violate them with impunity. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer

─╢ 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block. From this comment, it sounds like User:Max Mux is not willing to agree to only write about people who have been the subject of at least two newspaper articles, magazine articles, or books. It doesn't seem useful to spend the rest of the indefinite future having the same argument with him, and wasting many editors' time cleaning up after him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support indefinite block and suggest protecting user-talk-page for the first week or so to prevent against the frivolous attempts to battle and quibble, as happened on the two previous blocks. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Five different people have tried explaining the rules to him, and yet he still doesn't get it. Previously I would have assumed good faith and concluded it was language difficulties, but the evidence from de-wiki rather blows that out of the water. Ironholds (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm rather neutral on the block - as I haven't looked into the de.wiki issues - but I want to clarify; FQ wants him held to show notability to higher standards than usual? Requiring "at least two newspaper articles, magazine articles, or books" is a much stricter interpretation of

Tan | 39

18:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it is a rather stricter interpretation- I suggested it because Max appears simply not to understand the nuances of

WP:N, and attempts to help him with that have been unsuccessful. I hoped that a very, very simple set of guidelines might be easier for him to understand. If others disagree, that would be fine with me- I'm only one person. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 18:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, I agree to work by the rules and do everything you told me. I will only create an article if I have enough reliable sources.But I also like to remind you of my other points above. Max Mux (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You agreed to work within the rules last time you were blocked as well - you lasted how many hours before you fell off the drama-waggon? Ironholds (talk) 18:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly support indefinite block. I've been dealing with this user's problems far longer than most of you, so I think I know when it's time to let him go. I'm tired of him and the arguments he causes. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 18:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a proposal to make. Give me a specific time and when I violate anything in this time you can block me indenitely.Max Mux (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Your timeline would be, "forever".

Tan | 39

18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of closing this discussion, ensuring fairness to users, and creating a concrete result, as a relatively uninvolved and neutral admin, I propose the following sanctions: 1) Mad Mux is not to create any articles for a period of one month. 2) Upon expiration of this restriction, Mad Mux is restricted to a one-article-per-day limit. 3) Any violation of these sanctions will result in an immediate indefinite block. I realize that this will be a compromise for all parties involved, but it seems reasonable and shows that all parties AGF.

Tan | 39

18:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm happy to work as a proxy writer if he'd be interested - he sends articles to me, I run them through my mind and post them if they pass the notability guidelines. Ironholds (talk) 18:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the attempt at compromise but ultimately I don't see it as fixing the problem; either Max Mux follows the rules, or he does not. If he is following the rules with regards to his article creations, then hamstringing him with a temporary ban on article creation and then a subsequent throttle on the rate at which he can create them becomes an impediment to valuable contribution to the project. On the other hand, if he is not following the rules, then even a one-article-per-day limit is not doing any good as he has not "learned his lesson". Has Max been given "enough chances?" If so, then just indef block and be done with the problem. If not, put a restriction on him that he not create unsourced CSD-worthy articles or be subject to an indef-ban. That's how I see it. Shereth 20:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No offense, but I would prefer someone else. What about Shell Kenney?Max Mux (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If she is not interested I will accept your offer.Max Mux (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Barring any violent objections, I say we can put this proposal into effect. Max Mux, this thread will be an official record of the limitations, sanctions and potential admin actions. You and Ironholds can discuss any sort of proxy writing on your individual talk pages.

Tan | 39

20:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing an RfC for the second time WP:Link talk. He was asked politely not to do this, and just let the RfC be killed off by the Bot. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As a participant in the discussion, User:Hans Adler really shouldn't have "closed" the RfC by removing the tag. That said, the discussion had clearly reached its end some time ago and there is no sense in leaving the tag on and there is certainly no point in re-adding it after the fact. Maybe he shouldn't have removed it but you shouldn't have restored it; two wrongs do not make a right. I would advise you both to stop fussing over the tag and let it be. Shereth 16:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC policy is for the person who brought the RfC to manually remove it, otherwise let the Bot do it after 30 days. I and one other agreed with your assesment of his behaviour the first time he did this.

How can it clearly have ended when the remover was the last one to contribute? Instead of replying to my answer to his last contribution he removed the RfC.

Two wrongs? Yes. He was wrong to remove the RfC, and he was wrong to remove it just because he couldn't come up with any answers, except a straw man attack on me.

I was entirely right to restore the RfC. As happened before when he threw a tantrum. If you think that 30 days is too long, then change the policy. I don't think this is the place to amend it on the hoof.

I was attempting to engender a serious discussion of this currently absurd guideline, I refute your characterisation of fussing - this is a serious atttempt to get a wide ranging view of this. Your disparaging deprecation is not helpful. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded condescending; that was not the intention. In any event, the removal of the tag is a fairly minor infraction of policy. Numerous editors had chimed in at the beginning of the dicussion and since June 1, there have been no edits to the discussion except by yourself or User:Hans Adler. There was a pretty obvious consensus among the users who did participate. Two weeks without any significant new discussion is a pretty obvious sign that the debate was, for all intents and purposes, ended. As I stated, User:Hans Adler should certainly not have removed the tag but what purpose is there in reverting the action? There is not much to do here except to tell User:Hans Adler that he should not have done that, the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. Yes, the proper procedure would have been for him to ignore this issue as well. What would you suggest the proper action from this point onward be? Shereth 17:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Factual correction -there were three contributors after that date.

A slap on the wrist - yes, this was delivered by myself and one other on the talk page. I think you should not have said that I was in the wrong as much as he - the meaning of two wrongs as you used it. I think you should aknowledge that this was not the correct thing to say. You are pretty much justifying his actions - it's not so bad really. I disagree. The whole purpose of RfC is to get as wide-ranging a view as possible. This is severly hampered by premature termination. The 30 day rule is there for a reason. It is not up to you or anyone else to let it slide because ther doesn't seem to be much discussion. It doesn't matter - there certainly will not be further discussion if some bugger removes it! The longer it is up there the more chance there is of getting a wide view, no that doesn't mean leaving it up forever, that is why the 30 day rule is there - which means don't take it down prematurely. I insist on this. Read the discussion through, and you will hear me say more on this the first time he removed it. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters much, but to satisfy my curiosity: "Removing an RfC for the second time" – When did I "remove" (I think HarryAlffa means close) the RfC for the first time? I can't remember it and I can't find it in the talk page history. It would be a bit odd because I very rarely think that an RfC is really over and should be closed. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, reading "I and one other agreed with your assesment of his behaviour the first time he did this." from HarryAlffa with reference to me – perhaps it does matter, after all.

Apart from that, HarryAlffa seemed to have expressed a clear desire that the RFC be finished:

"The Nazis where all for uniformity, but dressing our 60,000 active editors in Nazi uniforms just to make you happy is just not on." [141]

It seemed clear that he has the problem described in

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies#Corollaries and usage

:

"[T]here is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress."

Therefore I closed the functionally dead RFC. [142] Once. I am sorry that I did not keep my earlier promise ("*plonk*" [143]). Perhaps HarryAlffa misremembers that as an RFC closure by me which Shereth thought wasn't OK??? --Hans Adler (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It probably would have been best to just let it go. I don't believe your removal of the tag is half as terrible a problem as it is being made out to be here, but had it not happened then at the very least we could have avoided the mess it's created here. I'm certainly in no mood to castigate you for the misstep, and since you've stepped back there really doesn't seem to be any problem, except that the issue keeps getting dragged up from the dead (see the new complaint a couple sections below). Honestly the best possible outcome here for all parties involved would be to simply let it go. Shereth 18:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My mistake! I got two users swapped over. Apologies to the community! Here was the first removal by Kotniski. Hans Adler may not have been aware of that, but he still should not have removed/closed the RfC - no question. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Stepped back? On this page he has clearly, deliberately, misrepresented what I said and quoted me out of context, with the clear purpose of giving a twisted justification to his disruptive behaviour - If that isn't covered in

WP:GETOVERIT applies to him - the decision was made to keep the RfC until the Bot killed it - but he just couldn't get over that. He couldn't even get over his own plonk intention, he had to stick his oar in - just to be disruptive. Shereth, you disparage me again by referring to my complaint of Kotniski removing the RfC a second time on his part and a third in total as "the issue keeps getting dragged up from the dead". A slapped wrist for him is more than appropriate. HarryAlffa (talk

) 19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hans has gotten his "slapped wrist" with a comment on his talk page. Please, drop the issue - you're starting to border on tendentious and that is not a good thing. This is a forum for administrator intervention with problems, not a forum for your personal vindication and you are exhausting the good will of the community. Again, let it go. Shereth 19:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Clarification - I meant Kotniski for the slapped wrist. He was the one who removed it twice, not Hans. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The only editor whose behavior is disruptive here is you, HarryAlffa. During the RFC you constantly tried to let down all other participants by claiming that everybody who disgrees with you is incompetent. There is also something about "shutting your face". And here is another "opus" from HarryAlffa: (about bogus comments others made). This list of "contributions" of HarryAlffa is not complete. So, it is not surprising that all other editors are on the brink of losing patience with you and do not want to support any your proposal. Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think we're too stupid and dishonest to be on the brink of losing patience.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You accused me of implying someone was a Nazi, I stand by my reply on my talk page, were you will see I used an OR not an AND. You decide. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Ruslik,. you have carried invective from the Solar System RfC, were you declared that as Forum Shopping. It is a lie to claim I was calling anyone incompetent. "I thought you were shutting your face?" was what I asked of Kotniski who had declared a war of silence on me, after he broke his own rule. My description of arguments as bogus was quite proper, and I stand by them - can a couple of paragraphs be described as an opus? You have never interacted with me constructively or intelligently. You have shown me nothing but hostility from day one. Now you see an apparent opportunity to put the put in, and have lied and misrepresented to do it. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Enough. Unless someone has something constructive to add to this debate - specifically with regards to the initial complaint against User:Hans Adler, please refrain from adding to the invective. The tangential issues can be dealt with in the section(s) below where an ongoing discussion about civility etc. can be found. Shereth 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think some calmer heads and cooler temperaments might be helpful in the BLP article, Mir-Hossein Mousavi. I've been watching the matter from afar, and there seems to be an edit-war a-brewin' over the addition of uncited or unduly-weighted citations, and it looks like it will get ugly right quick. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why does the lock show that the article is protected? There was an indef protection put on in March, that doesn't show in the history of having been revoked, yet new users are able to edit. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the article has been semi-protected since March. I don't see any instances of the protection failing...

Tan | 39

19:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Thought I saw new editors editing the page, but I guess I was mistaken. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

) 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

At this point he/she has not continued to edit war past their most recent warning so I am going to hold off on a block. That said, I am pretty sure they are a sockpuppet and have opened an SPI case here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mwalla. Tiptoety ^talk 02:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

CheckUser has confirmed my suspicions and the account has been blocked. Tiptoety ^talk 06:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This is of course the correct outcome, but I'd like to express a bit of annoyance that some people can get a CU with a couple of lines of sketchy evidence, while for most of us the outcome of a couple of hours of work is that the case is either declined for insufficient evidence or else, if the evidence is sufficient, declined as a duck. Looie496 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I've observed this phenomenon also, and I can only conclude that it's on a case-by-case basis - a judgment call, essentially. As long as the offender gets blocked, that's the main thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The checkuser was probably granted not just on the small amount of behavioural evidence submitted in the past couple of days but because this is an ongoing case where in the past a large volume of evidence was submitted. This is an ongoing sockpuppet activity stretching back many months. See this archive for Mwalla.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mwalla/Archive--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the checkuser was granted because Tiptoey is a clerk and endorsed his own RFCU. Again I'm definitely not complaining about it being granted in this case, just about it being so discouragingly difficult in other cases. In general it seems much easier for admins to get CU's carried out than non-admins. I'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing, but one consequence is that I personally have decided not to waste any more of my time at SPI. Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh ok I see your point Looie. I don't follow sockpuppet submissions so can't comment but have noticed other areas where there are so many hoops to jump through before action is taken on particularly disruptive editors and they say wikipedia is not a bureaucracy LOL. I am just grateful that Mwalla has been blocked indefinitely and am happy checkuser was granted in this case. It probably should be granted more quickly in other cases as sockpuppets can cause major disruption.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)