Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive670

George1918 (talk · contribs) created a badly formulated poll at Talk:Homeopathy#Is Homeopathy a reliable source for scientific or evidence based medical conclusions? (apparently under the impression that being a "reliable source" is an intrinsic property of a source unrelated to the claim in question), and PPdd (talk · contribs) spammed notifications to a dozen more or less related talk pages. (See Talk:Homeopathy#Objection to the nonsense poll above for a more detailed explanation of the situation from my POV.) I propose that an admin warns both editors to be more careful in the future and, unless PPdd does so themselves, removes most of the spammed notifications as inappropriate. Hans Adler 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (updated 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Update: Ppdd created the poll, misrepresenting earlier comments by two other editors by taking them out of their original context and putting them into a completely new one. The poll was not George1918's fault at all, but was created in a way that implied that it was. I have written more about this below. I apologise for my initial confusion. Hans Adler 23:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I created the poll as a subsection from George1918's question by isolating the unresolved part of the question as a subsection header. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

As a general note, the atmosphere at the article was quiet and almost harmonious for a long time, but recently it looks as if there might be a return to the old battleground behaviour that led to several Arbcom cases. Symptoms include the appearance of a new sceptic editor who tried to rewrite the historically contentious lead completely without knowing or researching the first thing about the topic, and the sudden appearance of a likely sock of a banned pro-homeopathy editor.

I believe the article is still under discretionary sanctions. While certainly no action should be taken against any individual editor (except for the possible sock; I have filed an SPI), it may soon become necessary to give formal warnings to new editors or to editors whose formal warning about the article sanctions happened long ago. It would be great if a few uninvolved admins could keep an eye on the talk page. Hans Adler 10:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC) (updated 10:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

I am one of the editors who "spammed" to relevant Wikiprojects related to using the journal Homeopathy as RS for a physics article in it showing a miraculous "matter genrating machine" at the nanolevel.

Before notifying relevant Wikiprojects (and I presume by the same reasoning, article talk pages related to the RS debate) I was explicitly told by an admin that it was appropriate to do so here[1] --

"How do I "inform a Wikiproject"? I would have liked to do so in several articles, but is this not

talk

) 22:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi! No it isn't, quite the opposite: wikiprojects exist exactly to provide help from editors who specialize or anyway care about a subject. You just go to the desired wikiproject talk page, open a new section and ask with a neutral message for help. --Cyclopia^talk 23:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)]".

After the notifications I was again told by an admin it was "reasonable" here --[2],

"I put a notice to please vote at a Wikiproject to which the article belonged. I was told that this is the appropriate place to request votes, though I was told to be neutral and should not express a POV as to how to vote. Did I make a mistake? PPdd (talk) 02:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject; it is also good form to post a note at the discussion saying that you did so. (There might be an expectation that members of the project would tend vote in a block (true or not), and it's good to be completely open about how a discussion has been publicised.) LadyofShalott 02:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)"

PPdd (talk) 13:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

PPdd, FYI, although Cyclopia is a very experienced long-time editor here ("reviewer" status) I don't believe they are an admin. You need to add a tool to your monobook that immediately provides lots of information when you let your mouse pointer hover over a link. In this case it immediately tells me this about Cyclopia: "reviewer, 6735 edits since: 2004-07-25". It even shows me the top of their userpage! --

talk

) 16:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

"It is reasonable to post a link to the WikiProject". It is unreasonable, however, to post a link to 3 WikiProjects (Rational skepticism, Medicine, Alternative medicine), 3 policy/guideline talk pages (RS, MEDRS, FRINGE) and 5 articles (List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, pathological science). Hans Adler 15:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this ANI is premature. HkFnsNGA is a good-faith editor with some common newbie issues that need ironing out (and it seems they're improving in fact), and George1918 is quite a classical case of tendentious newbie or semi-newbie (I cannot and will not comment on possible sockpuppeting issues). Nothing odd I'd say for such an article, and I wouldn't raise an AN/I for what looks like the natural cycle of such articles on WP. However the "poll" itself was actually helpful (or at least not harmful) in settling the specific matter. I fully agree with Hans Adler that sources are not reliable or not in a vacuum but obviously by context -yet the context indicated in the poll (and most importantly in the poll opinions) was quite circumscribed. I also don't think that notifying wikiprojects per se is akin to spamming -they exist for these very reasons. I personally would have notified the RS/N (don't know if it has been actually done) and perhaps moved the discussion there, but the more eyes on a controversial issue, the better. --Cyclopia^talk 14:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Cyclopia: FYI, HkFnsNGA (now PPdd) isn't a newbie. Their present status: "3824 edits since: 2009-11-18" . --

talk

) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If I had been aware that PPdd is HkFnsNGA renamed I might have acted somewhat differently, but I was not aware and I don't think that's my fault. It appeared to me that one problematic new user had temporarily disappeared and another problematic user appeared. Even with the new knowledge I don't think this report is premature. The homeopathy article had an extremely bad atmosphere in the past, and excessive spamming of canvasing messages creates a real chance that we will return to that situation soon. The situation should be monitored by uninvolved admins.

This [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] was not just "notifying wikiprojects", it was far out of proportion. Especially for an attempt to canvas answers to a question that didn't need asking in the first place because the answer is so obvious. Hans Adler 15:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that PPdd is HkFnsNGA renamed as well. There are a few talk page notices which make little sense but I see nothing serious happening from that. And again: it may seem so obvious to us but this doesn't mean it is obvious to everyone. Too many times I've seen (in WP and in real life) the "obvious" challenged by good faith people. It is good to have a consensus even on the obvious to better rebuke who wants to challenge the obvious due to a POV. --Cyclopia^talk 16:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Boy does that ever apply here! George1918 is such an editor....a very persistent POV pusher who fails to understand many things about how science works. Of course that's generally to be expected from those who are true believers in homeopathy. --

talk

) 16:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I can understand the concerns Hans Adler must have felt when seeing what he thought was a newbie engaged in so much activity! Fortunately it was an experienced editor and the poll was about a specific issue. (In fact, when I discovered that someone didn't follow the link and tried !voting "on the spot", I followed PPdd's trail and made a clearer notice of where to !vote.)

We need to differentiate between proper "notifications" and improper "canvassing":

• Notifications of polls, RfCs, etc. are normally sent to numerous talk pages where it would be logical to expect interested editors to appreciate such a notification. It is important in doing so to include the talk pages of both believers and skeptics, otherwise it's de facto "canvassing".

• Canvassing would be sending such notifications in a manner to get a desired result, either by selective notification or by asking for a certain result. That's very wrong.

In this case I don't see a violation of the prohibition against canvassing. (Whether the question is really unnecessary to ask because the answer is obvious is another matter.) In this case it related to a specific situation and was to demonstrate to a pushy and persistent newbie what the consensus of editors believed on the matter, and it seems to have served the purpose. Some of the !votes were excellent answers that showed how even a normally questionable source should be treated (decision about use as a RS made on a case-by-case basis). Even an often questionable source can be used in some circumstances. It's not a black/white situation.

I'm not saying that everything about this matter was necessarily worded perfectly, or done completely wisely, but in principle I don't see any gross violation. At worst it was a good faith attempt to settle an issue that was very pressing and causing quite a bit of disruption, especially because it was coming from a newbie of questionable origins. Any advice from others who see this from other angles would no doubt be welcomed by all concerned parties here. --

I endorse BullRangifer above statement completely. --Cyclopia^talk 17:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't.

• PPdd is not an "experienced editor". PPdd is an over-enthusiastic newbie who is about to cause serious damage at one of our historically most contentious articles, possibly steering it straight to Arbcom.
• The poll was not about a specific issue, or at least not a sensible one. It's hard to tell because it was so unclear. The only thing that was clear was that "no" was the only sensible answer, and that this could later be overinterpreted. Not too long ago I have seen something eerily similar, and it caused a great deal of disruption that was hard to deal with. As a result, I no longer have any tolerance for such bullshit. (As a general comment, I have hardly ever seen a single editor or two create a poll and advertise it widely without waiting for input and approval of the poll's formulation from their fellow editors. I don't know if this is regulated in any way, but acting like this is a sure path to chaos.)
• Notifications are not normally "sent to numerous talk pages where it would be logical to expect interested editors to appreciate such a notification". At least not for values of "numerous" that lie around 10. Two or perhaps three talk pages are reasonable. Eleven are not.
• The choice of talk pages does not appear completely unbiased, either, although I consider this a very minor point.

That said, I agree it wasn't a "gross violation". But it was behaviour that needs to stop. Hans Adler 20:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

@ Hans, FYI, HkFnsNGA (now PPdd) isn't a newbie. Their present status: "3824 edits since: 2009-11-18" . --

talk

) 07:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am still puzzled as to what to do regarding notification to projects and talk pages to end limitless questions about RS and alternative medicine and pseudoscience journals. The RS related talk pages are directly on point for notification, so are the three projects. I was told that this might create a "block voting" situation, so I thought (thinking there would be a swarm of reacting pseudoscience POV pushers voting) it best to post at talk on relevant article talk pages. (I thought junk science was synonymous with pseudoscience in the court and politics. I was once malisciously prosecuted using what a major national president of a scientific body described in his a keynote address at his body's annual national meeting as, alternatively, "junk physical science" then "pseudoscience".) If the situation arises again, I do not know what is proper. Selectively notifying relevant talk pages is a kind of canvassing. PPdd (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

How was the discussion related to improvements of any of the following articles?

Catholicism, Discovery Institute and parapsychology. That would not have been OK, either. Hans Adler

21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I expected editors at talk at

list of topics characterised as pseudoscience, evidence-based medicine, scientific method, junk science, and pathological science to be interested in what or what is not RS for pseudoscience, when there is a claim to use a scientific method in the article in question (as was made in the electron miscroscope article on nanoparticles in Homeopathy. In circles I travel in, junk science is used more commonly than pseudoscience to describe the same thing. Pathological science and pseudoscience are often used interchangeably, e.g., by what Brangifer referred to about DNA-electromagnetism studies and homeopathy (called alternatively pseudoscience or pathological science. I almost did not post at these, thinking it would attract a bunch of nuts, but I decided to do it anyway because I thought I was being biased if I did not. PPdd (talk

) 22:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Assuming good faith, I have tolerantly read George1918's extensive ultra-POV comments at homeopathy talk, as well as the full and sincere time other editors have spent responding to them. His proposal for Homeopathy as RS to put science and medicine things in the homeopathy article was voted down by unanious consensus. George1918 has made ZERO contributions to WP other than (1) many huge comments at the talk page of homeopahy, (2) linking a single date (e.g., "1918" to "1918") in a handful of articles (edits that were immediately reverted, with edit summary not to link dates, which he ignored), and (3) capitalizing "no." to "No" in one article.[14] It is odd that he created a new account a short time ago, but seemed to have sophisticated knowledge of WP policies from the outset. The extensive and ultra-fringe POV expressed in comments seems highly disruptive. PPdd (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it healthy to develop such an "obsession" for or against an editor following him around? Please reconsider and try to be friendly: provide reasons and reliable sources. It easier and more fun than that you are currently doing. --George1918 (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• The meaning of my question was - as I have stated - Is Homeopathy a reliable source for reporting various claims of homeopathy ?. You changed it conducting your poll. I asked this question because I saw the journal Homeopathy to be used as a reference multiply times in the article, without any objection. When it was suggested that claims of homeopathy published in the same journal to be included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes - the journal became automatically unreliable for any purpose. Furthermore another editor -replying to my question- said that all references using homeopathy should be replaced by reliable sources. The same thing of course happens to NCCAM website and the American Medical Association which seem to have double properties: Reliable to take entire quotes describing how much homeopathy is ineffective and unsupported by science and unreliable for reporting any info which might provide such as that NCCAM funds homeopathy research. I don't really know who demonstrates an excessive point of view here. Maybe you should ask yourself. Can we try to be more honest here? I might have to repeat that I have nothing to do with homeopathy and I believe that the topic is not presented netrualy even by wikipedia standards which means : accurate and complete presentation of homeopathy claims and accurate and complete representation of the mainstream experts's opionions - not only the opinion of the skeptics scientists. --George1918 (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

George1918, you talk about honesty, but I believe your presentation is itself misleading. You write: "When it was suggested that claims of homeopathy published in the same journal to be included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes - the journal became automatically unreliable for any purpose." By adding some words there ("to be included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes"), you changed the whole history of what happened. (Maybe you thought those words, but you didn't write them. If you ever did, then it was much later, after you had created much confusion by insisting it was a reliable source. We were fairly clear that it's use as a RS is very limited, that is for opinions, but not for scientific facts. The poll was worded as it was because we needed to make it clear to you that Homeopathy couldn't be used for such purposes. For the opinions of homeopathists? Of course. That's obvious. I believe there was ONE editor who went a bit overboard at first and declared it couldn't be considered a RS at all, but that editor likely wasn't thinking about the possibility of using it for opinions. No, you're not being honest here. --

talk

) 09:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see any good faith in this comment- if I m asking a simple question, someone changes its words and meaning, creates a little canvassing crusade around and a mess and the same time I m the one to be blamed for this situation? Isn't more than obvious whose mistake and responsibility that is? But my comment on honesty regards the double standards editors have for the same sources: reliable when they are debunking and unreliable when they refer to even a controversial aspect of the topic --George1918 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

George1918, don't change the subject. You made statements immediately above that are not exact quotes of what you actually said. You added a number of qualifying words that didn't exist in your original statements at Talk:Homeopathy. Your statements above are thus misleading and can give editors who were not involved in the discussions at Talk:Homeopathy the impression that we have somehow misrepresented you. No, your original statements were simple and thus open to interpretation. Here are the first of your statements questioning whether the journal Homeopathy is a "reliable source":

• The article [ Homeopathy ] states that homeopathic remedies (high dilutions) are indistinguishable from water and the article [journal Homeopathy] disputes that. This a reliable source - correct? --George1918 (talk) 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC) [I had to add identification for each use of the word "article", since George1918 was referring to two different things.]

• Did you make up your minds yet? Is it "homeopathy" a reliable source or not? It cannot be both. --George1918 (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

After that last statement, PPdd formed a poll to clear up that question. The results of the poll provided some good explanations for why it can indeed be both.

So don't try to mislead others here by making statements that aren't true. You didn't ask "Is Homeopathy a reliable source for reporting various claims of homeopathy?" That may have been your "meaning", as you state above, but that was not clear when you made your original, simple, statements. You made the two statements above and neither time was it clear you meant "for reporting various claims of homeopathy" or "included not as facts or truths but as homeopathy beliefs for information purposes". If you had done that there would have been no confusion or need for a poll. No George1918, my reply to you was in good faith. I just point out how your original statements were simple and ambiguous, and how your big objection above is very misleading. That's it. --

talk

) 17:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It is not. If you create a poll or request for comment it is appropriate to discuss with fellow editors first and not to take their question change its words and then add your interpretation. Adler said the same and he is right in that.--George1918 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is (misleading). Your statements above are misleading and I pointed it out. Don't try to change the subject. The matter of the poll that followed is another matter. You can discuss that until you're blue in the face, and it won't change the fact that your statements above are misleading and your two original questions were simple and ambiguous, and they (because of your POV) caused enough confusion that it was felt necessary to create a poll. --

talk

)

Part of the discussion above is bizarre. I must apologise to George1918 for not returning to this thread earlier and seeing what was going on here. George1918 made a comment that was absolutely reasonable for what it was: a short, quick contribution to a long conversation. Ppdd then totally misrepresented this edit with [this edit]. The edit:

• added a heading right before George1918's comment,
• removed all indentation from George1918's comment, moving it from level 11 to level 0
• similarly removed all indentation from Jmh649's response,
• reformatted Jmh649's reply as if it was a vote in a poll, and
• added another, genuine poll vote Ppdd themselves.

This was a violation of

The edit separated George1918's comment from the discussion to which it was a minor contribution and created the following impression:

• That George1918 started the poll section.
• That George1918, rather than commenting briefly and probably wihtout much thought in a long discussion, intended and expected this comment to have a lot of weight.
• That George1918 supported holding a poll on the question.
• That Jmh649 supported holding a poll on the question and in fact participated in it.
• That the context for "reliable source" in George1918's comment was reliability "for physics conclusions" (later section title changes, I believe also by Ppdd, created other, equally wrong impressions) rather than the actual context, in which I, for example, had written: "I doubt that we have to wait for [other sources] before reporting what the paper found as just that: Something that was published in a homeopathy journal."

These were serious distortions of a scale that I initially did not realise at all. This edit did not correct the distortions. It was totally insufficient as a warning about what Ppdd had done. It is unfortunate that George1918 did not immediately revert Ppdd's manipulations. Hans Adler 23:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I may have got a detail wrong in my analysis, but it is totally inacceptable for Ppdd to claim that they did not take comments out of context, as they did here. I propose a stern warning by an admin. I currently have no confidence that the editor will learn from this serious mistake. Hans Adler 00:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

clearly pushing an agenda at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood?action=history and time for a topic ban i see —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.168.84.76 (talk) 21:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I see

diffs where he's actually promoting a pov? I may be missing whatever it is you're seeing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs

) 21:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

for example at talk:pro-life he is clearly trying to push a pov. i think he has potential to be a good aditor maybe a topic ban from abortion for awhile will help [[184.168.84.76 (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)]]

I hate to put this down, as I see WikiManOne as a good editor, but this and this are troublesome. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

this was worrisome as well. He is a youngin' and capable of growing out of it. I think something in the neighborhood of a 1 month topic-ban would be for the best. - Haymaker (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, another IP address starts a report on the noticeboard complaining of edits to the same article and gets subsequently banned. This is getting ridiculous... for those of you complaining about my edits to the article, I wish you would take a closer look. I have taken out statements that were POV in both ways and am operating on the basis of consensus on the talk page. This just one example of me taking out a pro-choice POV in the article. [15]

One

21:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I have ZERO problem removing POV, in fact I encourage it. But the two edits I posted seem to be the removal of alot of posts from media sources. Can you explain why this was necessary? Note: The pro-life/anti-abortion subject is one I know little about. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• I believed they constituted undue weight. I note the page later qualified for protection and there was enough consensus during that time for an admin to remove it entirely as I initially did. [16] The reason I removed the verified information in those two posts were because the criticism constituted undue weight imo and was an example of
  One
  22:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The blocked IP was not as a user but for a broken proxy, so I guess you have to AGF on that one. Someone has just flipped pro-life back to anti-abortion. I've left a note on his talk page. Sitush (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

• Interesting, an IP address using a proxy gets blocked after doing the same actions as another IP address who was blocked for trying to get around their previous indefinite ban. Very interesting.
  One
  22:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Okie Dokie, that makes sense. I probably would have found that with a little more digging but I wouldn't know how to make heads or tails of that subject. My concerns are satisfied. I see no agenda pushing here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. There is clearly agenda pushing going on from multiple parties on two sides of the abortion issue here. The party in question appears to be playing a rather central role, but is not alone. The entire charade needs to stop. Someone should have closed down that ill advised move discussion as soon as it was born. Now we're left with drama all over the place.Griswaldo (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment - As discussed

So you're saying he should abort his editing for a while? Oh dear, I went there, didn't I? HalfShadow 22:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Could a user on the

Worked with an admin on IRC and got it taken care of. Credit goes to Sven Manguard for finding the page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – The boomerang came back. HalfShadow 19:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There is considerable controversy within the HIV community about when therapy HIV infection should be initiated. Most experts believe that everyone who is infected with the virus should be offered therapy. There are many activists within the HIV community who oppose this. These activists are very militant. MuZemike is one of these activists. He has blocked me from editing Wikipedia for this reason. [23] This is my ONLY crime. He has made it clear that he will not stop abusing his Check User privileges on his own.

P.S. I cannot notify MuZemike of this incident report because his talk page is semi-protected and I am blocked from editing it. ~~KBlott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.236.189 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I have blocked KBlott a good while ago due to persistent sock puppetry and disruption on HIV and other articles pertaining to AIDS denialism: please see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of KBlott and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KBlott/Archive. He's on here right now because I blocked a recent sock of his, NotKBlott (talk · contribs). –MuZemike 19:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, what was this user going to do with KBott (talk · contribs), which I just also blocked? –MuZemike 19:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

*WhhstwhhstwhsstwhsstSMACK!* HalfShadow 19:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No you blocked me because I don’t adhere to your denialist views. I broke no other rule. --KBlott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.236.189 (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

IP blocked. Nakon 19:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would recommend a rangeblock so the user doesn't IP hop. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 –

WP:BOOMERANG

Hi,

I wanted to contact a person, on a subject that has nothing to do with Wikipedia, and going to their website I find this comment: Contact My talk page or <removed email>, now as I didn't particularly want to send an email to this individual I followed their advice and posted my message to them on their talk page As they requested.

This was clearly a "honey trap", because within a few minutes of posting it on their talk page as they directed from outside Wikipedia, someone reported me for breaching a Wikipedia policy (You won't believe me but I know because I went back to delete it!)

Now, as this William Connolley only does the climate - any personal message to this guy is going to involve the climate and not everyone is going to be "how wonderful you are". This is a communication that has nothing to do with Wikipedia - and if I broke some policy, it was this guy who was responsible for encouraging communication on the climate when he has been in the thick of all this (I hardly ever edit wikipedia because of people like him)

It was a private message to this individual which someone then abused procedure to ban me for several days. Frankly, I'm already disgusted with Wikipedia (as you will be able to tell by my writings), but I have NEVER BROKEN THE RULES ... except where they were blatantly stupid like this ban. My username is Isonomia ... and I'm sorry if you post and I don't respond because Wikipedia doesn't want to hear from climate sceptics like me, so I don't see the point even trying to edit ... so I only log in once in a blue moon. PS. I've not notified anyone ... as a sceptic I get banned if I do contact people ... and no doubt if I don't so what's the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.234.255 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am slightly confused on what exactly you are requesting. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You were blocked for blatant harrasment – don't pretend it was anything else. Your IP has now also been blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not very sympathetic.

Your post to WMC was rude. You claim it has nothing to do with Wikipedia, yet you posted from a Wikipedia account to a Wikipedia talk page and discussed Wikipedia business (banning). I'll AGF your current explanation that you came across the request to post at WP from an outside source, but there is nothing in your message to indicate that, nor would that even give you absolution. I happen to think a warning, rather than a block was warranted, but you are not exactly blameless in this.--SPhilbrickT 20:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I would also suggest even if it didn't get consideration trying to keep [24] on your user page doesn't help. Nil Einne (talk) 21:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mechamind90 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing the non-free licenses on images that are derivative works of copyrighted product labels, logos, etc. The user is also changing the speedy deletion tags to ones that are inappropriate for some reason. The following images are the ones in question, I don't know if the user has been doing this to others:

1. File:YoplaitS.jpg
2. File:Lomza Beer.jpeg
3. File:WarkaBeer.jpeg
4. File:HapoelscarfS.jpg
5. File:RamahshirtS.jpg
6. File:CzechdollS.jpg
7. File:NaotboxS.jpg

Kelly ^hi! 23:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want this to be considered an incident. Trademark is obvious, but I'm comparing it to others that I've seen such as some of the images that can be found in the article on Coca-Cola, which are identified as public domain. What I'd say is that if those particular images are free but subject to trademark, the same applies to these (but first would require removal of the DI tag in general, which I didn't do). mechamind90 23:19, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

All I know is that not all images that contain a photo of a trademarked brand but are still just photos are not in the same field. When they're all the same (except in the case of specific products that were made pre-1923, or PD-70 or any free license), only then can we really consider the general issue resolved. mechamind90 23:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be confused but what does public domain Coca-Cola trademark images have to do with File:RamahshirtS.jpg (where the issue doesn't seem to be trademark at all)? Also if you 'don't know' might it be advisable to either seek help or leave it to someone who does know? Are you aware of how seriously we treat copyright issues. Nil Einne (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• All the above listed images are copyvios except for File:HapoelscarfS.jpg and File:RamahshirtS.jpg, for which the copyrighted portions are not the main subject of the photo and are a small enough part to fall under de minimis. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  I agree those two images are close to the borderline; they'd be deleted on Commons (likely) since the copyrighted parts of the image are what they are being used for. Kelly ^hi! 03:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And yes, I am aware of Wikipedia regarding copyright and being more strict than general copyright law, but what I was trying to say is that not all photos containing such trademarks are treated equally (whether considered free or non-free, only one would make sense, and I actually don't mind which one). mechamind90 05:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• For

  pd-ineligible}}, I'd imagine), so I don't think that would be deleted. File:RamahshirtS.jpg is much more borderline; I would go the FfD/PUF route for that. /ƒETCHCOMMS/

  04:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

  So are we agreed that the user was wrong to remove the non-free licenses on all of these images? Should I revert? Kelly ^hi! 04:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Finally a reply. I would agree that they are unsuitable for the Commons, but I agree with the De Minimis. Personally I would say keep the GNU licenses, but tag the images as subject to trademark (except for Naot, which I replaced in a safety measure as the entire image appeared to contain the copyright in the photo). mechamind90 05:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I still don't get this obsession with trademarks. Either there are copyright issues with File:RamahshirtS.jpg or there aren't. Trademarks is at best a minor point. The logos there look like they are clear complex enough to be covered by copyright, I'm not even sure if the 'Ramah Israel Day Camp' would really worry about trademarks. Nil Einne (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

So it looks like Nyttend (talk · contribs) has removed all tags from the above items, even those that are obvious copyvios. Some help here, please? Kelly ^hi! 06:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, formally I guess he's right about "di-nopermission" being the wrong tag. We have some confusion here about which level of authorships the tags are meant to apply to: if we're talking about the copyright and authorship of the original product designs, then "no permission" is beside the point because nobody has actually claimed they were released freely, and nobody would expect a release of those to be filed with otrs. And if we are talking about the authorship of the photograph, then its self-made status is not really in doubt. Wouldn't PUI be the correct venue for the whole thing? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, except there's really no doubt the subject of the images is non-free. Or is someone really arguing that the uploader owns the copyright to the product labels/logos/3D art in question? Kelly ^hi! 06:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment The uploader,
  {{helpme}} request on their talk page regarding this issue [25] which I have responded to as best I can [26]. Chzz  ► 
  10:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

As for sending everything to IFD or PUF, that can become an extra step that in many cases is not needed. I would say File:CzechdollS.jpg for sure should go to PUI because there is no real indication of the "original" source of the doll (i.e - who made it?) and it could very well be under copyright and/or trademark. The others are fairly obvious that the uploader would not own the copyrights or the trademarks, so we already know the license is not correct. Soundvisions1 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey All, I was wondering if someone could do an assessment job on all the articles in Category:Unassessed Albemarle County articles via a bot. They would just need to match the assessments of the already exsisting templates. L ike if WP:FOO is Class C with Low Importance, WP:ALVA (the WP link for the project) would be the same. Could someone do this? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!

Is

WP:BRQ not open for requests like this? Carcharoth (talk

) 02:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I knew we had a page for it, just hadn't the clue where it was. Normally I just ask a bot operator, but couldn't find one. Must all be watching the Super Bowl. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!

There are unconfirmed reports of the death of Gary Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I have semiprotected for 4 hours, by whihc time some reliable sources should be available if it is true. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

News reports start trickling in. Only two so far and I can't acces them. — Edokter (talk) — 17:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

[27] Irish Times seems to be the first reliable... --MASEM (t) 17:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• And BBC and others. I removed semiprotection. Very sad, he was a seriously good musician, something you can't say about every famous rock band member. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I think this is the first time Guy and I can agree on something. Gary Moore was an excellent musician. Picked up on him after I heard "Over the Hills and Far Away" on WXPN one night and have been checking his stuff out since. Major bummer. :( - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Wow, what a shame. Amazing player, amazing (Les Paul) sound. Drmies (talk) 05:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Unless somebody thinks they've got grounds for requesting checkuser, this thread isn't going anywhere; there's no proof for or against. Editors are welcome to watchlist this editor, but, for now, please

bite. m.o.p

06:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Encyclopedia91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has called a fellow editor "liberal scum" [28] when he disagreed with his use of "liberal" and "socialist" in a "pejorative" way. I believe a block of some sort is certainly appropriate. This user has violated

As a side note, an indefinite ban would be overkill, but a short(in comparison) ban would clearly send the message that this type of behavior is not welcomed by the wider community.

I already reported that to AIV, and an admin has told me he's going to keep his eye on that editor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the edit I showed certainly merits more than "keep[ing] an eye" on him, don't you think?

One

02:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless this editor is the reincarnation of someone else they have been around all of a day. A warning should suffice.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

"Liberal scum" as opposed to "conservative scum", I suppose. The editor in question is on the radar now, so we'll see what happens, if anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I dropped them a note about

WP:CIV. If an admin wishes to offer a sterner warning please do. Clearly not acceptable commentary but they appear to be a newbie.Griswaldo (talk

) 02:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This user has managed to provoke considerable conflict in his first day of editing. I notice that his user page says "Please don't be rude". I think that a short block would be helpful as it would allow him time to review WP policy and guidelines before continuing to edit. However, his edit history indicates that he will probably continue to provoke controversy. TFD (talk) 02:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

His edit history? You mean 15 edits total in his first day here? Granted it isn't a stellar list of edits by any means, but I think if there is ever a time someone needs to be warned before being blocked, its on their first day of editing. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Between vandalism and incivility, I think he deserves it. First day or not.
  One
  02:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I agree a short block would be in order... although I agree, by the tone of his first day he will probably continue to provoke controversy.
  One
  02:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

E91 is brand new. Don't bite the newbies. Go light. And try to rein in any prejudice you may feel toward editors with conservative points of view. I dropped him a note, too. And I would be fascinated to know if I'm the one that inadvertently alerted WM1. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BITE applies. And I recall an editor accusing me of being pro-fascist in the past, and one editor who was officially warned about doing such to another editor - but who was not even given a 10 second block for the infraction. Seems that such an editor who was given lenient treatment ought not be calling for blood here. Meanwhile [29] has an editor saying articles must be written from a neutral point of view, not a right wing extremist ethnic nationalist POV which I consider at least as bad as "liberal scum." Collect (talk

) 03:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Nope, not as bad. "right wing extremist" is regularly used in the main stream media, as is "ethnic nationalist" when describing Baltic politics. You'd be hard pressed to find a neutral news agency calling someone "liberal scum" in the way this editor did.
  One
  03:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

General Comment. The way you all are engaging each other, across the political devide surrounding abortion, makes me wonder if this isn't heading to arbitration, which from my limited exposure to this content area over the last couple of days makes me feel like bad news all around for many of you. Can you all please try to stop being so confrontational to each other (accusations of stalking, filing AN/I reports, igniting battleground type discussions, etc.)? When the reports keep coming here the community will decide, eventually that they have had enough. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason this is going on is that admins are letting WM1 run wild. --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• And
  One
  03:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I hope none of you are surprised when you are all dragged to arbitration. That's all I'm trying to say. Step back and evaluate how you are all contributing to the atmosphere around this topic presently. If you don't I really don't see this going anywhere else at this rate. That's all. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

<--IMO, letting WM1 use this page as a shortcut WQA and a weapon to hammer opponents in content disputes is a disruption of this page's function. betsythedevine (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Quo usque tandem abutere, WM1, patientia nostra? --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there a better place to report violations? I would be happy to do so if you would point me in the right direction. I apologize if this is a unacceptable disruption to the page. Also, I note that I started using this page after frivolous reports were brought against me at this page which no one objected to.

One

We actually have a whole slew of pages for reporting different types of behavior, which you can see linked in the big banner at the top of this page. The one in question is probably best addressed by

WP:CIVIL that says we shouldn't talk to one another like that. The fact is that in most places on the internet, such type of name calling is somewhere between tolerated and encouraged. Our civility policy is not the norm, and new editors need to be informed of it. Of course, if they choose to continue being uncivil, there are plenty of ways to handle that. Qwyrxian (talk

) 04:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I dealt with the initial AIV report here. I'll watch the editor, but for now, I'm assuming good faith and thinking it's just somebody going after a hot-button issue. Isn't that what politics is? :P m.o.p 04:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) I think the most charitable and productive assumption we can make about this is that we all just got trolled, hard, and that we should all practce

Yeah, I'm marking this as resolved. m.o.p 06:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As the person who was the target of the original attack, I have to assure you all that I wasn't all that stressed about it. I just wanted to play a little game with the attacker's obvious US bias in his definitions of liberal and socialist, which I saw coming from innocent ignorance, rather than real nasty vindictiveness. I was satisfied with being able to reply that being called liberal where I come from is generally seen as a compliment. I hoped it would get him thinking. No need for any more action. HiLo48 (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Accounts blocked as socks of Eduard Khil :) –MuZemike 13:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Other accounts? Yes (now blocked). 17? Not quite. Thanks for catching this. TNXMan 12:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

So, it wasn't just a clever name? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I don't think any admin action is going to occur over this requested move. Please use normal avenues of dispute resolution rather than creating drama. Fences&Windows 01:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)