Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:58, 19 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)

Please, help and do something

Hi,
I have also a problem with this editor on the article Palestinian refugees.
These articles are very difficult to deal.
I have not studied these issues for years to have -each month- to argue with people (one time pro-A, one time pro-B) who doesn't know wp:principles, who are not aware of the historical consensus around these articles, who come with their ideas without having really studied the topic...
Can someone just help ? Ceedjee (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, if it is to answer me to follow the normal and usual process of discussion etc, just read here :

Ceedjee (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

On s'en fout de tes jérémiades. Débrouille toi ! :-)

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)

There's a simple fix for that: try contributing to the encyclopaedia instead of spending the lion's share of your Misplaced Pages time following a small number of people around and shit-stirring. Off the wall, I know, but it might just work. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's difficult to address administrative errors, or even to simply describe what happens. If I lay out a set of diffs pointing to actions, with no judgment, I still get accused of ABF. If I describe obvious conclusions, even more so. I see the problem as systemic, not as a problem with individuals. Please, with every edit you make that tries to deal with "administrative abuse" or other problems, keep WP:AGF in mind. These are all volunteers. If they are wrecking the place, we must address that, but usually it's a mixed bag, and we need to take special care to treat our volunteers well. We need also remember that some of these "spammers" also are editing in good faith, and we should, at the same time as we put up a stiff wall against massive addition of links without consensus, welcome them and guide them to how to do what they want to do properly. Calling them spammers, blocking them for good faith edits, deleting all their stuff without regard to possible content usefulness, that is hardly welcoming, and it is unnecessary to protect the project from spam. In other words, Dan, try to see it from the blacklisters or administrative POV at the same time as you try to address problems. Seek consensus, not opposition. As you know, I'm dealing with a particular admin rather heavily recently. (It's not Hu12.) Do I think he's trying to destroy the place? No, not at all. I think he's burned out, he did tremendous work, and he's starting to do some damage, causing disruption -- may have done for some time, I have not attempted to go over his history with a fine-tooth comb, but I've been hearing noises to that effect from others. Because of all his good work in the past, there is a tendency here for editors to assume that his continued work is golden, and to defend him against anyone who points out problems. That's wiki-inertia. But I'm not attacking him, actually, I'm criticizing, or sometimes just raising the issue of, specific actions. Even done very carefully, very specifically, without ABF at all, ABF is assumed by too many, and responses are conditioned by this assumption. It's a common problem here, and I do not see this administrator, or the users defending him, as the problem. The problem is the system, and my real question, practically always, is how do we fix the system? Not should we get rid of this or that editor or not, or tie them up and gag them, those are subsidiary questions, ideally dealt with by a more functional (and more compassionate) system. It can be done, I believe, or I wouldn't even be here. Please try to be civil, avoid unnecessary generalizations and characterizations of individuals or groups. You'll still take some flack if you try to address the issues, but you may also find, as I am, more support. You warned me at the beginning of this saga with blacklisting that I'd learn to eat worms. I can understand your comment, and it wasn't exactly misplaced. But, so far, I've avoided eating worms. I've won a few and lost a few, and I have years of experience in deliberative, democratic or anarchic environments. If you get attached to results, you are dead meat. Just be civil, respect consensus even if you think it's stupid, seek common welfare, and be patient. --Abd (talk) 14:18, 18 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)

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)

It's good to have ideals. It's also good to keep expectations realistic. Baseball Bugs 20:02, 18 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)

I sent Mike Godwin an e-mail earlier today (this morning by Pacific Standard Time) asking him to look into this. --Dynaflow babble 03:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• There is now a discussion here: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Margaret Taylor.gif. --evrik  04:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Mike Godwin has e-mailed me back and says, "I don't see any compelling reason to remove the image of the work in question. If the purported owner of the work wishes to make a copyright complaint, that complaint should be directed to me ." --Dynaflow babble 00:33, 19 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)

I have of course blocked him both by name and IP at my blog. I was hoping that his IP might be stable enough to allow something similar here.JQ (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You can try forwarding it to ArbCom or some checkusers by email, I guess. We don't want to know it here, though. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 18 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)

What, no warning? Or removal of the attack calling me a piece of shit? Do I have to take some admin by the hand and push the keys on the keyboard for him/her? It wouldn't be the first time I've had to do that. Or is Friday's rather pleasant "hey, you should know you might be considered disruptive if you do more stuff like this" message supposed to be the stern warning I requested? Glkanter has been warned multiple times already there are consequences for misbehavior. Where are the consequences? --C S (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

A new talk page was added to the MHP talk page on Feb 12, 2009, called 'Arguments'. It has 29 edits, the majority on the topic of 'conditionality', which is the topic I've been challenging all along. By 'respected' editors. None of them by me. I do not think this is consitant with any description of my edits, or disagreement, as being the work (rantings!) of a troll or gadfly.

There have only been two editors on the MHP talk page to ever complain about me, or any postings I've made. Ever. Glkanter (talk) 06:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

At this point I'd support a topic ban for Glkanter. I tried the subtle approach but he doesn't seem to get it.. so it's time to try the cluebat. Friday (talk) 15:07, 18 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)

Yes, this is the problem I'm trying to address in my essay Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing. Dcoetzee 02:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a conversation among smart people trying to prove they are smart to one another. Aboutmovies is, I'm sure, aware of the points everybody is making. Still, if it's the intent of the IP contributor to release the material under a free license, they should be permitted to do so (even given assistance in doing so). We'll then be free to sort out whatever content issues might remain without the baggage of copyright. If the page has not yet been semi-protected, I'll do so right away, and leave a note on the IP's talk page. -Pete (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

First, nobody said the copyvio info being re-added was great material, as that is not relevant to whether their was an ongoing copyvio problem that needed to be fixed. Separate issues, and the quality of the material is not an issue for ANI. Only the repeated re-adding of copyvio material was, as the article needed to be protected or someone blocked to prevent it from recurring. As to quality of the copyvio material, as I said "if those facts are to be included". That is to say in my second post here, I am not in anyway advocating the inclusion of the information contained at that website, only to say that the Copyright Act and case law would not prohibit anyone from using those facts (as opposed to the websites expression of those facts). As to the point about re-writes, I shall repeat what I said before: "simply moving words around isn't good enough, but a complete re-write with the info would suffice" which means this would not be a "superficial rewrite", additionally a complete re-write would also address issues such as UNDUE and NPOV in general. But I'm done with ANI. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologise for getting off-topic - I was just discussing the general issue because I thought it was interesting. Concerns of article quality are indeed not pertinent to ANI. Dcoetzee 21:50, 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)

I'm all for directing enthusiasm to the right place, but when there are no, or few, constructive edits to content, I think a line has to be drawn. --Rodhullandemu 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)My impression is that these cases are rare, but certainly, those who use our (free) resources for social networking, setting up non-notable games pages, and the like, should be discouraged. I see the block template and will note it, but (and not only is it late here but I have also just had to rebuild my operating system, fortunately without apparently losing anything important), but is there a hierarchy of these templates or do we go straight from zero to block? --Rodhullandemu 02:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Kidding aside, after a month or so of no meaningful edits, I'd block indef pending consensus from the community that Misplaced Pages's servers and bandwidth are now open to straightforward social networking, as a way to snare and groom new editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that just isn't going to happen, because such consensus isn't gonna happen either; the flipside is that new, and tentative editors might have some idea that we are an encyclopedia, and very little else; potentially constructive editors, I think, should exhibit this understanding in their edits, however naive, e.g. by correcting spelling mistakes, or tidying up grammar, even if their edits don't fulfil WP:MOS and its project-specific subtleties. My own initial editing experience here was hard, but I managed to adapt and understand, if you will, to the way things are done. A {{welcome}} may be all very well, but many younger editors are somewhat impetuous and impervious to the finer details of policy, particularly image policies. For seasoned editors used to creating defensible, or good, if not actually featured, content, the overhead of nursing new editors may be outside their interests. We tend here to throw new editors into the deep end, and if they don't make it, discard them. That, in one sense, is regrettable; whereas there is Admin School, there is no "new editor school", as such. --Rodhullandemu 02:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My position on WP:MYSPACE blocks is somewhat different from consensus; I think they should have to go through at least two levels of warnings and be encouraged to make a productive contribution somewhere, even if it's just a spelling correction, before we consider a block, regardless of how long they've been a user without making a productive edit. After all, the biggest hurdle for a new contributor is always making their first edit, and if we can gently (or not so gently) encourage them to do that they may not have to be blocked. Dcoetzee 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's understood there are mild disagreements on how to handle these accounts. My own outlook is, a user's first few edits show a very strong likelihood as to what they have in mind: If the edits have to do with social networking, that's what they're here for. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I know this is a bit off-topic, but what's with the overly-long signature, anyway? (And what do you have against sausages?) —Travis 02:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not really an answer to your question, but the sig isn't overly-long in my opinion. By avoiding font and color changes, their sig isn't much longer than your simple-looking sig in the edit window. --Onorem♠Dil 03:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Answering the following: "Is there a hierarchy of these templates or do we go straight from zero to block?" I surmise that the current set of warning templates can apply. seicer | talk | contribs 03:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any standard escalation past {{uw-socialnetwork}}, but I'd hope that more than one warning would be issued prior to blocks being issued. Blocks seem to be handed out too quickly now. --Onorem♠Dil 12:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

To try and answer both above points, unless I've missed something, and it's quite possible I have, apart from the generalised disruption templates, there isn't a hierarchy for what might be called "non-encyclopedic use of edit-space". As for blocks being handed out too quickly, it's a matter of clue; although the word "encyclopedia" is hexasyllabic, it's not beyond rational comprehension, and I find it easy to distinguish between those editors who appreciate this, and those who don't. --Rodhullandemu 03:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If anyone feels I was a little overeager then please feel free to adjust/remove in any way.

TravisTX, the signature is stolen from Bluebottle and can be seen at The Goon Show running jokes. Why next you'll be telling me that you have no idea who the great war hero Captain Hugh Jampton is! I looked at the size of it and it appears that it's smaller than Seicer's but slightly bigger than Rodhullandemu's, the signatures that is. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 04:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I make no claims based the size of my signature; that's an epiphenomenenon of our technology; it's not a macho thing, unless I am actually female. --Rodhullandemu 04:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seicer, do you mind if I use that oh-so-nice template you created to the page of the user talk page User talk:Beautiful&Educated, used by the user Beautiful&Educated (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I myself think it would fit perfectly.— Dædαlus 05:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's freely available. For now (until I get more time), I think it is acceptable to use the standard notification templates, but reserve uw-myblock for the finale. seicer | talk | contribs 12:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Just as a quick comment, the user I blocked was Ghchat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), an apparent parallel account for Ghagent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and only after several warnings had been received and blanked. I think if warnings are ignored in that way it's an open-and-shut case. As an aside, I wonder if there are many other invisible mini-networks like this, only editing each other's user spaces? -- Earle Martin 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• That's fine, if warnings are being given and ignored. It's not something that needs a rapid-fire block, we can try to educate them, but past experience is not exactly grounds for optimism, unfortunately. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no time right now to take action, but: Rollthebones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and User:Morachnus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are another social networking case. (Special:Random/user is awesome.) -- Earle Martin 07:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Matthew Fouts

We are getting a lot of vandalism to a BLP, Matthew Fouts. The vandalism is coming from at least several IP users, many of which have numbers 137.12.x.x. Can you do something about it? Bubba73 (talk), 05:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

What's with the speedy delete template? Baseball Bugs 06:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you not think this is speediable? Looks like blatant self promotion to me, no assertion of notability. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It does at that. I tend to assume a high level of good faith where Bubba73 is concerned, though. So I've raised a question on his user talk page. Baseball Bugs 09:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bubba73 was mostly just guarding a chess-related article from vandals. Turns out the article was zapped for being not notable. All's swell. Baseball Bugs 18:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Strange move

Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina‎ has been moved over redirect without any prior discussion, or even a short notice. I left a note on the talk page of the editor, asking to undo the move and start a discussion, noting that the move would be quite controversial, and that there was a prior long discussion and understanding on the talk page that the title was correct. The editor who performed this was not active for 2 days prior to that , and has not done other edits today, which might be something to worry about, as he/she was not a regular or even an occasional editor of the article. (Possible password breach?) I restored both the article and the talk page. However, as a result the article's history is lost. Could an admin, please, restore it? (The talk page' history is ok.) Dc76\ 05:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Add: I checked the history of the article, and noticed that this editor has had exactly 4 edits, all within 1 hour of each other, 13 months ago. One of the edits was an identical move: , which was then reverted as well. But the history was not lost because it wasn't "over redirect". Very strange. At least about one thing we can make an educated guess: it is probably the same individual that did the move 13 months ago, thus it's probably not a problem with breaking into password. However, another strangeness remains: doesn't it require sysop priveleges to "move over redirect"? If yes, can a sysop have such poor judgement as not even to propose the move on the talk page, or leave a note post-factum? If no, how did he/she move the history? Dc76\ 06:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an admin, but if I recall correctly, if the redirect they moved it to only had the redirect creation in its history (or something like that), the page can be moved over it by non-admins. (I'm assuming that if the editor only has 4 edits, they're not likely an admin.) umrguy42 06:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC) struck, I misunderstood, my apologies. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. umrguy42 07:43, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The editor had 4 edits on that article. Obviously the editor had thousands of edits elsewhere. In fact, the editor's username has flashed in front of my eyes before, and I was of the rather positive impression of his/her activity on WP, hence my earlier worry about password breach. I don't know how (don't remember where) to check if an user is a sysop (but this doesn't really matter). I posted here because 1) there was this strage patern of 3 edits out of the blue with no activity for 2 days, and no other edits today, 2) I could one-click restore the talk page, but could not do the same for the article, hence I coppied it. But, copying the article is as bad a "restore" as it gets. One should always restore the history. Dc76\ 06:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've merged the histories. Nergaal has edited Romanian articles extensively, so I don't think the edits to this article are particularly out of the ordinary. A requested move can be started if there is still a need to discuss the article name. DrKiernan (talk) 13:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Do we wait for train wrecks to happen?

Or can we be preemptive? Ratttso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - seems to be a logged-in version of 71.114.8.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) If this editor returns to main / talk space it is not going to be pretty. Wikidemon (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Imo increase it to raising warning levels on the onsent (possibly 4im) and less leniency. It is not a static IP ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef. No useful contributions (plus block evading). yandman 08:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Er, are you advocating the instigation of trainwrecks (with response units already in place) to lessen the likelihood of unexpected trainwrecks to occur, with the attendant diminishment of negative issues being propogated - or have I edited the Modern Philosophy website as I intended? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Our Lady of America

Someone may want to keep an eye on this article, I am not sure that I have been able to get through to a new editor who wants to try a copyright law case here. -- The Red Pen of Doom 06:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, the questions being raised belong on the talk page, not in the article. I didn't even know there was an Our Lady of America. I did know about Our Lady of 115th Street. Baseball Bugs 07:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Please remember the 3RR Rule as you are also in violation. Take it to dispute resolution :) Dusti 07:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He's not in violation. Leonie12 is a single-purpose, vandalistic account which I have now turned over to WP:AIV to see if they'll put a stop to it. Even forgetting that, you miscounted the times. RedPen reverted only twice within 24 hours and 3 times in 26 hours. No violation. Baseball Bugs 07:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and have blocked the SPA. Theresa Knott | token threats 07:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, I didn't look at the thorough contribs... It was mainly just a note for reference and the future. But either way, good job guys :) Dusti 10:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let that be a warning to you in the future, TRPoD! Who knows what you may have been warned for if Dusti had actually looked at the contribs! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are treating it jokingly but issuing a 3 revert warning on TRPoD's talk page without even looking at the history properly isn't funny. Dusti please never do that again. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

TRPoD has asked for me to undo the block. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Poorarticleremovalist

This user is clearly an attempting to look like PoorPhotoremovalist (talk · contribs) to discredit them. PoorPhotoremovalist claims they are not the same user, and is obviausly grieved by it. The user has made the same nuisance edit to about 15 Sydney Suburb articles (e.g. ), and has blatantly attacked a couple of editors.(see edit summary) This is clearly not a legitimate account. Is there any reason not to indef block? -- Mark Chovain 08:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked the impersonator account. Theresa Knott | token threats 08:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Rashtra

As an un-autoconfirmed user, s/he is unable to complain on this page (maybe a good thing), but seems to be levelling some serious complaints which could spiral out of control without decisive action. To repeat, this is not my complaint, nor do I vouch for its integrity; I just think it might be wise to move earlier rather than later. - Jarry1250 11:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

The issues relate to perceived favouritism by admin User:Nishkid64 who supposedly ignores the racist and uncivil comments by User:Wikireader41 while blocking others talk page entry. I will advise Nishkid64 of this. I am trying to get some diffs from the editor. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Rashtra is the banned user Nangparbat. I've given a final warning to Wikireader41. If he violates WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL again, I will block him. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 20:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nishkid64 ...I knew you'd have the answers if given the chance to respond :-) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

User: Nakkimies

Could someone have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Nakkimies ? This user's just created a slew of new, non-English articles. Could they be dealt with en masse? Gonzonoir (talk) 12:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• He was spamming the text onto user talk pages too. I did ask him to stop, but he carried on, so I blocked him with a friendly note asking for an explanation of what he was doing. He does know some English, though . This might've been good faith, but unfortunately if people won't stop being disruptive after being asked politely then there is no difference between that and a bad faith disruptive account. Ah well. Black Kite 12:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Grand, thanks. A couple of the edit summaries included the word "vandaali"; my Finnish ain't that hot but it gives me a hunch about what s/he was up to :) Gonzonoir (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Darren M. Jackson

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

I feel this has gone far enough and that Diamonddannyboy and his IP needs a block to rethink his behavior.

Incivility/personal attacks: (see the edit summary in the last one)

Disruptive editing:

• Archiving active discussions on talk page: . Previously brought up at ANI here.
• Reverting the article in part or in full to an old revision after not liking what myself and another user both felt should be removed from the article:
• Misleading edit summary: 1

Those are specific issues, there's also general edit warring over content. At the core this is a content dispute but Diamonddannyboy's behavior is making it very difficult to resolve. Please take a look at the talkpage of the article to get the full picture (complete talkpage before archiving). Thanks. --aktsu  14:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

For the evidence that the IP and Diamonddannyboy is the same user, see discussion on my talkpage. Will notify both the IP and Diamonddannyboy of this discussion now. --aktsu  14:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Warnings about incivility: --aktsu  14:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

the previous ANI was left open because he apparently stopped archiving the article's talk page mid discussion, but he kept threatening to continue. now that he's started again, he's proven that he does not understand or doesn't care that he's disrupting the article Theserialcomma (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked Diamonddannyboy 48 hours and the IP one week. This editor archived an article Talk page five times without having consensus from other users to do so. See his previous block log and his record of sockpuppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User_talk:JeffJor

A sockpuppet investigation into JeffJor has developed into a clear pattern of disruptive editing, using IP addresses to make the same edits repeatedly without discussion when 5 other users have reverted the changes and called the user to reach consensus before making additional changes.

The problem is occurring at Boy or Girl paradox, where User:JeffJor made an initial contribution:

This edit and subsequent edits were reverted by me (thesoxlost (), User:Snalwibma (), User:Rick Block (), User:Noe (, and User:Versus22 ().

The disruptive edits were made by 9 different IP addresses, all from Japan (similar to the IP posts that Jeff has acknowledged making, here and here , that make edits that are similar to or exactly the same as those made by JeffJor. A full list of these edits can be found at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/JeffJor. I am not copying them here because they are ongoing; I'll add to the list at the sockpuppet investigation page as this develops.

These edits stem from a content dispute: JeffJor has some unique views about this topic that he wants expressed on the page. The problem has arisen, however, because discussion of the issues have not changed the consensus of other editors. When his view was not supported by the consensus, he began making the reversions with an IP address to force the content into the page. The edits meet the standards of disruptive editing: they are tendentious, do not satisfy WP:verifiability, not interested in consensus, rejects community input, and he is engaged in IP sockpuppetry.

I think the easiest way to solve this problem would be to simply protect the page from IP users, forcing JeffJor to use his own username to make these disruptive edits. Given that he has denied making them, he may be hesitant to do so, and may return to consensus building through discussion.

--Thesoxlost (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I checkusered based on the SPI case, and this looks like a different user than JeffJor. I'll let someone else decide if it's worth semiprotecting the article. -- lucasbfr 17:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

IP edit war on Heaven 17 and Template:Heaven 17.

There is a tit for tat revision war going on on Heaven 17 and Template:Heaven 17. I have intervened on the talk page but as editors are from various IP ranges it is not likly to be respected. Both articles could do with semi-protection at these versions

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template:Heaven_17&oldid=271582663
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Heaven_17&oldid=271582415

andi064 16:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocking a US government IP

Earlier today, 204.248.24.165 placed text on Morgan, Vermont that includes a copyright notice: for this reason, I reverted it and placed a uw-copyvio notice on the IP's talk page. However, since then, the text was restored (complete with copyright notice), so again I've reverted. I rarely deal with copyvio text issues, so I'd like advice: is it right to block after two instances of copyvios in one day? More importantly: the IP is registered to the US government's Department of Homeland Security. I've never encountered a situation before where an IP worthy of blocking was governmental; could someone who knows what to do with such a tricky situation please work with it, and leave a note on my talk page that it's been resolved? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 17:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Short answer for the IP: You need to notify the foundation, see Misplaced Pages:Blocking_IP_addresses#Sensitive_IP_addresses. Considering the low amount of editing from that IP, it shouldn't be a big issue. -- lucasbfr 17:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of sending an email to the Communications Committee and putting a note on their talk page on meta. If you block such an IP address it is a good idea to go send a note to the committee ASAP. If there are no other issues this should be marked as resolved. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, 204.*.*.* is not among the sensitive addresses listed. As such, no notification is required. It might still be a good idea, though. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the sensitive ones are the ones where we really need to make sure admins do it and so we list them explicitly on that page. There's still a general need to alert the committee for other governmental IP addresses. Am I misinterpreting things? JoshuaZ (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems sensible to alert when in doubt. A Whois doesn't make it obvious unless you pick up the D?HS code, but the template at the top of the talk page makes it clear that it's Department of Homeland Security, which seems worth treating with care. . dave souza, talk 18:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of clarification: from what I can see, 204.248.24.165 hasn't been blocked, though it was blocked for 3 hours last October. A warning was given at User talk:204.248.24.165#February 2009 and the IP made two more edits which were reverted, then stopped editing. . dave souza, talk 18:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Your tax dollars at work. After a hard day at the Department of Homeland Security, the individual seems to be continuing to post the copyrighted material from home (that's a Comcast address). --Dynaflow babble 01:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not sprotect and be done with it? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

But where's the fun in that? I'd rather get a government employee in trouble! Grandmasterka 03:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(after reading a huge and ugly notice telling me to go away) - Treat them exactly the same as any other troublesome IP. DuncanHill (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. That is the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 at work. My guess is that it's the very first of US$787 billion spent. MuZemike 04:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

given that several different ip addresses have been used, the simplest things seems to be to semiprotect the article on the town. As this is quite recent, I did this for only 7 days.I would not rule out that the ed. involved may have written the copyright material himself. & doe not understand how to donate it to us. And, FWIW, there is nothing the lease inappropriate or exceptional about the material otherwise--a summary using it as source would be suitable content. May DHS never do worse. DGG (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox and possible legal threat - admin sanity check requested

I protected Caroline Cox, Baroness Cox for long-term edit warring, giving it a three-day rest, and asked the various IPs and one user involved on their talks to talk it out on the talk page. I come back from a long AFK session to find this possible legal threat on my talk page, with CofJ (talk · contribs) accusing me of libel for having protected the article. A similar edit from him is here. He's since posted on various talk pages of other editors, saying what the lead of the article is required to be. Can we get some admins to review all this, and some Britons to weigh in on the content? Some of the edit warring includes removal of a lot of sourced content, with everyone calling everyone else a vandal for "apparent" good-faith edits. Previous AN/ANI reports on this:

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive93#Legal_threats_and_sockpuppetry
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive138#Info_deleting_vandal
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive184#User:CofJ

Long history here, it turns out. rootology (C)(T) 19:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• Looks sound to me. As it's a WP:BLP I would suggest you take advantage of the protection to comb through the various competing edits and remove anything poorly cited or contentious. I'll check OTRS for any related tickets. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

And now it appears that these are one and the same (the IP just vandalized my talk page):

• CofJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 96.231.95.250 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Note the extremely similar edit summaries, so logging out to edit war and vandalize, as well. rootology (C)(T) 19:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

There's actually a lot of logging out going on here, including logging out to edit-war and evade 3RR restrictions. It's rather self-evident from the article history - Alison 19:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't solve all of it, but I've indef-ed CofJ (talk · contribs) for legal threats after he/she vandalized Template:Editprotected and inserted the libel claim there and several other places. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to call empty "it's teh libel" claims legal threats, but it is unquestionably the case that this user's behaviour is inappropriate on a number of levels. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Legal Threats

Can someone please look at User:Lawyer33 contributions? He seems to be making legal threats in his edit summaries. • \ / (⁂) 21:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears so, but seems to have stopped when asked not to. -- zzuuzz 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

But not to have retracted them. Legal threats don't get any more clear than that. I've indefinitely blocked the account. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Heavy on the socking, too - I see User:Lawyeruniversal2 and Lawyergeffen doing the same things. The names suggest this person is at least ostensibly representing record labels; I'm going to give the latest iteration a note regarding OTRS and the proper way to report problematic errors. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Investigate before posting, Tony. A sock investigation already got the other two. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

An Admin is needed to block Greg_L

I cuddlyable3 am a relative newbie and now contribute mainly to mathematical articles. I am experiencing such mounting disruptions to editing from Greg_L that action is needed by an admin to enforce WP:POINT based on defiant incivility and admitted untruths by Greg_L. This archived WQA raised by Thunderbird2 is Closed as Stuck. That is because block sanctions that were discussed cannot be issued from WQA. I do not see that any of the editors who contributed in the WQA (excluding the two users implicated) condoned the behaviour of Greg_L. My involvement has been can be seen in the strikeouts of falsehoods that Greg_L introduced. This summary is my opinion of what needs to be done (by an admin).

Short history

I have had contact with Greg_L only since 4/5/6 November 2008 when his entries at brought in a level of combativeness unsuited to the civil way that editors on a mathematics related article normally collaborate.

I see that Greg_L is regularly cited in complaints including those arising in this 2-year debate, by Wolfkeeper and this by Omegatron last June.

Actions already tried:

A WQA from me, Reaction by Greg_L.

A 12-hour block by Ryan Postlethwaite

My message wishing for civil collaboration to which Greg_L replied acceptably on his Talk page but then quoted the message with derision ("Imagine my surprise, when I see this ‘let’s let bygones be bygones & work together in peace’-post from you..") in the WQA.

My offer to go to mediation has been deleted by Greg_L without comment.

I have notified Greg_L of this request to WP:ANI. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

While other admin opinions are needed here besides mine, I think there is insufficient evidence (here and in GregL's contributions) to even warrant a warning, let alone a block. No action necessary here. Tan | 39 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. He happily admits to uncivil sarcastic comments towards others, and happily says he won't ever change. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that leaves us in a bind as to a possible resolution, assuming we can't find some amicable (or otherwise) endpoint for this dispute. Have we just tried separating the two parties? Do they share too many common interests for this to be feasible? Does either not wish to disengage from a particular subject? More to the point, is Greg's behavior really all that bad? From those diffs and links I don't see anything too bad. Sure, he's being a jerk in that first post on his talk page about the WQA, but the next post is factual and direct. The rest of the links are him removing material on his talk page (perfectly reasonable) or past AN/I reports. So...I'm with Tan in a lot of ways here. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I admire Tan's speed reading of the whole issue in what looks like 10 minutes. I estimate that would allow a few seconds to consider the bit in the WQA where Greg_L links me to a terrorist shooter. My complaint is that false statements such as Greg_L admits making would be immediately handled under WP:BLP if I were not an editor.. FYI I am a "LP", just not yet old enough to be a notable one.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, spending ten minutes of time on this was pretty good. Most admins will agree. What did you want, an hour? Your sarcasm is noted, and further justifies my belief that you two need to just stay the hell away from each other. Tan | 39 00:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Talking shit about people who comment on your request is a sure way to get it ignored. Protonk (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

While I don't agree with the eviscerated nature of Protonk's and Tan's replies, I DO agree with the principle behind them. You asked for some assist here, and if anyone can speed read, Tan can. (Sorry Tan, I couldn't resist.) Picking apart someone's handling of your request is not a great way to engraciate yourself here. That being said, I'll hop back over to WQA now, take it away guys. Edit Centric (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Proton, quoting you: Have we just tried separating the two parties?, we are separated unless he seeks me out. I have had nothing to do with Cuddlyable3 since he filed a WQA against me last November and was told that he was responsible for precipitating the behavior about which he complained. He has apparently harbored resentment over that ever since.

  When another editor recently filed a WQA against me, Cuddlyable3, who is no stranger to the WQA process since 2.6% of his last 1000 edits are Wikiquette alerts, weighed in for a dig. When he pointed out a factual error in my rebuttal where I said he had deleted an animation, I apologized for that error publicly—in several places. He holds onto grievances and is here—again—seeking his pound of flesh. All he needs to do is stop obsessing about Greg L and get on with editing. Problem solved. I don’t specialize in math-related articles and have zero interest involving myself with anything at all do do with Cuddly, except for when he leaves yet another post on my talk page announcing that he has found yet another forum to seek revenge. Is this surprising? Note his block log, where there is this explanation for a block: “Attempting to harass other users: Continued Disruptive editing despite warnings and opposing consensus from editors and/or administrators.” Then they had to block him again when, fresh off that block, he picked right back up with his harassment. I’m seeing a pattern here with his inability to “let go”.

  BTW, the “A 12-hour block by Ryan Postlethwaite” is… uhm… ‘misrepresentation’ as it had absolutely nothing to do with this, and his “My message wishing for civil collaboration” that he left on my talk page was self-serving posturing and/or baiting—perhaps hoping for an uncivil response from me—since he was at that very moment busy making new calls for sanctions against me on the T‑bird WQA, which I had forgotten about and had assumed had been archived. The phrase “civil collaboration” didn’t even make any sense because he and I hadn’t edited on the same thing (just that one single article) since back in November when he was admonished for egging me on. As I stated on the T‑bird WQA, I just wish he would leave me alone. I really wish he would leave me alone. Greg L (talk) 07:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. There is one more bit of misinformation, above, that I find particularly galling and which I would like to point out: Examine the first sentence in Short history, above. What impression did he clearly try to imply? He would have you believe that … brought in a level of combativeness unsuited to the civil way that editors on a mathematics related article normally collaborate. In other words, me (the uncivilized outsider) comes to a venue frequented by peaceful mathematicians and acts like a barbarian. What posts are actually there from November on Talk:Mandelbrot set? Why, this thread, the one over which he was admonished for egging me on and that I had done nothing against policy. What did he actually link to in order to “support” his allegation? Why this, which is a post he recently put on my talk page complaining about my false recollection on the recent T‑bird WQA. There seems be a pattern of misinformation in his above allegations, and that seems very wrong to me. Greg L (talk) 07:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to be agist but

anyone besides me concerned with the content? Dlohcierekim 22:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah. The user didn't upload any of the pics; just displaying them. Harmless, AFAIC. The userpage history has some amusing edit summaries, tho. Tan | 39 22:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

He removed everything. Raiku Lucifer Samiyaza 22:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, look at the dif's. I've removed what I'm talking about. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at what Dlohcierekim removed, it looks like the issue was personal information for a minor, not the LOL Cats. Since the user has readded some information but not the problematic info, can we mark this as resolved?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If we're truly concerned about personal information of a minor (especially one under 13) then we should have the diffs oversighted.--Crossmr (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks on medical articles

MichaelCPrice (talk · contribs) seems to think that personal attacks and uncivil behavior is a valid replacement for editing according to WP:NPOV, WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. He has made the following attacks recently:

1. Calling an editor a liar
2. Calling me a liar (I won't bore you with the several other instances)
3. Calling editors irrational
4. Calling editors severely disturbed

This is just a choice few. Setting aside the personal attacks, what Mr. Price fails to embrace is that we do not give undue weight to fringe theories. And, despite a valid guideline, WP:MEDRS, he wants to include citations for either tertiary sources which are specifically excluded from medical articles to make clinical claims, and second, he wants to include articles that have been disproved, set aside, or simply invalid. But those are issues which are purely content related, and are being handled by a number of editors and admins. I am requesting block so as to reduce the fighting and build consensus, but also because he's not listening to valid advice given to him by other editors here. OrangeMarlin 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I started trying to mediate, but to no avail. A little quality time with WP:TE seems to be in order. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin (talk · contribs)'s behaviour, as an example, includes the removal of citations with an edit comment that is false; I point out the error and there is no substantive further engagement on the issue but the article is not permitted to be corrected. In another example an attempt at factual correction simply elicits a non-substantive response along with threats --Michael C. Price 01:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not all that familiar with the sources and the particular situation, but I'd say neither are acting very nicely. Michael is more out of line in his personal comments, but he contends that Orangemarlin is lying. If that is true, then it's not a personal attack -- it's a fact, and it is one worthy of attention. Also, Orangemarlin can make snide, deprecating remarks towards those he disagrees with and fly into emotional anger. I'm a little worried about even posting against him because I suspect I'll be attacked for it in the future. That was why that infamous ArbCom case arose. Note that in the 4th diff presented , Orangemarlin implicitly calls Michael a POV pusher and compares him to a creationist.

It's possible that Orangemarlin is not being truthful. At major depressive disorder, Orangemarlin cited a Cochrane review as stating the exact opposite of what it said, even after being corrected several times -- see discussion. The Cochrane systematic review, PMID 11869656, concluded that "available evidence does suggest these substances are better than placebo at alleviating depression". This was originally cited correctly, then switched by Orangemarlin to "tryptophan and 5-HTP have no effect beyond placebo" . User:Looie496 noticed OM's mistake and corrected it , but OM changed it again . Then I corrected it, and Orangemarlin again inserted the completely false language. At this point, User:Looie496 commented that User:Orangemarlin should be careful since he was under ArbCom restrictions, which he wasn't. For this, Orangemarlin called for the block of User:Looie496 at ANI (thread). Soon after, Orangemarlin removed all supportive studies from the 5-HTP page, although he stopped short of stating falsities aside from misreporting the sample size in an edit summary.

Also, note the message at the top of this page. This seems to belong more in Wikiquette alerts, and I don't think Michael should be blocked for personal attacks. II | (t - c) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ImperfectlyInformed, the issue is whether Orangemarlin has actually lied. I don't seem to be the only editor to have reached this conclusion. --Michael C. Price 01:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know at all whether he lied, but it's worth straightening out. It might be helpful for you to succinctly lay out all your evidence of a lie here so we can determine if there is one. While personal attacks, unless egregious and consistent, shouldn't really be discussed here, lying about sources could. Those are a bigger deal than personal attacks. It's difficult to distinguish between a lie and a mistake, but when a mistake is repeated over and over, I tend to think of it as intentional. It's important to bring these up to deter it from continuing. Also, can you agree to stop making attacks on Orangemarlin? Better to say "you're not correct" then "you're a liar". II | (t - c) 01:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, although either comment seem to provoke the same response :-) --Michael C. Price 01:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The point of debate is not to convince your opponents, that is often impossible. You should refrain from enflaming the situation as an attempt to keep things calm. the return will come from others, not necessarily OM. Protonk (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again, this is about MichaelCPrice's incivility. And II stay out of this. You are borderline uncivil too. I love how the anti-science crowd comes out to support each other.OrangeMarlin 02:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Note how any disagreement is labelled "anti-science". Is that civil? --Michael C. Price 03:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with important issue on Don Stewart

I've attempted to add WP:RS and been reverted based on the objections of Harvest09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is a WP:SPA interested in removing negative material from Don Stewart, a faith healer. This user misunderstands policy, and has called cited material wrong or misquoted. As pointed out by myself and another person, it is that user who misunderstands the material.

When The Daily Courier, a newspaper from Stewart's hometown, is quoted (via google news archives--"Prescott native hopes ashes will help rebuild his ministry", The Daily Courier, November 5, 1982) Harvest09 called it "an old photocopy that can be questioned." Then ironically, the user brings up WP:V in which he clearly does not understand it has to do with "verifiability, not truth." Then in another case the user accuses a living person and a religious foundation of "misquote articles like the one they claim to be using in the Dallas Morning News and as a result their reference is not a RS." It is entirely inappropriate to attempt to remove a source by claiming a living person and foundation are purposely misquoting material. It also important to note that TWO sentences in question deals with the fact that the foundation worked with Inside Edition on a national broadcast about Stewart's faith healing and finances. On a side note, the user also wants the reference to a critical story on Inside Edition removed.

There are 271 press stories from 1981-83 in google archives all backing this up the racism, riot, arson, and money. Articles in that link include "Black Church Vs. White Pentecostals", Los Angeles Times, Oct 1, 1981; "2 Die, 9 Hurt In Police, Sect Shootout," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; "Miracle Valley church members arrested as feelings run high," Kingman Daily Miner.

Furthermore, the riots from 27 years ago are so famous that recent accounts on the riots and shooting from police are published regarding a new book about the events. How a WP:SPA can block something that has a current and historical interest is why I am posting here. Can some other people take a look at this article/talk page and work on it with me? It seems no one else is willing to actually look at what's going on with this user and article. BBiiis08 (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that no one is reverting or adding ad hominem attacks - just a rather heated discussion on the talk page. I think that process should be continued, keeping in mind that reliable sources can be wrong, and if contrary information can be found in another reliable source, put both in the article or leave both out, as consensus serves. I don't see anyone trying to keep all negative information out, just questioning the details whether they appear or not in the sources. Using exact page or paragraph cites will help point people to such details, or consider whether those details really add anything to the article. Basically a content dispute that hasn't bubbled too far off course. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Please look again. This is a revert and this is a revert from two uninvolved parties in the last two days. Whereas, this is a removal of sourced information. BBiiis08 (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I think the seriousness of the paragraph removed by administrators should be very carefully worded, if it is used at all. The paragraph he wants to insert doesn't make a number of things clear. I guess we could get into it now, but it is kind of frustrating, because we had started discussing something totally different and this has become a diversion. There is so much there I haven't had time to read all the articles, but I haven't seen Stewart mentioned as a major player in these events. Sorry this has become such a bother. You can see my objections on the discussion page to the paragraph that includes events of murder, riots, a church burning, etc. We aren't getting any discussion from BBiiis08 on the article discussion page before he inserts edits. His only discussion is criticism of my concerns about WP-V, RS, and NPOV on the things he has already edited. I'm confused about what point he is trying to make about Stewart when he keeps inserting this paragraph into the article. Harvest09 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • @BBiiis - as detailed also by Carlossuarez46 - the process of discussion on the talk page is appropriate and should be continued. Arguing therefore that an editor has a Single Purpose Account (SPA) smacks a little of not assuming good faith (AGF) towards an apparently new editor because on the face of it there is nothing wrong with Harvest09 having an initial interest in this article - unless he breaches policy or perhaps COI guidelines. Given that he is discussing his concerns at length at the article talk page, and that his concerns appear important, reverting your recent edits whilst awaiting the outcome of the discussion seems the appropriate and patient thing to do. Please note both Scarian and myself have only reverted based on our administrator role (in this case of assisting the process of discussion) and certainly in my own case I have no specific interest in the article.--VS 06:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Harvest09 being a WP:SPA is completely relevant because he is writing a book on the subject/Stewart and has a vested interest-- maybe WP:COI? Just read that post about him interviewing people in the ministry for his book as well as his attempts to contact them over this article. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
    • You (Harvest09) haven't explained what line/what sources you are concerned with. You simply write exclude for "WP-V, RS, and NPOV" concerns. You haven't been specific at all. Which WP:RS? Are you doubting that a boy was killed during the rioting as referenced in James Randi's book? Do you doubt two people were killed in the above cited sources or this news article? Are you saying this article is wrong about Stewart sending out letters asking for money? You can't throw a blanket claim of "WP-V, RS, and NPOV" to get sourced material removed. You can't just say, "I doubt this newspaper's article so we can't include it."
    • Above Harvest09 wrote: "...I haven't had time to read all the articles." If you haven't read the articles then on what basis do you oppose using the newspapers as references?
    • I added my proposed addition here: Talk:Don_Stewart_(preacher)#Proposed_paragraph. BBiiis08 (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please semi-protect Hassan Nasrallah?

An anonymous editor, hopping from address to address, is repeatedly vandalizing Hassan Nasrallah. I've added it to WP:RFPP, but it does take some time for things to be addressed there. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Set for 1 week. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Yousaf465 on an Anti-India Propoganda

Yousaf465 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been on an Anti-India propoganda for sometime now.He began with complaining of too much India bias for FAs on Mainpage at time when there was 59 Indian FAs and 1 Pakistani FA. He is now on a spree to get all images that decipts Pak as terrorist hub like . His new interest is to push Anti India POV on State-sponsored terrorism (history) article. With this edit he removed everything related to Pakistan and replacing with India and Israel. His edits were repeatedly revereted by many users including YellowMonkey. YM blocked him for edit waring and POV push on the article. User:Seicer who is soft on Yousaf , unblocked him ( saying that YM didnt respond back in time) and blocked User:24.28.83.178 who had been also reverting Yousuf's POV additions. A new user Maijinsan (talk · contribs · count) came up from no-where an adding sock tag to many usernames including the above IP editor... It is evident that he himself is a sock. Seicer semi-protected the article and allowed Yousuf to continue to add Anti-India POV statements referenced to Pak dailies which cannot be considered as reliable . I dont want to "edit war" with him and request for third opinions here. -- Tinu Cherian - 05:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards