Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive698

John,

I have taken a look at pages related to Avastin (generic name- Bevacizumab) and Viagra (generic name- sildenafil) and do not see a difference between the text written there and the text I had placed on the site. Viagra and Avastin are very succesful drugs, and owned by large companies (Roche and Pfizer). Can I please request that you banish their sites too since there is a lot of information there that seems promotional to me? It would be the beginning of a very long list. I only referenced independent academic studies outlining the genes used in an assay, that was described first by an academic (Dr. Seddon in IOVS)

You appear to be saying that the because the text is very similar to a commercially available website, it is promotional. This is the exact same behaviour your colleagues enagage in, and reminds of Kafka-esque behaviour common in Western Europe (and the reason I am so glad I dont live in Holland anymore). You have done something wrong, but we're not going to tell you what it takes to fix the problem, we're just going to tell you it's wrong. It's almost Orwellian, but I digress.

Can you please outline what issue you have with what piece of text? I can no longer see the text (banished like lady chatterley's lover...). I can E-mail you (and explain to you in laymans terms) exactly what each article means. NONE of the text in the articles was ghost-written by corporate writers (a common practice in health care)

It seems easiest for me to create another identity, and just re-write the entire text by sprinkling a few and's, if's, and therefore's in there to obfuscate the issue? Shall I go ahead and give that a crack? I am trying to provide balanced, un-biased information regarding an issue that is needed.

Gerry (<email removed>) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbelgraver (talk • contribs) 12:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked Gbelgraver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely as an account dedicated solely to promoting their own product or company. Nothing more to do here.  Sandstein  14:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a major issue with

User:Killervogel5, the administrator who blocked DragoLink08, said this to him while doing so: "If you are able to actively participate in discussion about your edits, you may use your user talk page to do so until your block expires. I sincerely hope that this short block will clarify things for you and ensure that you discuss your edits in the future, especially when requested to do so. If you come back and continue to proceed as before your block, the level of block can escalate, and that's not something we want to see. Take a day or two off and come back with a productive attitude. Thanks."

DragoLink08 has been warned by me many times, other editors numerous times, and a blocking administrator that he needs to stop unilaterally altering college teams' navboxes. A very pertinent coincidence worth pointing out is that the IP 131.204.254.72, which is registered to Auburn University and was blocked on April 28th for disruptive editing, shares an eerily similar edit pattern as DragoLink08 (e.g. sports' teams coach and squad navboxes, Power Rangers-related articles, etc). Now that school is out, DragoLink08 has been more active getting back to his old habits.

I've run out of ideas with this user. What he's doing is more disruptive than beneficial when it comes to college coaches' and college teams' templates, because WikiProject College Basketball and WikiProject College Football have spent thousands of man hours creating and standardizing these to be uniform. Going in and screwing with a basketball template will make it dissimilar from its counterpart football template. He won't respond to anyone, ever, and will just keep carrying on as if he's just trying to "outlast" anyone who cares. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Just a short blurb from me. I have reviewed this user's edits several times, and it looks like a case of
  WP:DEW in any case. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk
  • 15:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• With the sheer number of articles involved, or potentially involved, and operating on the presumption that the editor in question will likely work through a dynamic IP pool, I don't see too many options available for pre-emptive defense of the articles. In fact, only two come to mind at the moment: build an edit filter that prevents non-autoconfirmed users from making the described changes, or
  Whac-a-Mole(tm). Anyone else have ideas? I haven't had my second cup of coffee yet... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk
  ) 15:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• There is a larger issue here as well, which is that adding random colors to articles or templates means that the color choices can no longer be over-ridden by personal choice using css preferences. Random colors are at odds with wikipedia standards as outlined at
  WP:Deviations. Bad color choices have an adverse impact on people who are color blind or are using a screen reader to read the text. --Diannaa ^(Talk
  ) 17:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'd like to now mention that I let DragoLink08 know about this ANI on May 21 at 14:44. He began editing again on May 22 at 02:28, and has since edited another sports template with no justification for his action. An administrator needs to take some serious action, and soon. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No admin involvement required at present Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin take a look at this situation? Last week, I proposed a merger between

Laughable. Reducing a rather lengthy list to a redirect to a list less than a third of its size is not a merge. As this isn't BLP-related and there's

no deadline, I fail to see how essentially blanking the list because the one source you've found doesn't cover the history of Fox Kids is a preferable. JPG-GR (talk

) 04:39, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You may find using reliable sources "laughable", but it's what we do here at Wikipedia. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems a bit misleading to say only that "There was only one objection to the merge" as JPG-GR's comments were the only response to the proposal. As such, the merge shouldn't have gone ahead. I'd suggest asking for input from the appropriate Wikiprojects and using the dispute resolution procedures if that doesn't work and you feel strongly enough about the topic. Both of you really need to stop throwing insults around as well (it's only a list of TV shows). Nick-D (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not thrown insults around, and I have tried asking for JPG-GR for sources. He doesn't provide any. The two are separate because he says so, sources be damned. (Edited to add: any reasonable objection ("source X says such-and-such") would have convinced me to open a wider discussion. "It's separate because I said so" isn't any sort of argument).Firsfron of Ronchester 04:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please, continue to summarize my arguments to suit your needs - it only makes things easier on me.

Anyway... the list of Fox Kids shows is quite lengthy - combining them into the greater Fox list is needless as a a link to the Fox Kids article in the greater list would suffice (which I suggested - a suggestion that was ignored). And, for the record - I'm all for sourcing the information, I just do not have access to any sources off the top of my head - all I have is my memory of having watched the Fox Kids lineup for the duration of its existence while younger. JPG-GR (talk) 05:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The list of Fox Kids shows is lengthy, mostly because it's not accurate. Quite a few of the series listed therein are actually syndicated, not Fox/Fox Kids programs, as shown in reliable sources. I was going through the article, sourcing, when you blindly reverted the merge. "Your memory" is not a reliable source, nor would your local Fox affiliate have explained to you which shows were syndicated and which were Fox network shows (they don't do that). Television historians have covered this material; that's why we use their books for sourcing, instead of "JPG-GR's memory". Firsfron of Ronchester 05:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Again, the history of the page shows no evidence you were sourcing anything on the Fox Kids page. You converted the entirety of it to a redirect. Secondly, I do not claim to be a reliable source or an expert but I do know the difference between a syndicated children's show and a show airing as part of the Fox Kids lineup. My familiarity with Fox Kids may not beat a reliable source, but my familiarity with Fox Kids is almost certainly better than yours and better than most. Source the article if you like - you have my support. Blank the article again or attempt a "merge" which removes 75% of the list, and don't be surprised if it gets reverted. End of story. JPG-GR (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with

Wikipedia:SOURCE#Burden_of_evidence. You restored the incorrect and unsourceable (unsourceable because it's wrong) content. The policy states "You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. How quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find supporting sources yourself and cite them." You were asked repeatedly to provide sources which back up your statements. You refused to do so. Your memory is not a reliable source. Firsfron of Ronchester

06:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Firsfron, that's exactly the kind of unproductive comment I was talking about. I don't see the need for any admin intervention here - please seek other editors' input on the proposed merge and use dispute resolution if that doesn't work. I'd also suggest that you be very careful with the quote marks when discussing other editors' comments as well - I can't see anywhere where JPG-GR wrote "It's separate because I said so" and you didn't provide a diff (I presume that you were summarising how you view his or her comments, but this needs to be done with caution in forums such as this as it could be very easily be misunderstood). Nick-D (talk) 05:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As all that this thread is being used for is to continue the insults, I'm marking this as resolved. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(cross-posted from Nick-D's page) I wish you hadn't done that, Nick.

WP:MERGE. Moving a request made at the right forum to the wrong one, then marking it as resolved, certainly will not solve the dispute. Firsfron of Ronchester

05:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You had a two-person discussion and the second person disagreed with you, and now you're trying to get an admin to enforce your side of it? Post a notice at Talk:Fox Broadcasting Company, at Talk:Fox Kids, and/or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television to get more input. There's no rush, and there certainly wasn't any call to escalate it to an admin issue. postdlf (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, then we may want to reword

WP:AN. You are right that there's no rush (the incorrect data has been up for years, and it's now been restored), but trying to "discuss" something with someone whose only "proof" is his own memory can be frustrating after a week of asking for Reliable Sources. Firsfron of Ronchester

06:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Please continue to beat the same dead horse rather than consider (or even respond to) my proposal and/or make any attempt to source anything in the current Fox Kids article. Methinks you are arguing with yourself and that is frustrating because you haven't responded to anything I've said in days short of saying the same thing over and over. JPG-GR (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing to source in the List of programs broadcast by Fox Kids because Fox Kids was not a broadcaster. It was programming block. I'm really sorry you're frustrated. Understand that I am, too. I asked you seven days ago to give me a source... the only source you provided was your memory. I searched in vain for a source myself. I can't "source" something which is contradicted in reliable sources. You restored this terrible content. I'm not about to add "sources" which don't verify the content. I'm not about to add a link to an article which has so much ncorrect content. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No frustration here - I find the situation more amusing than anything (as intense arguing on the internet is always a weird concept). Let me get this straight - you are saying because Fox Kids is not a broadcaster, that there is no reliable source for programming that was shown on Fox Kids? Or are you implying that the name of the article itself is improper? I could get behind that argument... how about List of programs broadcast as part of Fox Kids or something not-as-oddly worded? And, once again, the only restoration of content I did was restoring the page to it's previous version before you essentially blanked it by turning it into a redirect. There are likely items on the list that are in fact not Fox Kids programming, but there are also items that WERE that are currently NOT part of the Fox "mother" list. JPG-GR (talk) 06:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would state that "that is frustrating" and then state "No frustration here", but whatever. I wish you would have proposed List of programs broadcast as part of Fox Kids seven days ago instead of the "it is separate because my memory says it is" approach you've used for the past seven days (including just above). The content as it stands is unverified and unverifiable (unverifiable because it's wrong); I was going through the Fox article line by line adding sources to the content before you reverted the merge. The fact that content was not yet brought in from Fox Kids is immaterial; you reverted within minutes of the redirect, and you reverted to content which is quite clearly incorrect and which still remains unsourced. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The frustrating comment was referring to you being frustrated, not me. I didn't mention the article name change previously because I had no reason to dig my feet in for a debate in which no one else was participating and we weren't going to agree - i.e. consensus wouldn't be on the side I wasn't on. As for the FK article, I reverted to content that has been there for months - if it is "clearly incorrect",

fix it. And, I question why anyone would completely blank a page into a redirect BEFORE merging data rather than after. I find that to be very odd. JPG-GR (talk

) 07:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You stated "Methinks you are arguing with yourself and that is frustrating because you haven't responded to anything I've said in days short of saying the same thing over and over." That's not an example of me being frustrated, but whatever. You reverted content which lacks reliable sources. Per

WP:BURDEN, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Since you want this material included, you must source it. That is the policy. If it is not sourced, it must be removed. Firsfron of Ronchester

07:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Could I suggest that you guys break off this too-and-fro for a while (say, 24 hours) and then resume the discussion on the article's talk page after inviting other editors to comment? The current discussion here is misplaced and not terribly productive as you're repeating yourselves. Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

If this discussion is misplaced, it is because you moved it here. Why move a discussion to a place which you feel it does not belong? I started a discussion at

WP:BURDEN, which is policy. Firsfron of Ronchester

10:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize - I thought I had included "reverting page blanking." JPG-GR (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

(also originally posted on my talk page; I'm not sure what the benefits of conducting this discussion in parallel there and here are) Given that there wasn't either a consensus to merge (one editor proposing the merge, one editor disagreeing with the merge and no evidence of any attempts to seek wider input) or evidence that the results of the discussion were either unclear or controversial (beyond you and JPG-GR trading rude comments), I really don't see any need for admin involvement. This is basically a content dispute, and you need to seek wider input. If you like I can close the discussion on the article talk page as 'no consensus', but I don't think that that's the best option. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Or "no quorum." postdlf (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-Admin Observation Get a wider consensus from the involved wikiprojects or open a RFC. Creating multiple very deeply threaded discussions is not how you build consensus, it's how you destroy a collegial editing environment. Hasteur (talk) 14:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• 200.108.111.17 (talk · contribs)
• 190.239.227.248 (talk · contribs)

Both IP's are repeatedly adding [[Category:Discrimination]] to Compulsory voting. The addition may have a reason but I can't see any sourced text in the article to justify the addition and the IP's refuse to discuss. Help? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page, but

BWilkins ←track

) 17:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Kronikerdelta indef blocked HalfShadow 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

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

I protected a version of a page that Kronikerdelta (talk · contribs) did not agree with. This often happens, per WP:Wrong Version. When I replied informing the user of this, his response was to make a threat diff.

Can another admin take action here?

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Note: Please also see sock case, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kronikerdelta. -- Cirt (talk) 04:38, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not a sock and the only threat I made was to go to other editors to get a page fixed correctly. But f*ck it, no one here gives a damn about the truth. If you'd like to block me for simply trying to avoid a libel case against your foundation be my guest, however since you have been informed of the truth and have not taken corrective action that does not bode well. δ_ij^i.broke.it. 05:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Which individual are you, Kronikerdelta, refering to? Because I have done nothing one way or the other here. I'd like to be able to look through this case as a neutral observer, but you, Kronikerdelta, haven't informed me, Jayron32, of anything. I still haven't looked at anything, but have you tried to provide sources to back up what you are claiming in this case? Because Wikipedia is quite interested in the truth, insofar as the truth can be verified because it is reported in reliable sources. Wikipedia is not so interested in The Truth, which is usually reserved for information which is The Truth because someone asserts that it is The Truth. So, which is it: is this verifiably the truth, or is this The Truth? I'd like to know before I invest time in trying to help you if it would be worth my effort. --Jayron32 05:20, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• wow... I was about to come back here and say something to the effect of "give the guy a chance. It seems like he's just peeved about having the page protected."... and then you post this. Oh well. Hasta la vista.
  — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The above comment by Kronikerdelta, in combination with the original response cited by Cirt, appears to be a legal threat. I suggest that Kronikerdelta be blocked indefinitely, per common practice in this situation. Chester Markel (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a definite threat. [15]. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:28, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Someone saying they will "take action" could be interpreted various ways (e.g. simply bringing it here), but the one you cite (you beat me to it) leaves no doubt. Block him and explain the NLT policy - but also check and see if he has a legitimate beef. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:29, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The editor also made this much clearer legal threat: [16], I've asked them to retract the statements or risk being blocked for violating

Dreadstar ☥

05:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the same one I linked, silly. =p Though you did provide more of a comment on it. Are regular editors really representatives of the Wikimedia Foundation though? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 05:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL! I blame the damned page loading problems...and now an ec as I was posting this: "I see my diff is a dup of one mentioned above, I'm thinking it's blockable..."

Dreadstar ☥

05:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Kronikerdelta now states that he won't retract the legal threat, because his comments never constituted one[17]. Making legal threats on behalf of third parties, such as his "I'll tell the school, and they'll sue your pants off" claim, still seems to violate the policy. Chester Markel (talk) 05:42, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• With the latest comment indicated above, I've indefinitely blocked
  Dreadstar ☥
  05:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about the block. I think we need to be careful in distinguishing between someone making a legal threat along the lines of "I will sue you", and someone informing/warning editors that an article contains libel which may result in someone else taking legal action. While the first diff posted by Cirt was closer to the former, even though there was no mention of it being a legal threat (just that the editor "will take action") the last diff ([18]) wasn't - he clearly stated that he was not in a position to take legal action, but he would be informing the school of the situation.

Part of my concern was that the article did contain libel. It made an incorrect statement about the institution, which was specifically denied by the source as it currently stands. And given the nature of the statement, the institution could have potentially lost a considerable part of their income if the Wikipedia article was believed. It has been corrected, but the version that was protected represented a real problem. - Bilby (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

What was the allegedly libelous statement? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it was this bit right here. By the way, you guys don't mind random editors piping up a lot so long as we don't pretend to be admins, right? =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 09:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to post here. OK, so the alleged "libel" was an apparently incorrectly sourced statement about restrictions on the school. Obviously, it needed to be corrected. That does not excuse the tone of the user. Legal-sounding threats are forbidden because they're an attempt to intimidate. If there are concerns about facts, those concerns can be stated without raising a legal threat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Depending on the region, libel can, or so I understand, cover more than individuals. But I don't like the term, anyway. The real point is just that the material was quite serious in regard to St Matthew's, as stating that people who complete their degree there will be unable to practice in the UK was a big deal. While I generally agree with you, in this case it wasn't incorrectly sourced, so much as a false claim, that could have significant impact on the institution, and one which was denied by the source being used. Thus I can see why the user was so upset, especially if they were in some way connected with the organisation. - Bilby (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Bugs: Just making sure it's not just for admins to mostly offer thoughts. Lol, my dad (a corporate attorney) sees fit to remind me of the definition of libel as well as defamy every time I mention a controversial topic I am editing xD (I saw the previous edit, and yeah, I know that's for everyone, but just sayin'). Yeah, he really could have tried a much softer and more friendly approach. That last bit seemed to me like "alright, you won't do what I want, so I'll get these guys to make you do it." Very rude imo. Though he was right that it could have been damaging to the school's ability to get med students from the UK as most people would probably look the school up here first. @Bilby, well doesn't Wikipedia go by the laws of the state of Florida? Yeah, the UK is especially a big deal as this uni is in a dependent territory of the UK (Cayman Islands), and so probably relies on the Home Island for the bulk of their students. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 09:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a side comment, but I've recently had to enquire about the legal status of additions here. Although you're right, it's worth remembering that individual editors operate under local laws. So if I added illegal content, the Foundation might be safe, but I wouldn't necessarily be. Anyway, this is a bit of a diversion, and I'm not really concerned about whether or not the material, as posted, was legally actionable. :) - Bilby (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Presumably the Wikimedia Foundation wouldn't release the identities of editors unless they had to though. =p I think if worse came to worst, a representative would just contact Wikipedia about the error. I don't think you'd have these guys take the Foundation to court over it (unless they could prove that it had actually harmed their ability to get students, they had a good legal team, and the Foundation didn't have a good legal team to get them to settle or just go away). So that whole issue has been corrected then? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 09:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The Foundation will release the identity of an editor when ordered to by the court, as would any such organisation. Nevertheless, I'd rather not rely on pseudo-anonymity to allow editors to post illegal content, whether or not they could get away with it. :)

The article has been fixed, so yes, that's great. My concern is different, though.

WP:NLT is good policy. But in this case, the user didn't seem to be personally threatening legal action, but trying to inform editors that the information was libellous. Indeed, he specifically stated that he was not threatening legal action, because he was not in a position to do so, but that he would be informing the institution concerned - and it was that last statement for which he was blocked. His actions were understandable, his annoyance was understandable, and blocking him under those terms (and only then fixing the problem) seems like a bad sequence to follow. - Bilby (talk

) 10:04, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, back to the article, please? I think there's a legitimate complaint here that's being overlooked. The source cited ([19]) has two listings, one is Primary medical qualifications not accepted by the GMC, under which we have St Matthew's University School of Medicine listed under Belize; another is Primary medical qualifications which may be accepted by the GMC, under which we have St Matthew's University School of Medicine listed under Cayman Islands. Since this school we are talking about is on the Cayman Islands, why exactly are we restoring - and protecting - a version with a highly questionable statement? T. Canens (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Errr... this is odd, they're both listed and are technically the same uni, but one is the old (now defunct) Belizian institution, and the other is the current one in Cayman. O_O Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 10:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

1. Bilby, Kronikerdelta originally stated to Cirt: 'Cut the crap and get this factually correct or I will take action against you and the other editor. There is no debate, this ends now,' which is unequivocally a specific, directed threat. Certainly, he later qualified this statement to suggest that he merely intended to inform the institution, but he also went on to accuse several editors of lying and malicious editing.

2. T. Canens, the article was updated to reflect changes on the GMC's website regarding St. Matthew's University (Cayman Islands). I'm not aware of an outstanding issue here (protected version v. current; talk page notification). Meph^talk 10:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My point is that the first comment wasn't necessarily a legal threat, and, as you point out, he later qualified it to say that it wasn't. At which point he was blocked for making a legal threat. There is a problem here - if we are going to interpret "making a legal threat" as "making something that we could interpret to be a legal threat, even when specifically denied by the user", and rely on that interpretation to make blocks rather than address the problem raised, then we have a significant problem with how we're using the policy.

We need to think about it from his perspective. He corrects a serious problem in an article, is reverted, told that he inserted false information, is immediately taken to an SPI case based on the one edit, and then at every point he is stopped from fixing it by people who continue to focus on his growing annoyance rather than the problem causing it. I'm not surprised he overreacted. The best way of ending this would have been to fix the article before it went too far. - Bilby (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your points, and agree that it could've been fixed earlier. However, Kronikerdelta asserted that material was defamatory, and would've resulted in legal action if s/he were to inform the institution ('If you'd like to block me for simply trying to avoid a libel case against your foundation be my guest' and 'I'm going to inform the administration of the school that this foundations representatives (namely you) are acting in bad faith in producing libel about them.'). S/he thus qualified their initial complaint, and suggested instead that a third party would take action, with their assistance. This assistance simply reaffirms the actual threat, as opposed to a perceived one. Best, Meph^talk 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

If we assume good faith, looking at this from the editor's perspective, both statements are reasonable. There is significant incorrect content, that the user is being prevented from fixing. So the first point is valid. When no one does anything, but instead attacks the editor though AN/I and an SPI case, it is clear to the editor that no-one will tackle the problem. So the obvious next step is to inform the institution of the problem. If we continue to react by blocking upset people when they have a valid concern, rather than looking into their concern, on the grounds of making legal threats when they haven't actually done so, then we have a long-term problem. I'm not sure what I want done. But I'd like to think that next time this arises someone will speak for the editor before it reaches this point. - Bilby (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no question the guy was making legal threats. NLT is not about whether a threat is "legally" a legal threat - it's about an attempt to intimidate other editors. And that's exactly what the editor was doing. Very appropriate block. He has the constitutional right to bring legal action or to try to get someone else to bring legal action. But there is no consitutionl right to edit wikipedia, and if someone threatens legal action in some way, shape or form, they are not allowed to edit wikipedia until or if they fully retract their threat. Meanwhile, if the source about the school's restrictions turns out to be a good and valid, i.e. verifiable source, then it can be used in wikipedia, whether the school likes it or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Bugs is 100% right here. The spirit of NLT is "Editors shall not use the threat of taking action outside of the confines of Wikipedia to force others to accept their preferred version of articles" or perhaps "Editing decisions should not be made under threat of actions to be taken in venues outside of Wikipedia". The issue with this user is they resorted to these external threats "If you don't change the article to read like I want it to read, I will take some action outside of Wikipedia", a clear threat he made immediately before his block. Editorial decisions should be made for editorial reasons, not because someone is willing to take extraordinary means to force through what they want forced through. Whether or not the editors preferred version is "right" in the end is irrelevent; NLT is about behavior, not content, and this editor's behavior was clearly over the line. It was a good block. --Jayron32 19:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

So where do you draw the line? If someone says "this is legally actionable, and I think it should be removed before a third party, not connected to me, takes action", is this a warning, or a legal threat? Your reading is that it is a legal threat. Mine is that I'm damn pleased that someone is taking the time to try and explain why it should be removed. Had someone listened, rather than attacking the editor, the editor would never have felt that it needed to be brought to the attention of the institution.

This is creating a second chilling effect - any mention of the possible legal consequences of editing an article can be seen as a legal threat, and someone can be blocked accordingly. At least next time could someone try and address the problem first, rather than watching it escalate until they feel justified in making a block? Blocking instead of fixing the problem damages wikipedia. Fixing it would have improved things, and maybe gained a contributor. - Bilby (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A mention of a potential legal risk is not actionable ... but their statements was that "I am going make the schools administrative staff aware of the problem." [20] That is not "mention of the possible legal consequences", but instead direct action to facilitate legal actions.

It is a clear legal threat. Whether threatening to take action themself, or threatening to take the issue to someone else who can take legal action - the intent was clear: either do it their way, or else legal action will be taken - it was legal intimidation directed at other parties in a content dispute. See

WP:NLT#Rationale for the policy

- it's clear that their actions had the intent to cause the specific problems the NLT is intended to avoid.

Had they addressed the issue through standard internal

WP:DR processes, a block likely would not have been needed. --- Barek (talk • contribs

) - 22:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Had someone told them about standard DR processes, maybe they would have. But thats's not what happened. Your reading is viable, but taken from a different perspective there is a completely different interpretation of what was said. At any rate, there is nothing to be done. It's just disappointing that we chose this path instead of addressing the problem, and only addressed it after the event. - Bilby (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I feel certain that no one will have any trouble interpreting this comment by the editor in question:[21] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Venting after being treated that way was, of course, a massive surprise and in no way understandable. - Bilby (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Most blocked editors don't react with obscenities, although socks often do. It simply underscores the editor's value (or lack thereof) to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

That's not a particularly fair argument. Again, all I hope is that next time we consider finding a solution before we seriously upset and block a user. There was a better, and simpler, approach to this, but we didn't take it. Something I was pleased to see you supported above, so thankyou, and I respect your view - my wish was that we could have checked for a legitimate beef first, because if it was legitimate and fixed, the editor would have been more inclined to step back. - Bilby (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• For a little light reading, here's a related, interesting link with information about Wikimedia's stance on the defense of editors: [22].
  Dreadstar ☥
  22:53, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

G12 will work nicely, since they are essentially copyvios without the attribution. T. Canens (talk) 09:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that. --Biker Biker (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't sorted. Degen Earthfast just blanked and redirected the original Hercules (motorcycle) article and left a stroppy message on my talk page (dif) saying he is going to undo the deletes and telling me to "deal with it". --Biker Biker (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have warned them not to. If they do, I or somebody will need to apply the clue hammer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much. Any chance you can speedy delete the remaining copyvio article

Hercules Fahrrad GmbH & Co? --Biker Biker (talk

) 11:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No need to speed, I reverted it back to a redirect. Obviously if you think it still needs speedy deletion then go ahead. b.t.w. The same "deal with it" message came in the edit summary of that article from 71.162.161.175 (talk · contribs) who I'm guessing is the same editor. --Biker Biker (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider it very pointy to delete an article under G12 when the copyvio can be fixed by attribution using the standard interwiki links, and a comment in the edit summary. The sort of mMachine translations that are discouraged are ones that are not even minimally rewritten to fix the obvious grammar faults. Wikipedia has many acceptable articles that started as machine translations. I've done some of this sort of revising myself. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You consider just about any deletion to be pointy, honestly. We shouldn't have articles that look as though they were run through Babelfish; drop these rough translations into userspace first, then move them when they are readable. Tarc (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Tarc, how can iI consider "any deletion pointy when I've made over 13,000 of them myself, and when about 1/4 of my AfD !votes are for deletion? I go article by article; in my experience, most articles sent for deletion at speedy, prod, and AfD, should certainly be deleted. True, I do not interpret "most" to mean "almost all" DGG ( talk ) 22:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

As Biker Biker pointed out, there is a strongly worded advice note that "machine translated" article creation is to be avoided, and the very pertinent point that copy and paste translated pages - without referencing - is in violation of WikiMedia's requirement that proper attribution must be provided. Of course any number of editors could rectify these issues by copy editing the content and researching and adding the links and attributions, but this is a volunteer project and in the interests of both compliance with requirements and maintain standards it is often quicker to delete the content. Of course, this does not stop an editor continuing to work upon presenting a compliant and comprehensible article in the meantime. Further, and I suppose this is where your raising of WP:POINT applies, it discourages editors such as Degen Earthfast from dumping bad content into the encyclopedia - as it disappears from their contribution history. It is a consequence that I feel the project could live with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I work with {{Copied}} tagging unattributed copies, and it's difficult and tedious enough when the source content is on the same wiki. I have used G12 once, for an article that was deuserfied without its author's consent (see Talk:List of cricket grounds in New Zealand for the gory details). I think that G12 may be used on a technical infringement if fixing the attribution is more trouble than the article's worth. Flatscan (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

This incident concerns User:Raw4815 and the application of a COI tag on the article Raleigh DeGeer Amyx. Based on edit [23] and comments on my talk page I applied a COI tag on the article. User:Raw4815 has removed the tag mutiple times and has denied any affiliation with the subject of the article in teh edit summaries when removing the COI. I cannot add back the COI without creating a warring situation and do not wish to do so. I am also concerned that the article is not only a coi, but that the article is possibly being used for self-promotion. My best to all. ttonyb (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I have done some clean-up and will watch-list. Off now for dog-walk, TTYL. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

When it gets to a point that you're worrying about a 3RR situation, you can always report the article at

WP:COIN. 216.93.212.245 (talk

) 19:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Trumpkin (talk · contribs)
• Earlymorningcans (talk · contribs)

These editors appear to be

They are currently engaged in some quite obvious pestering of Ghmyrtle and Snowded, who spotted the St John's Jerusalem alleged hoax.

Neither user have much edits but an examples of the meat/sock puppet is that Trumpkin — a "veteran Wikipedian of 5 years" according to his page but with actually only ~50 edits since 2006 — re-stared editing directly after Earlymorningcans opened a spurious SPI on Ghmyrtle and Snowded. The edit was to express support for Earlymorningcans in defending the St John's Jerusalem against Ghmyrtle and Snowded.

See also tag team like edits to

Note: Trumpkin is using the sig Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) --RA (

Firstly I must deny all these allegations which have only the flimsiest of evidence and no basis in truth. Secondly I would point out that I have been the victim of harassment by Snowded (wikihounding as set out by

Talk:Queen Elizabeth II's visit to the Republic of Ireland, seemingly simply to undermine my efforts to improve the page - as such I would like his actions investigated and certainly his neutrality is suspect. Any user check will clear my name but Snowded's harassment has made me feel extremely uncomfortable, a fact I warned him of on his talk page. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk

) 19:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It is also completely untrue to assert that I supported anyone against Ghmyrtle and Snowded in regards to St John's Jerusalem. I wrote on User talk:Earlymorningcans to express my gratitude for his edits to improve the article following vandalism by Stellas4luncha and Bobadillaman: "Can I thank you for your recent edits to St John's Jerusalem, it certainly makes a start to undoing the vandalism the page has sustained over the last month." - I don't know what I have done to inspire such hatred against me by this user but I am patently innocent of all trumped up charges. Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 19:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Also:

• Hellohenry57 (talk · contribs)

...whose only edit was here and is referenced here. --RA (

I imagine he was scared of by

Snowded's abuse of editing priviledges, bullying and condescending tone. Earlymorningcans (talk

) 19:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that a new user contributes to a discussion I am involved in does not make me guilty of anything, and a check user will clear my name of such an implicit charge. Could an admin please ask RA and Snowded to desist from their harassment of me so I can edit in peace! Grand High Most Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia and the Universe (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 19:14, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is an SPI which has been endorsed which could do with a hurry up. Worth noting that we have had sockmasters on these pages who use proxy IPs so behavioral evidence may also need to come into play --Snowded ^TALK 19:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

May I add in relation to St John's Jerusalem that I have made it my mission to restore the page after the appalling incidents of vandalism. Earlymorningcans (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, I have never defended the edits of Stellas4lunch or Bobadillaman at St John's Jerusalem as RA suggests above. Earlymorningcans (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Also (courtesy of this edit):

• Diegothesuperdog
• Bobadillaman

--RA (

talk

) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• I don't know whose sock this is, but it's someone's. Also, he's obviously trolling. Earlymorningcans blocked indef, the SPI can continue to determine if the others are socks too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

It appears a dresser full of socks has been stumbled upon. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry to be dragged into what looks like a long running dispute started by some vandals. I just happened to agree with them in my first edit and had not realised that they were trolling! Can I clarify by saying that I am not supporting them and are not in this situation. I am sorry for the confusion caused by my single edit and lack of follow-up. Thanks Hellohenry57 (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Advise for Trumpkin: Shorten the alternate appearance of your moniker. Its length ("Grand High Most Supreme...")is a tad annoying. GoodDay (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that your 'advice' has any particular bearing on this issue, nonetheless I shall consider considering it presently. Grand High Most Ultimate Supreme Hochmeister of Wikipedia, the Universe and all parallel Universes (including Ireland and Wales) (talk) 08:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yaris678 (talk) 16:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like I spoke too soon. One user is happy with the article being at

Two-dimensional display size, but there is some disagreement. Yaris678 (talk

) 22:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• QAQUAU (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• Oilosiso (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)
• 90.231.116.189 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser)

QAQUAU showed up on

• Neutralhomer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )
• WMAQ-TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wgfinley has blocked Neutralhomer for 24 hours for "Improper reversion and warning of disputed content as vandalism" on WMAQ-TV. Neutralhomer requests to be unblocked because he believes that Wgfinley is too involved to make this block. I agree with this assessment, though not for the reasons given by Neutralhomer, but because Wgfinley has twice removed (15 May, 22 May) the content that Neutralhomer edit-warred to re-insert, which makes Wgfinley an involved party to the edit war.

Another block reviewer, FisherQueen, has declined the unblock request because she considers that the block is correct on the merits as a block for edit-warring and frivolous vandalism warnings, with which I agree. I'm starting this thread to get more opinions as to whether the block should be undone as procedurally flawed, or upheld as materially correct.  Sandstein  19:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Support unblock Had It been administered by another admin I would oppose unblocking. There is definite

WP:INVOLVED violation here which makes the block invalid and raises concerns over how Wgfinley uses his tools The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs

) 19:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Given that FisherQueen, totally uninvolved, has endorsed the block then it seems fine to let it stand as upheld. I dislike overturning blocks on a technicality like this. Wgfinley is undoubtedly involved, and we should discuss his actions and perhaps sanction/chastise him appropriately. (I'd probably have supported an unblock, except Neutralhomer doesn't seem to "get" the problem with using the vandalism revert in his unblock request) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• - User:Wgfinley was also at AN last August for a similar involved week long extension block on
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 20:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I see now that I made an error; I thought Neutralhomer was edit-warring to remove the content, and now I see that he was the one adding it. My bad. Either way this is not vandalism, but I did look at it a little backward. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support unblock - Wgfinley has stained the issue through his involvement.
  Off2riorob (talk
  ) 20:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock I regret to say that this is an egregiously bad block, not only might the blocking admin be involved in editing the article, and did so to revert the editor they have blocked, but they are also apparently acting in a mentor capacity to the other involved party to an edit war, and they have used the technicality of sanctioning for one editor for misrepresenting the other editors contributions as "vandalism" - when the blocked editor had already made the argument that as the edits were being made in bad faith that they were correctly labelled as such (I am offering no opinion on whether this statement is based in fact, let alone accepted). Even if an uninvolved admin were to take over the block, I would suggest that it is still inappropriate to sanction one side of what appears to be an edit war. Under the circumstances, I think NeutralHomer should be unblocked and final warned for edit warring, User:TVFAN24 also so warned, and Wgfinley cautioned regarding the correct application of distance in regard to an issue they are involved in and an editor they have a relationship with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
• Unblock immediately. Disclaimer: I consider NH a friend. This a truly atrocious block. The blocking admin is so unambiguously involved that it is difficult to fathom what was going through his mind when he made this block. The block is not preventing anything that wouldn't have been prevented by telling NH to go for a walk or invest his energies in a different part of the wiki for a while. But even if there was emrit to the block (and I objectively don't think there is), to then revert the editor you've just blocked in the same edit war is gross miconduct. With possible exceptions for vandalism, copyvios and BLP issues, it is never appropriate to revert an edit in an edit war that was made by an editor you've just blocked. You don't even have to read the policy to know that. I have
  little doubt that the blocking admin wasn't trying to get the upper hand in the dispute, but the appearance of impropriety alone means that a swift unblock, with appropriate annotation in the block log that it was a bad block, is the only appropriate thing to do. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
  20:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• Reblock pending: Neutralhomer has repeatedly mislabeled vandalism and reverted using Twinkle, and he's repeatedly promised to stop. I've asked him to renew his promise to not do so again, and if he does not then we need to look into removing his access to Twinkle.   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• As noted before, Nh has forwarded the notion that the other parties edits, although apparently compliant, are being made in a bad faith manner - which constitutes
  WP:DISRUPT and is thus vandalism. Having Nh agree not to mislabel edits as vandalism might be argued as not applying in this issue. I thus suggest a more specific undertaking in this instance, that Nh will follow DR process in trying to resolve the issue and not reverting. LessHeard vanU (talk
  ) 22:10, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• LessHeard, while I would always have thought it made sense to label intentionally disruptive edits as vandalism, they actually
  are not. Interesting, huh? Within certain definitions of disruptive, I wouldn't mind seeing that change, but alas, this isn't the venue for that. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN
  22:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• The issue is not limited to the WMAQ-TV edits. NH has labeled other edits as vandalism for no clear reason.[24][25][26]   Will Beback  talk  23:19, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I won't block NH, but I am putting him on the Twinkle blacklist. There have been numerous complaints over the years and he only retained his TW access by promising not to use it to label edits as vandalism. If he can go a year without mislabeling vandalism then he can get the tool back.   Will Beback  talk  03:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

NH had TW removed twice in December 2007,[27][28] and again in November 2008.[29] He apparently added it back in March 2009 without any discussion.[30] He agreed to a permanent blacklist if any admin thought he'd misused TW, in December 2008.[31] He agreed to remove access to TW in April 2009.[32] He was blocked in April 2010 for misusing TW, and again promised not to abuse it.[33] He was on the verge of being blacklisted again just three months later, but again promised to change his behavior.[34] He violated that promise just 12 hours later and made fresh promises.[35] Those are just a few of the TW-related incidents involving NH. He will need to maintain a very clean record in his other editing over the next year to earn access again.   Will Beback  talk  06:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Clarify: I do understand the policies and guidelines on it... there's a line of common sense in determining whether disruptive editing is vandalism. Thus, what I am trying to say is that simply because the editing is disruptive, one cannot label it as vandalism. And in this case, one would be hard pressed to do so. Nonetheless, that still leaves either war or 3rr. ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/ _CN 22:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

• WGFinley, that is straight up abuse right there, what you did. You knew that you were involved and was mentoring a user on the opposite side of the conflict, and yet you blocked anyways. Moreover, Neutralhomer has now left because of your careless action. Well, I suppose the one side has indeed come out on top. –MuZemike 06:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• To be honest, I'd guess that NH is more upset about getting Twinkle removed (again) than for the now-expired block. I hope and expect that his retirement will be short.   Will Beback  talk  06:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment While I don't feel it is right for "involved" admins to make judgement calls such as this (it smacks too much of trying to insert THEIR version of whatever), a block may have been warranted under the circumstances, but it should not have been done by Wgfinley.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 14:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably why he undid his own block yesterday.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

RockSound (talk · contribs) Ok, yes, it's the Murder of Meredith Kercher article again.... things were going fairly smoothly with editors discussing issues on the talk page. However a new editor, RockSound, started editing the article the other day. Generally the edits are ok, some are contentious and some go against pre-discussed consensus (consensus we worked really hard to get compromise agreed). I've been trying to get him to participate in the talk page but instead he is claiming things like The cabal needs to stop with this censorship and harassment and on his talk page there is a rather unfortunate pro-innocence rant. I can't get him to participate in the talk page, he simply does not seem to want to engage, if his edits are reverted with requests to discuss he simply ignores it and reverts back (not really edit warring, more just consistently changing things over and over) :( I'm not sure what else to do; could someone have a strong word to try and iron this out. Some of his changes shouldn't be reverted, but not discussing the issues isn't helping get his content kept. --Errant ^(chat!) 23:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales has been involved in this article as reported in the news media. Many people are upset that there is a clique of pro-guilt editors who have a lock hold on the article and won't allow any changes unless approved by the clique. Mr. Wales was served with an open letter now signed by hundreds of people complaining of the pro-guilt bias in the article which violates BLP since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have not been finally convicted of the crime. Mr. Wales needs to come back as he promised to help make this article more neutral and less of an advocacy piece to pursuade the public of the guilt of the two students. Wikipedia is being abused by these people who are using it for their own agenda.

There has been a lot of media coverage of Mr. Wales trying to straighten out the problems with this article, but no follow up.

Check this out: "Does Wikipedia host the Amanda Knox is Guilty Project?" http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/03/23/does-wikipedia-host-the-amanda-knox-guilt-project/

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/03/26/news/updatewikipedia-founder-jimbo-wales-reviews-page- —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 23:44, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

RockSound - Wikipedia operates by open consensus, and strives to find a

neutral point of view

. If you will not cooperate with discussing your issues with the article with other editors, on their talk pages or the article talk page, you're intentionally disregarding the whole method Wikipedia uses to resolve conflicts and deal with questions.

If you edit disruptively and will not discuss issues on talk pages, no matter what your background or particular problem, you will be warned, and if you continue can be blocked from editing.

Please, simply take the time to participate in discussions on the talk pages. That's the correct response and will avoid any unncessary friction. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• I think we have here a sock of
  talk
  ) 23:57, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt that the user is a sockpuppet. However, I agree that RockSound needs to demonstrate a greater willingness to engage in talk page discussion, rather than throw around accusations of a perceived "pro-guilt" bias whenever their failure to engage in talk page discussion leads to their bold edits being reverted. SuperMarioMan 00:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There are a whole lot of people raising this exact same issue of pro-guilt people having total control of the article, with the same style and interests. Everyone is accused of being a sock or some other misconduct so that they can be immediately banned and the real wrongdoing ---violation of BLP--continues. The problems with this article being used as an advocacy piece for guilt are outrageous and Mr. Wales needs to come back and follow up as he promised. And all those who were banned by those trying to silence those who did not support a view of guilt need to be unbanned, like PhanuelB for instance. It isn't simply a problem of not discussing on the Talk page. It is a problem of a pro-guilt POV having control of the Talk page and article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 00:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sign your edits, please. You've been here almost a year; I'd like to believe you know how. HalfShadow 00:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you sought a

dispute resolution? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk

) 00:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive people should stay banned, no matter what their views are. Wikipedia can't function if too many people

are disrupting the work

.

There have been allegations of abusing multiple accounts: Has anyone actually opened a

sockpuppet investigation, or are we just making accusations because we can? WhatamIdoing (talk

) 00:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Since there is no help here, I will approach Mr. Wales directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 00:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You should feel free to talk to Mr. Wales.

That does not absolve you of the responsibility to participate in community discussions going forwards.

Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia that everyone can edit; it's an encyclopedia that everyone edits together. If you are not willing to cooperate with discussions and the community consensus process - i.e., go to talk pages and discuss issues there in good faith - you are not going to be welcome to continue editing.

This is not a "Stop having an opinion and go away". This is "You need to participate in the community discussions in good faith along the way".

This is not optional, regardless of what Jimmy Wales may eventually say. You HAVE TO participate in discussions here.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Rocksound, in terms of the Meredith Kercher murder article, Jimbo Wales is just one voice, one editor. He has no more and no less of a say than any of the rest of us do. Please stop holding up his participation as some sort of bright-line gospel that we are failing or not failing to live up to. Editing here doesn't work that way. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Wales is the owner and founder and a very important person on this website. I certainly value his opinion as do most people on here. I am entitled to value his good judgment and opinion if I want to. He makes a lot of sense and I happen to admire the fact that he seems like a very principled person. If he says there are problems on the Kercher article, and he has said that, that is good enough for me. I will see if he will follow up, as it is quite needed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs)

"No help here"? I see plenty of help. Suggestions to engage in discussion on the talk pages, which is always the first way to resolve disputes. Having been involved in disputes where discussion on talk pages is not fruitful, I can understand that it is not always a panacea, but the evidence suggests you haven't even tried. Other dispute resolution suggestions were given, and I see no response form you indicating whether they have been tried and failed, or even acknowledging their existence. It looks to me like you think you can convince Mr. Wales to support you, so why bother with the usual routes. Jimbo is quite interested in ensuring that articles are neutral, and do not promote one side over another, but he is also (I believe) a fan of following normal dispute resolution processes, at least until they are shown to fail. I don't see evidence you have even tried. My hope and expectation is that Jimbo Wales will urge you to at least try. (Disclaimer - I'm not familiar with the incident discussed in the article, and had not viewed the article before today, Even now, I merely glanced at it to see if I knew the incident. My comments are based solely on the exchange in this forum, in which I see no evidence of an attempt at dispute resolution by you.)--SPhilbrickT 01:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• This is just another data point on how
  advocacy has rendered the atmosphere there highly toxic, and counter to improving the article. Jimbo's involvement has been well-meaning and even in some regards helpful, but by encouraging those who have an ax to grind to believe that he is on their "side" he has made life harder for those of us who believe there should only be one "side", and that should be devoted to improving the encyclopedia. --John (talk
  ) 01:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yup. I tried to get Jimbo to see this the first time around, but he took offense to my comments and told me not to comment on his talk page anymore. As long as Jimbo stays involved in this topic, it's going to be a source of conflict. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

• Mr Wales has to cop the public blame for the misdeeds of the editors, which makes him much more than just one voice and one editor. Editing together makes us all responsible. Community consensus is not a panacea. If there are public allegations that an article is gravely flawed, and the editors working on it are ignoring reliable sources, then that should be concern us all, and should be investigated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • For the most part that is just false characterisation by the rather vocal pro-innocence bloggers/commentators. There are issues on the article, but it's not quite the white wash as it is characterised. The problem is that this is an ongoing event that has tow hugely divided factions using the internet as their battleground - they expect Wikipedia to have an complete article about the case, and naturally expect it to reflect their view of events. It's basically impossible for the article to be complete, and it won't be for some years. And that both the pro-innocence and pro-guilt whine about it being a biased article says something, I think :) --Errant ^(chat!) 12:44, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If you would like to learn more about the problems and attempted solutions on the Kercher article, these two sources give some of the background and this is all reflected in the archived pages of the discussion pages. It seems that out of long frustration and disappointment a whole lot of people resorted to the petition route and finally someone responded, Mr. Wales. But there has been no follow up. I understand that he is very busy, but maybe he can squeeze the article in soon. I will also send an email to the email address on the petition to see if I can learn anything further from them, and maybe they would like to talk to him too. Then maybe Mr. Wales and everyone could go back to using the discussion pages on the Kercher article. Talk to you later. - - petitiononline.com/qbcrt64w/petition.html - - "Does Wikipedia host the Amanda Knox is Guilty Project?" - http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/03/23/does-wikipedia-host-the-amanda-knox-guilt-project/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by RockSound (talk • contribs) 01:52, 23 May 2011

You seem to be under the impression that when Jimbo says jump we all respond with a "how high?" That is not the case and has not been for a long time. He devolved authority over wikipedia to the community. Despite being the founder of wiki his decision meant that he has the same status as any of us. A petition to Jimbo will not mean that he'll step in on your side or on anyone's side for that matter. I've neither interacted with you nor involved myself with the article but I can see that this is a content dispute that has yet to be discussed on the talk page. In fact, looking through your contributions history, you have not discussed anything at all on the talk page on the article, which is the issue that needs to be addressed here. You cannot continually keep editing an article when other editors are raising concerns on the content you are adding. This amounts to

• Some are also of the opinion that Jimbo's involvement in the article has done more harm than good, in that the Amanda Knox advocacy camp feels emboldended to turn the page away from coverage of the murder and into detailed CSI-fueled evidence rebuttals. I'll also note that online petitions are utter garbage that will not sway a single policy or editorial decision here. Thousands of people signed onto a "remove the images of Muhammed from the Wikipedia, they offend meeeeeee!" petition a few years back. It was dismissed out of hand. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

74.96.114.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is the editor who is banned from William Greer (and all other articles relating to the assassination of JFK) per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive204#Topic ban redux, see the history of the talk page for previous similar IP 74.96.113.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The general method of dealing with him has been to protect the article (and on occasion, the talk page too), but if someone wants to take a less drastic approach and just block the IP and leave any protection unless problems persist that might be a better way forward. Thanks. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 12:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked and semi-protected. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite multiple warnings from three different editors to Flying Fische about vandalizing templates [36] [37] [38], and despite two previous blocks for this offense, he vandalized yet another maintenance template today [39]. Since he has ignored all warnings and learned nothing from his blocks, I believe a permanent block may be in order. Qworty (talk) 18:08, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

He didn't "vandalize a template", he removed it. No way that deserves an indef block. Seems like you're both accusing each other erroneously of vandalism. Calling him "old boy" and "old chap" is condescending. How about you try discussing this with him reasonably and not stalking his article creations? Fences&Windows 18:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Generally, he seems to be editing in good faith, but has run up against overzealous speedy deleters who don't have the ability or patience to improve articles or talk to new editors, so instead he's faced a series of rather robotic speedy deletion nominations and harsh template messages. Fences&Windows 18:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur. His frustration seems warrented. -

talk

) 18:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Both sides seem overly zealous, particularly given the insults and vindictive defence of various biographies. Meph^talk 19:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. This is neither a content dispute nor a personal one, but strictly a policy issue. He has been warned several times about removing templates he disagrees with and he has been blocked twice, with increasing duration, for those offenses [40] [41]. If his behavior was sufficient to merit two blocks from two different admins, and since his behavior is continuing despite every warning and every block, then he certainly merits a more serious block at this time. Qworty (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Qworty seems to be forum shopping/canvassing just a little - [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• As one of the canvassed admins, I note that the edit at issue is
  not vandalism, and the cleanup tag Flying Fische removed had little merit to begin with. I see nothing patently objectionable in Flying Fische's recent edits and suggest that this request be dismissed. Fences and windows has given Flying Fische useful advice about notability and such.  Sandstein 
  20:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Further note. He's deleted another template since I opened this AN/I [48] and is contentiously bragging about it [49]. I wish somebody would help with this problem. Qworty (talk) 22:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding! George Taylor (botanist) is massively notable (FRS, knighted, director of Kew Gardens, lots of coverage), to suggest that his removal of that notability tag is wrong is bizarre. Tags are not holy objects. There's nothing contentious about that removal, and if you insist there is perhaps it is you who is being disruptive. Qworty, please try to help improve articles rather than tag bombing them and trying to get them deleted regardless of their potential. Fences&Windows 01:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

But from someone who doesn't know anything about the Royal Society or Kew Gardens, the article says he's a botanist who seems to have held a job at some gardens. The refs (at the time, before the obit) where to a paywall protected Who's Who article and a single line citation on a related organisation's website. I understand about stubs (but tagging stubs with how to improve them is surely to be encouraged, not punished or be abused for doing so), I understand that maybe if you don't know about the area, then don't question the experts, but surely the answer is to STATE IN MORE DETAIL WHY HE'S NOTABLE - ie what he did, awards he won etc etc, not just remove the tag with an abusive edit summary. Fix the problems, stop attacking those who think that the articles are still lacking. It was a notability tag, not a CSD A7 tag - there is a big difference. The-Pope (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

• Still canvassing - [50], [51] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Do Something to him. Yet again a problematic editor might get away with it because those who try to clean up the initial mess don't do it absolutely by the book. User:Flying Fische is best described as the boy playing soccer who picks up the ball or the basketballer who decides that he doesn't have to dribble. When a foul is called, he abuses the refs, pointing to the goals he's scored doing it his way. He has to learn that being mentioned in Who's Who, Debretts or being related to someone famous does not automatically equal notability here, and it isn't some Thatcheritic attack on the elites.(That's what he said!) By all means warn those who are "forum shopping", but it isn't worth a block and don't think that two wrongs mean that the first wrong can be ignored.

F&W's offer of mentoring is a good idea, but I've already tried a couple of times[52], [53] to discuss it with him, outside of templated warnings, with no acknowledgement or change in behaviour. If FF didn't swamp us with multiple articles on largely unreferenced barely notable people he wouldn't have been swamped with deletion or cleanup tags. If FF didn't respond with insults and borderline abuse everytime he saw one of those tags, most of us would have moved on to editing other articles by now. Which is what I know intend to do. The-Pope (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Qworty's complaint regarding Flying Fische was made with respect to his recent edits, not actions taken a week ago. Is there any evidence that he's still creating bad articles or removing legitimate maintenance templates? Chester Markel (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of Flying Fische's recent comments at AFD and in edit summaries have certainly been less than civil. He could certainly be blocked, for a limited period of time, for that, but Qworty would have to be blocked as well for the same reason. Chester Markel (talk) 03:09, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Also note that Qworty canvassed The-Pope's response to this thread[54]. Chester Markel (talk) 03:47, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Experienced editors who were previously involved in the issue can be notified of discussions without it being canvassing as we will make up our own mind as to how to respond. If I had seen an improvement in FF's editing behaviour, then I would have said that here. Continued bleating about canvassing appears to be yet another tactic of deflecting blame away from the originator of the problems. The-Pope (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Propose 72 hour block

Canvassing administrators, and grossly misusing BLP unsourced and notability templates on an article with several reliable sources while accusing the editor removing them of vandalism [55] is ridiculous. I gather from the discussion above that this isn't the only case of Qworty's maintenance template misuse, or frivolous vandalism accusations. A short time out will hopefully promote better behavior. Chester Markel (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive. Simple, courteous warnings would be sufficient and probably produce the desired effect. Meph^talk 03:36, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Qworty canvassed your response to this thread, did he not[56]? Chester Markel (talk) 03:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, but this doesn't invalidate my response or indicate that I wouldn't have commented here otherwise. Pointing this out isn't helpful or meaningful. I've been watching Flying Fische's behaviour for some time regardless. It seems that as more people become involved in this dispute, the more bans are requested.

On

WP:CANVAS

, the guideline states: 'The most effective response to quite recent, clearly disruptive canvassing is to politely request that the user(s) responsible for the canvassing stop posting notices. If they continue, they may be reported to the administrators' noticeboard, which may result in their being blocked from editing.'

Qworty's campaigning has been noted here, and appears inappropriate, but no request or warning placed on his talk page. Meph^talk 04:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While it's literally true that Qworty hasn't been warned on his talk page, he's been warned in the thread he started in this noticeboard [57] [58] [59] [60]. Unfortunately, the simple, courteous warnings didn't work [61] [62] [63]. In my opinion, it's now time for a sterner approach. Comments by people Qworty canvassed certainly do not indicate a lack of consensus to block him for canvassing (or incivility, and misuse of maintenance templates.) Chester Markel (talk) 04:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll let the individual sysops speak for themselves. However, blocking users to try to

'cool them down' is discouraged and counter-productive. Meph^talk

04:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Any block of less than indefinite length is premised upon the belief that it will promote better behavior upon its expiration. It does not therefore follow that any time-limited block is a "cool-down block", or that an angry user cannot be blocked. The policy you link actually states that

Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.

In summary, time-limited blocks in response to persistently inappropriate behavior are acceptable. The community does not need to wait until an editor either tires of disruption, or misbehaves so badly that he is blocked indefinitely. Chester Markel (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Meph is correct - it was remiss of me to fail to post an informative message about canvassing on Qworty's Talk page, and I'm happy to accept it as having been in good faith but misguided -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

A block would prevent disruptive tagging &c of new articles and prevent Qworty scaring off the better kind of new user in future. Yes, there are barbarians at the gate trying to add all kinds of crap to the encyclopædia; but when somebody starts making decent good-faith contributions, we don't want them beaten down with tags and accusations too. The canvassing and forum-shopping suggest somebody who wants to get their way at all costs, rather than someone willing to compromise and go along with consensus if the community doesn't agree with them. bobrayner (talk) 11:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The canvassing/admin-shopping was totally unacceptable. However, since it was done quite openly I can only assume that the editor did not realise it was unacceptable. That being so, to block without previously having warned would not be reasonable.

talk

) 15:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)