Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive661

It was getting to be boring, so l stopped already--Daipenmon (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We have just blocked a vandal on nl.wikipedia, using 2 registered accounts (nl:User:Imeko, nl:User:IMEKO-IO) and an IP-address (nl:User talk:192.53.103.200). The registered accounts have been blocked indefenitely, the ip for one day (reason: advertising on nl:IMEKO) I checked the crosswiki contributions, and saw that the same accounts and IP address are also editing here at

Both accounts blocked by Edgar181 and page CSD G11 by me. This organisation may be notable in the scientific field, but that article wasn't. Better to start again. Incidentally, I've changed the title. I don't think he comes under the category 'vandal' in the en.wiki definition. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Now being debated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2032 Summer Olympics (3rd nomination)‎ Sailsbystars (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know how to fix this? Looks like it was nominated incorrectly. Erpert

Regardless, there's no point in creating an article for an event thats over 2 decades away. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy was declined because the new articleis "subtantially different" from the deleted article. People are already adding sources so the article doesn't get deleted. Not sure if this is good or not :-/ --Enric Naval (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless, but also harmless. I just wonder where to stop. Maybe I should create an Oscar page for the year 3001. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It says the result was "delete", but obviously it's not deleted. In any case, the spelling and usage were not so good, and I've fixed a few things. Now to go work on the article about the 3001 Oscars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Create it in your user space. In a few hundred years, have someone move it to the article space.  :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a start at it: "The 1,073rd Academy Awards ceremony will honor the best in visual media for the year 3000. It will take place on February 31, 3001, on www.littleoscar.mars. Thanks to the expert work of her plastic surgeon, actress Dori N. Grey will host the show for the 500th consecutive year." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that's also where the 3006 Summer Olympics bid will be declared. Or do we have an article on that already? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it: "The 3006 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the MMMMXXXI Olympiad, are a major intergalactic multi-sport event to be celebrated in the tradition of the Olympic Games, as governed by the Interstellar Olympic Committee (ISOC). The host city of the Games will be Zeus City on the satellite I/O. This will be the first Olympics held since the great computer plague of 2031 that rubbed out the 2032 Olympics, the 2032 Oscars, and other events for over 970 years until an English-speaking Help Desk person could finally be located." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: in 3000 it will be ssww.foo.mars, since it will be the solarsystem-wide web, or maybe even the gww if that hyperdrive ever gets invented. Acroterion _(talk) 16:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping someone from taking the new article to a properly formatted AfD. After all,

89.76.176.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been involved for sometime in adding poorly sourced content to

The content he has added is all sourced to a personal website, which as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, like other self-published sources, are "largely not acceptable as sources". Even more concerning here is that website belongs to 89.76.176.180. I have raised this issue and he has confirmed that the website is his.

Due to my involvement here I don't wish to act any further at this point but I would appreciate some help with resolving this issue. Considering 89.76.176.180's comment that "If something is on other Wikipedia, it's reliable. Very simple" and the apparent failure of myself and others to get him to understand the verifiability problems here I would suggest this isn't going to be easy. Adambro (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(Previous discussion: [19]) The conflict of interest problem at Nassim Nicholas Taleb has resurfaced. To recap, IbnAmioun (talk · contribs) claims to represent Taleb on Wikipedia. See User:IbnAmioun. All his edits are to Taleb-related articles, and generally in the direction of inflating Taleb's reputation. There's something of a

The current issue is at Empirica Capital, where, in this edit [20], IbnAmoun removed a data table of fund returns from Business Insider, which reproduced an image of a statement from the fund. The actual numbers aren't as flattering to Taleb as his own public statements, which focus on the "good years" for his fund. There's a legitimate content dispute over how to calculate the annual returns from the figures available, but that's not justification for deleting the whole table.

There's also something of a civility problem. I generally ignore personal attacks, but I'm getting rather tired of this series. The latest round of insults come from 64.131.190.231 (talk · contribs):

• "... Some guys are very vehemently trying to watch his back and sing his praises while others specially John Nagle are hell bent on crucifying him. I don't how much damage the well-wisher-fanboys can suffer and I don't know how much law you guys know but there are causes for lawsuits based on obvious slander. ... Thanks ~JD" [21]
• "Its obvious that this failed nerd Nagle is the biggest Talib fan or is jealous of Talibs fame and wealth. Stop obsessing with his fund returns ..." [22]
• "It is obvious that this nerd Nagle is a celebrity stalker and a nobody who is happy that by doing this nonsense he will show up in a google search with talib" [23]

There's the possibility that 64.131.190.231 (talk · contribs), who seems to edit in concert with IbnAmoun, is a sock. But, regardless, I'd like to ask for a civility block on that anon IP, which edits only Taleb articles. What to do about the IbnAmoun COI situation, I don't know. --John Nagle (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear sirs, this civility business is very regrettable but I have nothing to do with it. There is no COI since I do not edit and do not disguise my source of conflict by posting edits on other pages on the occasion. As a representative of Prof Taleb my intervention here is limited to insuring all sources about subject are properly sourced from valid newspapers, nothing else, presenting them on talk page, and removing false information about mischaracterization of Taleb's activities and funds. This is compliance with wikipedia's BLP. User:Nagle|John Nagle has been posting matters about "Taleb inflating his returns" more than a dozen instances, along with a steady pattern of posting degrading the character of the subject Nassim Nicholas Taleb, in addition to posting matters that are plainly erroneous like "Taleb claims about his returns" when it is clearly not Taleb but wsj. Add to that pure original research trying to do analyses on Taleb's funds. All what has been done is revert. Taleb has been under pressure from detractors (owing to his criticism of the finance industry) and we cannot do anything about criticism and sourced matters.

Let me recap: I only remove false information that make its way into the bio. In the case of the returns in the most recent a finance tabloid gossip blog has data that has conflicted with WSJ not without a reason and not a good source --and I am certain that the source is totally unacceptable with wiki standards (the data is not fact checked, clearly otherwise it would conflict with WSJ and BusinessWeek/Bloomberg). The other accounts are clearly not related to me and there is no "in concert" business. I wonder if these discussions should not be in concert with the wikipedia foundation whom we are contacting.

As you are well aware, the subject of a biography is entitled (though himself or a representative) to correct erroneous factual information and potentially libelous postings.

Finally, we believe that user Nagle should be barred from Taleb's page as all his edits show a pattern of Bad Faith (obsessive dislike of a living subject) and clearly have a very strong libel nature to them. Clearly my role here would be close to nonexistent in his absence. IbnAmioun (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PS- note that it is not about the returns in the data. The data we turned down as a valid source does not conflict that much with WSJ and others. It is innocently incomplete and someone has filled gaps by "guessing" (it was compiled by some "watcher" not by an investor and stopped with partial 2003). So it is a matter of principle of what constitutes a source for wiki. It is also the commentary on the gossip page that is not professional (40% return in 3 years is stellar by any standard). IbnAmioun (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm now the fifth person IbnAmoun has attacked in this way. Looking at IbnAmioun's edit history, he was similarly annoyed with Ulner (talk · contribs)[24], AleXd (talk · contribs)[25], Elroch (talk · contribs)[26], and Sked123 (talk · contribs)[27]. This seems to be his standard behavior whenever anyone objects to his ownership of Taleb-related articles. He's threatened legal action before, and he's contacted the Wikimedia Foundation before, with no effect. His last block for this was 36 hours, on December 16, 2010. Perhaps a longer block would be in order. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting reaction to request a block about the rep of the subject of a bio so you can post matters that clash with wiki standards. Last time the block came as I reverted the "Taleb claims", and the comment "Taleb cannot be a source on Taleb" when it was WSJ, not Taleb making these claims, triggering a shady reaction.

Now I agree of the sin of some aggressivity in the past these took place without my full knowledge of the rules but took place when Taleb was being savaged by bankers whom he attacked in his book (Paranoia turned out to be justified when death threats were issued against Taleb, see source WSJ). Here this doesn't prevent the truth that Nagle seems bent on posting libelous statements style he is just a trader who writes books, his returns are not good or he is well known for inflating his returns, or similar matters that are just libel. This would disqualify any editor --not counting original research. So I would like Nagle to be completely blocked from the Taleb page. IbnAmioun (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Finally there is an important point about subject: he patently does not discuss his finance activities and is not interested in promoting them. Look at his web site and official bio. His finance background comes page 3, in a rapid mention. So there is evidence of no possible way of trying to use wikipedia for promotion of his financial businesses or record on his part. IbnAmioun (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

RETURNS. Dear administrators, leaving the problem of original research by user Nagle aside, and the fact that Wiki cannot accept blog sources from non-fact checked news services (most certainly they become cited by some circularity). Nagle's motive might appears that Prof. Taleb is not disclosing his bad years and that a cumulative return for the so-called Black Swan strategies need to be presented. It is the problem of survivorship bias that is at the center of Prof T's earlier book. Well, there is data to do so from official sources and (even using the flimsy sources) would give a minimum of around 150% cumulative returns by assuming 0% in years in which the WSJ wrote "single digits" (the data absent was 2005-7 when the strategy was in complete hiatus). Compare that to -23% for the market over the decade. That is the minimum, and the true numbers unpublished lie higher. Prof. Taleb made a statement to that effect in The Black Swan. Now ignoring that might be misunderstanding, not bad faith. But repeatedly ignoring that is a severe problem, which is why we would like Mr Nagle to be prevented from further involvement.IbnAmioun (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I've blocked the IP 2 weeks for making legal threats (remarks about how many lawyers Taleb has and how likely he is to sue). Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all I think that in my opinion the article Nassim Nicholas Taleb has improved over the years, and one reason for this is that there are many interested people who know much about the books, articles etc Taleb has written and also about the other activitives. Both IbnAmioun and Nagle are experts concerning this subject in my opinion. For this reason I think a much better solution than blocking of anyone would be if there is some way to reach a consensus in some way. First I would hope that there is more room on the talk page for discussion, both positive and negative, without being accussed of libel or slander. If some statement is incorrect or biased, just say so: "Your statement is incorrect and biased. It is incorrect because ABC. It is biased because ABC.". Second, I concur with IbnAmioun that Business Insider is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as reference. For this reason I think it should not be used as a reference in the main article. However, I think it should be allowed to be discussed on the talk page - where a more detailed investigation and discussion of the claims of this article may proceed. Third, as IbnAmioun writes he has the right to delete material which is libel/slander, and this is also an important way to have a high quality of these biographies and follow the BLP rules. Ulner (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

One more comment about the summary of IbnAmioun above: "Nagle's motive might appears that Prof. Taleb is not disclosing his bad years and that a cumulative return for the so-called Black Swan strategies need to be presented." What is important here is if know information about the "missing years" are found, we should publish nothing about these years on Wikipedia. It will not be acceptable to publish original research with some analysis about these years. However, if a credible source is found which have some criticism or ideas concerning this, it may be acceptable to be included (depending on cirumstances). Ulner (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent intervention. The main matter hanging would then be resolved. The only evidence required is to show that Prof. Taleb's "Black Swan Protection" strategy was not in action in 2005-2007. All other years can constitute evidence for lower bound. We do not need to publish on bio so long as there is backup on talk. And there is a statement to that effect by Prof T that can be provided. And please let us avoid unprofessional statements of the style "meh" and "not so good" in any discussion. (Note that Prof Taleb only cares about substantive matters, and accusations of concealing returns is a substantive matter. ) IbnAmioun (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

On the Empirica Capital returns issue, I've sent that to

WP:OWN problem. On the other hand, since more editors have been looking at this article, the hype level has been dialed down from 11 to maybe 9 or so. Progress of sorts. --John Nagle (talk

) 18:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not mix the incivility with me (some other poster with whom I have nothing to do) and if there has been temper problems any in the past, I agree that it is not permissible. But as explained above, the subject has the right to be protected against libelous statements and remove/point out to false information. That's what makes wikipedia work. And I am not concealing identity of representation. The subject has the right to be protected against errors and libel. IbnAmioun (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You can always communicate concerns about the article to

WP:OTRS instead of editing on-wiki. 67.122.209.190 (talk

) 19:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The situation is becoming pretty complex on this page. We have a User:Alec jiri who is battling a User:Orumsonu. They are both insulting each other over a potential conflict of interest. Alec Jiri is the name of the adopted son of the creator of the Mdvanii doll and the user Alec jiri wrote much of the current article. Now the user is claiming that he is not actually Alec Jiri, merely an acquaintance. I think this may be a user name violation and I definitely think this needs more eyes as it spiraled out of control just as I was sleeping. Any help would be appreciated. --Leivick (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the behavior, but I would tend to say that the username (when taken by itself) is not a username violation. Alec Jiri does not appear famous enough for this to warrant a block as a celebrity username, and the username doesn't give me the impression that the account represents more than one person (although the edit you mention where he says he is just an acquaintance might be suspect in that direction). --

alternative account of Ks0stm

] 19:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? If he's editing as "Alec jiri" and he's not Alec Jiri my first instinct would definitely be to block. It's OK when someone has the same name as someone else just by chance, but he obviously chose this deliberately. —Soap— 19:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know...I guess if he is trying to come off as actually being Alec Jiri, then I would see it as a violation, but since he has disclosed that he is not, I see it as not that serious. I would say, though, that a more public disclosure (on his userpage and user talk), perhaps, would be for the best. --

alternative account of Ks0stm

] 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a sysop aware of this who is taking care of the uploads. Dusti^*poke* 20:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a rule requiring an established user to sign its posts on talk pages? Or is it just a politeness convention? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this more like a help desk question? :) Wikipedia:Signatures: "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed." It's a guideline, but lacking some common sense reason why consensus should not be followed should not be ignored. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)

WP:SIG is a guideline that the community has shown interest in enforcing by block if there is dickery about over sigs. So for all intents and purposes it can be treated as policy if there is great need, as you may recall from participation in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Docu. Tarc (talk

) 14:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly talking hypothetically. I've run across a user who won't sign, and if he persists in not signing, I'm wondering what the recourse is, if any. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this discussion and of the requirement. I'm marking it "resolved", though the user could still come here and make a counter-argument if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added what you might term an explanatory warning [28]. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Even if it weren't a guideline or policy, if failure to sign created disruption, then it would be uncollaborative to refuse to sign, IOW a punishable offense. Pretty much any behavior, even if normally allowed, is unfortunate if it causes problems. The situation needs to be considered, not just existing policies. --

talk

) 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The user in question, called "Pantergraph", has since given a number of bogus reasons why he "doesn't need to sign", and an admin has warned him. I have a hunch this is not going to turn out well, but we'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It all depends on what you mean by "well".... ;-) It won't be a great loss, so that might be considered "well". Uncollaborative editors are never a plus. --

talk

) 22:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant "well" for the user, although being banished from a website has at least the potential for educational value for that user. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, people are signing their posts on Pantergraph's talk page, so he can see that multiple users oppose his actions. ClovisPt (talk) 22:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming it is a coincidence that a user who is so resistant to signing has a username that sounds like "pantograph," a device used to do things like sign many things at once. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Today, I discovered an edit on my watchlist where someone replaced an article's source wholesale with the source of the same article on a completely different wiki. The license of Bulbapedia is not compatible with Wikipedia, so it was reverted. However, I discovered that he was using a template made by a new user to the project, which was also a copyright violation from Bulbapedia's formatting. Delebreaub (talk · contribs) copied a series of templates from Bulbapedia to Wikipedia, but I managed to get Prodego to deal with all of the copyright violations. Should anything else be done?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've explained the issue to User talk:Bd6259. As long as they know what's going on now and as long as the problem stops, I should think it would be okay. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Delebreaub's actions are still an issue, even if all of the pages he made are deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you had already explained to User:Delebreaub. It's now to see if they need further explanation or if they understand the issue and stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

Endeology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

According to the relevant policy, legal threats should be reported here. This case is borderline, so I think others ought to take a look. The relevant diff: [29]. The page:

I don't see it as a legal threat. I suspect that what he's trying to say (though without providing verification) is that the FTC regulations allow wikipedia to set its own rules, and hence wikipedia is not subject to claims of "freedom of speech" and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't see it as a legal threat either, but I've closed the AfD as a SNOW delete, so given that the editor is a SPA who only edited in that area, the issue is probably moot. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, this one[30] IS a legal threat. As you say, the editor is an SPA who will probably disappear. But if he doesn't, you may need to bring the gavel down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • There is absolutely no inclusion, whether implied or explicit, of any “legal threat” in my posts whatsoever. The difference between a “threat” and a simple “reference to statutory writ” for the sake of reinforcing an argument is substantial and should be thoroughly understood before making such erroneous accusations. --Endeology (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No, there's really not.
        WP:NLT is meant to encompass the implications of legal proceedings, so that people don't use that as a method of intimidating other users. Constantly citing your lawyer is not conducive to cooperative editing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite
        22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • "Under the advice of my attorney, I have a legal right to edit my own posts in a manner that I see fit..." is an attempt to intimidate, and is also bogus. You don't have any legal "right" to edit anything in particular on wikipedia. And your comments are the kind of stuff editors get indef'd for. You're lucky the admins are feeling generous today. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with Baseball Bugs. Quoting laws and your lawyer isn't going to gain you ant friends here. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Exactly. You
          reap the whirlwind. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!}
          ) 06:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)