Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:58, 18 February 2009

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Some wikihounding going on

• Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Editor, obsessed with adding "Jewish" to articles, is WP:HOUNDing User:David Eppstein at Talk:David_Eppstein#Jewish.3F after their content dispute at Talk:Noam_Elkies#Noam_Elkies_is_Jewish. THF (talk) 11:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

There's some edit warring and hounding, so a 12 hour block for disruptive editing would probably be justifiable. PhilKnight (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a recidivist. Twelve hours seems light if a block is appropriate at all. THF (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My reading of the block log is that s/he should be considered a user with a single block from over 6 months ago. PhilKnight (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Separately, there seems to be some similarity with Wolfowit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), though it's within the realm of possibility that two different editors have the same insistence about identifying Jewish bloodlines in biographies. THF (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

THF, just a heads up, but you already probably knew this, there are actually many IPs, editors, socks, meatpupetts, you name it, that have an obsession with Jewish related issues. I send alot of time sending them Jayjg's way :) So I wouldn't assume they are the same editor. I just "treat" them as I find them :). Anyways, cheers, --Tom 15:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here. I did bring it up at WP:BLP/N but haven't yet received a response there. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

My take on this is that if an editor is going around generally inserting what they think is a person's religion into bios, they may be being a pain or tendentious or whatever, but probably not racist. But if they are only inserting Jewish into articles, well, that looks like a duck. dougweller (talk) 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Jews look like ducks? :-P Sorry, could not resist. /humor KillerChihuahua 16:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps wikifan may be aware of the Jewish background of some people but perhaps not aware of the Muslim or Christian background. People tend to know the background of our own group rather than others. That wouldn't be "racist," it would simply be adding material. I haven't looked at this article (and can't speak to the edit warring charge) and know nothing about David Eppstein myself, but generally speaking if a notable person is of an ethnicity or a religion, what is wrong with its inclusion (assuming that there are RS to support it)? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course, early Christians were primarily Jews anyway. Maybe someone is looking waaaayyy too closely at the photographs, and can determine if the individual in question went through their brit milah or not? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Could this be a content-dispute masquerading as an "edit-war"? Just wondering.  ? Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Not really. Please read this section. Is there a point here or not?? --Tom 18:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That is very creepy. I'd say BLP's requirement for conservative reporting and respecting people's privacy applies, and Wikifan should be warned to stay clear of reporting such information unless it is relevant to the living person's notability. It was not so very long ago that this sort of "one drop" of blood theory was used to create lists of people for adverse action, and we don't want any of that here. Ray (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

How is this obsession? Noam is Jewish, I found a source and put it in there. What is the problem? It was reverted a couple times because my original source was weak, and I got that...but I don't see why this is such a big deal. Half the article is uncited, yet all you guys delete is the Jewish statement? HE IS JEWISH. His name is friggin Noam. Eppstein starting stammering on about blood purity blah blah I don't care about political correctness. I don't care if it offends him, it's truth. I saw that he had his own article and there was no reference of him being Jewish. I googled his name and found some documents indicating he *might* be Jewish, so I asked: craziness. He said his father was Jewish and I told him that he might be considered Jewish, at least according secular law. We kind of got into a little heated discussion about who's a jew etc.. and then he accused me of being racist. Read through the link I provided. Look, If it really takes this much hassle to put it ONE fact, why friggin bother. If this is what[REDACTED] has come to....christ man. If anything I should be reporting harassment...you don't just call some racist. Whatever, take me away and lock me up. : )Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan is a thoroughly unreasonable editor with a history of calling others racists. That he takes such offense to that line from David Eppstein is astonishing. And saying that because somebodies name is Noam he must be Jewish, that is a bit OR isnt it? And googling to find if he is and finding information that 'he *might* be', is that reason to want to put in a BLP that he is? Nableezy (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Never called anyone racist, even if you agreed to that. Please actually read what is going on before posting your painfully biased opinion. You're an extremely pro-Pal, I've been an openly pro-Israel user....nuff said. This isn't going to be another witch-hunt like in the current talk..LOL. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This isnt the place for this dispute, but lies are lies: and . an anti-semite is a racist no? Nableezy (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

wikifan12345 break 1

You said I wasn't racist. Jews aren't a race, as far as I know there's no genetic code to prove one is Jewish. There are however common phenotype traits but they aren't always unique to Jews. anyways, my rationale for my accusations stands and I apologized for them...but only for offense. It's not like you're innocent Nableezy, you're notorious for dragging out accusations and accusing me of hate/blah blah on your talk which you conveniently removed. But, this isn't a place for that discussion. This is about Eppstein's unjustified noticeboard and some user's inability to appreciate facts, (I.e, Delson, Noam is JEWISH.). And that being fact and me trying to put it in the article isn't RACIST, as I am accused of being. Fuck this is exhausting. I give up, leave the articles as is. Facts don't matter these days anyways, only argument. So sad. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Eppstein and THF seem totally obsessed with anything Jewish-related being shoved into articles. I provided a reliable source per TH's request, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Noam_Elkies&action=history But eppstein is still reverting, continually, without going to talk which I requested. this is a FACt. He is Jewish. It can't even be debated, my god why are you all doing this? Don't we have better things to do than combat over easily-proven and blatant facts? If you're a self-loather I don't care, but stop censoring out facts. I changed the sentence placement per MoS, I got a verifying and reliable source even though it's a known fact he is Jewish and half the article isn't sourced to begin with, and you know the rest. Argh. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Your first reference was not a reliable source. Your second reference does not mention the religion of Elkies, FWIW. And your questioning of David Eppstein this section was creepy and gives rise to the suspicion that you're a monomaniac. Why is this whole thing so important to you? Why don't you just drop it? --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not important to me, what's important to me is this arbitrary crusade to delete everything Jewish from those articles. And as I said, the excuses changed as new info was provided, the situation didn't play out like the poorly-crafted strawman you posted. Noam and Delson are Jewish, one sentence in the correct paragraph shouldn't be a big deal. It's not like I'm saying his a racist or sex offender or anything. My discussion with Eppstein wasn't creepy, he's the one that wanted it. And he accused me of being racist and promoting blood purity...NOW THAT IS CREEPY. Makes me cringe lol...blood purity WOW. Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

He wanted you to come along and ask, "Hey David, are you Jewish?" ... where did he ask you to do that? And neither did he promote blood purity; he said "Regardless of your bizarre beliefs about blood purity, WP:MOSBIO says that religion AND ethnicity don't go in unless they're important, and WP:BLP says they don't go in unless they're sourced". You may believe your own propaganda, but the record shows your assertions - all of them - to be false. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh? David has his own article, I googled David eppstein and there was evidence indicating he might be jewish, I ASKED IF HE WAS JEWISH. Fair question, no? And guess what, he's basically Jewish. LOL. Again enough with the strawman and actually read the talk and this. I'm simply repeating myself. And don't get nasty. Poisonous words like racist, propaganda, and blood purity should not be said without justification. I'm sick and tired of this, I proved what I did and provided evidence for my statements, so STOP dragging this out. If you would like to continue repeating the same rhetoric, I will continue to answer it promptly, but don't expect me to sit down because you shout louder. Eppstein was being a creep, I wasn't. He has a tendency to remove anything non-jewish, and his opinion of ethnicities was evident in the talk. what a waste of bandwidth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Update - anyways, issue seems to be resolved from an editors perspective. im sure you guys want blood so by all means, but the article is done for now. me and jay are talking about the source issue so yeah. cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Just a point of order. WP:MOSBIO says that ethnicity should not go in the LEAD unless it relates to the person's notability. It does NOT say that it does not belong in the article ANYWHERE. Most "well-written" bios include some mention of ethnicity and religion, whether that is relevant or not is POV. Also, this all started when Wikifan12345 added Jewish-American to the lead sentence which is against MOSBIO so I removed it. After that, we were off to the races as it was. Anyways, --Tom 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

There are other relevant policies here, notably WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Wikifan12345 seems intent on adding some mention of Jewishness to articles, based not on sources but seemingly based primarily on their names, and is uninterested in any other ethnic backgrounds that the same person might have. In the case of Elkies, the situation seems to be resolved: the word "Israel" now appears in the article, making Wikifan12345 happy, but it appears with a reliable source describing a group Elkies himself is actively involved with, making the rest of us happy. But I think Wikifan12345's edits bear continued watching. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, after reading the "creepy" section on Talk:David Eppstein here, I have to agree with the deep concerns. Wikifan12345 is ... problematic in his interest and approach, and if not racist, is at least biased and focused to an unbalanced degree. I suggest a topic ban on all aspect Jewish. He's not "getting it" here, or elsewhere. KillerChihuahua 17:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the problem here. Elkies is JEWISH, so is Eppstein according to several laws though that may be disputed. I've been involved in many articles that don't relate to Jews. I'm not a racist, I'm not the one deleting facts simply because it has "Jew" in the title. Why is it so controversial? Eppstein, you're reasoning is rather off. I googled Elkies and it turned out he was Jewish, as is the professor he supposedly replaced as the youngest one at Harvard. It is a moderately notable fact and wasting time bickering over it is suspicious. Do you have some undeclared resentment?? I honestly don't care about your personal opinion, but I stand by my actions as I see I've done nothing wrong. Adding a one sentence FACT to a non-controversial article is not bias, Chihuahua. I don't understand your rationalizations so if you would like to elaborate further feel free to. Eppstein, you constantly list BLP and NPOV but I don't think you understand, since I've thoroughly explained why my actions haven't violated those rules. Please see this: Adding the names of editors to an article in order to make textual attribution visible in the main text. I did however use unreliable sources to back up the statement, which has been cleared up as far as I know. You can punish me for that if you want. ; ) Cheers! Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

You haven't answered a key question - Why do you think this information is relevant or proper to be on the pages? What is your objective or goal in having put that in all those pages? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

wikifan12345 break 2

I already answered the question: It is a fact. For Brad Delson, he is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish. Also, he's been religious since a child according to one of the sources in the article. For Elkies, he replaces Jewish Dershowitz as the youngest professor at Harvard University. He is also actively involved in the Harvard's Israel Review, which promotes a positive spin on Israel. Are these not notable facts? Surely they're more notable than the rather unimportant philanthropy section for Delson or the house Elkies lived in at Harvard. My question to you is: Why are you so concerned about this? You imply that I have some sinister plan to paint Jew over wikipedia, when that is obviously not the case. A person's religion/ethnicity is notable if there is evidence and it relates to the topic. I've provided sufficient evidence IMO, if you disagree, please say so why. "You're a creep, racist, blah blah" is not acceptable and is highly inflammatory if not uncivil. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, unfortunately, there has been a rather clear trend in the past where anyone who went around adding large numbers of "this person is/was jewish" info to articles turned out to be rather vehemently and in some cases violently racist.

Wikifan12345, I cannot know what's in your mind and heart on this matter. And I have no particular indications of malice or misbehavior on your part. However, unfortunately, the historical incidents related to this particular behavior require us to take a careful and concerned look into it.

The answer "It is a fact." does not answer the question. It may be true - but is not sufficient justification to add the information. Where the information has been persistently used by racists in part of their campaigns to shape public information and opinion, we need a better answer than that.

Again - This is not assuming bad faith or being rude to you. If we were to simply assume that you are another in a long line of racists / antisemites who came here to vandalize Misplaced Pages and blocked you without asking or listening, that would be rude. That has not happened. You are being given every opportunity to explain your position and interests in the matter.

But the history of the situation demands that we examine what you're doing, and demands that we insist on you actually answering the question.

If you think that asking and insisting on more detailed and specific answers is implying or asserting that you are in fact racist or antisemite, I apologize for that implication. But there's no real way around us having to ask, given the situation and years and years of history about this type of behavior.

Please answer the question.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I just answered the questions. Here, I'll bold everything for you so there is no more repeating. This is your exact question not paraphrased: "Why do you think this information is relevant or proper to be on the pages? What is your objective or goal in having put that in all those pages?"

Here is my response paraphrased, you can look one post up to see the full version: "For Brad Delson, he is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish. Also, he's been religious since a child according to one of the sources in the article. For Elkies, he replaces Jewish Dershowitz as the youngest professor at Harvard University. He is also actively involved in the Harvard's Israel Review, which promotes a positive spin on Israel. Are these not notable facts? Surely they're more notable than the rather unimportant philanthropy section for Delson or the house Elkies lived in at Harvard."

I appreciate your politeness, but that does not excuse the extremely abrasive and combative attitude of David Eppstein and KillerChihuahua calling me racist, creepy, etc...even after I explained myself. I hope if this ends up being cleared it is somehow established that I am not trying to smear Jewish propaganda over every article I edit. There must be a rule somewhere that doesn't allow users to accuse others of highly damaging violations without proper justification and appropriate conduct. Other users are also consistently reverting my edits in good faith I presume, because they see me adding the same thing over and see others reverting it and just assume. One argument was over sentence placement, but that is another story and doesn't apply here I think. thanks Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: THF, another editor involved, continues to revert my edits even with appropriate sources. I asked for an explanation on his talk and he deleted it, summarizing with: your single-mindedness on this is disturbing to me. Feel free to ask for a third opinion.. using TW Here is the edit in question: Edit Brad Delson I would ask for a third opinion, but I think this dispute should be resolved first as it may pose a problem. I'm sure you can imagine how frustrating unjustified roadblocks or refusal to negotiate can be, especially when it goes unnoticed. Argh. ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Let the record reflect that I did not revert. I deleted an SPS in a BLP, and I moved a link about Delson's Jewish wedding from his "early life" section to his "personal life" section where there was an unsourced statement about his marriage. I think that's perfectly reasonable, but if anyone besides wikifan finds that edit problematic, feel free to revert my edit. I stand by my talk-page edit summary. THF (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well according to this: Revert 1 Revert 2, you did revert. In addition to your removal of my edit (though it wasn't a revert). Check the history for more info: history. Can we just end this? I don't care any more, if you guys are this concerned it's not worth it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank g*d for transparancey aroud here :) Wikifan12345, sorry to say it, but you sound like you are ranting. Above, you highlighted the "fact" that Delson is is one of two members of Linkin Park who are Jewish...SO F*CKING WHAT?????? Two of the members also jerk off with their left hand rather than right, did you KNOW that also???? I have been "defending" the fact that I am actually ok with adding ethnicity to bios, but your apparant ranting has to make folks wonder and who can blame them. Your protesting WAY to much about a non-issue raises concerns for most. Again, what is your fixation here? You gave me a story about the "truth" and I have assumed enough good faith, time to come clean if you are man enough but I doubt it--Tom 14:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I really hope you don't have a reference for the "jerk off" comment (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is OR?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a general comment rather than aimed at any specific article or edit mentioned above. Seems to me that a person's religion or ethnicity is only notable if it is a major factor in what makes them notable. Barack Obama's race is notable because he is the first black president. In the majority of cases however, a persons religious persuasion (or lack of it), and their ethnicity is not going to be notable enough to include. There should always be references to back up the suggestion that the person's ethnicity or religion is genuinely something notable about them and worthy of inclusion in their article.Riversider (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I told you, I don't care anymore. I offered plenty of reasons why it should be included, if notability is your concern there are far more less-important facts in the article that I'd be happy to remove. also, please try to be civil. I'm trying to and whenever I slip I get the book. I would like for the admin who asked the question to respond, because I answered it thoroughly without strawman. Sick of wiki fallacies. sorry!forgot to login: Wikifan12345 (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment While according to generally accepted policy, a person's religion does not belong in the lead, there is no reason to not put that information in a biography. I just noticed that there are WP:categories called Jewish actors| Jewish Mathematicians|Jewish Americans| Belarusian-American Jews | Russian-American Jews|Jewish American writers|Jewish philosophers, etc. see: for plenty more. Alan Dershowitz's Judaism is noted in his "infobox." Those categories are there for a reason. They are given to help us understand more fully the subject of the article written. There is no reason NOT to include such information in an article if it is so and properly sourced. The allegation that to offersourced information on the religion or ethnicity of a notable subject is somehow "racist" is laughable. While perhaps it is more interesting to know whether they jerk off with their left or right, but it ethnicity and religion is one of the things that readers of an encyclopedia may want to know. So call this done already. Let's move on. Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This isnt about adding Jewish categories, this is about wikifan following David Eppstein from a recent dispute to question whether or not he was Jewish, and then when getting an answer of a polite no insisting that he is in fact Jewish. Read the beginning of the complaint and you will see that was why this section began. Nableezy (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't follow David Eppstein. As I said previously (about 3 times), I went into his own article David Eppstein and made a talk section asking if he was Jewish. Google indicates he MIGHT be, so I felt it was appropriate to ask. You can either accept Nableezy's interpretation, or actually read the talk discussion. Please know that Nableezy and I have a long history of disputes, so his opinion obviously violates wikipedia:COI. Admin, or whoever asked me those questions, please see my posts above. I've been as cordial as I can be and if uncivil/false evidence continues to be provided, I hope this thing can go to a higher power (as in the next level) because I can't take it any more. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, for further reference please see Noam Elkies talk discussion. A lot of thought slipped into the David Eppstein talk, so make sure you read that first to get a better picture of the situation. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

End this mess

Okay, let's put an end to this silliness. Wikifan please be a little more careful that all "Jewish stuff" be reliably sourced. All the ts-ts editors here at the talkpage, if Wikifan wants to discuss religion/ethnicity at article talkpages, he has every right to. You can make a very logical argument that religion/ethnicity is irrelevant, but it does not represent the real world situation. The calls to block Wikifan1234 were ridiculous, and one has to question the reasonableness of any admin making such a suggestion. One fact overlooked by a number of editors is that the discussion about Eppstein's ethnicity took place at Talk:David Eppstein, not User talk:David Eppstein, an important distinction. WP:COI comes to mind here.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

You're going to call WP:COI on me because an editor moves a confrontation with me to the talk page of the article about me? That's a bit rich, especially because both WP:COI and WP:AUTO say to go to the talk page rather than editing the article. And to be honest, it took me a little while to notice it was there instead of my user talk page due to the similarity of names between the two pages. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

He probably should have had more tact and not gone to the talkpage of your article, but I wouldn't call if a "confrontation". I'm not calling you out on WP:COI. My point is that if you would treat the article about yourself like it's Monster Allergy (TV series) this whole thing wouldn't have happened. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Btw, I find myself going to your Misplaced Pages article now that we have communicated; it's most natural. If I were to assume good faith, I would assume that the same thing that interested him at other pages (Jewish ethnicity) interested him at your article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind you that "this whole thing" started on Noam Elkies and that I got into it by trying to enforce WP:BLP standards on that article. And, while I think you're going completely down the wrong track thinking this has anything to do with WP:COI, I'd like to point out that I think it's unreasonable to ask me to stop paying attention to the article about myself, and that in suggesting that I should you're going far beyond what WP:AUTO and WP:COI recommend. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think COI has been put forth a couple of times without actually reading it, but a simple question is this. Even if it was fine to ask on the talk page, why when given the answer "no" is wikifan still insisting on saying that he is Jewish, even if he thinks it is true. Why not just leave it alone at the response of no. Why even here does he have to again say "And guess what, he's basically Jewish. LOL." Why does any of this matter at all? Am I the only one who is asking why this even started to begin with, and even if how it started was legit why did it get beyond the no? Nableezy (talk) 08:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

His ethnicity is arguably something that's intrinsically notable and thus discussion-worthy. The only reason why this whole thing became problematic was because User:David Eppstein cares about the David Eppstein article. We can't expect David to ignore the talkpage of the article about himself, but my point is that that this sort of a WP:COI issue because had he divorced himself from his bio we wouldn't be here now. Btw, I just noticed that the original comment included a smile, something that should be taken into consideration in this context. In any case, I'm done sticking up for Wikifan. He could use some more tact and maturity, but there's nothing here that requires any sort drastic action.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't do anything wrong. the rules violated were in regards to sourcing, not notability. They claimed notability, and I explained why that wasn't an issue several times but to no avail. I found reliable sources anyways, but they still didn't care. After being called a racist, promoting blood purity, intolerant, blah blah blah, I honestly couldn't care less what they thought. They wouldn't compromise in talk, so they came here to save face. Is that mature? I know I'm a little ignorant when it comes to the feelings of other users, but I just don't care if it conflicts with facts. I'm curious: Why is everyone so obsessed about including one's ethnicity? Elkies is Jewish, he has promoted Jewish/Israeli causes at Harvard, he is one of several Jewish professors at the University. Brad Delson was a little iffy, I didn't really think including his ethnicity/religion would be that big of a deal considering all the fluff, like philanthropy and guitar style (which had no sources). I was more than tactful, but you can't expect Gandhi when I'm being berated by 10 users who are allowed to be uncivil and mean because they aren't on trial. Totally absurd. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Per wp:undue, we only add information if they are relevant for the topic and have an enclopaedic value. The lead of an article is a summary of an article. To add in the introduction of the article of a person, his religious beliefs, it must be developed in the core of the article. To be in the core of the article, it has to be developed from wp:rs secondary sources stating it has some importance.

That is an easy stuff. If somebody refuses this and uses rhetoric in the talk page to circumvene these basic principles with bad faiths, he should be warned.

The same in the other direction if somebody refuses that the lead gives a fair and equilibrated summary of the core of the article. Ceedjee (talk) 12:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Well. I didn't know Prof Eppstein but this discussion is enough to warn wikifan to stop. Why not to add the size and the weight of Epppstein, the name of his wife and his children, his personnal address, his emails, his phone number etc : . Ceedjee (talk) 12:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather the article had more detail about my research; I don't care that it's undetailed about my personal life. But, contra brewcrewer, that's not the issue. The issue to me is the following, much of it has little to do with me. First, wikifan thinks that a name or a feeling about someone alone (or a discussion on a talk page) is enough of a basis to add claims about the person's ethnicity to their article, ignoring the requirement of sourcing in WP:BLP. And second, in cases like mine (my ancestry is a mix of English, Irish, and Jewish, and for reasons that seem valid to me I don't consider myself to be a Jew) he ignores everything but the "Jewish", violating WP:NPOV. I don't think he can be trusted to add information about ethnicity or religion to biography articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If I weren't such a nincompoop, I would add details of your research into the article. I think at this point Wikifan understands that ethnicity can't be added to bios sans reliable sources. However, there's nothing that stops him, if anything to the contrary, from initiating a discussion about a bio's ethnicity at the bio's talk page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If the question of his faith is not developed, it should not be in the lede. Since this is not (in my view) a major point, I'm inclined to agree that Professor Eppstein's wishes should be respected. Incidently, even those with COI are perfectly welcome to engage on talk page, so the question of where the dispute was doesn't seem to me to be germane. We don't give subjects of articles veto power over what is in them, but in this case, I would say keep the question of his faith out of it, it is not what he is notable for and it is not developed (I assume) in the secondary sources which support this article. I don't even want to get near the question of "what is a Jew?" and it isn't necessary that we reach it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

hopefully brewcrewer and tundrabuggy's insistence on wikifan's talk page that he enable his email is meant allow them to encourage him off-wiki not to be disruptive. however, due to their defense of his actions on this thread, i'm finding it difficult to agf.untwirl (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your input, Untwirl. If you had actually read the thread before attacking me you would have noticed that I was critical of Wikifan's editing habits. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a nice response clarifying why Nab and Unt shouldn't be here but it was deleted or didn't register because of an edit conflict. Anyywaays untwirl, can you please stop stalking me? I wanted his advice on editing the various Israel/Gaza topics and for encouragement, not to group up and POV-push like you do with Nab and Darwish on Israel-Gaza conflict. Also, you seem to have a wild history with Jewish articles, specifically lol. That took me 30 seconds but I could be more thorough if I truly wanted to. I stand by my edits, I apologized for the incorrect sources and vehemently deny all challenges of racism, promoting blood purity, ideology-pushing, crazy Jew promoter, evil Zionist etc. Can I please go to jail now? ; ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The COI seems to be a red-herring. The main issue is BLP: If no sources are given for ethnicity, then it should not be included. If editors and admins would just follow the policy, most of the problems with BLP articles would be solved. The subject of an article should never have to dispute the inclusion of any unsourced content in their biography -it should be removed on sight by all editors. Only if there are reliable sources and the subject of an article disagrees should there be any debate about inclusion and the language to use.Yobmod (talk) 10:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yobmod, I provided sources, several of them. The way the whole situation played out was extremely combative from the start. Instead of assuming good faith and negotiating a clearly notable quality, they reverted, reverted, continued with the same rhetoric in talk, etc.. I could have been more cordial but I doubt most users could have avoided frustration. And as evident by the extremely personal attacks by calling me a racist, promoting racial supremacy, and encouraging a sinister agenda from the start...well, they speak for themselves. If the problem was truly BLP, which appeared to be another[REDACTED] violation of rule-booking throwing to avoid actual discussion, then they should have continued the talk before starting a war. Eppstein took a suspiciously personal stance in his own article, not surprising considering it's his own article but suspicious because of his supposedly profession as a teacher at the respectable UCI. I've proven my side the best I could, any further questions, accusations, or blatant attacks I'll be glad to respond to. Though at this point it would be weird for an admin to act harshly or impose any weighted punishment considering how far and polarized this has become without seeking a more controlled arbitration IMO. Thanks for the "impartial" and reasonable thoughtful response Yobmod. It takes balls to not get personal in these types of discussions. Wikifan12345 (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The accusations & recriminations did seem to come pretty fast, huh? I wouldn't add ethnicity to any lead i wrote, but if i saw someone else do it with a source, i would assume they thought ethnicity was more important than I, and if it is not violoating BLP, then it is just a talk page formatting disagreement. Getting so involved in the formatting of pages with need of content work is rarely productive from my experience! One section on a talk page does not really reach "hounding" proportions imo, so there is nothing for admins to do, yet. More like a RfC?Yobmod (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What a waste of time. It looked like a racist inquisition from an outsider point of view, and all that taking place on an article talk page. The time would have been better spent developing the shamefully lame article on Eppstein or thousands of other academics in fields that Misplaced Pages editors don't speak, or asking him for an image of one of those origami that look like the Chinese ivory balls within balls. --KP Botany (talk) 11:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ok ok I'm sure wikifan "gets it" by now. If not, you can always bring this up again. Let's drop all the drama now and get back to work. boos to anyone who wants to carry this on ad infinitum. Tundrabuggy (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio Images sent to Wikimedia Commons

User Dominick1283 has placed dozens of inauthentic images into cryptozoology articles. While going through the process of deleting them, I found that this user has uploaded many, many images to the commons as his own work. He has agreed to change the tags, but I'm still concerned that the images are copyvio. DavidOaks (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The commons ones will have to be taken care of on commons — admins here have no power over commons. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, but some of us are admins on Commons. Please explain the problem in greater detail. I could do something about it, but need a better picture of events. Durova 05:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how much I can add. I saw a bad image added to an article I watch, then checked contributions, and found the user had added a lot of images to cryptid articles within a short time. I looked at those and found the images were problematic: in most cases obviously professional photos and illustrations (in various media and incompatible styles). Checking the filenames, I found some widely distributed on the net -- so the work was pretty clearly not that of the user who had uploaded them to the commons. Checking the userpage, this person is suspected to be a sockpuppet of a user banned previously for the same behavior, same articles and images. I guess an admin needs to look at all the uploads to the commons made by this person and his suspected sock(s), and evaluate the likelihood that they're copyvio. He specializes in monsters, firearms and naval vessels. (per instruction, I also posted a notice at the commons). DavidOaks (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Heading out to brunch now. If they're still there when I get back I'll take care of it. Best, Durova 17:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Having come upon the same problem in the past, isn't the advice to "consider uploading images to commons instead" (or whatever it says when loading claimed free images) counter productive to preventing copyright violating links on wikipedia? If i see a copyright violoating image on wikipedia, it is wikipedia's problem, so wikipedia's admins should be able to fix it, no? Would "admins have no power at commons" be a strong legal defence for wikipedia? Just wondering...Yobmod (talk) 11:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What? You're questioning why administrators of the English Misplaced Pages don't also have administrative privileges on the Wikimedia Commons? They're two (somewhat) autonomous websites owned by the same organization. And this is about images that are explicitly not free. If someone has free photos, they should be uploaded to the Commons to be used by every project. And people uploading images with inappropriate copyrights to the Commons is nothing new, and something that is generally caught quickly, as in this situation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not what i said. Unless i am mistaken, images at commons can be directly linked to wikipedia, yes? I have in the past caused copyrighted images that falsely claimed free use to be deleted from EN wiki. However, they were subsequently uploaded at commons and re-linked to EN wiki, and no-one did anything about it. I am asking if an illegally uploaded image at commons can get[REDACTED] into trouble if it is directly linked. Aren't we breaking laws against contributory copyright until someone at commons does something about it? and if this is the case, the advice given upon uploading free images here that they also go to commons would weaken any defence, imo. Don't we advise all uploaders that claim free use to upload to commons? Yobmod (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Over at Commons, it's actually far stricter (relatively) for usage of images than it is on Misplaced Pages. It's actually easier to get a borderline image deleted there--since an image has to be 100% "free" on Commons--than it is here, where fair use is allowed under very specific circumstances. But then again, if the image is proven "free" on Commons, it's nigh impossible to delete an image validly there, which is at once a very good thing, so nothing falls down a memory hole, but some people don't like it. You should take it up there, however. Keep in mind that pretty much the only widely accepted deletion and likely to succeed deletion reason on Commons is due to demonstrated copyright problems. rootology (C)(T) 00:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

Hi, 80.191.228.141 (talk · contribs) seems to be on a mission to add the word "Persian" before "Gulf" on every article. As a white guy in the UK this means little to me, but I think there is controversy over the name (similar to the Falklands/Malvinas dispute) whether it be "Arabian Gulf" or just "Gulf". Ryan4314 (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at Persian Gulf naming dispute, most official bodies do seem to favour "Persian Gulf". However, the activities of this user do seem constitute vandalism as they have been inserting "Persian" into proper names of Arabic groups. How about issuing a middle-ranking vandalism warning?--Peter cohen (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got a better idea: How about a custom-worded warning like the one I just left, which describes exactly what the user is doing wrong, why it's wrong, and what will happen if they keep doing it? --Carnildo (talk) 00:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems fair to me :) Ryan4314 (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Your warning doesn't seem to have worked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have worked just fine: he's now taking a 31-hour vacation from editing the encyclopedia. --Carnildo (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Whilst this user deserves a block, there do be some articles that err the other way for example, Rugby union in the Arabian Gulf. This probably needs a rename to mention either Arabia or the Persain Gulf as we don't have a clear unambiguous definition of Arabian Gulf. Maybe we need to develop a policy on how that part of the Indian Ocean should be referered to?~--Peter cohen (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Repetitive removal of discussion by Hu12 on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

I've become aware of the use of the spam blacklist (here and on meta) for purposes other than controlling linkspam, as well as of sometimes very aggressive action being taken against editors for alleged linkspamming, based solely on the number of links added, without regard, in the process, for whether or not the links were appropriate for the articles, the result being (perhaps rarely) substantial damage to the project. As I looked into cases where I suspected excess action, the name of Hu12 came up frequently, and, because I encountered situations where some remedial action could be taken, I started requesting him to undo certain actions: an article deletion here, a block there, or an error in a regex expression that was blacklisting sites not intended to be included. However, Hu12 is very active with the blacklist, and I've formed no opinion on his overall "performance." I considered it a courtesy to ask him first if I had a question about one of his actions (as well as a responsibility under WP:DR).

Because I see safeguards missing from the delisting and whitelisting processes, and guidelines are not being followed (acknowledged but possibly justified), I began to prepare a report at User:Abd/Blacklist and invited comment on the attached Talk page, and, so far, participation has been useful from Beetstra and A. B., and there has been supportive comment elsewhere from Lustiger seth (See permanent link) and others. This report is to be my report, it isn't a community process, as such, and I want to make sure that the point of view and needs of blacklist volunteers is fully considered and respected, as well as to document some of the experience of those who have been affected by the blacklist. I was not and am not ready to bring proposals to the community about the blacklisting process, though I've developed some ideas.

Because I'm now watching blacklist discussions, I made a comment in the discussion of ReadWriteWeb on MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, and mentioned User:Abd/Blacklist. The discussion was then closed over four hours later, having received no further comment and there being no need for further discussion, by Steven Walling.

Then, after another five hours, my comment was removed from the closed discussion by Hu12, summary (rmv urelated see WP:CANVASS). "Related" could be debated, but a violation of WP:CANVASS, it was not. If I wanted to, I could only ask those I think would have one opinion or another, and I'd be the one harmed by that, because then I'd end up with a shallow report that would make me look like an ignorant idiot, wasting everyone's time.

In any case, removing comment, related or not, from a closed discussion, is usually discouraged, so I warned Hu12 and reverted. I was surprised to see him remove the comment again. He also responded to my warning, with the kind of wikilawyering and assumptions of bad faith I've seen him use with naive editors in his actions relating to problematic blacklistings. I'm bringing this here for comment and advice, for which I thank the community in advance. I'll notify him of this report. --Abd (talk) 01:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Restore comment. Abd, thanks for the clear introduction. I was involved in that discussion, and witnessed the reversions of your comment, but it was a little tough to see what was going on.

The reversion of a comment on a closed thread is indeed an extreme step, and something that should only be undertaken in extreme cases. You're quite right that there was no violation of WP:CANVASS. I think it's clear that your comment should be restored.

I should note that I've read Hu12's comments on his talk page, and I don't find his position convincing. It's clear that he feels threatened by what you're doing, but I don't think his concern is justified. -Pete (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Hmm, I can't see anything wrong with your comment. As far as I can tell you are trying to encourage discussion on how we should remove entries from the spam blacklist, and posted an invite on the blacklist talk page inviting editors to come and discuss on your subpage. Is that right? If so that looks entirely appropriate to me. Theresa Knott | token threats 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote a little more than that, but as to the subpage, yes, that's right. I pointed out that evidence of linkspamming in the past (which just preceded my comment) isn't relevant to continued blacklisting, unless there is reasonable fear that linkspamming would continue. Otherwise blacklisting becomes a punishment, and possibly a deprivation of the readers of the encyclopedia, and perhaps the operators of the web site, for the sins of an editor who sometimes was just trying to improve a bunch of pages. But, again, this report isn't about that problem, exactly, that is what the subpage will be about, and, hopefully, how to fix it without adding to the burden, already great, of the linkspam volunteers. --Abd (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd completely failed to mention that the comment removed by Hu12 after the discussion was closed had been added by Abd after the discussion was closed. It makes a difference. Looie496 (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It would make a difference, if it were true but the page history tells a different story.comment added discussion closed four and a half hours later Theresa Knott | token threats 01:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake. Looie496 (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that would have been so embarrassing, to report the alteration of a closed discussion, if I'd altered it myself! --Abd (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens. I was wondering why the discussion for the delisting request didn't provide the original reports, that's the first thing I usually see when a delisting request pops up, piles of evidence why the blacklisting was perfectly fine. But it was missing in the discussion. So I investigated. It's a mess. In the blacklist log, readwriteweb.com is listed under March 2008. But it wasn't actually added until June 4. By Hu12. Based on his own report of May 19, with no comments from other editors, and no closure. The history is compiled at User:Abd/Blacklist/readwriteweb.com. The other evidences shown in the blacklist log don't mention readwriteweb.com, and Hu12's report, the only basis for his apparently unilateral action, was based on inaccurate understanding of readwriteweb.com's operating procedures and of our policies and guidelines.

When the delisting request was made, Hu12 formally declined it, thus having served as the original complainant against readwriteweb.com, the judge, the executioner, and the appeals court. --Abd (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is, unfortunately, a frequent occurrence with the spam blacklist because not enough admins/users are involved in monitoring requests for additions/removals/whitelisting. If enough people became involved, we could set a practice whereby one doesn't take action on an item that one added to the list.. --Versageek 06:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand. However, there was no emergency. My concern here isn't so much that an admin added a listing based on self-report, though that's a problem, it is that the same admin rapidly declined a delisting request, and didn't disclose the self-listing. Overworked, perhaps. The guidelines suggest that blacklisting be a measure of last resort, not a first-line response based on an admin's opinion, against many editors, that a reference or link cannot be used. In discussions on this, the supposed ease of whitelisting is often mentioned. It's not easy, it's arcane, and I've seen what has the effect of retaliation for the request. I'm not prepared to try to establish all of this, I'm simply explaining some of why I'm concerned.

There was, again, no emergency in declining the request. But there is a battlefield mentality among some of the spam warriors. See WP:WikiProject Spam with its image of a battleship, guns blazing, or the user page of MER-C, with a nuclear detonation, and some of the comments some admins have made have been practically libelous; this is what comes from treating editors as "spammers," a detested lot. (Beetstra has properly pointed out that "spam" is a loaded term and probably not appropriate.) I'm not averse to letting the volunteers play their video game, because there can be some value in it, maybe even great value, but we need to confine the damage. This incident with ReadWriteWeb resulted in a rather negative report on a major blog. Other incidents I've been examining didn't create any big splash, but one, for example, resulted in the indef block of a good-faith editor (still blocked, User:Lyriker) who was doing what was obviously thought to be helpful, who had no apparent COI, and who stopped immediately when warned, even while trying to explain that the links were useful, which the vast majority of the links were, IMHO, and I haven't seen any clearly otherwise. The article this user created here, Lyrikline.org, on a quite notable web site, not to mention useful and a reliable source in its field, was speedy deleted as promotional spam. It remained on de.wikipedia, which ultimately whitelisted the site in its entirety. (The blacklisting is on meta, and multiple delisting requests have been made, all denied so far.) (See User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org for some of the history.) I should stop now. I'll continue extended documentation of the problem at User:Abd/Blacklist and attached Talk and subpages, and I appreciate any help provided in this, and comments and suggestions. I think it may be easy to fix this, and some elements might be that, absent an emergency, self-listing wouldn't be allowed, though that would make only a small dent (because the blacklisters work closely together and tend to back each other up, as they should), but, more importantly, handling delisting and whitelisting would be mostly hands-off for active blacklist administrators, unless they decide to delist or whitelist without further ado. ("Can't say something nice, don't say anything at all.") The blacklist notice that editors get when an edit is blocked should include clear and functional instructions as to how to request delisting or whitelisting, whitelisting should be very easy for autoconfirmed editors, and instructions should be given for IP and new editors as to how to seek the support of an established editor. (Category:Users willing to consider whitelist requests? WP:WikiProject Whitelist?). --Abd (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• The sound you hear is that of a stick hitting rotting horseflesh, I think. There is no real point discussing meta blacklisting policies or foundational issues in a user page on the English Misplaced Pages. The use of the blacklist to control forms of abuse other than spam is routine, virtually all URL shorteners are blacklisted, for example, to prevent circumvention and obfuscation. We have requested more than once that the list be renamed, due in part to the pejorative nature of the word spam, but there is no real dissent from the use of blacklists to control forms of abuse over and above simple spamming. This appears to have its root in the listing of lenr-canr.org, a fringe website whose owner is implicated in the issues around Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion; in that case Abd argued long and hard for the site to be removed from the meta blacklist, and the request was denied by meta admins with absolutely no connection to the content dispute or arbitration case. Another case linked above is that of Lyrikline.org, a site which hosts copyright content with no evidence of permission from the rights owners (and which was subject of an extensive debate on that basis). As a foundation issue, abuse of copyright is probably one of the two most serious problems facing the project; that and WP:BLP are the only two issues on which the foundation has mandated any kind of content policy. Is blacklisting turning into the new NFCC enforcement, where militant free-speechers will try to torpedo any and every effort to control abuse? I certainly hope not. Guy (Help!) 12:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

FYI, the first possibly abusive blacklisting I saw, a self-listing with no log entry, and no linkspamming, and removal of links by the same administrator, being involved in the article over a long period, was by JzG (Guy). See User:Abd/JzG on the involvement and use of tools while involved. See also User:Abd/Blacklist/lenr-canr.org for detailed history. There is no copyright issue with lenr-canr.org, that is JzG's idiosyncratic opinion. Further, this report isn't about any specific blacklisting, except possibly that of ReadWriteWeb, so, talk about beating a dead horse, why is this relevant here?

The use of the blacklist for other than dealing with linkspam is not contemplated in the relevant guidelines and instructions. It simply grew up without supervision. Either the practice should change or the guidelines should change; the problem here is the extensive control of content by a small group of administrators, as small as one, based on opinions that are not clearly a matter of consensus. As examples where such extended usage is fully appropriate: sites with established and extensive copyright violation, such that linking is a legal hazard, or sites hosting malware or otherwise presenting a danger to anyone viewing them, spam linkfarms, and I'm sure there are plenty of others. "Fringe," by itself, should not be an argument for blacklisting, it is too easily abused, and fringe sites are, not uncommonly, useful in specific ways. --Abd (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

See? "The first possibly abusive blacklisting" - except that pretty much nobody else seems to agree. Just as nobody else agreed with you about bannign Jed Rothwell - ArbCom considered it so obvious as to call into quesiton whether it was even apprpriate to ask them to review it. You are coming across as a crusader for hopeless causes, Abd - actually a crusader for abusers and against hard-working wikipedians like A.B. and Hu12, whic is a lot worse. You can always join the spam wikiproject, which already fulfils the function you propose, or simply watchlist the whitelist page and comment. Anyone can. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Look, you usually do good work, but in this case you are clearly off the mark. The OP's concerns and complaint are quite valid. Jtrainor (talk) 12:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've only had one experience trying to get a blacklisted site "white-listed", which put the burden of proof on me that it was not spam and was reliable (i wanted to use an interview on a previously spammed site as a reference). Considering that once blacklisted, a site is considered guilty until proven innnocent (no matter if the orginal spammer is blocked etc), wouldn't it be better that blacklist reviews are always done by someone other than the admin that initially added it? A longer waiting-list is preferable to perceptions of bias imo. That would prevent accusations like this one, yes? (not that i think this review got to the wrong outcome, but it is not ideal to only have one self-appointed arbitrator)Yobmod (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, with only a superficial following of the blacklist discussion pages for a short time, and no comprehensive review, your experience was not unusual, Ybomod. Yes, there should be no rush on delisting or whitelisting requests, and, in fact, delisting should be discussed on a different page than the blacklist Talk pages, so as not to disrupt the blacklisting process. Whitelisting is already a separate page and maintained list. --Abd (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hu12 is in my experience less than communicative when his decisions on such matters are questioned. DuncanHill (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Can't resist it can you? I note you (deliberately?) fail to mention that Hu12 was continuing to edit in the area of contention while ignoring requests (not just from me) to actually enter into a discussion. Still, I shouldn't expect honesty or decency from admins any more, particularly not when one of their own is criticised. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you just point me to the guideline on acceptable talk page practice while dealing with bereavement? It would have been helpful to me twice in the recent past, once when my sister died and once when it was my father. Sometimes the bereaved don't want to deal with abrasive, chippy, demanding people, so it would be good to know whether the normal permission to remove from one's talk page those comments to which one does not wish to respond, is suspended in the case of personal emotional trauma. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If your personal circumstances prevent you responding to questions about your edits or use of admin tools, then don't edit and don't use admin tools. If you claim to be on a Wikibreak but continue editing, then don't complain when people do not believe that you are on a Wikibreak. DuncanHill (talk) 19:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Nobody says such exchanges are obliged to be carried out on your user talk page. In some circumstances it is important to maintain at small pool of calm around yourself, and the user talk page can be the place for this. Repeatedly attempting to initiate plainly unwelcome dialogue on the user page of a grieving Wikipedian is simply crass; keep it to the article talk pages or ask a neutral third party to step in. If you were in the same position I suspect you would appreciate that small consideration. This is not a job, it's a hobby, and sometime we cut people a little extra slack. Admins patrolling the spam queues routinely get trolled, harassed attacked and otherwise abused, so it's not surprising if at times of stress they choose not to engage with disputants on their talk page - and if that presents a problem to the encyclopaedia then raise it at the time on AN, not months later. I thought that was pretty uncontroversial. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hu12's uncommunicative behaviour was raised on the noticeboards at the time , as you would know if you had the slightest idea of what you were talking about. It is unfortunate that A.B. chose to give such a misleading account above. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you never have to go through the kind of pain I had to endure at that time . Know that if you (DuncanHill) are ever in the same type of position, I would never, never, never be as insensative and selfish as you've repeatedly proven to be. Thanks for the understanding, A. B. and Guy --Hu12 (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I also expressed sympathy, just below, or at least defense of Hu12 for being "uncommunicative." However, it's too much to expect to continue to take controversial actions, in the presence of opposition, and then not respond to questions, without criticism. It causes Misplaced Pages process to become much more inefficient. Basically, if you need a wikibreak, take it, but please, if possible, post a note allowing other administrators to reverse any of your actions where your response would normally be expected, because you won't be available for discussion. You could also ask an admin friend to watch your user page and take care of any requests. That's all. You'd get nothing but wikiflowers and sympathy. And very little harm would result, with respect to any solid actions. It would simply allow others to more efficiently clean up any errors, and we all make mistakes, don't we?--Abd (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've often seen complaints about "uncommunicative behavior," and generally consider them off the mark. If an admin doesn't respond to a request, it's only a little worse than denying it. (Obviously, denying it is generally better, if it's on the admin's Talk page, because then the editor can move on more quickly, but.... we are all volunteers, and can't demand response, in my opinion.) However, if an admin doesn't respond to a request, then the admin shouldn't complain later if another admin reverses an action. I never complained about lack of response from Hu12, and I knew nothing about bereavement. If an editor doesn't explain edits, and continues making them, then the risk is the editor's, i.e., risk of reversion or warning or blocking. All I did, when I found a problem with an action of Hu12's, was the same I do in a similar situation with any admin whose action I question: ask him about it, discuss it a little, demanding nothing, and then, if not satisfied, proceed with the rest of the dispute resolution process. In filing this report, I did not seek any sanctions against Hu12, but I was concerned with behavior I'd not expect from an administrator. Perhaps bereavement explains this. I wasn't even terribly concerned about the comment remaining, I just thought that the community should make the decision, not myself or Hu12, and I thought that precedent was already well-established. I hope that Hu12 gets the support and rest that he needs, and that's sincere, and I hope that, if he takes a wikibreak, he comes back to an improved situation. --Abd (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hu12 has permitted restoration of my comment. The actual restoration was done by User:SarekOfVulcan. Hu12's comment permitting restoration was still, unfortunately, peevish, suggesting Misplaced Pages:Harassment#Wikihounding, but that's not an AN/I problem. Please, if the problems with the blacklist, and how to fix them without hindering proper blacklisting process, are of interest to you, please watch User:Abd/Blacklist or comment on User talk:Abd/Blacklist. Those pages will hopefully point to any guideline changes or other related process (such as a real RfC). My thanks to all who commented here. Are we done now? --Abd (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The above comment was missing a phrase that may have caused someone not following the link and reading the actual edit to misinterpret it. Hu12's comment, reasonably interpreted, implied that I was wikihounding him, which I don't think the facts justify. I've been digging into blacklisting issues, and Hu12 has been a very active volunteer in that project, and that, alone, may explain the number of issues I've found and questioned, never to blame, but simply to request correction of possible errors. I was not claiming that I was being harassed, and I do not feel harassed, indeed, I feel very positively about the community, including some of those who criticize what I'm doing. I'm in the kitchen, I understand that it can get hot in here sometimes. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I have been in quite a positive, though sometimes heated, discussion with Abd lately. We seem now to agree on some points, but, and I have said that on a couple of occasions, I find his point of entry for discussions sometimes a bit too direct, and heading in the wrong direction, and have commented as such to Abd as well. Criticism is fine, but please formulate it without giving the feeling of assuming bad faith or similar on the user (in this case Hu12) who performed the action.

Many of the actions that administrators are doing, are after the action less visible, or require access to the original information, which is not always visible to non-admins (e.g. after page deletion) or is very difficult to compile (going through the edits of multiple IPs to multiple pages to find the total scale of 'offending actions' is quite a task sometimes). If the actions encompasses several wikis, the situation becomes even less transparant. That is the trust that is put into us (admins) by the community during the request for adminship, that we appropriately judge the situation, and I think that approrpiate appeal procedures are there (there are quite some admins active on the whitelist which I have hardly ever seen on the meta blacklist), and I think the same is true for deletion review. And yes, we sometimes do make mistakes, but I don't believe there is here any form of intent of making mistakes.

In a number of cases which I have been discussing with Abd lately there is, simply put, inappropriate use of the link, including: placement on many wikis (where sometimes the link is useless to the local wiki) , the link to a respectable organisation is in a group of sites being search-engine-optimised , pushed against consensus , or used by users who should engage more in discussion then just blindly put their links everywhere. That is indeed not always 'spam', but nonetheless linkabuse. If that encompasses multiple accounts / IPs who do that, then blacklisting and whitelisting is sometimes the harsh measure that needs to be taken to control the situation (I have my mop here next to me, but sometimes it is simply better to close the tap for some time). It is also our experience, that shutting down accounts, or blacklisting links only for a couple of weeks, does absolutely NOT stop the abuse, they will return (SEOs get paid to optimise the results of searches .., if you remove the link after one month, they will return). Misplaced Pages scores mighty high in Google ...

The current use of the blacklist to stop fringe sites, or similar, is indeed not written down, and I don't think that that should become pactice; the use only of such sites is certainly not a reason to blacklist them. However, and I do think that that was the case with the cold-fusion sites, they were heavily pushed by one editor/a group of editors while multiple editors where not convinced that that site should be used for that (Note: one of them also on a small scale cross-wiki spammed). That is not 'use' anymore, it gets closer to 'abuse', and I believe that all of the sites we are discussing are blacklisted because of that. Although much of the information on the site seems to be a correct copy (with proper copyright), it is also, and better, available on the official sites. Using these sites, for most of the documentation on it, is more convenience than necessery.

I indeed think that Hu12 feels a bit threatened by the situation, his actions are questioned in a direct way. In the comment I read a same feeling as I described above, the assumption that we do not thoroughly look at the site and it appropriateness (I mean the comment: "The spam blacklist community follows a general rule that multiple additions of links is spamming, with little regard for whether or not the links were appropriate in situ."). I have not looked into this specific case, but I do believe that that generally is absolutely not the case, we do address that. And I do think that the question if abuse will continue has been addressed as well, spammers don't always get the message that their edits are not wanted after blacklisting, and many will continue after their sites have been removed. Some of them get paid for it, and that goes for respected, important organisations just as much as for sex, tramadol and viagra-sites. --Dirk Beetstra 15:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If anything I wrote implied assumptions of bad faith, please point it out to me so I can redact it. The "general rule" comment quoted is actually not controversial, and it's apparent in the blacklisting discussions. Nor is that situation, in itself, considered, by me, to be inappropriate. It only becomes clearly relevant in three situations: the removal of links, which is editing of articles, delisting requests, and whitelisting requests. Blacklisting stops the addition of links. As long as users can easily appeal it, not only is there no harm in rapid blacklisting in the presence of significant linkspam, or simply massive addition of links, even if they are appropriate, but it may be necessary. To have a discussion on the merits of links is time-consuming and, meanwhile, additional links could be coming in and thus additional mess to clean up. Removal is more problematic, but, again, relatively easily undone if a problem is caught quickly, and if such removals are logged. They aren't, they would have to be found indirectly. (Cross-wiki removals are often done by IP, the blacklist volunteers don't register just to remove linkspam.) The "number of links" standard only becomes a serious problem when it is the primary argument in delisting or whitelisting requests. Yes, I think that my discussions with Beetstra have been useful. Above, though, we can see where we still clearly differ. His description of the situation with lenr-canr.org (and, not previously mentioned here, newenergytimes.com) is not balanced. Again, this discussion will continue elsewhere, so that we can find consensus. --Abd (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The part that I feel not too happy with is the "with little regard for whether or not the links were appropriate in situ". That is the part that I see as more a remark on how it seems that we blacklist, and I think that is certainly incorrect. We do check (and we do make mistakes as well :-) ). You now add "Cross-wiki removals are often done by IP, the blacklist volunteers don't register just to remove linkspam.". For as far as we know, the editors who are active on the meta blacklist all have a SUL account, before the implementation of SUL the situation indeed becomes more difficult. --Dirk Beetstra 15:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The examples I saw were almost a year old, so, indeed, this situation may have been improved. I have much less difficulty with massive removals if they are done by a single identifiable editor, who notifies the blacklisting report of the removals, and they can be easily tracked (and reverted) if necessary.--Abd (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I should add to this, the majority of the cases we encounter are not reverted, but simply ignored, or ignored after reverting. Only if it persists, or if it is real rubbish, we add it to the blacklist (but even a lot of the rubbish does not even get blacklisted, we revert and see if it persists). I really want to stress, that we are on meta really careful with these things. --Dirk Beetstra 15:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I began these investigations because of clear counterexamples to this claim that I found. But these are not issues to be resolved here. --Abd (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding to this, I guess we are done here .. I hope this situation can be resolved on the user talkpages, the blacklisting/whitelisting questions should end up somewhere else. --Dirk Beetstra 15:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The lenr-carn.org and newenergytimes.com links are a special problem, as is just about anything else to do with cold fusion articles on this site. I'm glad I haven't been involved and I don't envy the admins and arbitrators who have had to wrestle with all the issues (not just links) surrounding these articles and their editors.

Whatever decisions are made about broader blacklisting issues, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'd guess I probably rank in the top 2 or 3 admins for domains blacklisted, both here and on meta. 99% of these blacklistings involved open-and-shut cases of spam, both in terms of content and behaviour. In the majority of the cases, I was acting on problems reported by others. The remainder were based on links added to "spam honeypot" articles such as Mesothelioma (spammers drawing traffic to their mesothelioma sites earn >$50 US for just one click on a Google ads for asbestos lawyers) and Search engine optimization. In >98% of cases, the spammer has received 3 and usually 4 warnings from the community; in the few others I'm responding to something really, really egregious (hate sites, shock sites, etc.) I document and log the problem, then blacklist the domains.

Domain blacklisting is less draconian than actually blocking an IP or registered user, yet admins routinely block problematic accounts without first requiring a second look by someone else. We have block review processes in place to correct the small percentage of cases where a mistake is made. Given the typical backlog of 10 days for spam reports at WT:WPSPAM and WP:SBL, if all blacklisting has to go through some sort of double-checking, you'll see wait-times go out several months unless many more admins can be drawn into this work, which is sort of specialized. I think it would be more useful to have more admins pitching in with both spam-mitigation and whitelisting. I recently saw a statistic that we now average 18 external links added per minute; we all know that they're not all to scientific journals.

I would ask that folks assume not just good faith but also a decent level of good judgement and competence on those admins and other editors trying to keep up with our very large spam. --A. B. 16:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Correction: the number of links added per minute is even higher than I thought. --A. B. 16:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Abd, in the matyter of hounding, I would suggest that you are living in a glass house so should not be throwing stones. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you misread his comment above. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right, I did. Apologies. Guy (Help!) 22:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The comment to which JzG referred was missing a phrase, making it ambiguous, hence I also apologize for being unclear and possibly leading him into his misinterpretation. --Abd (talk) 01:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There was an African king who retired to a thatch hut and kept his old throne in the attic. One day it broke through and killed him. Hence the old saying, "People who live in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones." Baseball Bugs 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think we';re finished here, as the ed. originally complained of hasn't had a chance to comment here yet. The discussion so far has amounted to several other people saying that they personally do blacklisting right, but that's not to the point. How to rework this process, if it needs reworking, does need to be discussed elsewhere. (My view on that, is that it is possible to maintain efficiency by rejecting complaints without discussion, & I hope the current process isn't being defended on that basis). . DGG (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The "Spam Blacklist Group" shows a certain defensiveness when their decisions are questioned, and seem to wish for the pleasant simplicity of being left alone to do whatever they want without the ugliness and rancor of people actually discussing it and sometimes disagreeing with that group's supreme wisdom. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Dan, I don't see a monolithic "Spam Blacklist Group". I probably am as active as anyone and I don't feel I've been especially defensive. I've tried to lay out my view of things rationally and politely, both here and elsewhere. --A. B. 06:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's correct, A. B., you have. (So has Beetstra and even more supportive of my analysis has been Lustiger seth, all active blacklist administrators. Dtobias's complaint is unfortunate because it treats a collection of editors, who may be quite distinct from each other and display unique behaviors, as a monolith. However, the effect of the collaboration of the editors who are active, taken as if it were a "cabal," or simply a committee that makes collective decisions, even if members of this virtual cabal vary greatly in their responsiveness as individuals, is as Dtobias has seen it. Without the hyperbole, "supreme wisdom," and other stuff tacked on. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I do get into a bit of a bind in that when I name names specifically, it gets called a personal attack, while if I stick to vaguer mentions of group behavior I get criticized for lumping people together. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisting is transparent; those of us who regularly volunteer on the blacklist have worked hard to make that a priority. Unintentional mistakes and miscommunications can happen, but links don’t "secretly" get blacklisted and there is no "Blacklist Group" type cabal or conspiracy, as suggested. There is always a logged record. I recently had an removal appeal by a user and removed it, however the origional case Illustrates one example of how carefully requests are researched and then handled. Personalities can differ on wikipedia, and disagreements occur as a result. Unfortunately Abd has perpetuated disputes by sticking to a viewpoint long after it has been discredited, despite the clear evidence of abuse. Additionally his record shows that he has a history of singling out specific editor(s), mischaracterizing editors' actions in which he disagrees, in order to make them seem unreasonable or improper and assumptions of bad faith. What has been become evident in Abd's recent contributions is an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than to develop a consensus. To reply to the primary topic posted about my "removal of discussion". In addition to my edit summary reasons for removing the comment, Misplaced comments unrelated to specific cases should be placed in the appropriate discussion area provided. for someone (Abd) who claims to be researching the "process", he has failed to note there is a "discussion" section. I would ask that more admins help out to better understand the blacklist and assume good faith on those who volunteer by trying to help out the encyclopedia.--Hu12 (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Hu12, you've stated that there is always a logged record. See , which blacklisted newenergytimes.com, and for which I find no log record and no prior discussion, just an offhand comment added by JzG to a different proposal, which received no closing decision, and which was added after the fact. See also , which blacklisted lenr-canr.org here. User:Lustiger seth logged the listing removal here, January 10, 2009, because of the meta blacklisting, but there was no log of the addition on December 18, 2008. Indeed, this little irregularity got me going, whether it was ultimately important or not. Is this important here? Not really, but you said something that wasn't correct, placing it in opposition to what I have previously said here. This report was about the removal of discussion from Mediwiki talk:Spam-blacklist and the rest was just background. Too many times, requests are not treated carefully. I've worked in a medical field, and I encountered people who confused their effort to avoid damage with success at it. People were dying because of errors or conditions, and when attempts were made to fix it, they were resisted because "we try hard to avoid this." Perhaps they do. And perhaps it isn't enough, they need help; in which case, they should not resist the help, but try to guide it. --Abd (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, the stuff that happens here on Misplaced Pages doesn't cause people to die as far as I'm aware! I guess that's one good thing to be said about it... :-) *Dan T.* (talk) 23:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Usually not, anyway. I suspect there have been a few suicides. I know of one person who is sitting in federal prison right now, awaiting psychiatric evaluation, whose condition was quite possibly exacerbated by his experiences here. Really, it can be quite abusive and depressing, but that's only likely to affect people who are already marginal in some way. There are consequences to what we do; treat people badly, it can harm them and others. --Abd (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Dumb question

Anyone wonder whether there's a connection between Mr. "Lex Luthor of Misplaced Pages" and the apparent upsurge of nasty vandalism? arimareiji (talk) 16:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Not his style. Is more the style of one of our other long-term idiots. (He Who Shall Not Be Named). //roux   16:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of interest - is anyone still getting emails from the illustrious arch-nemesis? Skomorokh 17:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't 'Lex' be doing something more helpful to the world as a whole, instead; stapling his own face shut, for instance? HalfShadow 17:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

He was, until the ankle-biters got to him. Mr. Luther has contributed more quality encyclopaedic content than 95% of those who comment here. Skomorokh 18:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Really? Because considering his actions thusfar, he looks much more like an asshole to me. You might consider seeing an optometrist. HalfShadow 19:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Being an asshole and being able to write better than the overwhelming majority of gutless, hiveminding little napoleons who populate this place are not mutually contradictory; too much exposure to the latter often cause the former. Regards, Skomorokh 07:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could that be a consequence of it being "the encyclopedia anyone can edit?" And if so, whose fault is that? Baseball Bugs 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Skomorokh 18:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone said his writing was better than 95% of the contributors. Since any moron can edit, then certainly 5 percent of the population are going to write better than 95 percent of it. That does not give someone in the 5 percent a pass to do whatever he wants, though. Baseball Bugs 18:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, he pulled up his pants, put his ankles in the community's mouth, and hit us on the head. He was given multiple chances to reform, and at every turn, chose to become a combatant. He's made his identity clear, and it's a wonder we didn't block him as a COI long ago. ThuranX (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's got to be one of the most interesting visual metaphors I've ever seen. arimareiji (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you see anyone arguing otherwise? Skomorokh 01:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comment seems to imply that he was blocked, then banned, for no good reason, and that you are on 'his side'. If I misread it, then I misread it. ThuranX (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It does nothing of the sort; you do yourself discredit by jumping to conclusions and taking a manichaean perspective. Sincerely, Skomorokh 07:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that characterisation of the people inconvenienced or whose time has been wasted by him as 'ankle-biters' does, indeed, require no conclusion-jumping by anyone and that your meaning, sympathies, and implications are quite clear. Certainly doing a great deal of work on a single article--one whose subject I'm not even sure deserves an article--means very little in the greater scheme of things. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Apropos of this, let me suggest something by Chirikure Chirikure, you can find it at
www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=162&L=1&author=cc00&show=Poems&poemId=3122&cHash=d6d6fd3645
(I've left out the http:// because this site is still blacklisted.) The punchline, in Shona: Nhasi woisa tsvina mutsime? "And then you shit in the well?" --Abd (talk) 02:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry

user:Afroghost has recently been accusing me of being a sockpuppet of a blocked user, in a rude and hostile tone, for no reason. I have recently been looking over an incident involving a blocked user (User: Shnitzled), where he was blocked for being uncivil and making personal attacks, I felt his case was handled poorly but that is a different matter. My reason for being here, is because this user making the accusations has been following me around, asking me the same question "Are you a sockpuppet of Shnitzled?" on 2 of the pages I have posted on, I feel I am being harrassed by this user. Could an admin please look into this? Thanks very much, U_(ser)N_(ame)I_(n)U_(se) 16:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This account was created on the same day that User:Shnitzled was blocked, and less than ten minutes later, she became involved in defending that user on a rather obscure user talk page. It is difficult to imagine how an unrelated user might have accidentally become involved in that conversation and even more difficult to conceive how she could have stumbled upon this conversation and drawn the conclusion that the wronged party was User:Shnitzled, unless she is either User:Shnitzled or a close personal friend of that user. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I can look into all right, but you are not going to like my conclusions. Blatant trolling almost certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet possibly deserving of an immediate block for trolling this board.UNIU please stop at once. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

UNIU is not a socpuppet of me, and cannot be for technical reasons - a blocked user cannot create accounts due to the restrictions in place, and why would I? That would only deepen my situation tenfold, all I want to do is get back to editing. I have no idea who this UNIU person is, all I know is that he/she or it was the only person who came and saw things from my POV, not that it was going to help, but I did notice it. I do feel that this Afrofrog person needs to lay off, he/she is bordering on incivility - precicely what I was blocked for. Shnitzled (talk) 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Afrofrog? Awesome, just back from your block and you are insulting other editors again. Afroghost (talk) 23:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Afroghost, I knew it had Afro, and I knew frog was also in it, simple mix up. Please, don't victimise me about those incidents. Shnitzled (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(deindent) The solution to everyone's angst here is to leave this be and go do some constructive editing and encyclopedia building. There's work to be done over at WP:AFC, why doesn't everyone involved pick an article and improve it? Best medicine for problems like these. AKRadecki 23:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Block review requested and seems like a good idea

Could some neutral parties have a look at the block on this user's talk page and see if it's being handled appropriately? I believe the user is also now blocked from commenting on their own page, which I think means they can't appeal? Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be reasonably routine. He's blocked from commenting on his own talk page due to soapboxing (abusing unblock process), but that does not prevent an appeal via email, on the condition he doesn't abuse that privillege like he did with his talk page. Another administrator has already reviewed the block and considered it valid too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. I don't think there is ever a routine block by an administrator who is themselves involved in the dispute, as is alleged here, especially if it is that same administrator who then blocks the talk page. This smacks a bit of judge, jury and executioner. With great powers come great responsibilities, and I don't see the incivility or the soapboxing as being so clear cut or so blatant that bringing more neutral involvement shouldn't have been considered first. Let me make clear that I am not arguing that some kind of block or other action wasn't warranted, I haven't reviewed the matter and the history carefully enough to determine that. and clearly Spotfixer was pushing and outside the envelope of discussing content and was feuding rather inappropriately, but I do think following best practices and protocols for handling these situations is important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

ChildofMidnight - thanks for bringing this here for consideration - however if you don't mind please review the history carefully before you make broad allegations about my role. When you do review you will find that I am not involved in the dispute in any way rather I have been one of two or three administrators actively trying to maintain the peace at Rick Warren for weeks now - and Spotfixer has taken a one-sided view on that work. Please note also that others have reviewed that situation and they have already agreed that my actions were not inappropriate. Best wishes.--VS 21:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It may be a matter of perspective, but if he's taken a one-sided view of your role and disputes your methods, getting an outside view or a more independent Admin to review the situation instead of taking action yourself might have been helpful. A one week block is a substantial punishment (prevention per wikispeak). It is my observation (and stated in the guidelines) that once blocks are imposed they are difficult to have overturned, so making sure they are fair and impartially considered in the first place is important. His soapboxing amounted to a strongly worded request for independent review, and you were again the one to lock down his talk page. This after he requests "Take this into the light of a public forum". If others conclude the block and the talk page restrictions are warranted, I'm okay with that, but I do think caution needs to be used when a single Admin is the only one dishing out this kind of severe remedy in a case where the comments don't amount to grotesque or outrageous clear cut violations. The issue seems more to be about getting him to stay focused on content and not to grandstand or cast indirect aspersions on editors when frustrations develop. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I also concur with the block and talk page blocking, along with VS, Ncmvocalist and CIreland. Did you have a more independent admin in mind? Kevin (talk) 23:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I trust your conclusion arises from an independent review of the situation (as was requested) and that you haven't been involved with recent interactions with Spotfixer involving this dispute, right? Because if you were, I would think you should make that clear in your comment. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it does. My recent interactions have been in my administrative capacity, and rather than clouding my judgement they give me a better insight into what has been going on. It is inevitable that the same admins are going to end up dealing with the same editors and issues, and that does not lead to "involvement" unless you take sides. Kevin (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Seems reasonable to me. I'm not really a fan of locking the talk page for marginal problems, but it isn't outside the realm of possibility to do so. Protonk (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks all for the input. Let's mark this one resolved? ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• The talk page blocking was probably appropriate per the user's statement that "I'm going to put up an unblock request, and I will continue to do so until someone locks down my page." BUT it should have come from another administrator. Once a user makes an unblock request (that isn't plain vandalism), the blocking administrator should step back (except to provide additional information or insight as required). No comment on the original block. –xeno (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: This

Hi all, I recently full prot'd Greek identity because of an apparent content dispute. I didn't look too much into the actual dispute but I did note there were numerous reverts between User:Deucalionite and User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. I didn't want to block anyone (I wasn't in a "blocking mood"), so I prot'd for a week. A little while later Fut. came on my talk to complain about my decision, I can understand that he's exasperated but I don't think he realises that he has been edit warring too. Can anyone advise on what to do next? Was my decision out of line? Thanks in advance. Scarian 20:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it might be worth investigating Fut. Perf.'s charges of misquotation and misrepresentation of academic sources. From my perspective, if it's demonstrable that one party is inserting OR, misquoting sources, or misrepresenting what sources say, and another editor is trying to keep such edits out of the encyclopedia through reversion, it's not right to say that both parties are edit-warring. Please don't tell me that such problems are supposed to be solved through discussion; we know full well that there are too many Misplaced Pages editors who spend months or years pushing idiosyncratic, wrong, or false material into articles. At a certain point discussion becomes useless. I don't know whether that's the case in this particular dispute (I haven't had time to look through the history), but Fut. Perf. knows what he's talking about in this area, and Deucalionite has a checkered history. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Another case of scapegoating. It never ends. Deucalionite (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the material in question was discussed repeatedly on Talk:Greeks. Each time the discussion ended with a consensus to remove it. Each time Deucalionite has used his habitual tactics: stay away for a few weeks, divert attention away by making a few hundred harmless minor edits elsewhere, then returning with "minor" edits to the Greek-related articles, and finally inserting the same contentious material again when he thinks nobody is looking. Then he'll revert-war for a while, until he's sent off, and the cycle begins again. This was the fourth 3RR violation in this year alone. Last time round on Talk:Greeks#Genetics section, again, it was clearly agreed (even by the person who originally wrote the section) that the material was severely distorted and misquoted. Deucalionite has a history since at least 2005, of pushing the same idiosyncratic fringe views (mostly related to a claim of ethnic continuity of the Greek nation into the remote past). He is absolutely aware they are non-mainstream, but keeps pushing them single-mindedly and stealthily nevertheless. This is one of the most disruptive users I've come across in all my time on this project. Yes, at this point I refuse to "discuss" with him. The time for that is long past. I'm firmly convinced only reverts and blocks are the way to deal with him. He needs community-(topic)-banned, is all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. It was User:Xenovatis who created the Greek identity article in the first place to deal with the problems existent on the Greeks article. Xenovatis removed the "Genetics section" from the Greeks article, because there were too many disputes over it (there was a consensus to keep the section since no one acted on the previous consensus to have it removed). As for my habits, Future Perfect seems to recall every edit I make to be based on "fringe views" when his linguistically deterministic mindset prevents him from considering, say, physical evidence that he claims to be "distorted" merely because he disagrees with it. Given the fact that I'm capable of collaborating with other users only disproves Future's propensity towards labelling me as a vandal to fulfill his usefulness as a rouge administrator. Deucalionite (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If I was really one of the "most disruptive users" on Misplaced Pages, then I would have been permanently banned by the community years ago. So far, users (except you) have begrudgingly accepted me despite certain oddities in my behavior. The longer I contribute, the more I improve despite the slow process. Stop exaggerating and portraying me as some kind of Juggernaut. I'm NOT a threat to Misplaced Pages (though I am a threat to you for questioning your "authority"). Deucalionite (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So, what is going to happen now, is anybody going to take further action? Scarian's decision was faulty. Deucalionite was committing his fourth 3RR offense in less than 6 weeks (3 weeks of which he was blocked), just three days after coming off his last. He was clearly beyond 3RR, I was clearly not. Yes, I know I was reverting, and I know the old "3RR is not an entitlement" and all that jazz, but if an admin is going to hold edit-warring below 3RR against a user, it is his obligation to check the context first and gain a clear picture of the whole situation. Scarian, self-admittedly, didn't. It took him 4 minutes between my posting the 3RR report and his protection decision. This is sloppy admin work. If you want to deal with "edit-warring" independently of 3RR, you don't just mechanically treat all participants equally. It is your responsibility to check and judge and understand, and not hide behind the facile relativism of being "uninvolved" (which mostly means: too lazy to try and understand the dispute). – The one-week protection doesn't solve anything, it just draws out the issue more. There is not going to be a discussion to solve this conflict in the meantime, because discussion has never solved anything with this user in the last three years. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"...because discussion has never solved anything with this user in the last three years." Speak for yourself. I for one manage to get along quite nicely with other users despite the here-and-there disputes. By the way, you think that because you are an administrator you can get away with edit-warring. Scarian did the right thing to get involved and give both of us a chance to work things out on the Greek identity article. I'm still waiting for you buddy. Deucalionite (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Scarian's decision was the correct one to make. This case seems to complicated to be dealt with at WP:ANEW and further input by multiple admins and users here can only benefit the decision how to deal with the situation and the user in question. I do not see your issue with the decision: Protecting the article stopped the problem and now we can all discuss how to deal with the involved parties and the dispute without any need for urgency. I think a week should be plenty of time to decide whether Deucalionite's behavior really warrants the "really long block" you have been asking for. Regards SoWhy 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So, does he? Discuss. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious from the discussion at Talk:Greeks#Genetics_section_again that several editors believe the material Decalionite inserted into Greek identity misrepresents its sources. Deucalionite inserted this material into Greek identity after the discussion at Talk:Greeks had concluded; since Deucalionite participated in that discussion, he had to be aware of the consensus. This is generally referred to as content forking, right? Whatever it's called, inserting text with deceptive citations is harmful to the encyclopedia. I suppose there's no need to block Deucalionite since the article protection ensures that he won't edit war on that article, but it seems that the problem here is not just on this one article. Given Deucalionite's block record, I'm inclined to favor Fut. Perf.'s recommendation of a topic ban. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Upadate: he's now returned to the main Greeks article and resumed reverting about yet another one of his idees fixes. This is exactly the same statement as the one he was stubbornly edit-warring over in December and early January , and which was then roundly rejected by a very clear consensus. I can only interpret this timing as an act of deliberate provocation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Delusion, anyone? I already explained my sources on the discussion page and there was really no consensus to ignore physical evidence if I at least provided a full citation for one of them . Despite his attempts to obfuscate physical evidence, Future did an excellent job fixing things in the Mycenean section. So, I never really had any reason to "provoke" anyone or anything. It's funny how little things tend to get exaggerated. By the way Future, do you always treat users you disagree with as though they were inanimate languages? (i.e. "Deucalionese") Just curious. Deucalionite (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way, a topic ban would be a really bad idea since I've actually made efforts towards improving the Greek identity article before it was protected. The consensus about removing the "Genetics section" was only for the Greeks article and not for the Greek identity article. The latter article was created by Xenovatis in order to subcontract rejected material from the Greeks article. On the Greeks article, there was a consensus to remove the section (not enforced) and later a consensus to keep the section (enforced). The discussion itself was initiated by User:Hxseek to which many users (including myself) believed at the time that a "Genetics section" would be relevant. Later, the first consensus was enforced and interest in the "Genetics section" waned. Of course, Future tends to obfuscate these facts in order to prevent me from editing. Deucalionite (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

ANI protection level

I would like to propose that we leave the protection level on ANI as it is right now at "indefinte protection" because it seems like we it is lowered, the vandalism kicks up again. Just leave it be, no vandalism. People can still edit ANI, so it is not like it is hindering anyone. What does everyone think? - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 20:12

But people can't edit AN/I only autoconfirmed users can edit it, no IPs and no new users. How can that be acceptable? The vandalism isn't that bad, it's easy enough to deal with IMO. Theresa Knott | token threats 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

What she said, was about to say the same. Viridae 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree; semiprotection is useful at times of high vandalism, especially if it's the same vandal persistently, but under normal circumstances the board should be accessible to anyone who needs to post here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know it would block out good IPs and new users. Oh well, it was worth mentioning :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 16, 2009 @ 20:41

well, we only know an IP is bad once it has been used to post, right? ThuranX (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaving in effect is probably good, though. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:49, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We should have a subpage to be used by non-autoconfirmed users when AN/I is semi-protected (as we have for AN). I'd create one, but I wonder whether people might prefer, especially in view of the community's recent inclination to prefer other noticeboards to AN/I, that we simply add a note to the header directing users unable to edit because of semi-protection to the AN non-autoconfirmed page. Joe 22:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We used to have one, and a notice directing editors to it. I have no problem with recreating it in the light of recent events; it's easily watchlisted. --Rodhullandemu 23:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that looking at the number of sections here that would be better on other noticeboards indicates that quite a few people don't read/see the header. Would an unconfirmed/IP editor see AN non-autoconfirmed page? Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, it would just transfer the vandalism problem to another page, not solve it. SoWhy 09:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Chelo61

Per a discussion on WT:VG, the consensus on roster lists were that they should be written in prose. Chelo61 completely disregards this consensus as shown here, here, here, and many more places. S/he has been warned too many times as shown here. I'm tired of reverting his edits, as he does not listen at all. A block would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Simon 22:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

They have also been warned many times about this matter and refuse to listen.--TRUCO 22:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN3 can also accomplish the same thing. It's not 3RR, but it surely is run-of-the-mill revert-warring and hence is grounds for a block. I think the talk pages have failed in this regard. MuZemike 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Block review

Okay. So I just blocked User:TipPt indefinitely, again. (I'm certainly open to having the block changed without my consent.) This is a long-time single purpose account who basically only edits circumcision and its talk page, to complain about the content of the article, without actually adding much himself lately, except to put disputed tags back on it. (This is the most recent example of TipPt trying to add content, and a reliable source is removed to do it.) User has an escalating block log, doesn't appear to listen to reasonable advice, has a problem remaining civil, and thinks everyone is out to get them.

I felt that this editor is being unhelpful and should be removed for the time being, but people may wish to suggest an adjustment of the block, or, possibly, a ban. Grandmasterka 22:56, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Indefinite is not infinite; if the editor acknowledges and addresses the issues with his editing, fine with an unblock, but so far, support this block. --Rodhullandemu 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The user ID is certainly a tipoff. Baseball Bugs 23:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that's a rather cutting remark. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 00:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh these silly jokes, is there no end in sight. Chillum 00:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"So, mein young mensh, what you vanna be ven you grow up, eh?" "I vanna be a mohel, mein papa!" "A mohel? Vhy's dat?" "'Cause a rabbi gets a salary, ja, but a mohel, he gets all da tips!" Baseball Bugs 01:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) (And somewhere, Myron Cohen is spinning in his crypt)

Oy vey, can we all stop being schmucks here? Badger Drink (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the poor Jewish accent. It's less like a New York Jew and more like a Scandinavian Jew: Ole Moses. Baseball Bugs 12:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

A sense of humour is a wonderful thing; but, there are times to joke and times not to joke: see this policy.
One condition before any unblocking might be that TipPt demonstrate the ability to respond (directly and civilly) to what has already been said in response to TipPt's posts. (involved editor) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Mouth breathing and WP:AIV

There's an anon IP vandalising mouth breathing and removing the report from WP:AIV. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

He can try this again in 31 hours. Black Kite 23:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Now 55 because i got confused about what day it was in server land. Viridae 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone else appears to be vandalising mouth breathing still. Same person, different IP? No idea. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 23:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Different continent. Semi'd the article for a day. Black Kite 23:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

There's an article on mouth breathing? Alas... Gasp! What's next, an article on silly walks? Baseball Bugs 04:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure that was a rhetorical question (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. The cultural opportunities at[REDACTED] are boundless. But we need efficiency. I'm going to propose merging Mouth Breathing with Yawning. Surely we have an article on Yawning? Baseball Bugs 12:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Yawning" would need to be a disambig page ... consider "...a sort of yawning, tingling sensation in my..." (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 14:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

User:WikiGruvakia

Does the image on User:WikiGruvakia, in comparison to the text that is there, constitute a BLP violation? Is the text a violation of GFDL, since it's a copy of Misplaced Pages text with no indication that it's copied from an article? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• From the timeline of the edits, I'm tempted to assume it was a good-faith exercise in copying wikitext and markup and inserting images. Since the editor hasn't been seen since January 17 though, I've blanked the page. Black Kite 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Indexsales

Indexsales (talk · contribs) can an admin take a look at this and fix as necessary? DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sanity check

I don't come across this situation very often, so I'd like a sanity check on how I handled this.

Doorshair1 (talk · contribs) has been very busy today creating pages lauding a Runescape player, presumably him/herself. After a final warning, Skeniwe (talk · contribs) creates an account and posts the exact same page. After a final warning to Skeniwe, Serwe (talk · contribs) creates an account and reposts the same page. I've indefed all three as sock/meat puppet vandals, as opening a sockpuppet investigation seemed like a waste of time, especially given that another few dozen accounts and pages would get created before I even filled out the forms.

Constructive comments?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

bang on with the handling. Viridae 00:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

This is about the bajillionth time I've seen a Runescape player create a page about themselves. It's odd. But yeah, you done well. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape is hugely popular, free for as long as you want and not noted for having a mature player-base. It's not surprising that bunches of youngsters with a severe lack of clue appear and spray WP with irrelevant RS-related guff. He or she will wander off to post a video of their character on youtube, typing in some song lyrics and activating the dance emote over and over... RBI seems appropriate. Someoneanother 02:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that many people were here years ago when we had something like two dozen articles on various RuneScape pieces. The amount of spam, virus attempts, and just general cruft was incredible. It may have been one of the major impetus for our current fiction guidelines, as I remember even the Star Wars universe was more under control at that point. I mean, see all the redirects to RuneScape to get an idea (all mergers). It was crazy then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Always nice to know when you're on the right track. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of User:ChristianMan16 (3rd)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved – Discussion closed per subject's request. –xeno (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Previous discussions: 1st, 2nd (posted by Dylan620 below; copied here for convenience) — Gavia immer (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Per WP:BOLD, WP:AGF, and an e-mail I just got from User:Kalajan, I would like to propose formally lifting the existing indefinite community ban on ChristianMan16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He does very good work on the Simple English Misplaced Pages, where he is a hard worker who actively participates in community discussions, works on general cleanup, the founder of this, and has a good amount of edits in the "article," "user talk," and "wikipedia" spaces . I'm an admirer of his work at SEWP, and when I first found out he was banned here, I was shocked. Not only does he do good work at SEWP, but also at Commons and the Simple English Wikiquote. But what may possibly be the biggest reason I would like to welcome him back to here is this – a well-written apology regarding his community ban here. CM16 has successfully proven to me that he has matured enough to be a responsible contributor here, and I'm hoping you all think the same thing. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 00:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I recall that this has been proposed at this board at least once before. Can you post a link to that discussion and a summary of its outcome, please? If the (3rd) in the section title indicates that this is the third proposal, I'd appreciate a link to both prior discussions. Avruch 01:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I'm about to take a shower, so it'll be a bit delayed... but I'll do what I can. And yes, the (3rd) in the section title indicates that this is the third proposal to unblock CM16. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) opppose The ban removal seems self-serving to me. He wants to be unbanned because it eats him up. I see very little in there about what he's going to do for enWP and more about what the unban will do for him. Frankly its not overly convincing of why on the third proposal this should be granted.--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Apparently this was only 2 weeks ago --Crossmr (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose IF only to try and prevent Simple becoming even more of a dumping ground for users who are childish time-wasters here to go and convince others to help them return here after a ban. This is the user who, on Simple, begged every established user to help him write the above linked apology! GTD 01:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Hi GTD, we all know your opinion on Simple. Can you please provide diffs of this? Hating Simple is not a reason. Sam 01:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Sure - I'd just point to his begging note here (which is a re-add after being removed, then removed again, then re-added...) And it's perhaps worth noting the community over there is far, far smaller than here and easier to, erm, pull the wool over the eyes of. I would assume good faith, but in the case of a sockpuppeteer and time-waster, at least on this project, asking for an unban, perhaps assuming bad faith is safer? GTD 01:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) No, he is asking politely where this can be posted so people on EN can see it, not asking "all of the contributors to write it". You really need to learn not to twist words around. Assuming bad faith is safer? Am I hearing this correctly? Look at how many people have turned their careers around by someone assuming good faith. I think that you just have something in for Simple and have resorted to the low of trying to tarnish their good-faith editors. Sam 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) After spot-checking over the past month's contributions, I'd support this--depending on what the last discussion said. It looks like he's learned his lesson, and if he continues to edit on WP like he has on Simple, he'll be a great addition to the project.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Just found this edit: not damning, but not encouraging either.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) So what is the problem exactly? Simon He responded to "don't break the interface" with ILIKEIT.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Weak Support I've worked with CM16 on Simple. There are a couple maturity-related issues, but I think a good mentor would take care of that. Sam 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Support - I have worked with ChristianMan on Simple for some time now,and I have been watching for signs of improvement. I have seen archives on the old Hornetman discussions, and when I compare now and then, I have seen only improvement. Sure, CM1 might cause some minor drama, but he doesn't freak out anymore. No socks anymore. I believe that ChristianMan has really grown. Simon 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Conditional weak support - I think CM16 has matured a lot since his shenanigans of 2007, and he seems to have curbed his ... 'zeal' ... to a certain extent. I've no issues if he's unblocked and admins can feel free to overturn my block if consensus indicates. However, I'd 1) like to see a "sane" mentor appointed first for the guy for at least three months, 2) please run this request by the members of Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Professional wrestling, too, as they've been most affected by his behaviour in the past, 3) leave Deskana and Daniel a note to weigh in, as they were involved last time. In short, I'm cool with a conditional unblock, with mentoring. Please, though, no garish, OTT userpages! - Alison 01:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Alison, I value your opinion, I really do, but to tie in your "matured a lot" with "Please, though, no garish, OTT userpages!" - erm...question of opinion, I guess!!! GTD 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Trust me when I say, GTD, that it's been a lot worse than that!!! That's streets away from the mayhem that it used to be. It's all relative ^_^ - Alison 01:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Weak Support - I feel that Hornet (or Christian) has matured since '07 and has learned from his mistakes, if he didn't he would have gone and done the same thing at the Simple English Misplaced Pages. I'm still a bit skeptic, but I think he means good this time.--TRUCO 01:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Whatever. I'm a lot better with CheckUser than I was then, so if he starts sockpuppeteering then he'll definitely not get away with it for long. I'd hardly support an unban, but I won't oppose it. I've got to say, I'm really not interested in any apology he might be writing to try to work his way into my good books. He wasted his time writing that, as far as I'm concerned. So... whatever... --Deskana (talk) 01:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Comment If ChristianMan16 needs a mentor, I would gladly step up. I have worked with ChristianMan16 on the Simple English Misplaced Pages, and I feel that I can help him get re-integrated into the community if he is unbanned and agrees to mentorship. Sam 01:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Wait a bloody second. "Based on an email from User:Kalajan"??? Then, unless someone can explain on-wiki how those two are connected, I would say absolutely not. Kalajan has been at the center of some seriously stupid, time-consuming antics, wasting hours of my time, User:Chrislk02's time, User:SimonKSK's time, and a couple of others too. Based on an annoying email he sent me a few days ago, he has some kind of real world tie to User:Sinofdreams, who's up to like 20-30 socks. Kalajan used to be User:Steelerfan-94's mentoree, and sure enough, his name pops up in Hornetman's Simple English apology (linked above). No, there's just too buch bullshit going one with this whole little group of editors; my WP:ABF BS detector says all of these career sockpuppeteers are the same person, or a little clique of time wasting meatpuppets. And because Hornetman is banned, it's up to him, or his apologists, to explain how he's related to Kalajan, and why in hell we should do anything that a proven troublemaker suggests. Dylan, please explain some context of why Kalajan was the one who emailed you. Unless some really good, well thought out story gets presented, I say keep banned, keep blocking his/their socks, and stop listening to anything Kalajan has said. He's wasting your time. --barneca (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Reply - I don't believe that they are the same user. Kalajan whines a lot, and Sinofdreams exists to harass me. Whil CM16 can be whiny, he can't beat Kalajan. Simon 02:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Whoa! I turn my back on ANI for 2 seconds, and when I get back, THIS is what my thread becomes? <sniff> They grow up so fast! <sheds a small tear> Also, to reply to Barneca's concern, Kalajan e-mailed me saying that he has been impressed with CM16's antics. I appreciated his input, which was the last (albeit not the biggest) thing that drove me to propose unblocking. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 02:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC) "He has been impressed with CM16's antics"?? Please, please tell me that's a misquote. --barneca (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Well, I meant he was impressed with his work there. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 11:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I don't believe he's grown up at all. He lost rollback on Simple recently for misusing it. I haven't been pleased at all with his behaviour on Simple. Majorly talk 02:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I was talking about this thread. And yes, while that loss of rollback was recent, he's still certainly improved from his 2007 shenanigans. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 02:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) He has lost rollback twice in the past three months...? Viridae 02:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Previous unblock proposals - 1st, 2nd. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 02:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose still too much trouble than he is worth,[REDACTED] is not therapy. Still lacks maturity as evinced by that apology and other behaviour on simpleWP. Viridae 02:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oh and just to add to the load, the userpage on simple is still Myspacey (combined with other factors that further indicates a lack of maturity), even if it is in collapsed sections. Viridae 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) No - we've been down this road before and nothing good is going to come from it. He does not have the requisite maturity. --B (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose - I've scanned Simple a few times. I simple do not think that CM has the right temperament for the English Misplaced Pages. Please keep him off this wiki. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 03:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) No. Not worth wasting our time. As Barneca said above, the involvement of Kalajan and his, ummmm... questionable judgement, is in and of itself enough to give pause, let alone all the other issues. //roux   03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) No. Synergy 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose - Unfortunately, from what I've seen on Simple, CM16 has hardly improved with regards to immaturity. –Juliancolton 04:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Good gracious, please, no. Daniel (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Likelier than not that the net effect on the project of his presence should be negative, so no. Joe 07:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Why not? I do not see the fuss about it. If he behaves, good for us, if not, we can easily get rid of him again. Just place him under strict probation and if he misbehaves, block him again. There is no way this could do any major harm but there might be a slight chance it benefits us. SoWhy 09:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Why not? Why not let Gwarp back in..how long has it been? We can block him again easy right? Because he burned through all the chances before and his behaviour elsewhere doesn't show a significant enough improvement over the behaviour he showed here, not to mention his reasons for unban are wholly self-serving.--Crossmr (talk) 09:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Weird comparision you make there. Grawp comes back every few day to continue his confused vandalism-spree. There is plenty of proof he did not learn anything from it. Can you point out similar, recent behavior by CM16 here? Because otherwise your position essentially is: After all that happened we can never ever ever unban this user no matter how much time passes and how much he might behave elsewhere. I know, I might be wrong about him, but I'm willing to take this chance as I think (see above) that the risk we take is minimal at best. I think even if we decided to unban him, dozens of admins will watch him closely with the finger on the block-button. SoWhy 10:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Sure. Just read this discussion. As someone pointed out he's lost rollback twice in the last 3 months on simple[REDACTED] for abusing it. I put a link above where just 2 weeks ago he tried to proxy some content on to EnWP. That is a pretty clear indication that he isn't interested in working within the guidelines that are laid out before him. Those are all pretty recent, unless you want to define recent in the last 5 minutes, at which point I might point to his reply linked below in his not understanding what more we want him to do. As I pointed out the apology seems wholly self-serving and not remotely in the interest of EnWP and only in his interest of removing the ban which is apparently "eating at him". He barely mentions contributing in a positive manner to the encyclopedia.--Crossmr (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose. Are we going to do this every few months? Also, these edits (except the last one) were all made right after the previous unban request. He used the good old "it was my brother" excuse to explain that away. Yeah wow, he's so mature now, let's invite him back. FWIW, he hasn't returned after October to edit here anonymously or with a sock to my knowledge, but it's still been only 4 months. Not yet. Oh, and a recommendation from User:Kalajan is worth absolutely nothing.--Atlan (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Notice - After I notified CM16 @ simple regarding his unblock proposal here, this was his reply. Maybe it should be looked into? --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 11:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Okay, so this unban request wasn't done at his request? What's the point of all this then?--Atlan (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Oppose. If the user himself isn't interested, then drop it. Baseball Bugs 12:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Proposed addendum Shapiros10 (talk · contribs) said he would be willing to be CM16's mentor. So, if CM16 agrees, I propose that Shapiros10 is assigned to be his mentor in the event he is unblocked. I'll notify CM16 at SEWP. --Dylan620 Hark unto me · Ping me @ 11:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I don't think Shapiros10 would be a suitable mentor here.--Atlan (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) No mentor is suitable, Sharipos10 especially. He should not be unbanned at all, with or without a mentor. Daniel (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) This is going down in flames, but have you even looked at my recent contributions or are you just remembering my name off the top of your head from past incidents? Sam (Shapiros10) 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I'd prefer someone more experienced than you. As far as I can see, you have never mentored anyone and now you want to mentor a banned user? And yes, I remember you from past incidents, which affects my judgement, truth be told.--Atlan (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Request for closure The user in question claims that it is getting "so heartbreaking" and apparently wishes to forget about the incident (please see his user talk header on simple). It has also been observed that the proposer did not talk to CM16 about it and only notified him after the proposal was created. Even another user has expressed his astonishment over this. In the interests of CM16 and Dylan, I request for this proposal to be closed. Continuing this won't benefit either person. Chenzw  Talk  13:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Block-evading sockpuppet

Keldino1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims to be the indef-blocked Keldino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and is currently vandalizing pages. Fire at will. --Dynaflow babble 01:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably could have posted on WP:AIV, but he's gone now . -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Could someone block this troll already?

65.32.128.178, . He appears to be a neo nazi who first made a series of disruptive edits to Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II and after that page was semi protected (which was made necessary by his editing) he started trolling the talk page. He occasionally makes a non-trolling comment (even a broken clock...) but the purpose of his presence is mostly to try and get people riled up.radek (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

"Floridian neo-nazis...I hate Floridian neo-nazis..." HalfShadow 05:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's right, Jake. They couldn't take the Illinois winters anymore. And they're probably wearing Nazi-issue shorts, too. I tell ya, they just don't make Nazis like they used to. Baseball Bugs 06:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer my neo-Nazi's to be flourinated and not Floridian. They're better for my teeth that way. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Nein, nein. It's a Commie plot, to sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids. Baseball Bugs 12:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

JzG edit warring on Martin Fleischmann

No violation of the 3RR has taken place. JzG hasn't used admin tools. This is a content dispute. File an article RFC if you want help with establishing a consensus on this point but admins don't dictate content decisions so this board has no locus here. Spartaz 19:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. 21:47, 16 February 2009, I warned User:JzG for edit warring on Martin Fleischmann, with the following: With today's edit, you removed material from Martin Fleischmann that you previously removed with 18 December 2008, and then, after User:Enric Naval, with considerable trouble, was successful with a whitelisting request at , you continued with 7 February 2009, and 9 February 2009. This is in violation of WP:EDITWAR. Please stop. I would prefer that you would agree to stop than to take this to a noticeboard. And, please, no threats like . If I've done something improper, ask me to stop, with specifics, or take the problem to a noticeboard or other process. Thanks. 22:09, 16 February 2009 JzG responded. (permanent link to full discussion). 22:12, 16 February 2009, JzG again removed the citation. This was his fifth removal of that source from the article. 23:05, 16 February 2009, JzG deleted the warning, with the edit summary, February, 2009: Go away, you are beiong tiresome. (Since I prefer to respect this, would someone please notify him of this report?) The issue I'm bringing here is very simple. JzG is edit warring to assert his position on the use of this source. He has long removed any citations of lenr-canr.org-hosted documents from Cold fusion, citing "fringe," "copyright violation" (without evidence), and "POV-pushing." He unilaterally blacklisted lenr-canr.org, and when that was questioned here, he went to meta and succeeded in getting that globally blacklisted; I've been looking into that situation for a month, see User:Abd/JzG, compiled for the RfAr he filed in a related action. The edits diff'd above represent the most recent examples of a dedicated and maintained aggressive pushing of a content position, and it may require community restraint. The source is not the issue, that can and should be resolved at article talk or with standard WP:DR. Edit warring is the issue. Because I have reason to believe that general consensus, so far, has been that the source is usable, I have reverted him once before and once tonight, but I do not intend to continue that. BLP arguments may also be raised. The source is autobiographical, published as conference proceedings by a university in China, it is the subject of our article writing about the history of his research into Cold fusion. --Abd (talk) 05:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) JzG notified. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) If the source is an acedemic conference proceeding, why cannot it be cited directly, without having a link? If there is a problem with the hosting website, just bypass it. There is no rule that cites have to be online, and i haven't read anyone suggesting the proceeding doesn't exist or has been misconstrued. If the problem is the proceeding itself, which of you has taken this to the Reliable sources noticeboard? Shouldn't that be the first step if an editor contests the reliability of a source? There isn't a second R in WP:BRD. The is not a wiki-wide ban on conference proceedings as RSs, is there?Yobmod (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) This is a frivolous and vexatious complaint. I have removed one link to a blacklisted kook website on the basis that it is not a published peer-reviewed paper but a paper presented at a fringe conference; I have stated on the article's talk page that I dispute its inclusion per WP:UNDUE and would like to see independent evidence that the paper is independently considered to be significant. It was WP:BOLDly added, I WP:BRD reverted it, discussion is started on the talk page. The problems with cold fusion are evident fomr the evidence and workshop pages of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. Abd's rather strident crusade on behalf of Jed Rothwell, now topic banned from this area, seems to me to be disruptive. Enric Naval is focusing on content and we are discussing things perfectly calmly, Abd is focusing largely on asserted bad faith and personalising the dispute. This is simply not helpful in this highly contentious area of content. Given that Abd has been beating the lenr-canr drum at numerous venues, I am minded to ask for a restriction preventing him from continuing to pursue his esoteric views of content and blacklisting policy, WP:CANVASSing, WP:FORUMSHOPping, WP:ABF and refusal to accept WP:CONsensus when it goes against him, in the specific areas of external links in general and cold fusion in particular. Note his outspoken opposition to the topic-ban on Jed Rothwell, which ArbCom considered so obvious as to raise serious concern as to whether it was worth bothering them about it. Like I said, he is being tiresome. As an aside, having accused me of edit-warring, Abd then went and restored the disputed content. He forgot to mention that, didn't he? If I am edit-warring, then so is he! Sauce for the goose. It is my view, based on long experience, that WP:BRD implies that disputed content should be removed to talk until consensus forms for inclusion. The WP:ONUS is on those who propose disputed content to achieve consensus and demonstrate that policy is met - anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter How many times have we seen POV-pushers loudly howling that because something has some kind of source it is somehow sacrosanct? So here I am discussing with Enric on Talk whether this content violates WP:UNDUE, part of a core foundational policy. As far as I am concerned this is a good-faith debate between Enric and myself, with Abd playing the part of the peanut gallery. Guy (Help!) 09:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Guy (Help!) 08:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Ah, the density of warped evidence! I have removed one link... He's removed many. This is just the most recent. On the basis that... He has invented many arguments. Each one has some cogency, but at a certain point, it's wikilawyering and rationalization. He takes it out with one argument, he's reverted with an explanation, so he takes it out with a new argument. 'WP:BOLDly added... No. It was carefully and cautiously added, having been discussed in some detail on the whitelist page. Even if JzG were not aware of that discussion, he'd have known from the fact that the site he blacklisted was back in the link. I WP:BRD reverted it... No, he was not following WP:BRD. If he were, he'd have stuck to discussion after he was reverted, until some broader consensus was obtained. Rothwell... Don't get me started. User:Abd/JzG. Irrelevant. He usually tosses in Pcarbonn, he's showing some restraint. asserted bad faith... Eh? Where? beating the lenr-canr drum.... I know how to challenge the blacklisting, and it begins with whitelisting a single reference. If a single reference can't be used, it's far more difficult to reverse a blacklisting than if at least one use is shown. personalizing the dispute... Eh? Which reads more impersonally, my report here, or JzG's reply? I'd rest my case, except that he went on. refusal to accept consensus... Eh? Where? Following dispute resolution process is the reverse of refusal to accept consensus. ArbComm considered so obvious... ArbComm refused to consider the request that JzG filed, and for very good reasons. As part of that discussion, JzG was censured by some editors for use of admin tools while involved, but no consensus existed except to reject the request. Specifically, they did not confirm the topic ban, and that was explicit. And this was one more irrelevancy asserted by JzG. Core foundational policy...' Discussion is appropriate, no matter how wrong-headed, sure. But the assertion in this particular case is preposterous. And the usability of this source is not the issue here, the issue here is edit warring. tiresome... relevant? If he is being harassed, he knows what to do! Hint: it would start with a warning on my Talk page. Did I miss one? sauce for the goose... What's the default, what stands while discussion takes place? Typically, prior content. The particular source here was inserted by a regular editor, not a "POV pusher," and, in fact, a critic of Jed Rothwell, as I recall, and it stood for months before JzG removed it and blacklisted. That's one. User:Enric Naval requested the whitelisting specifically for this article. Beetstra approved it, then when JzG reverted, I joined the consensus. Roughly, that's four to one, plus assumed consent. Naval asserted the content three times, I asserted it twice, JzG removed it five times. One goose has a lot more sauce on it. No other editor has supported JzG's removal of this source, specifically, in this context. peanut gallery... I supported the whitelist request and would have made it myself had Enric not done so. Peanut gallery is a reference to a program I watched on a tiny black-and-white screen as a child. It refers to children kibbitzing, and has come to refer to people of no importance opining on issues they don't understand. Perhaps. We'll see. --Abd (talk) 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Edit conflict. I agree it is not what i would call an edit war, my comment was to all involved: If people dispute a source, someone should ask at the less combatative RS noticeboard first. Readding a disputed source just escalates problems, when there are specific places to discuss these things. ANI does not seem the best place for this, imo.Yobmod (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Yobmod, thanks for your comment. It isn't "people" disputing a source, it is one editor, over a long period of time, deciding that a certain website is verboten and removing sources using links to it. See User:Abd/JzG for examples. But the sources kept coming back, and JzG above makes numerous misleading statements about it. It isn't just a removal of one reference, it's many. It isn't just "fringe POV pushers" adding the source, its experienced editors. Finally, he figured how to remove the source and keep it removed; he went to Cold fusion and Martin Fleischmann and removed references again, then went to the blacklist and blacklisted them. There was no linkspamming, though he claimed it with references to Talk page posts that were signed by Jed Rothwell, editing as IP, and giving his title: "Librarian, lenr-canr.org." Not links. Blacklisting doesn't prevent that "linkspamming," all it did was make it impossible to revert his edits. So User:Enric Naval, not a POV-pusher, requested whitelisting of several references to papers hosted at lenr-canr.org. (Lenr-canr.org is not the source, it's merely a place where the otherwise very difficult-to-obtain paper may be read, having obtained permission from author and publisher.) One was granted by User:Beetstra on the basis that the site was usable for that purpose. So Eric added the source to Martin Fleischmann and JzG reverted it. At this point there was, in favor of allowing that specific source in that specific article, a general prior consensus from prior work, plus Beetstra on the usability, plus Enric Naval, plus I reverted him and explained in Talk -- he didn't explain his revert, even though it was repetitious, and he must have known his revert would be contentious, until he was reverted. So it was him against a general prior consensus, then three additional editors. When he'd reached a total of four removals, I warned him. He blew it off and immediately reverted again. I'm quite sure that if I'd done this, I'd be blocked within minutes. No, I considered carefully. This was the place. I'll say it again. The issue here is not the source, it is edit warring to maintain a content position. I could have gone to WP:AN/3RR which is also about edit warring, I considered that, but there is a tendency there to only consider 3RR violations, and because JzG is an administrator, I thought broader attention would be appropriate. --Abd (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) If JzG is correct that his actions were proper, with regard to the manner in which he asserted his position, then he should be sustained. If he is not, the community should tell him so. Whether the source is fringe or not, reliable or not, isn't the issue. Copyright violation, if the claim weren't preposterous, would justify it, but I've asked about that, if this were an RfC I'd put in the link, several admins have confirmed that copyright violation at lenr-canr.org isn't likely. --Abd (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Guy, this complaint may be vexatious to you (and it should have gone to a different forum), but it's clearly not frivolous. I am getting the impression that you are unable to make a distinction between people like Immanuel Velikovsky on the one hand, and respected scientists whose research (mis)led them to make controversial claims, upholding them much longer than most of their colleagues consider reasonable. The fact that he is a Fellow of the Royal Society, and that what you call the proceedings of a fringe conference was published by Tsinghua University Press (see Tsinghua University) should really tell you that Fleischmann and cold fusion are neither black nor white, but grey. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Abd, you keep saying this is "one editor" and making it out that I am the one crusading, but the evidence and workshop pages of the cold fusion arbitration clearly show that this is not the case, as does you failure to gain traction at the blacklists. When a site is blacklisted, removal of links is normal and uncontentious. The only people who are supporting large-scale linking to this site seem to me to be Jed Rothwell (now topic-banne,d which you also opposed, and consensus was once again clearly against you), and you. It's a kook website that has been abused for years to advance a fringe POV on Misplaced Pages. All the material cited to there which was worth having, can be cited using {{doi}} with absolutely no loss of utility. You have been beating this drunm for a long time with virtually no support. Please let me know the timeline for you giving upa lost cause, so I can have some idea that ther eis an end in sight, because this really is starting to piss me off now. Guy (Help!) 18:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) This report is very narrow. If JzG is allowed to broaden the discussion, sufficient distraction may be generated that the basic issue of edit warring won't be addressed. "One editor" is about one specific content decision, the inclusion (four or more editors supporting) or exclusion (one editor asserting repeatedly) of a particular reference. Not the whole web site, not whatever I supported or opposed in the past, which is all moot. As to being "pissed off," well, on JzG's Talk page is a notice at the top: If you are going to be a dick, please be a giant dick, so we can ban you quickly and save time. Thank you so much. What I've seen with admins who have burned out is that the behavior becomes more and more outrageous, but is tolerated because the admin has been so useful in the past, and has helped a lot of people. JzG helped me. I was disposed to think his actions justified, myself. This continues until it gets so bad that finally the community wakes up and the matter rises up to ArbComm, which asserts the obvious policy. That's why I'm asking a very simple question here about edit warring. If it is addressed here, perhaps JzG would take the hint and stop his egregious behavior. Perhaps his usefulness to the project, which is not denied, can continue. But if not, if the community looks away because it doesn't want to tolerate a little TL, if it just wants to make snap judgments and support old friends, regardless, well, it won't be good for the project and a lot more damage and disruption will take place before it stops. I really must stop now. Bye for the day. --Abd (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) JzG reverted again, his sixth removal of that reference from the article. Should we MfD WP:EDITWAR? --Abd (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Who's edit-warring by adding an inappropriate source those six times? THF (talk) 13:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Yup, takes 2 to edit war. If the current reverts are the dispute, then it is not even a sourcing dispute no, just a content dispute? The paper being removed isn't being cited, the cite template is just used for formatting? I would not put conference proceedings in my list of publications, as i don't consider them important, for what that's worth.Yobmod (talk) 14:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC) If there are only two editors involved, yes, it takes two to edit war. However, it is less clear when there are more editors involved. Here, there is only one editor removing. Adding is, in this case, by three editors: User:Petri Krohn (one insertion), Enric Naval, (three insertions), User:Abd (myself) (two insertions), and then there is JzG six removals. And, again, please, this report is about edit warring, not about whether or not the source is usable. At the moment, JzG's last revert stands. I do not edit war, and particularly, I don't revert on my own opinion after the matter has been brought to a wider forum. If it depends on me, it's wrong. JzG apparently doesn't subscribe to this view, hence he continued to revert after warning, and again after this was brought here. He is directly challenging the community on the matter of edit warring, and without consensus. Absolutely, I know what would happen to an ordinary editor who does this, the way JzG has done it. So does JzG have some Get Out of Jail Free card? I was warned that he might. Does he? The only relevant issue here is edit warring to maintain a content position, AN/I is absolutely not the place to resolve a content issue except for emergencies. Based on continued tendentious argument and edit warring, I will now ask for a particular result: JzG should be short-blocked, not more than 24 hours and possibly less, having continued to edit war after warning, and he should be topic banned (and use of admin tools prohibited) with anything to do with Cold fusion, pending further process or a successful appeal by JzG. --Abd (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Speaking of tendentious. I'd suggest instead that you not try to use administrative channels to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. As you seem awfully fond of arguing at length, because you could aim those energies instead on the talk page of the article. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I have not asked for anyone to revert JzG or for confirmation that the source is usable. This report is not about content, it is about editor behavior. It is not an attempt to assert a content position, at all, and, from the beginning, I've claimed that content is not the issue. I will not revert JzG's edit until and unless a consensus appears, and, even then, I shouldn't be the one to determine the consensus. Please address the behavioral issue, not the content issue. Assume JzG is right about the content. (Except don't assume copyvio or BLP violation, which would create exceptions). May JzG use edit warring, i.e., repeated assertion of content, knowing his edits are opposed, to maintain his preferred version? If so, then please so conclude so I can revise my understanding of the policies. If not, then please, if you are an uninvolved administrator, come to some conclusion and protect the project. If any uninvolved admin considers me disruptive, I would take a warning on my Talk page as a desist order, blocking me would not be necessary. Maybe I could then get some Recent Changes patrolling done, it's more fun and less stressful. --Abd (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) (ec) Agree with CalendarWatcher. I don't see any bad-faith edits or tendentious argument by JzG here. It would certainly be preferable if there were more editors keeping an eye on that page to prevent fringe theories from seeping in, and both sides should have resorted to WP:DR, but six reverts in three months does not call for a topic ban. Per Misplaced Pages:EDITWAR#Dealing_with_edit_warring, take it to RSN or NPOVN. If JzG (or Abd) does not comply with the resulting consensus, then there is a problem. The complaint here is disruptive and unripe. And see also WP:TLDR. THF (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) JzG would have been reverted earlier, but his blacklisting prevented it. I found out about the situation from a complaint on this, an editor who tried to revert. It took a long time to get a whitelisting decision, and then JzG simply made up new arguments for exclusion. Low-level edit warring (i.e., reverts below 3RR, even widely spread out) is still edit warring, and the issue here is whether or not repetitive assertion of content, knowing that one's position is isolated and opposed by multiple editors, locally, is legitimate. I've seen editors blocked who were, in fact, enforcing content policies (though that was 3RR), and those blocks were proper. The topic ban would be not simply from this one incident, but from the collection of them, as would come out in an RfC; many editors have suggested that JzG back off from this topic. And if I provide diffs and all that, it's just more tl;dr, right? --Abd (talk) This is a content dispute that hasn't gone through any dispute resolution, and as best I can tell, JzG is substantively correct on the edits. If you're looking for additional opinions, take it to RSN or NPOVN before escalating to ANI and asking for topic bans. JzG can be forgiven for not anticipating that someone would POV-push a bad source so fervently that he needed to put forward every single one of his objections the first time he deleted it. You repeatedly complain about a supposed EW violation, but Misplaced Pages:EDITWAR#Dealing_with_edit_warring says take it to RSN or NPOVN or RFCsci. So why are you here other than trying to win the content dispute by getting rid of the editor who wants to follow policy? THF (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) What THF said. Your claim that you're not asking anyone directly to oppose Guy is possibly true but irrelevant, as your stated intent is to take him completely out of the game. And yes, tl;dr appears to be your modus operandi, though whether your way of driving people spare is deliberate or merely compulsive is irrelevant also. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Quoting Guy re Abd above: "I am minded to ask for a restriction preventing him from continuing..." Abd isn't the only one playing the "win a content dispute by getting rid of the other editor" game. *Dan T.* (talk) That comment might have some merit if it weren't for the obvious fact that consensus has been against Abd every time so far, including this time, when it seems that (once again) a number of people do not support Abd's assertion of base motives where a good faith disagreement is sufficient explanation. Keep up the hounding, though, one day you'll drive me away. Maybe. Guy (Help!) 18:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC) At what point will we be asking Abd to stop using pejorative terms to charaterise my actions here, since it is clearly the case that it is not a judgement supported by anyone else? Abd has been continually asserting bad faith on my part for a long time now, right from the first discussion of blacklisting, and in every single discussion it seems to me that consensus has been soundly against him. Eventually he surely has to stop using pejorative language to describe what everybody else apparently agrees is good-faith action, whether they agree with it or not. It really is a massive waste of everyone's time. He has expended many hours and countless thousands of bytes arguing for this site and its creator, with virtually no support at all from anyone else - not least because of the way he is pursuing the dispute, which borders on hounding. It would be good to know when the WP:STICK will be either dropped or forcibly removed. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC) First of all, your accusations that Guy "made up new arguments for exclusion" is ABF and virtually a personal ttack. I don't know what "many editors" suggested Guy take a break, but if it was for any reason other than so he can get away from your tendentiousness I will be much surprised. You're making a huge stink over Guy removing, quite reasonably, some highly questionable links. Be done now; move on and do something else. KillerChihuahua 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Just in passing, the article appears to be experiencing improvements right now. This is good, thanks to those who are contributing there. Please do look over the other articles related to cold fusion, there is a lot of historical POV-pushing to be reviewed and potentially neutralised in this area. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Nice to be able to agree, mostly, with JzG, the attention I expect will do the article good. However, this is a highly contentious topic, full of pitfalls, where consensus was worked out over a long time involving many editors, so please beware of snap judgments. The particular link involved here wasn't related to "historical POV-pushing," except by JzG, who takes a very consistent "anti-fringe" position when most neutral editors recognize that the situation isn't so black and white (see a comment above to that effect). User:Pcarbonn, now topic-banned, actually took out links to allegedly fringe sites, he didn't put this one in Martin Fleischmann. (edit conflict, response to KC) I wouldn't call it ABF because it wasn't an assumption, it was an observation. I'll document it if necessary. No, the comments weren't about my tendentiousness, they were about about his. Only a beginning, other evidence can show this, but see Hans Adler's comment above. See , where admin DGG suggests a topic ban for JzG. Durova acknowledges the problem with use of tools in this area while involved. Arbitrator Risker gently implies that JzG should back off and not use tools where involved. GoRight discusses the use of tools while involved, and arbitrator Carcharoth agreed with GoRight, see Carcharoth's comments at Arbitrator views and discussion. On this page at this time there is at least one other comment, see comment by Jtrainor. Once again, this report is about edit warring. Claiming that the links were "highly questionable," against which I'd assert all the editors who put them in and others who allowed them, is moot. As I asked, assume JzG is right about the content. Then, was repetitive removal a proper way to deal with them? As I wrote, I know what would usually happen if an editor did what he did, with JzG on the other side. The editor would have been blocked, if the editor was experienced and had been warned. So, once again, does JzG have a Get Out of Jail Free card? It's looking like he may, and it will have been useful to me to have learned this. Or, on the other hand, perhaps removing the same content six times, much of it without discussion, isn't edit warring. Can I file this away and use it? So, again, thanks to all who have commented. I may be done here, unless someone has questions for me that relate to this report on edit warring. Content claims, elsewhere, please. Talk:Martin Fleischmann, or RSN, or individual Talk pages, fine. Whatever. --Abd (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Maybe he's got a Get Out Of Hell Free card? :-) *Dan T.* (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. |} Edit warring on Rodrigo Ávila Ever since Rodrigo Ávila, on a Salvadoran presidential candidate, was created, anonymous users have been adding BLP violations to the article. In addition to the mundane "he's gay" additions, there have also been many POV additions sourced to an interview he gave. The anons never edit from the same IP twice, making communication somewhat impossible. The only IP edits to the page are to add BLP violations (except for one or two to remove violations added by other IPs), but page protection until the Salvadoran election was denied at RFPP. Could an admin please protect this article, or someone else leave an eye on it? I seem to be the only person watching the page. Thanks. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Build the web Some time ago it was agreed after discussion that this guideline page WP:Build the web would be merged with two other pages at WP:MOSLINK, and this was successfully done. Now a couple of editors have (without any new discussion) begun repeatedly resurrecting the merged page and altering the changed links, and others (myself include) have reverted them. I hope we can settle this amicably, but admins might like to keep an eye on the issue in case it gets out of hand.--Kotniski (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) More eyes would be nice. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I've protected The Wrong Version of the page at whatever position it was when I protected it - I didn't even look - so that people can spend a week talking. ➲ redvers 08:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) The discussion is at WT:Build the web. --Hans Adler (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Heh... I see that a different Wrong Version was preferred and reverted to. Gotta love this place. ➲ redvers 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Yep, that was me. At least this Wrong Version is one that can be read and discussed. -- Earle Martin 12:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Someone claiming IP ownership of photo that was taken circa 1845 Yeagerm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has left a message at File talk:Margaret Taylor.gif to the effect that he or she owns the intellectual property rights to File:Margaret Taylor.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), a scan of a 160-odd-year-old photo of Zachary Taylor's wife, and that Misplaced Pages is doing him or her terrible harm by hosting it and asserting that it is in the public domain. I'm under the impression that even the most unforgiving reading of copyright law can't keep this image out of the public domain, but I'd like it if someone else could also evaluate the claim and give a second opinion. Or is this the kind of thing that should just be passed directly to OTRS? --Dynaflow babble 10:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I agree with your assessment on the copyright. However you might want to ask him for more informations on his claims that the Library of Congress asked us to remove the picture. I can't find any OTRS tickets that may fit. -- lucasbfr 10:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I believe Yeagerm is referencing this. It's a request to change the attribution, not to delete the image. --Dynaflow babble 10:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) The only thing that might warrant a safety check here is that there might conceivably be an issue about "date of creation" versus "date of publication". If this was a privately owned photograph that was never published until recently, this might mean continued protection – depending on legislation and type of document. Can't say off-hand if something like that could apply here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Dammit, the guy seems to be right. According to our Public domain article and the law it references , photographs created before 1978 but not published until after remain under the copyright of their owners until 2047 at a minimum. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I was just reading 17 U.S.C. § 303 and coming to the same conclusion, contingent on the definition of "published." Does the developing of the daguerreotype and the presumed sale/transfer from the photographer to the Taylors in the mid-1840s count as publication? Reading on... --Dynaflow babble 11:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Nope, that would presumably fall under "creation for hire" in the sense mentioned in our article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Where are IP lawyers when you need them? :P -- lucasbfr 12:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Unless it was first published after 2002: . That means anything, no matter how old, that was first published in the U.S. (with copyright notice if before March 1989) between 1978 and 2002 is copyrighted by the original creator (which may be hundreds or thousands of years ago) until the Walt Disney Company comes to an end --NE2 12:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC) If the picture was taken by an independent contractor, it wouldn't count as a work for hire (at least by current law) if a prior agreement hadn't been signed first explicitly stating that it was being done as a work for hire. Alternatively (and hypothetically), if the photographer was working directly as an "employee" of Taylor's in the mid-1840s -- which in normal circumstances would automatically make the creation a work for hire -- he would have been attached to the US Army, which would have made the photo public domain from the start. If we make the almost certain assumption that the photographer was an independent contractor, and that a written understanding of work for hire was not signed, then the photo seems like it would have been considered published upon transfer to the Taylors or whoever commissioned the thing. That means it would have entered the public domain long before 1978, and so it would continue to be public domain now. --Dynaflow babble 12:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Besides all that, check out that photo. And they called him "Old Rough and Ready"? How would you like to run into her in a dark alley? Baseball Bugs 12:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Come to think of it, as unseductive as the lady in the portrait may be, does she strike anyone else as looking a bit too bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for a woman of the 1840s who was pushing 60, in reputedly terrible health, and utterly Crushed By Life? According to this, we may or may not actually be looking at a photo of Betty Bliss, which would make dealing with this photo even more of a pain in the ass. --Dynaflow babble 12:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) If the photo were a fraud, that could cause some pain to its owner, yes? Baseball Bugs 12:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) (ec) Note that "publication" means distribution to the public. This is understood to mean that the work was at some time made available such that essentially any member of the public, if they had been in the right place, and prepared to pay whatever was the asking sum, could at the time have obtained a copy of the work for themselves. Closed distribution to a select private group (for example, distribution of Oscar statuettes to Oscar winners, handing over a photograph to those who commissioned it, etc) doesn't qualify. Jheald (talk) 12:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) There was an interesting case on this recently in Germany, where the publishers of an opera score sued an alleged infringer on the basis that (until their edition) it had never been printed, and only performed for a few weeks in the mid 1700s. The alleged infringers got off, because experts were able to establish that it was a legal tradition at the time that new opera scores were made available so that anyone who wanted to send a copyist to make a copy could do so. The court therefore decided that the score had indeed therefore been published, on the basis that anyone who at that time in the mid 1700s had wanted to secure a copy of the score for themselves could have got one. But merely putting the opera on stage would not have been enough. Jheald (talk) 12:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Quite possibly. . . . So -- who wants to wake Godwin? --Dynaflow babble 12:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Am I getting from this that the user is asserting copyright purely on the basis of having bought the physical print itself? That claim doesn't seem very reasonable at all. We could always simply eschew the issue by using this image - http://www.whitehousehistory.org/04/subs_pph/PresidentDetail.aspx?ID=12&imageID=6205 - which was published in 1903 and is unquestionably PD - but I'm not sure that I like being bullied into not using a PD photo . --B (talk) 13:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) He used it for a book, so he may have known enough to get (sole?) publication rights. If not, would it still be copyrighted by the creator, or would the fact that he published it without permission negate the effect that publication has? --NE2 14:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC) That the person has the only physical copy may not be relevant to who (if anyone) actually owns the copyright. From http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html#202: "Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object." --Dynaflow babble 14:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I know that. I'm saying that he may have gotten such an agreement transferring copyright. --NE2 15:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC) In his statement on the image talk page, he seems to be acknowledging that the copyright has expired, but claims "licensing rights". That's nice, but I know of no such thing. (I am not a lawyer.) When you physically have something, you can physically restrict access to it, but that's about it. The only way I can come up with that our use of the image might be a problem is if it constitutes tortious interference. In other words, the owner of the picture signs a contract with a website allowing them to copy it and display, provided that they take steps to prevent others from copying it. Does our use of the image, even though perfectly legal under copyright law, constitute tortious interference with that contract? I have no earthly idea and that's a question for the lawyer. --B (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Well, with his statement seemingly acknowledging that the copyright has expired, I don't think he was putting his case very well – for all I can see, that statement is simply not true. Licensing rights are copyrights. And somebody has them. If it wasn't published before 1978, there never was anything to expire. Whoever it is that owns the actual copyrights, he or some unknown heir of the original owners or whoever – one thing seems clear, it never became public domain. According to the pre-1978 laws, the clock never began to tick on those copyrights as long as the owner kept the thing at home. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I'm missing something here. According to http://www.copyright.gov/pr/pdomain.html, any unpublished work whose author died 50 years before 1978 became public domain in 1978. If a 10-year-old took a photo in 1845, they would have been 93 in 1928 and presumably dead. In 2003, the 25-year extension expired, so now any unpublished work where the author has been dead for 70 years is in the public domain. If a 10-year-old took the photo in 1845, they would have been 104 years old 70 years ago. Unless I'm really missing something here, the photo is unquestionably in the public domain and copyright is not an issue. --B (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) What you are missing is that the third paragraph explains that what is described in the second paragraph was seen as a problem, which was "fixed" by adding special rules for previously unpublished material. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC) My personal opinion is that the copyright claim is sufficiently tenuous that I am not moved to do anything directly. However, I do agree that we should encourage the user to discuss the matter with Mike Godwin who is presumably in a better position to resolve the issue. Dragons flight (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Since the file is on the commons, commons:File:Margaret_Taylor.gif, the discussion should move there. --evrik  00:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC) When it does, could someone post a link to it?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC) There is something called publication right that comes from first publication of a previously unpublished work in certain situations... but it is not recognized for first publication in the U.S. (It does happen in the UK and Germany and elsewhere, and Wikimedia being for international usewould have to follow it, plus U.S. law typically recognizing legal copyrights for new copyrights in countries following the Berne convention). The site in question the image came from is based in the U.S., so unless there's some European publisher who first published it and that site has permission from them, there's no basis to that claim. DreamGuy (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC) You are probably formally correct that there are no publication rights in the US, but you are ignoring the special rules introduced to cover the transition from the old US copyright scheme to the new one. We have been discussing them above, see links provided by Future Perfect and B. They have very similar effects similar to publication rights, making your conclusion invalid. --Hans Adler (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC) "Delicious flavor" and "vast expanses of concrete" anon active again. 98.217.99.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 76.19.57.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is not a very high profile POV warrior, but they are certainly persistent. This anon keeps adding "delicious flavor" to cigarette articles and "vast expanses of concrete" to Boston College. The top IP is currently active, while the bottom IP, which I've added for reference, was active last year. They have been made well aware that they're edits are inappropriate and disruptive over the past few years, so I suggest another block is in order.--Atlan (talk) 10:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Karmaisking Karmaisking is an exceptionally persistent, abusive banned user and sockpuppeteer. See Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Karmaiskingand Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Karmaisking. He routinely creates new accounts, abuses talk pages, including user talkpages and so on. He's engaged in off-wiki attacks on my blog, and made a range of threats. He clearly relies on exhausting the patience of editors and administrators defending against his attacks. Can I request whatever kinds of escalatory response are available in cases of this kind? JQ (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) There is nothing we can do. He is already banned here; we block his sockpuppets on sight, and revert their edits. As for the problem on your blog, that is clearly outside the scope of the project's involvement; we are not able to police the entire internet. You should be able to drop the banhammer on him on your own blog, though. Just IP block/name block him and be done with the troll. Horologium (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Editor using his talk page as an attack page User: Glkanter doesn't seem aware of how to use his talk page, using it as a kind of soapbox. Recently he has started using it as an attack page ("POS", a name he calls me, doesn't fool anyone I hope, just like him calling me earlier a "hostile mother"). In this dif he calls me garbage and is clearly taunting me by encouraging me to visit his talk page. His level of incivility was already pretty high before I joined the discussion on Talk:Monty Hall problem, but it's risen to a level where I think some administrator intervention is necessary. Glkanter doesn't seem to respect the usual norms of discourse, but he does seem to respect rules and sanctions. I ask for a stern warning to him and immediate action upon further misbehavior. Incidentally, glkanter has totally derailed the article discussion page, wasting a lot of people's times (he seems to be the only one not to understand the relevant issues, whereas everyone else is discussing expository style of the article). I think it will be useful to warn him that further irrelevant discussion is disruptive editing and not going to be tolerated. --C S (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC) At some point you may have to ask for a topic ban. That won't happen without a solid history of consensus, warnings, and disruption, and an uninvolved neutral administrators generally won't see that if they're new to the issue... so it takes some time to get there, and the editor deserves every chance to shape up. It's a featured article and I agree that the obsessive barrage of off-topic posts are disruptive. By filling the page with objections to the very premise of the article, a well-understood mathematical principle, they distract the more productive editors' efforts. Maybe you should consider an interim solution of moving all of his redundant new threads to a single place on the talk page as he posts them, under a common heading, and/or aggressively closing and archiving threads once it's clear they stand no chance of leading to an improvement to the article. If you build consensus for doing that, he may get the point. If he continues to act out you have your answer.Wikidemon (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Karthago Airlines - problematic insertion of POV Resolved – Semi-protected for 24 hours Spartaz 13:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Karthago Airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Apologies if this should be at WP:RFPP or WP:AIV - two IP's (related) and a user account keep adding what looks like something that has spilled over from the french[REDACTED] as a content dispute / quest for the truth. . I've reverted twice, but mindful of WP:3RR I'd like admin assistance please. M♠ssing Ace 12:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Thanks! M♠ssing Ace 13:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Disagreement over removal of other's comments at Talk:Public perception of George W. Bush otterathome (talk · contribs) has removed other people's comments here, reverted by LOTRrules here, reverted LOTRrules, describing edit as vandalism, again reverted by LOTRrules, reveted LOTRrules as "disruption, reverted by Calendarwatcher here, and reverts Calendar watcher in turn. Now, while he may make a weak point about the BLP concern, I think it is a weak point and that removing other people's comments should not be treated lightly. So I bring it here for discussion-- should the comment stay out or be let back in? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC) The comment should obviously stay. This user has just violated WP:3RR and continues to do so. I suggest banning him as he is edit warring. In the discussions above he accuses me of edit warring when, hypocritcally he seems to being doing the exact same thing. This user is clearly trolling and his disruptive behaviour and manipulation schemes seem very annoying most of the time. He cannot build a coherant argument even when other editors warn him. I suggest a ban for a set amount of time would cool this user off. LOTRrules Talk 16:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Keep this at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Personal_attacks_.26_COI.2C_LOTRrules.--Otterathome (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Why? It's a new discussion on you violating policies for you own end. Personally I think you should be banned for violating WP:3RR LOTRrules Talk 16:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) See Centralized discussion at Misplaced Pages:DISCUSSION#Good_practice. The was already brought up at some time before at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Personal_attacks_.26_COI.2C_LOTRrules, no reason to split.--Otterathome (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Well, as his intent was to remove BLP, it isn't a 3RR. And banning is a pretty extreme for a Good Faith editor because you disagree with him. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 16:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Clearly he meant 'blocking' and not 'banning'--though if Otterathome continues on his crusade it may come to that. And, pray tell, what is this BLP violation and where is the 'good faith'? The arguments presented by Otterathome that I've seen border on the laughable--LOTRrules is apparently evil, for, among other things, having voted to delete two particularly bad articles, one of them simply on an unremarkable video nasty--so I am utterly unwilling to take Otterathome claims at face value. He certainly seemed utterly unwilling to provide the slightest explanation to myself, though he certainly had the energy to grind out several hundred words of speciousness in an attempt to put the blocks to another editor. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) The post removed was a harmless but completely unproductive humorous complaint about George Bush, a suggestion to add a nutshell saying that people hate him. In article talk pages subject to heavy editing and frequent vandalism it's sometimes helpful to manage the talk page - moving discussions around, archiving or closing them when they're done, and yes, sometimes deleting material that is completely pointless. This is not such an article - the talk page gets about one edit a week. This edit sat on the page for two and a half months and it's safe to say that if anything useful was ever going to come of it, it would have by now. It got deleted and was deleted for a week. So conversely, if any harm came from prematurely closing the discussion the harm is done. It is silly for two (presumably) grown editors to fight over a pointless comment that adds nothing to the encyclopedia. A somewhat better approach would be to close, collapse, or archive the thread so it does not sit there forever distracting from the purpose of the talk page. But having perhaps gone overboard in removing it, there's hardly any justification to put it back over another editor's good faith belief that it is a BLP violation. What possible benefit is there to the encyclopedia of re-introducing a jab against George Bush on the talk page? Wikidemon (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) The user's talk page does show rather a lot of evidence of nonsense additions. Maybe he needs to take things a little more seriously. But only a little. Guy (Help!) 23:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) User:GTO123 Resolved – content dispute Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC) GTO123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) This user has persistently added unsourced trivia to numerous automotive articles, ignoring talk page warnings. They seem to have some sort of obsession with what year a vehicle was first designed and when the concept or pre-production models were first seen. This user seems particularly interested in mentioning the year 1992. I can list example diffs if desired, but virtually every edit by this user is of this nature. swaq 15:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Peugeot_306&diff=271356192&oldid=271226521 Wouldn't a fact like that be easy enough to look up and confirm? If you doubt its true, you could add a citation needed tag, and let him find a reference. And wouldn't the year something was first designed in, be relevant to the article? Dream Focus 16:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC) I could tag the statements or try to look up a source myself, but I don't think they are relevant to the article unless the design period was unusual (perhaps particularly long or short). Every car design is started at some point before it is released, so the fact that a car started being designed a couple years before it was released is not very special. I am not the only one who thinks this is not notable: 1, 2. swaq 18:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC) 71.64.141.62's edits of United States presidential election article This editor is deleting a lot of information, and perhaps the edits are correct, but given the history (repeated vandalism warnings about editing US presidential election articles) they may all deserve scrutiny...? http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/71.64.141.62 I brought it to the attention of administrator Icairns who suggested I post here. Шизомби (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Scrutiny is reasonable. Does anyone see anything wrong with the edits? On the face of it, they all look like improvements to the accuracy and presentation of the articles, a thankless task... Just make sure it isn't someone from the Ministry of Truth.Wikidemon (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Wittenberg University‎ copyvio problem I have been removing text from Wittenberg University‎ that is a copyvio from the source listed for the material and who I believe is a school employee has been re-adding it first as an anon-IP, and now as a new user. I have tried to explain to them the need for OTRS authorization, but they simply re-add the material. Could someone please semi-protect to prevent the continued re-addition of copyvio material. Then maybe a third party can get them to go through proper channels. Thanks. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Even with otrs authorization, text like that from a primary source is usually not overly NPOV and probably isn't appropriate for an article anyway. We don't just write things in our own words to avoid copyright problems.--Crossmr (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Actually we do just re-write things in our own words to avoid copyright problems (otherwise what we write would be OR). Copyright protects the expression (i.e. the way the information is presented with word choice, punctuation, etc. and even to some extent the themes) and not the ideas/facts (see also Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service). In this case the website does not own the facts it has on the website, as no-one owns the facts. Thus re-writing the information is the proper solution if those facts are to be included. Now simply moving words around isn't good enough, but a complete re-write with the info would suffice. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC) What Crossmr means - and he has a legitimate point - is that part of the risk of copying a primary source verbatim - even a freely-licensed one - is the risk of introducing a bias similar to the bias of the source. This was a big problem with early articles copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. Nevertheless this is a content issue that merits cleanup, rather than a copyright issue that merits blanket rewriting or deletion. Dcoetzee 23:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Crossmr's other point, about copyright was also correct. If we have (for example) 7 paragraphs of text which have been copied verbatim from somewhere, we cannot just superficially rewrite that copied text--moving a clause here and changing an adjective there--in order to avoid "copyright infringement." Someone needs to effectively wipe the slate clean and summarize those 7 paragraphs independently. But the line there is very fuzzy. One person's legitimate attempt at a summary could be seen as a trivial transformation. Protonk (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Admin on a blocking spree For the original information see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive514#User:Ghagent and User:Ghchat pages are being used for Myspacey-type chatter. I just came across 200.30.68.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has made only one possible useful contribution in February. Based on that I looked at; Crashoverride10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Lapsax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Ghagent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Irisj-k (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Iris (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Pest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) With the last two there are no contributions but the history of their talk pages is interesting. Crashoverride10 and Ghchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) were both blocked earlier by User:Earle Martin and User:Luna Santin. Based on what I see I really don't think these users are here to help Misplaced Pages and so I have blocked them all. At the same time I have redirected and full-protected their user pages and semi-protected their talk pages. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 01:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC) I've done a lot of these social-networking blocks in the past, and decided it was time to create Template:Uw-myblock :) seicer | talk | contribs 01:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC) How can you know these users won't become the writers of featured articles someday? This kind of admin abuse and stalking must stop. What has happened to WP:AGF? Gwen Gale (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards