General Site directory • Editor's index • Image and media copyright • Admins' noticeboard • Incidents • General sanctions • Page protection • Page importation • Bot noticeboard Content Content noticeboard • Biographies of living persons • Ethnic and religious conflicts • Fiction • Fringe theories • Original research • Neutral point of view • Reliable sources • Copyright violations and wide-scale infringements • Spam • Proposed mergers • External links User issues User page help • New user help • Editor assistance • Help desk • Vandalism • Improper usernames • Open proxies • Sockpuppets • Oversight • Long term abuse • ISP reporting • Conflict of interest Noticeboards Edit warring & 3RR • Wikiquette alerts • Arbitration: Requests / Enforcement • Mediation: Formal / Informal • Requests for comment • Requests for feedback • Drawing board

Click here to purge this page (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)

Shortcuts: WP:AN/I WP:ANI WP:AIN Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. You must notify any user that you discuss. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} to do so. Frivolous complaints and unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion. Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page. For incidents involving the possible misuse of administrative powers, please attempt to engage in discussions with the admin before posting here.
Are you in the right place?	How to use this page
To report persistent vandalism or spamming, see administrator intervention against vandalism. To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts. To report improper deletion or request undeletion, see deletion review. To report improper usernames, see usernames for administrator attention. To request page protection, see requests for page protection. To report edit warring, see the administrators' edit warring noticeboard. To report long time edit warring/abuse, see Long term abuse. To report suspected sockpuppetry, see Sockpuppet investigations. To start a ban discussion, see the administrators' noticeboard. To request permanent deletion of dangerous personal information, see requests for oversight. DO NOT make such requests here; reports here are visible to everyone. To get assistance in resolving disputes, please see dispute resolution.	Please add new incident reports to the bottom of this page. Sign your post with "~~~~", which translates into a signature and a time stamp automatically. When moving long threads to a subpage, add a link to the subpage and sign without a timestamp: "~~~"; this prevents premature archiving. Move to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/[concise title]. Also consider adding/updating a status tag (e.g. {{unresolved}}). Lengthy posts may be placed within a toggling collapse box. Use {{subst:Collapse top}} at the top and {{subst:Collapse bottom}} at the bottom. Threads will be archived automatically after 24 hours of inactivity. If you see a thread that should not be archived yet, please add a comment requesting more discussion, or if it is already archived, remove it from the archive and restore it to this page, preferably with a comment.
Requests for Comment on User Conduct Candidate pages (user) Approved pages (user) Asgardian: It is alleged that Asgardian exerts ownership over articles, edit wars, is incivil, purposely uses incomplete edit summaries and sometimes edits from IP addresses to evade blocks. 05:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Glkanter: It is alleged that Glkanter edits tendentiously, is apparently not here to help build an encyclopedia, disruptively edits including driving away productive contributors, and treats editing as a personal battle misusing his user and user talk pages to chronicle his fight and disparage other users. 03:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC) ChildofMidnight: It is alleged that ChildofMidnight, a prolific content contributor, has repeatedly gone against the spirit and the letter of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, particularly those pertaining to civility and discussion with fellow contributors. 18:27, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Logicus 2 It is alleged that since at least 2006, Logicus has been engaged in an ongoing program of pushing his own point of view, based largely on original research, in a wide range of articles, chiefly concerned with the sciences and the history and philosophy of science. 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Gill Giller Gillerger: It is alleged that Gill Giller Gillerger does not listen to consensus and is uncooperative with other users. 09:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC) Candidate pages (admins) Rama: It is alleged that Rama is deleting images out of process, using his tools to further an unique and unsupported interpretation of fair-use policy, tendentiously tagging files for deletion over same interpretation and edit-warring. 19:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC) Approved pages (admins) Candidate pages (bots) Approved pages (bots)
What this page is not
This page is not part of our dispute resolution process for content issues.

---

Contents 1 Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar 2 Request interaction ban on Drolz09 3 Merry and Happy Christmas! 4 Disruption, POV-pushing, tag-teaming on Iraq, Mesopotamia 5 Unblocking blocked User:Breathing Dead 6 User constantly crediting themselves in photo captions 7 Hate to stir up drama, but... 7.1 Continuation 8 StevenMario and ownership issues 9 "RfC: Oppressive editing and page ownership" at Talk:Global warming 9.1 Further discussion 9.2 Back to the ANI point 10 Fight at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard 11 False information in reception section for video game articles? 12 AlyciaBellamyMediaInc 13 Emergency disruption help needed 13.1 reopened and logical way to solve it 13.2 12 hour block of disruptive editor 14 JB50000 (again) and reopening of AfD hours after I closed it 15 Star Wars Kid vs Google 16 Undo Page Move 17 Sock / spam needs investigation & stopping 18 Sock of Alex contributing from LA, much in the same vein 19 The Spammers are back 20 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination) outside opinion 21 Block-evading "Dakota Fanning" vandal 22 User Off2riorob: Bad faith 23 block evasion? 24 We have no TFP 25 Disruptive editing by IP in Subaru Sumeragi 26 Sock puppet vandalism again 27 User: BQZip01

[edit] Umpteenth edit war in Gibraltar

Entire discussion moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Gibraltar to centralize discussion and to free up space on ANI. MuZemike 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Request interaction ban on Drolz09

Entire discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Drolz09 to centralize discussion and to free up space here. MuZemike 23:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Merry and Happy Christmas!

Is there any chance of a Christmas truce on Wikipedia?—Finell 17:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Between whom? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Mission impossible. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that might be true, we could always move the Dramaout to around Christmas next year. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of us were too busy with our off-Wiki lives to notice whether a Christmas truce actually happened. Then again, some of us had really crappy Xmasses off-Wiki (in this or previous years) that a truly lame edit war would have been preferable to Real Life (tm). (In other words, Wikipedia doesn't suck as badly as it actually could suck.) -- llywrch (talk) 07:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors who are willing to help out with a Christmas / New Years truce are cordially invited to take a Mediation Cabal case or six, as there's something of a backlog at the moment. PhilKnight (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption, POV-pushing, tag-teaming on Iraq, Mesopotamia

I know it's Christmas and all, but the situation in Mesopotamia and Iraq is out of control. Two highly tendentious Iraqi ultranationalists, User:Izzedine and his tag-team buddy User:Mussav have taken it upon themselves to equate Mesopotamia with "ancient Iraq". They are resorting to edit-warring [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] to push their nationalist POV and admonish other users to get consensus for their edits, even though it is their POV that is against the consensus, as evidenced from the talkpage. They also are hypocritically dishing out warnings to other users in attempts to intimidate them [7] [8], while they themselves are just as guilty of edit-warring. Izzedine in particular, has a loooooong history of tendentious POV-pushing on Iraq and Mesopotamian articles and has been warned MANY times [9] [10] [11]. There is also a suspicion of tag-teaming, as Izzedine and Mussav burst out on the scene late on Christmas Day almost simultaneously [12] [13] and take turns reverting. At this point, page protection until the dispute is resolved would seem appropriate. --Athenean (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Athenean (talk · contribs) is calling the kettle black, as he is as much guilty of edit warring as anyone else he mentions, and he is a Greek ultranationalist who edit wars with Turks and Albanians and regularly deletes whole referenced paragraphs that he doesn't like, he's now pushing his frontier into Iraqi territory. He also threatens other editors with blocks on talk pages. Do please acquaint yourself with the talk pages and edit histories rather than taking his wild claims at face value. And a Merry Christmas! Izzedine 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Izzedine (talk · contribs) was making problematic edits on Europe and Talk:Europe a week or so ago. This blew over then, but there was evident POV-pushing as to the status of Georgia as a transcontinental country. The kind of inflammatory language he is using here seems to be par for the course. He also seems to be misrepresenting User:Athenean in an extreme and irrelevant way. Mathsci (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Check the talk pages, I engaged in much discussion and provided the highest quality references for my edits, and suffered terrible abuse from Satt 2 (talk · contribs) which I filed a Wikiquette report about here. This was weeks ago, and is unrelated. Mathsci (talk · contribs) disagreed with me at the time and agreed with Athenean, and he has now seen an opportunity to chime in with Athenean's mud-slinging. Izzedine 01:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) appealed to me on my talk page to make a comment. He was POV-pushing and refusing to read previous discussions on the talk page of Europe. No "highest quality references" were produced, just a total unwillingness to understand the term "transcontinental country" and the same kind of tendentious and misrepresenting edits that we see here. Izzedine is clearly a highly a problematic editor. Mathsci (talk) 02:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci (talk · contribs) is being dishonest and trying to insult your intelligence.

Are these not the *highest quality* references -

• National Geographic - [14]

“

Georgia is geographically in Asia—the mountains forming its northern border serve as the Europe-Asia boundary

”

• UNdata - "Western Asia"
• CIA World Factbook - "Southwestern Asia"
• Foreign and Commonwealth Office - "South-western Asia"
• Library of Congress - "Southwestern Asia"
• Intute - "Georgia is located in Southwestern Asia"
• Open Site - "Southwestern Asia"

After reading the earlier discussions on the talk page of Europe, where Mathsci had bullied and intimidated a very articulate and constructive editor Npovshark (talk · contribs), It became clear that I was wasting my time with him. Izzedine 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest Izzedine be blocked if he continues writing personal attacks on me like this. It is indisputable that his wish to remove Georgia from sections in Europe is simply POV-pushing. That he tries to insult an experienced editor like me in this way shows that he has not really understood the core principles of wikipedia. If the BBC classify Georgia as a European country (like Armenia) that is an example of ambiguity. I believe National Geographic use the same classification, despite Izzedine's cherry-picked quote and the ambiguities in the definition of the borders of Europe. The historical evolution of the borders of Europe is discussed in several books, meticulously cited in the article. Is Izzedine throwing doubts on these sources now?

The edits above by Izzedine are clueless and an abuse of WP:ANI. Izzedine was told clearly that the status of transcontinental countries is ambiguous. He is simply bringing a silly content dispute, discussed multiple times on Talk:Europe, to this inappropriate noticeboard. He has not read the notes in the definition section of Europe and therefore is wasting time here, when several editors have confirmed his error. If major organisations like National Geographic, the BBC and the CIA use different classifications, there is an inherent ambiguity, and that is what is reported on wikipedia in an anodyne and neutral way. No matter how many times Izzedine stamps his foot and shouts at other users, the status of Georgia will not change. If he continues repeatedly writing in this way, it is probably appropriate that he should receive some kind of block for tendentious editing and disruptive behaviour. Besides I don't quite understand how Izzedine can make these claims after he invited me on my talk page to give an opinion after he edit warred with User:Satt 2. I did not agree with either user. NPOVshark's editing history is also exceedingly problematic. Izzedine's interpretation is completely off target like most of the rest of what he writes. He omits to mention all the other editors who disagreed with NPOVshark. I don't find that very surprising really. Izzedine is a disruptive editor: he seems to write whatever suits him, even if it is a gross misrepresentation. Mathsci (talk) 07:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I haven't edited the Europe article or talk page since early December. I left it after debate. I did not bring it to ANI you brought it here Mathsci! And what personal attacks? look at what you've said about me.. who is being more hateful? Let's just accept we had a disagreement Math. I'm sorry we've clashed, I'm no longer interested in the subject of Georgia's continental location, It doesn't matter. take it easy. Izzedine 08:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, this noticeboard is for discussing users' on-wiki behaviour, not content disputes. That is why your recent actions on Europe were brought up. You were disruptive there. The mere fact that you have made personal attacks on me as being "dishonest" and "trying to insult your intelligence" is extremely relevant here. Please tone down your language and refactor these comments. Mathsci (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment removed by Izzedine, reinserted for readability: "What is your aim here Math? to push for me to be blocked? I'd be willing to refactor or delete comments as a good faith gesture to make up good between us as editors, but would you be willing to do the same? it would be a skewed dialogue if not. Izzedine 15:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)" Mathsci (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop personalizing this. You have been POV-pushing on Europe and now again on Mesopotamia. Your edits have very little to do with content and are tendentious. As User:Dbachmann quite rightly said on Talk:Mesopotamia, if you continue POV-pushing in this way, the correct sanction might be a community topic ban. I have added my own views on Mesopotamia at the RfC on its talk page. I would advise you to stop POV-pushing and treating WP as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. When editors initiate naming disputes like this, it rarely has anything to do with adding content and those commenting from the sidelines are often gratuitously insulted for disagreeing with often unjustifiable POVs. In this case, as I wrote in the RfC, I think it is unjustifiable to say that "Ancient Iraq" and "Mesopotamia" are used synonymously. I have given my reasons there and will not discuss this further here. Mathsci (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Personal attacks will get you nowhere. If I were a Greek "ultranationalist", I wouldn't give two cents about Iraq. The accusations about pushing my "frontier" into Iraq are malark pey The reason I am filing this report is because I have become incensed with your tendentious ultranationalism and POV-pushing and because your actions are extremely disruptive to this encyclopedia. Multiple users have disagreed with you, and yet you keep trying to push the same POV over and over and over again. And the fact that you chose Christmas for this latest rampage speaks volumes. --Athenean (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks? – you called me an ultranationalist first. And as you described here - you don't give two cents about Iraq. Athenean has been 'raiding' my edits over the past week, encouraging disputes and disruptiveness. He has *never* edited Iraq articles before, he has been serial undoing many of my older contribs - deleting references as he goes, and not even bothering to use talk pages. Athenean is simply throwing mud and insulting your intelligence, and wasting all our time. I'm not an "Iraqi ultranationalist" I'm a history scholar and a member of the British Museum and British Institute for the Study of Iraq. Izzedine 01:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

What or who you are in the real world is irrelevant. It is your behavior on this site that matters, and so far it has been nothing but disruptive and tendentious. And no, I haven't been "raiding" your edits or any such nonsense. Stop playing the victim. I just casually came up on the article on Mesopotamia and was struck by how many times the word "Iraq" (in bold, no less) appeared in the lead, and posted on the talkpage [15]. I was validated by the response of User:Taivo and User:Dbachmann [16]. Izzedine's response? [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Lastly, don't twist my words. What I meant by ultranationalists not giving two cents about Iraq is that ultranatonalists are usually completely uninterested in articles that have nothing to do with their country. You are completely twisting my words. This is unbelievable. --Athenean (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Athenean (talk · contribs) has been raiding my edits, one after the other after the other. It is duplicitous and tendentious the way he is crying wolf about it. At any rate, I don't want to argue about it, this is pointless and wasteful. I'd rather build bridges than throw mud. Christmas time should be merry, too. Izzedine 02:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

All of you, cool it. Izze, you would appear to have been jumping the gun without some talk page discussion first[23]. on you reverted things to different forms after that, citing that "discussion still underway"... in other words, using your own warring to your benefit while claiming to sound fair. Not acceptable. Systematically removing all the existing references was also completely unacceptable as there was no fair cause given to do so. Just because a link changes isn't a reason to remove a reference, even (I learned the hard way, too). Since the end result was conflicting reference information, that's what the talk page is for. Not that it probably would have helped all that much, but it's a necessary first form of dispute resolution that at least defines the issue. That said, I'm going to revert back to the version before the first unjustified source removal. Izze, your edit summary of [24] edit shows the very dubious nature of your actions, as what Athenean did in one revert is the exact same thing you did, just spread out across 20 to either confuse and/or make it look justified. Try to combined you edits at least a little, please. I don't care about which sources are whose or what content they have-- Izze, you hacked at the article for no given reason, systematically removed old and put in new references and adjusted wikilinks to a different POV. cont.

Hi there, I think you've misunderstood, the first diff is five days old, and much discussion has been going on since, at that stage I was simply restoring the deleted references. and the second diff was actually me *deleting my own* references because of the discussion that was underway - in good faith. I agree with you I am the one who provided those references! I didn't want to remove them. This edit from five days ago was undoing a mass deletion of references, nothing dubious about that. I don't know what you mean I haven't removed any references (other than restoring Taivo's version in good faith) ask - Taivo. It can be very complex to work out the true picture when faced with a long version history and several editors. But thanks for the advice. Izzedine 09:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Everyone involved is edit warring at this point, in that the only changes are to predominately restore old versions or remove the content of others. I see no 3RR violations, at least. Tavio seems quite aware of the policy and has wisely backed off for now. Take it to the talk page on the sources. Dispute there can start the normal process, and this is just pointless edit warring that will just get everyone blocked at some point more than likely. Again, I'm reverting back to places before reference removals started. It's the removals/replacements that were without any discussion. That's what they started as. That's where they need to be discussed from. Period. [25] is the version I'm reverting to, as it was the last version before the debated edits started. There you go. Since it's inevitable this will start up again, remember that you were here tonight, and consider this an unofficial final warning in that any admin is free to block for disruption here on without additional notice. You really don't want to go down this road, since I know you've seen it happen a thousand times here before and the ending it never pleasant if certain editors decide to "go rouge" or just shove their agenda forward. I'm entirely comfortable having said all of this since I don't remotely care about the content in the article, nor have I ever come across it before. Izze, you've been placing in your POV in a not-so-subtle manner ever since the old reference removals started, so I'm reverting to before that started. That's what the ANI was about originally, that's what I'm addressing now, nothing more. Future manners of tag-teaming, incivility, suspected puppet use, etc., can be taken through their normal incident boards. Content disputes need to start with discussions, first, which is what should be done now. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) This dispute on Mesopotamia has not been resolved so I have removed the unsigned "stale" tag added by User:Datheisen, which did not seem particularly helpful. It confused two separate issues involved here: a resolved issue, namely the POV-pushing/edit-warring by Izzedine/Satt 2 on the status of Georgia in Europe; a current unresolved issue, namely the dispute on Mesopotamia and Iraq. The first was brought up to add context to Izzedine's recent editing patterns. Mathsci (talk) 15:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC here on whether "Ancient Iraq" is synonymous with "Mesopotamia" (the content underlying this dispute). I hope that archaeology experts like Dougweller (hint, hint) will add their comments, even if it directly contradicts the 2 centimes worth that I added. Mathsci (talk) 15:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Izzedine's replacement of Mesopotamia with Ancient Iraq (Mesopotamia) at Babylonian mathematics[26] has been undone by five different editors since May[27][28][29][30][31]. Izzedine - and only Izzedine - has reverted all of them, seven times so far [32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. - Ankimai (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He's at it again, in Iraq this time [39], repeating the same line over and over again [40]. It is quite clear from his history that this guy is here on a mission and will never stop. --Athenean (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking blocked User:Breathing Dead

Hi, I think that it was a mistake to have blocked User:Breathing Dead. I was looking over his edits, and the edit that seems to have gotten him blocked looks to me like it was in good faith. I disagree with the decision made by User:Gwen Gale in blocking this user, and think that in the dispute between this user and User:Gwen Gale, WP:CIVIL was violated on both sides. In general, I think that admins should not use the tools in disputes that they participate in. This user made many constructive edits to Wikipedia, this is certainly not a vandal account, the "sockpuppetry" seems to be due to the use of multiple proxy servers and is not clear evidence of a deliberate attempt to appear to be multiple users (since even when posting from other IP addresses this user identified himself as User:Breathing Dead). I think this user should be unblocked so that they can continue their positive contribution which have improved the quality of the encyclopedia. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

May I ask how this came to your attention, since it happened before you ever edited Wikipedia? In any event, I have just changed their block parameters so they can request unblock themselves. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at File:A_shot_of_the_demonstration_of_18-Tir.JPG, a photograph uploaded by this user. School vacation = time to spend looking at random wikipedia pages :) CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

P.S I wonder if it's possible to automatically unblock/leave a nice note for this user? I don't know if he is still on wikipedia, but it seems to me that the pictures that this user uploaded were really positive contributions to the site. Thanks,CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral here, but all but one of the socks are suspected. Should we e-mail him since he might not check back here? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and I'd suggest a note for GwenGale as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(re notification: Gwen Gale has been notified, but the ANI mention is far down in the text.) Proofreader77 (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think socking is the main reason this editor was blocked. This editor was a POV warrior, refused to listen to multiple editors who tried to discuss matters with him, and basically accused anyone who disagreed with him of being a terrorist [41] [42]. Dayewalker (talk) 02:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(Disclosure/COI: I am [in] dispute with Gwen Gale in another matter).

I mention this only because of the serendipity of timing. See WP:Thou shalt not block for being mocked recently created (by an admin, not me, following a topic at AN). And I see that the discussion where exchanges took place was also (by happenstance^^) happening during a discussion I was having with Gwen Gale at the time. (A different matter than current dispute, I mention only due to coincidence of timing — which for the holidays sounds like a good enough reason. Hopefully most folks are busy creating delightful holiday memories, rather than scrutinizing diffs at ANI. -)

There is a broader issue (Admin/editor interaction) of WP:CIVILITY here about administrators treating the comments of editors who are frustrated by the administrators actions as "personal attacks," and blocking for that. IE., Perhaps, e.g., the Ahmadinejad comments might be considered in the realm of hyperbole (mockery?).
-- Proofreader77 (talk) 03:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Ahmadinejad comments are indeed hyperbole, and I don't think that the other editors involved in that dispute were particularly civil either. Here are a couple of more edits from this user--all of the edits that this user made to actual articles seem to me to be good-faith edits | 1, | 2, | 3. Also, this user made a couple of comments | 1, | 2to other users that suggest that he was under particular stress at the time that he was blocked.

I also found an archived version of this user's userpage, | 1. Actually, I am concernced for the real-life wellbeing of this editor, given his admirable adherance to the WP:BOLD policy and the political views that he expressed on his user page. I think his userpage should be restored--I really hope this person is ok and able to resume his bold wikipedia editing. Thanks, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I don't hope he's able to resume his "bold editing". His "bold editing" was extremely rude and aggressive and not acceptable. If he is to be given a second chance - and if he even wants one - then he's going to have to agree to some pretty strict terms. Sarah 05:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think that my comment about "bold editing" was unclear. I'm not talking about the talk-page edits, but about the excellent photographs and article edits added by this user.

While there's only one in the confirmed sock category, if you look at some of the suspected ones, they're blatantly obviously him. Thirsty for Truth (talk · contribs) pretty much admits who he is. I've only had a pretty cursory look at the accounts but he seems to have been a very disruptive and unCIVIL user. Taking good photos is all very well but people don't contribute in a vacuum and they have to be able to work with and collaborate reasonably with other people and if they can't, they're obviously not in the right place. Sarah 05:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of diffs like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is the point you're trying to make with this diff. The commment that User:Breathing Dead blanked with the apology "Sorry, sounds like you have no interest in humanitarian things!" is a request that Jimbo write to human rights organizations to ask that an Iranian film director, Mitra Farahan, be freed. The information in this talk page note is accurate by the way; see | this Guardian article. The first paragraph of the blanked comment ("Dear Sir, I know this website is an Encyclopedia and not a forum or whatever and this page is a talk page to resolve the problems within Wiki. But this problem is a matter of life and death...") sounds like an exaggeration if you haven't been following what's happening in Iran (which I hadn't, as of a month ago). But actually, User:Breathing Dead's concern for Mitra Farahan's life is quite reasonable; see Zahra Kazemi. Of course, as User:Breathing Dead himself pointed out, the letter doesn't really belong in an encyclopedia. But given that the note is on a talk page, not an article, that it's factually accurate, that it really did pertain to a life and death issue, and that he blanked it himself with an apology, it really doesn't seem like something to block him over. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This individual edit didn't result in this editor getting blocked, however, it shows the mindset the editor brought to any attempt at communication. You can check the diffs above, or on his contribs page (or those of his socks) for more easily-found evidence. He had some good edits, however, he seemed to treat wikipedia as a battleground. Whatever may (or may not) have been going on in his personal life doesn't excuse him from civility and the basic rules of wikipedia. His tendency to take everything as a personal attack and return in kind didn't endear him to other editors who were extending good faith, and his socking to continue the attacks after being blocked bears that out.

If he wishes to appeal the block, that'll be another matter. I'd support his return if he can keep a lid on the incivility, but until he asks, there's no point in discussing it. Beeblebrox has been nice enough to unlock his talk page, if he returns, we can deal with that when it happens. Dayewalker (talk) 21:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:Breathing Dead's edits to actual articles are all good faith, and many are very useful and continue to greatly improve articles articles. For example, see File:A_shot_of_the_demonstration_of_18-Tir.JPG, which is used to illustrate two articles, Iran_student_protests,_July_1999 and Timeline_of_the_2009_Iranian_election_protests. Also see File:Grave_of_Neda.jpg, which is used in the article Death_of_Neda_Agha-Soltan. It's true that User:Breathing Dead posted some comments that violate WP:CIVIL (possibly due | the real-life stress that this user was experiencing that the time he was blocked. But, our goal is to make as good an encyclopedia as possible. An editor who takes great photographs (especially on topics that it may be otherwise difficult to obtain appropriately licensed photographs) is an invaluable contributor to wikipedia, and in my opinion blocking this user was a really unfortunate mistake which probably resulted in some articles currently being not as good as they would otherwise have been. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Good faith editors stray from policy and get blocked for edit warring and personal attacks all the time here. The block had nothing to do with any lack of good faith. If after all this time, the editor asks for an unblock whilst trying in any way to acknowledge the worries they stirred up, it's highly likely they'll be unblocked. They may even already be editing much more peacefully through another account and if so, I think very few editors would mind that. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User constantly crediting themselves in photo captions

User:Barrie Hughes has been constantly reverting me when I remove photo credits from captions (Wikipedia:Captions#Credits is perfectly clear on this matter. He has been in contact with me via email telling me not to delete his captions, I tried to explain that its against WP policy, to no avail. Could someone step in here, I don't think this user has any intent of stopping his disruption.

Diffs: [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50]

Thanks Jeni ^(talk) 12:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

reported as Promotion only account. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Apparently admin consider this a small issue[[51]]...Who knew you could reinsert promotional info eight times and it is only a few disruptive edits? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair you can hardly call the user a promotional account only, as only a very small percentage of the users collective edits are promotional, the rest seems quite constructive. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Considering he was unaware of the guideline and they were his own pictures, which improve wikipedia, plus the rest of his edits, then yes, I wouldn't say its a promotion only account or that he should be blocked--Jac16888^Talk 12:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet he still continues [52] despite being reverted by multiple people with multiple messages on his talk page. He is not unaware of the guideline, it has been pointed out to him more than enough times. Jeni ^(talk) 12:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've also left a note. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok folks, what in the consensus is considered to be the level for promotion? Myself I think that eight times is escessive but I am also aware my opinion isn't policy here so let's hash this one out. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

He most likely doesn't think of it as self-promotion, but acknowledgement of where the snaps came from, not knowing many editors here do see it as such and that acknowledgement belongs only on the image page. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I see he's been blocked for 12 hours. Note that he was also outing in edit summaries. He may not be aware of our policy on that. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

As the user refused to listen, talk or stop adding his name, I've blocked him for 12 hrs (with much regret). He had provided useful content for years and appears disoriented in WP copyright and credit policies. This is where the talks should go. Materialscientist (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think just one mention of a credit name can be deemed promotional... many thousands of people [myself included] upload their own photographs to Wikipedia without crediting them on the article page...it just isn't required. Teapotgeorge^Talk 13:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Materialscientist has unblocked him, but he's very angry. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

That did get a bit messy, but the root of the issue was actually his not communicating , lets let him alone.. hopefully he should calm down in a while. Off2riorob (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I'm thinking. Good faith editors can be very startled and upset when en.Wikipedia doesn't work the way they think it does/should from their outlook. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If I could just ask, why was my comment removed, twice! Off2riorob (talk) 13:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

MS was trying to make the thread easier to follow, the posts are restored now. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, no worries. Off2riorob (talk) 13:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my sincere apologies to everybody - did not mean to offend, just tried to get to the user through edit conflicts. It seems over now. Materialscientist (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I can understand why Barrie would think it perfectly acceptable to be giving himself image credits. If you search for articles containing "image credit" or something similar, you'll see that it's something that seems to be becoming a problem. I can understand Barrie thinking he's been treated very unfairly when he looks around and sees heaps of other people having image credits in articles. We should really get these credits cleaned up. Sarah 02:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hate to stir up drama, but...

resolved Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
...I think this needs some attention. I nominated 2009 Obama assassination plot in Hawaii for deletion. Original author, after seeing more delete than keep-votes first changed my nomination and added two other articles about attempted Obama assassinations. After that failed he put up his own AfD for all three articles. (resolved) Since that apparently gets him nowhere, he now created a cut-and-paste article lumping all three together to "make his point". I'm only bringing this up since I don't know what other stunts he's planning on... (notified) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC) To me it seems a good faith editor, even if probably a bit new to the thing. Have you tried to discuss with him before bringing the matter at AN/I? --Cyclopiatalk 14:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I think the appropriate venue (that all the rest of us chose) is to stick to the AfD-discussion and argue your point. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 14:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC) The new article, being copy and paste without attribution, breaks our licences, let alone any other problems. Dougweller (talk) 15:14, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Yepp, that's just one of the problems... is there a deletion-cat for this? I tried A10, but that was removed. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I've speedy closed the AfD he put up for all three articles, as one is undergoing AfD, it was malformed, and pointy. Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Good. So what are we doing about the lumped one with respect to attribution licensing? As it stands, it has to go. No? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘ I think the appropriate venue (that all the rest of us chose) - I am not talking of the AfD, I am talking of the AN/I you presented. What is the point of an AN/I if you don't want people to comment on it? I found the AN/I notice on the author talk page. About the new article, I didn't think about copyright problems when I removed the CSD -my fault. Put the appropriate CSD tag if copyright is the reason, and let's delete it, in this case. --Cyclopiatalk 16:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC) the line you quoted was w/ respect to him, not you, your comments are welcome. I'm just at a loss right now. Is there a category to delete this? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC) I would have deleted it as an A10 duplicate article if you hadn't removed the template. Are you happy about me deleting it? I'm a bit worried about 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan - I'd say it belongs in Kevin Rudd's own article, not as a separate one. I've put some welcome cookies on this guy's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC) So we'll make it A10? I can do that, but I'm not gonna edit-war on this. Cyclopia what say ye? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 16:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC) Regarding 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan: you know that something's rotten in the land of Wikipedia when an article about an event spends more time discussing why it is supposed to be notable, rather than discussing the event itself. Just look at the current version. So many more efforts were spent to convince us that this event is notable than to describe the actual visit. The second sentence in the lead: "It was notable, like the 2009 Barack Obama visit to China, as an important visit." [Why? Was there a comparison between these two visits in reliable sources?] Following sections: "The visit was covered by the foreign press, not just Australia and Japan." "Even the press in India, covered the trip demonstrating notability." "It was also covered in other countries besides India." I don't dispute these facts; but, apparently, anything is notable as long as the actual main-space article goes "it is notable... it is notable... it is notable..." -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Continuation Could somebody please explain to him now what AfDs are for? He put up the next one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] StevenMario and ownership issues

I recently came across StevenMario after I saw him edit warring on an article I had watchlisted - this user appears to have severe ownership issues on multiple cartoon and media related articles, inserting unreferenced opinions based on his own observations or unreliable sources (blogs and fansites), and constantly reverting anyone's contributions other than his own, and even going so far as to mislabel others removal of his unreferenced additions and speculation as vandalism. He also frequently edits without logging in (possible attempt to game the 3RR violations?) from a variety of IP addresses that all appear to be coming from one location. This editor apparently feels his actions are above question, and has threatened to report anyone who tells him otherwise. The user appears to be very young, and now appears to be publicizing an "enemies list" of those editors who have rightly taken issue with his "contributions". I'm frankly at a loss how to deal with him, as he doesn't appear to want to productively discuss things with anyone. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

First off, I'd just boldly remove the "enemy-list" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

NB: I'm not sure I'd have done that. First, Seb isn't an administrator and his suggestion has no binding force! And secondly, the idea has never really taken off the ground before. Still, we'll see what happens ;) ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 17:20, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm - I thought he was an admin - his user page claims that he is on the Navajo one... MikeWazowski (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I am. But that has nothing to do with the English wikipedia. Sorry for the confusion. Maybe I should assdd (funny typo) a note under the box for that. I was simply giving my opinion. Also chimed in on his "commands" warning on his talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 17:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Seb, I think you need to change that box even more. You're basically using the en Wikipedia administrator userbox but just linking to the nv userlog for verification, and most people will see the colour and layout of the box and assume you're an admin here (as people here have been) without actually reading it or the thing below. Also, you're linking to the en WP administrator policy which is a policy that doesn't apply to you or cover your actions on this Wikipedia. I think it's too misleading and you should consider either removing it or using a box that's different to the en admin box and much clearer because I can pretty much guarantee that people are going to glance at your userpage and see that box and assume you have admin rights here and are speaking/acting as an admin. Specially when you're commenting frequently on admin matters and ANI reports etc. You could use one of the white background admin boxes, like Daniel's (User:Daniel/Userboxes) which aren't specifically known as en admin boxes and are much more multipurpose. Sarah 08:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

An enemies list is kind of uncivil. On the other hand, a couple of the editors on that list are deletionists obsessed with deleting "trivia", so they have their own "ownership" issues. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say an "enemies list" could be construed as a personal attack on those editors, though, of course, he is free to disagree with them within the bound of WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and the 3RR. That said, minus the possible attack, it's not really an ANI issue. HJMitchell You rang? 17:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's primarily a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, which is why I'd suggest WP:ANEW or some form of dispute resolution would be a more prudent venue for the complaint. Although I would say that someone (probably an administrator) should offer a few words of warning on that "enemies list". HJMitchell You rang? 17:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought about filing a 3RR report, but this editor has been bouncing back and forth from editing his username and IP addresses, and over so many articles, that filing a proper report would be damn near impossible - at the moment. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any credible evidence of that? If so, it's sockpuppetry and you should file an SPI. However, that's a little extreme and I'm sure you have better things to do, so why don't you try to engage this person in conversation and explain the relevant policies if need be. Also, for the record, making less than four reverts in a day does not necessarily exclude a situation from being an edit war, so, if your attempts at discussion are unsuccessful, you may still wish to take it to WP:ANEW. HJMitchell You rang? 18:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any outright proof - however, there's an entire series of anon IPs, all from Bellsouth in or around Atlanta, who also revert to StevenMario's versions - he's never edited either his user or talk pages from the IPs, however, so there's no direct connection - but these IPs (such as 68.219.207.198, 68.219.35.91, 68.217.90.122, 68.223.23.184, 68.219.3.97, 72.145.72.227, or 72.145.66.127) follow his edit contributions almost exclusively. MikeWazowski (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If the various IP's are consistently aiding and abetting the skirting of 3RR, then filing an SPI would seem to be in order. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll go do it since there is nothing to do right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] "RfC: Oppressive editing and page ownership" at Talk:Global warming

Yes, that really is the title of the RfC. Yes, the thread is filled with every bit as much good faith and productive discussion as you might think it could be. I just dropped it in an archive box for a second time as part of an attempt to get the editors to focus on improvements to the article there and each other elsewhere if necessary. If somebody could keep an eye on it (or tell me why I am off base on this one), I would appreciate it. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I support global warming 100%, But the tactics of the supporters is heavy handed, receiving multiple negative media accounts, and maybe deserving such RFC title sections.

Rename the section, don't close the section. When editors are not able to speak out and express their frustration the situation gets worse, especially when an admin swoops in and tries to stop all argument on procedural grounds.

I would strongly encourage you to change your mind, reopen the debate, and rename the section. Short term closing RFC is only the easy solution in the short term.

Moderate the debate, don't squelch debate. Ikip 18:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

2/0I would urge you to rethink your position in stopping the RfC. There really is no better venue for this discussion than the article talk page. It is not a matter of individual editors acting wrongly but of a group of editors exerting excessive control over the page content. Any comment on their actions is immediately deleted from the talk page. It is not realistic to expect that this discussion should take place on user talk pages, it is the action of a group of editors that is being questioned here. Arbcom is the final resort and I am prepared to take this matter there if it is necessary but the original indecent has already been escalated out of all proportion by the heavy handed actions of the regulars. My original remark was essentially about an edit summary, with a reversion being wrongly classified as vandalism. Had the discussion on this subject been allowed to continue for a while that would have been the end of the matter but it was immediately deleted and this eventually resulted in my raising an RfC, a standard non-confrontational method of dealing with situation where agreement cannot be reached. Now the RfC has been effectively deleted and no uninvolved editors can now comment. This action supports my assertion that all opposition is being ruthlessly squashed. I have even suggested setting up a 'discussion' or maybe 'dissent' talk page where more general issues about the subject could be discussed, with a longer term objective of improving the page by ensuring that it represents all POVs fairly. This would leave the current talk page for discussion of more immediate improvements. I should add that this proposal does rely on the good faith of both sides to some degree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If the problem with the RfC is just the title, please feel free to give it another title and reinstate it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[In reply to Ikip ]

If that's the case, why don't you open another RfC, using a more appropriate title for the thread and starting a meaningful discussion on the problem. I've no doubt whatsoever that 2/0 acted in the utmost good faith, if a little too quickly- after all, the point of the RfC is to come up with an acceptable solution and, with a thread title like, it's likely to descend into a dramafest! HJMitchell You rang? 19:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The current RfC title accurately describes the problem, a group of regular editors are attempting to control the page. I fully understand that this page is a FA and that quality must be kept high to retain this status. This does not involve the deletion of dissenting opinions from the talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Accurate or not, it shows a complete lack of desire to resolve the issue. You have framed the discussion as a contrarian position - there is no chance for Win/Win ... it's a guranteed Win/Lose. Wikipedia is built on Consensus, and you've removed that chance. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As someone has already noted this is not really the place for this discussion, it should be on the article talk page or even a sub page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As 2/0 suggests, there are more appropriate venues for the kind of discussion that was taking place on the thread. Although I supported the initial discussion as a means of airing grievances about talk page management (and in answer to some concerns have myself abated actions for which I was accused of being too aggressive in archiving), I think the discussion has ceased to be useful in that venue, and probably should be pursued through mediation, user RFCs, or arbitration. --TS 19:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Further discussion

Ikip, you are so right. The way forward is by reasonable, structured, and civil discussion of the issues involved not by total suppression of dissent. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I welcome someone else from the community to open another appropriate named RFC. Maybe 2over0? Having tried to stay out of this, I only know the general subject, not all the players.

Tony, I have not followed the argument at all, so you would know better, but in my general experience, escalating a situation rarely works, albeit based on all of the drama of the past few years, if any article needs some outside eyes, it is probably this one. Would these parties agree on mediation, or is there already too much bad blood? I guess there is only one way to find out...Ikip 19:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Presumably it would first be ncessary to find out who the parties are, and indeed what the dispute is supposed to be William M. Connolley (talk) 21:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, every pro-warming editor assumes that all dissenters' statements and viewpoints are made in bad-faith. Every pro-warming editor assumes that any sources used by dissenters are lousy sources. Every pro-warming editor assumes that debate or edit disputes by dissenters are borderline vandalism to be ended as soon as possible. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:AGF much? I don't suppose this is a subject where any editor is regarded as neutral, in so far that the first (and sometimes only) edit they make is perceived as one or the other - but it would make a refreshing change if some people were to work to a position that NPOV is attainable... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

LessVan heard, thanks very much for your response. I would like to note that your edit summary reads: "Talk:Global warming: pot - kettle - black - the - calling? In this instance only, no opinion on dispute." Would you mind explaining what you meant by that? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 23:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I am commenting that by your grouping all "pro-warming" editors as being inflexible and reactionary toward those who do not share their viewpoints in your comments on this page, that you are exhibiting exactly the same mindset - but in reverse. As for the specific matter(s) which gave raise to your complaints, I have not reviewed them and thus cannot offer an opinion on the validity of the concerns. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your reply. however, respectfully, I feel you are incorrect in your statement; a person who identifies a problem and its sources should not automatically be equated with the people causing the problem. One's response should be based on the evidence itself; I appreciate your referring to this in your comment as well. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk), 00:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

aside Does anyone really support global warming? As in "It'd be a grand thing if New Orleans, Venice and the country of Kiribati were all flooded. Let's burn an extra gallon of fossil fuel to help melt the ol' Ross Ice Shelf." befuddled Durova³⁸⁶ 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, one of the climate guys of climategate fame stated he wished global warming turned out to be true so the science could be proven correct - so yes, in that respect, some people certain due support global warming. Also, increased temperatures would open up more land for farming/food production, which would be a good thing. Your comments about flooding are also rather inaccurate. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this page I was staggered to find that all dissent is ruthlessly squashed, even on the talk page any dissenting comment or suggestion seems to be immediately deleted. I fully understand that this article is an FA and this the content should be of the highest quality, supported by reliable sources, thus I would expect to see any poor quality material quickly removed from the article, however I would not expect to see the removal of dissenting material even if it is of poor quality, described as vandalism. Furthermore I would expect a little more leeway on the talk page, non-majority views should be discussed rather than immediately deleted. When I attempted to discuss these issues (which involved several editors) on the talk page this discussion was immediately deleted, I therefore proposed and RfC to attempt to get some uninvolved editors to give their opinions.

It is interesting that the title of this RfC ( Oppressive editing and page ownership) has been questioned but the RfC, the standard way of getting opinions from uninvolved editors, has been deleted. I think this fact rather proves that the RfC was justified. What exactly is the problem with letting it stand, are the current regulars afraid that outside opinion might go against them. It has been suggested that I take this to arbitration and that is exactly what I intend to do if even the RfC process is to be suppressed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Martin Hogbin's concerns, and hope they will be given full attention. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree, and can't believe this is still an issue. Martin restored an edit that was egregious POV-pushing to the article. He was reverted. He started a massive, massive discussion about how upset he was about this. I can't possibly understand why; in his shoes I would probably feel horribly embarrassed and apologize for taking the time of all involved. (You (plural) may be able to tell that after my several comments on this IMO non-issue, my patience is waning. Sorry.) Awickert (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was valid with guidance support from WP:OWN and Wikipedia:Tag team among others for POV info suppression. Shutting the RFC down early was inappropriate, and does reinforce the original concerns. These concerns are difficult to diagnose and cure. The simple solution would seem to require the folks who may seems to control the range of discourse in a article by excessive negation ... to actuality propose compromises, with good faith that progress will occur. It's simple to say no, and requires great editing skill to work a reasonable compromise. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The RfC was shut down because of concerns over its title and the quality of discussion within it and, going solely by the title and 2/0's word (which I have no reason to doubt), it was entirely appropriate. However, there also seem to be some valid concerns here about the management of the talk page and the way in which content is controlled on the article. Whether they are perceived or genuine, I have no idea. It seems the best way to resolve the issue would be to open a new RfC (under a nice, neutral, drama-free title) and attempt to thrash the issues out there (hopefully once and for all). However ANI is not the place to carry on this dispute. HJMitchell You rang? 00:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

First, a compulsory history lesson

Sm8900 attempts to recruit some Republican divisions of his Armada

Sm8900 attempts to recruit some Conservative divisions of his Armada

Having lost these battles, he now complains about "oppressive editing and page ownership". But all that is going on is that the Global Warming page is editited just like most other scientific Wikipedia articles: Only peer reviewed sources are allowed in for statements about the science. We don't want to have endless debates that go nowhere anyway. We do tolerate editors on this page that would not be tolerated on other pages if they behaved in a similar way. There would have been an Arbcom case and the editors in question would have been topic banned a long time ago. So, I don't see how we can be accused of "oppressive editing and page ownership". Count Iblis (talk) 01:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

nice ad hominem arguments, Count Iblis. that all happened during a huge edit dispute two years ago. Here at Wikipedia, we follow WP:Civil#No_personal_attacks_or_harassment, WP:AGF, and WP:Discussion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 05:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Give it up. The current editors have carte blanche to do what they want. If someone who disagrees can civilly make their argument, they may have a shot at getting something changed but for the most part, that issue is lost and is best left to the blogs ranting about it not here. Call it systemic bias if you want but it's not going to change. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Want to bet? Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky81682, I'm having trouble understanding your reply. Are you agreeing with us in the substance of our complaint, but simply claiming that nothing here can work? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I know they were said with tongue in cheek but I am challenging 'The current editors have carte blanche to do what they want' and, 'that issue is lost'. This is not how WP works. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it wasn't tongue in cheek. I've seen the talk pages. The current editors have carte blanche. All this discussion about how the talk page discussion is controlled doesn't happen in Wikipedia. It just doesn't. We sit around debating control but until you get to ARBCOM, nobody really cares about how discussions are controlled. Any attempt to discuss how the talk page is organized is inherently an personal attack on the people you claim to be in control. Drop the idea that (even if it exists) you'll be able to beat back the consensus on the page about how the article is framed and how the talk page is run. On its face, the Global Warming article uses scientific sciences only for the science (as people note, while there is debate out there in reliable sources, there is no scientific debate so any argument that it's being debated is ignored), but when discussing the effects, it goes into all reliable sources, scientific and not. Inherently, that looks biased, as some people don't believe there are any effects because they don't believe the science, so any source that minimizes the effects is going to be ignored because it may be minimizing the science. (Let's ignore the blatantly obvious point that, instead of noting the specific criticisms by skeptics in the relevant sections, we'll lump them all of them into one single paragraph, scientists and lay-persons together and say "some people argue"). However, I know when the consensus is set but if you guys want to tilt at windmills, go ahead. When it's a conduct issue, Wikipedia is inherently bad at fixing it (no talk page discussion, no RFC, nothing here works for that issue). Now, is there any reason why this section shouldn't be closed because of Talk:Global_warming#Wikipedia:Administrators.27_noticeboard.2FIncidents? This isn't productive here, this isn't the complaints board, and no administrator here is going to do anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you make good points about the nature of edit consensus. however one thing I have to say in response is that the problem we see here is not the existence or strength of consensus, or the lack thereof; the problem is that even the existence of consensus does not give any editors the right to simply reject any and all further edits which in any way differ from the existing topics and themes. consensus is a way to manage an approach to an existing issue; not to give editors an excuse to reject all new or additional topics or ideas. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is going nowhere, as usual. And there is nothing requiring admin intervention. To remove one non-issue: Awickert's summary of MH's complaint is correct. LHvU's comments on Sm8900's comments are correct. If we believe Sm, then we have a very odd one-sided problem, with all the evil on one side. Naturally, this is wrong, and all the evil is on the other side :-). D: no: no-one "supports" GW in that sense. As to the substance, it appears to be absent. Who is complaining that they have a valid, scientifically-based addition to the GW pages that they are unable to discuss on the article talk pages? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying that anyone here is evil, nor is anyone else here claiming that. however there is nothing wrong with saying that one set of editors, upholding one approach to the article, currently hold prevailing influence over the article, to the degree that they are excessively shutting out other editors' ideas on how the article should be developed. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Back to the ANI point

This ANI is about faith folks can have in a productive article development, with regards to the RfC that was closed. I see good concerns raised above about defining a "peer reviewed" process for only Scientific content in the article. Well .... this ANI is about the peer review process for the article itself. The RfC was to help resolve a dispute over the article's peer review process. Discussing content would be outside of an ANI. There is significant concern about a POV being owned by eds and specifically how the resolution is proceeding. Expertise would be most appreciated on resolving the perceived balance of power with regards to a suspected owned POV in the article, so that faith may restored and further DR can be avoided. The RfC and this ANI are the correct path to granting faith in wiki to resolve a perceived bias in the content. Restarting and redefining the RFC with reference to specific wiki guidance seems fair to me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fight at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard

I don't think this is resolved, see below. More admin eyes would be helpful, at a start, as well as admin input about how, or whether, to do anything about the issue. (feel free to remove this comment if the issue is unmarked again) ++Lar: t/c 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've wandered into a firefight between a couple of long-established editors, JohnnyB256 (talk) and ++Lar: t/c, one of whom (Lar) is an admin. Their behaviour at this AfD concerns me. There are accusations of sock puppetry, poisoning of wells and more, and a huge history including a couple of arbitrations. Please also note the comments on my talk page here. andy (talk) 00:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's heated, I'll give you that. They don't appear to have violated any policy or guideline though, so far as I can see from my skim read of the to and fro. HJMitchell You rang? 01:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That isn't unusual for AFDs. HalfShadow 02:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no violation of WP:OUTING to prejudice the AfD?[53] [54][55]. Outing is a blockable offense, whether or not the accusation is true. Used in this context it's a personal attack. Once somebody accused me of being a different person ("Johnny Birkett," brother of the lady in the David Letterman controversy), and the comment was deleted right away. I could see if I was an SPA who woke up yesterday, but I'm an established user. Lar is an administrator and is supposed to set standards, not see how far he can push them.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"Outing is a blockable offense, whether or not the accusation is true." This is so far from the real day to day behavior of wikipedians. How in the world can you be outed if the outing allegations are not true? As two recent OUTING cases have shown me, there is HUGE leeway given to editors to accuse other editors of all manner of outing. The outing allegations in this AFD are minor by comparison. Ikip 20:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:OUTING. I'm not going to waste my time debating something that is clearly in policy. Lar's accusations disrupted the AfD. Once before, a much milder outing question addressed to me in a different context (not an accusation) was redacted under that policy.[56]. People raise COI red herrings all the time as personal attacks, which is why it is a bannable offense in the policy.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a smoke and mirrors attempt to detract from the issue at hand and probably uncivil but, no disrespect, you might be making more of it than it is. Both you and the other editor need to focus on the issue at hand (the notability of the subject) or make room for other editors to make their judgements, most of whom I think have better judgement than to rely on those kinds of accusations. HJMitchell You rang? 13:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's precisely what it is, and I've done my best to deal with the notability issue to the exclusion of the smoke and mirrors, but it seems to have influenced one editor.[57] I didn't raise the issue here, but since someone else did I think that needs to be pointed out and acted on.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, personally, I don't think it's done any harm because most sensible editors know to look at your arguments and your contributions rather than you supposed identity. However, if you you want to make something of it, I suppose you'd be within your rights to take it to WQA or to perhaps open another thread on here since we seem to be the only ones paying any attention to this one. HJMitchell You rang? 14:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit, there's no real way to proceed without fostering unproductive drama, which I assume was the purpose of the smoke and mirrors in the first place. There just seems to be a double standard here. Hell, I got a warning (OK, I was wrong) recently for "biting" a newcomer as I was a tad too aggressive with Huggle. Yet something like this, far worse, happens and nothing is done. (Just venting, not your fault.) --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, it is very instructive to review the Mantanmoreland Arbitration case, especially the section on Mantanmorlands's topic ban. Then take a look at this Wikistalk report, comparing JohnnyB256, Mantanmoreland, and Sammiharris. ... the articles where all three ID's overlap just happen to include 6 articles.... Short (finance), Patrick M. Byrne, Overstock.com, Naked short selling, Jim Cramer, and Gary Weiss... with the possible exception of Jim Cramer (which is debatable), all of these articles are covered by the topic ban. No other articles overlap this way.

JohnnyB256 started editing not too long after Mantanmoreland was banned. JohnnyB256 has a consistent POV in this topic area, one that closely matches Mantanmoreland, one that consistently tries to downplay the importance of NSS, of the various lawsuits related to the matter, of the possible culpability of others, and in general the seriousness of the problem. Mantanmoreland and his socks evaded detection for a very long while and it took repeated community efforts to get something to be done about it, in the face of resistance from the seated ArbCom of the time (I have some understanding of, and sympathy for, why they felt that way.... but it nevertheless was a struggle that consumed much resource)

It is not just idle speculation to ask if JohnnyB256 is Mantanmoreland reincarnated. It is exceedingly valid, based on the information available, and it is far from well poisoning to scrutinise things closely. This userid has been the subject of intense investigation by various CUs and so far no connection has been evidenced. But Checkuser is not magic pixie dust and absence of evidence (of a connection) is not evidence of absense (of a connection). So, here we have yet another example of JohnnyB256 POV pushing on an article related to this topic area and when questioned about it, his response is to attack the questioners, and say this is (in effect) "less important than a misuse of Twinkle". I submit there is a potential that JohnnyB256 is Mantanmoreland, returned, and that he is editing in violation of the topic band, and if not, he has a potential COI that cannot be resolved by assurances to the contrary.

I suggest that the community consider measures to deal with this user, although I'm not prepared yet to suggest exactly what they ought to be, and I welcome input. I suggest the status quo ante, in which JohnnyB256 is permitted to more or less WP:OWN this topic area unless much effort is expended to fight line by line for balanced articles, is not satisfactory. ++Lar: t/c 16:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was going to respond in some detail, but this is more smoke and mirrors, more drama, to divert attention from Lar's own disruption of the AfD and WP:OUTING. Just, for the record, this is the first time I've ever heard any complaint about my editing of the NSS articles. The discussion pages of those articles are placid compared to plenty of others I've edited, and I don't "own" them or a blessed thing.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Lar, can I ask, meaning no disrespect, what the hell any of that has to do with the AfD? As far as I can see you're both getting a little too heated and perhaps need to regain perspective and you should focus on the content, not the contributors. Unless you have some solid evidence of wrongdoing, I would advise you to strike that part of your comment as it serves no purpose but to fuel a dramafest. HJMitchell You rang? 16:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The AfD is a side issue, it just happens to be about an article that reveals JohnnyB256's attempted ownership of this topic area. I'm suspecting that you don't have the background on this matter... Have you reviewed the Mantanmoreland arbcom case? Or are you just coming in and seeing an argument without examining the underlying issues? I'm open to suggestions as to how to proceed. ++Lar: t/c 17:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, the AfD is the only issue. This ANI was started by a user who was troubled by way the AfD was being conducted. He's right, this is not the way AfDs should be conducted. You did a great job of disrupting the AfD by poisoning the atmosphere. You don't fight an AfD by ignoring the merits and attacking the person who brought the AfD, as you did here. You falsely accused me of engaging in a "WP:POINTy AfD" (which is absurd and false) and asking for a "speedy keep" on that basis. That nonsensical accusation would be bad enough to make on an article about a dismissed lawsuit, but you made bad things worse by your clear breach of WP:OUTING there and on Andy's talk page..--JohnnyB256 (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Run that outing analysis (as in, how exactly were you outed???) for me please, will you? Make sure you work all the permutations. I suspect you aren't going to do that, though, because many of the permutations end up with you in flagrant violation of an arbcom topic ban, don't they? ++Lar: t/c 21:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Run the outing analysis by you? Have you looked at WP:OUTING? Trying to disclose a person's real name is a bannable offense whether or not the "real name" is true. I guess the reason must be that people do it the way you did in the AfD, to poison the well, which you did very adroitly. I mildly was asked if I was a real life person ("Johnny Birkett") once and the question was redacted by an administrator[58]. You've thundered onto my talk page to do that, and you've repeatedly done that elsewhere, not just to ask but to accuse. There is no "Weiss exception" or "Lar exception" to WP:OUTING of which I am aware. That is my analysis: read the policy. Or better still, someone should read it to you in the context of enforcing it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RE: I suggest that the community consider measures to deal with this user, although I'm not prepared yet to suggest exactly what they ought to be, and I welcome input. Since Lar does not want to proceed at this moment, I suggest this conversation be moved to Lar's talk page for ways to proceed, and this ANI section is closed. I also suggest an admin remove the sections which have nothing to do with the AFD itself, either to the talk page, or remove it altogether. I think Lar brings up some really good points, but without a checkuser, there is really no reason to bring up these points in the AFD. Ikip 20:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but just a moment now: What about the AfD? As Cool Hand Luke just pointed out there, the AfD is "hash" because of the belief, promulgated by Lar, that I have a conflict of interest. What can be done to rectify the poisoning of the AfD and prevent Lar from engaging in similar misconduct in the future? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, I suggest the AfD is hash because of your wild accusations and attacks, not because I raise valid concerns about your potential COI or that you're actually a banned editor. ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What "wild accusations"? Name one. I haven't said a thing except that I don't have a COI, and I've tried to get the discussion back on track. It is irreparably poisoned, thanks to you.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"poisoned", "misconduct", "personal attack", "smoke and mirrors" and half a dozen other phrasings I could point to. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

These aren't wild charges, they're accurate characterizations of your behavior. You poisoned the atmosphere of the AfD, turning it into "hash" by accusing me of a COI; WP:OUTING is policy and you blatantly violated it, which is misconduct; you've personally attacke dme repeatedly, and "smoke and mirrors" was used by HJ Mitchell in describing your attacks and I agree. It is also accurate. Nothing wild about any of that.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Ikip (and the offer to help with the article) but really, I am hoping for some input from admins previously uninvolved in this particular discussion who have some knowledge of the background here, so this does seem the place for it. Either here, or Arbitration Enforcement, perhaps. Because something does need doing, or else we need to collectively take the decision to write this area off and leave it to be POV pushed into oblivion. (as a note, CU involvement isn't going to help, unless there's been a recent change in patterns. I'm a CU myself and I've consulted with other CUs about this matter.) ++Lar: t/c 21:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, "POV pushed into oblivion"? You just earlier said this AfD was "POV pushing." I invite administrators to examine the AfD and make a determination as to whether it was an exercise an "POV pushing," and whether Lar's contributions to that discussion were constructive or disruptive. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to restart the deletion discussion after asking JohnnyB256 and Lar to stay away. Lar became so obsessed with this case that he permanently lost my respect, and I think he needs to step away, just as I did. Never was a troll better named than WordBomb. --TS 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "restart"? The discussion is FUBAR. It's "hash" as someone else said. Lar's attacks remain, he hasn't redacted them, and nobody else is willing to do that. He has done a simply splendid job of diverting attention from the glaring lack of notability of the article, and turning the AfD into an attack on me. He's getting away with it too, and shows not the slightest acknowledgment that he has done anything wrong.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I'm all that obsessed, Tony. It's just that at the time of the case, I turned out to be right about Mantanmoreland in the end, and you turned out to be wrong, and perhaps that has some bearing. However I'd be willing to have nothing more to do with this topic, broadly construed, if JohnnyB256 was similarly constrained. I doubt he'd go for that though. ++Lar: t/c 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't put me on a par with your behavior, Lar. There is no moral equivalency here. I started a good-faith AfD, you disrupted it, and did a real fine job. I tried ignoring you and you got worse. I've tried to remain as calm as I can but your behavior has just been abysmal, and the fact that you're apparently going to get away with it without even a slap on the wrist is pretty lame. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Didn't think you'd go for it. As to why? This Wikistalk report is all the explanation needed. I'm not here at Wikipedia to push Mantanmoreland's agenda the way you apparently are. The fact that you're still editing here is pretty amazing really. Or perhaps maybe not. ++Lar: t/c 22:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I get the picture. I only figured out you were obsessed on the Mantanmoreland thing when I saw this strange comment in the Cla68 arbitration election[59]. Someone called you on it and you didn't reply, and it was moved to talk. Then I remembered how you protected Cla68 when he violated WP:OUTING here[60]. How many discussions are you going to disrupt before you get that out of your system? As for how come I'm "still editing here," I guess maybe the reason is that I haven't done anything wrong.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• JohnnyB256: that diff is not a violation of WP:OUTING; it is a question. People are allowed to ask civil questions. There are nontrivial concerns here concering a nexus of articles that were previously edited by one of the site's most slippery sockpuppeteers. Please answer in a reasonable manner to settle the concerns. This might be coincidence, but your current approach of taking issue with the questions is similar to that sockpuppeteer, who took umbrage at questions rather than answer them. Lar: the underlying concerns here deal with something that was mainly resolved two years ago and had been ongoing for two years prior to that. So many of our newer editors and admins are unlikely to remember the background. It isn't realistic to expect the community to take action at this thread based upon the wikistalk report; those of us who do remember the background would likely find it intriguing but not convincing. If JohnnyB256 refuses to address the matter frankly here I would certify a user conduct RfC. Durova³⁹⁰ 01:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Saying "who many people think is..." sounds like outing to me, but it's certainly uncivil and a bad way to conduct oneself in an AfD. The Afd is the only issue here since this thread was starting in good faith, a page some editors might wish to refresh their memory of, by a third party about the conduct at this RfA. Accusing somebody of being a sockpuppet or a previously banned editor only detracts from the issue at hand and, without evidence, is uncivil. Let's assume for one minute that JohnnyB256is who Lar is accusing him of being, it's quite irrelevant since he appears to have a made a good faith nomination and has been greeted with multiple accusation of bad faith. That said, both of you are far too preoccupied with each other when your arguments should be about the merits of the article. As for claims to JohnnyB256's identity, I'll be quite frank: put up or shut up. Come up with evidence and take it to SPI or get back to a discussion on the merits of the article rather than the nominator. HJMitchell You rang? 01:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not "pin the tail on Johnny." This is an AN/I commenced by someone else to discuss the AfD. But I haven't evaded a thing, I've answered the question nicely in the past. [61] and yes, I guarantee Durova that I am totally pissed at the way this AfD issue is being handled. I think the AfD was FUBARd. If that has a familiar ring to it, I can't help that. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't meant to be interpreted as being in your support, Johnny. Lar needs to produce evidence or stop going on about your identity, which is beside the point in itself. The point of this whole thread is that both of you are out of line for using this AfD as your personal battleground rather than a forum to discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the article. HJMitchell You rang? 02:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing I'd like more than than for the AfD to discuss the merits of the article. I agree that this discussion has not been productive. I didn't expect it to be and it was not my idea to bring it here. But I've tried to stick to the merits of the article in the AfD. To the extent I haven't I'd be happy to redact, but then there is all the stuff about me in there which has not been redacted.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, maybe that is the correct outcome here. An administrator should go into the AfD and redact what doesn't belong there. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the linked question appears to have been asking whether JohnnyB256 has a conflict of interest regarding the article at AFD. That is relevant. So let's not quibble over wording: do you have a conflict of interest regarding that article? Durova³⁹⁰ 02:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I think the linked question was about something else. It doesn't matter. The answer is no. I repeat NO. I repeat N-O. Is that clear? I have never had a COI on anything I edit. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] False information in reception section for video game articles?

I just recieved an interesting post to my talk page. This is tied into posts on Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 (and again) and Prototype. Honestly, I'm not quite sure exactly what's going on or if it should be reported here or elsewhere (say COIN) or how to describe it (it's 2:20 in the morning, gimme a break), but I thought it could use a couple of hundred other eyes to decide if it's a problem or a slightly odd troll (I've seen weirder around the internet, so I can't say for certain, though I'll assume good faith obviously)... Does this require investigating? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite interesting. If he is telling the truth, we might have a scandal on hand. I think that this could be a lie by someone who wants to gain favor on this site. The question is, if he worked for a company adding stuff to our pages, why doesn't he have a username? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

didnt Microsoft and other companies pay people to make their wikipedia articles "preferable" a while back?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

They probably did as they are Microsoft. Although, since pretty much everyone owns something of theirs, I wonder why they would do that. I'm just wondering if he is telling the truth. If so, it would be worthy to investigate. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I just came upon a link here that talks about Microsoft's thing. Apparently Jimbo and Bill Gates had a laugh over this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Although I no longer work for the PR company, if I were to use the the username from that time I could be in serious trouble for violating my agreement with them. As a general rule when companies wish to edit Wikipedia and spam forums for marketing purposes they use a PR company, because the IPs will be so easily traced. Take for example the Nestle page here on Wikipedia, where an employee was altering the page for controversy reasons--I know not the specifics of that situation though--or the Monsanto incidents, among others, it tends to be a good idea to use a PR company.

I do not have a goal that would serve any particular corporate faction, or at least not knowingly, but I think something should be done about "reception" sections of Wikipedia. POV writing gets taken care of sometimes quite well by other editors, even with edits from those of us trained to find ways around that. But the fact that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (among other template-like patterns of reception sections) are on every single movie or video game page possible make me question the validity of Wikipedia articles.

Call of Duty MW2 was a sample I used to illustrate my point: How many reviews of the game were listed? I think eight or ten or something. How many different companies own those reviews? Well, I am sure you'll get the idea if you just click through the media links.

Let it be known this is mostly openly obtainable information, it is not a grand conspiracy. If you wish to see more media tactics check out FRONTLINE (since Frontline does not have commercials it can at times afford to be less biased abotu this particular issue) news about marketing to kids and the marketing of the future. I hope the WIkipedia community can develop effective ways of avoiding becoming just another marketing tool.

Lastly, I chose TheJadeFalcon's page to write on because I have witnessed his editing style for several months, I feel there is a level of integrity there, and I figured he would know many more people to bring this issue up to.75.214.123.146 (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing seems pretty fishy if you ask me. Not the IP but the fact that people are getting payed to "edit" wikipedia. Couldnt we just remove the bias if we wanted to?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 16:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well he seems to be telling the truth. I lost the link, but I know there is a page out there where you can plug in the page, and suspicious IPs come up. That might be worth a try, but for now, I wonder if we can get usernames of those who edited, as this has the potential for scandal. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

True. This probably is a scandal (of some sort). Can the IP tell us anything else before we continue?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He could also e-mail us his username since this is all anonymous. I can't see any harm in that being done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

True....perhaps we should notify the IP.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

← Can e-mail me if he wants. Contact information is here. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If you get anything, share it with an administrator who would likely care about this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Any admins willing to be e-mailed? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 04:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] AlyciaBellamyMediaInc

I placed a final vandalism warning on the talk page for AlyciaBellamyMediaInc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) several days ago, and the cycle of edits has begun again. It's always false and unsupported things buried in a surrounding of reasonable seeming edits. Today, reasonable looking edits for formatting included an apparently bogus reference to Romanian ancestry. Before that, it was false information in Mariah Carey articles. Previously, it was an elaborate set of edits about a "Chantelle Beyince" that was purported to be a French-Canadian relation of Beyonce Knowles. None of those edits checked out as being factual. Her talk page also contains accusations of vandalism relating to Keshia Chanté, but I haven't been able to evaluate those. I note that the vandalism of the Beyonce Knowles articles included obliterating references to Keshia Chanté.

It's clear to me that this is an editor motivated by a desire to place false information into Wikipedia. To date, she has made no attempt to justify her edits on any talk page, despite several warnings from multiple editors.—Kww(talk) 02:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 55 hours. User has only introduced factual errors and has taken no time to discuss any of the matters. — ξ^xplicit 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Emergency disruption help needed

No reason to keep this expanded since the situation has been resolved. ArcAngel (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
Resolved. No action is necessary here. JB50000 is a new editor and is overreacting to a non-situation. ArcAngel (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC) User:Seb az86556 is redirecting the page. If she/he opposes the article simply discuss it and, if that is not successful, file an AFD. Do not edit war. Consider warning the user and advise her/him that if she/he hates the article, just file an AFD JB50000 (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC) The artile is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obama_assassination_scares&redirect=no I don't believe it. Somebody tell him. And explain to him [[what AfDs are for. See earlier post above... I am at a loss. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict) You may want to look at this edit here (in particular, the edit summary), where a different, experienced editor redirected the page with valid reasoning. As such, there is no issue here as the article is now being redirected appropriately. ArcAngel (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] reopened and logical way to solve it < Resolved. editor informed about legal situation Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:05, 27 December 2009 (UTC) This editor is not uninvolved and an uninvolved administrator should give fair advice. Please stop closing this, Choyool because you are the one in dispute. You are not the judge! Please just be patient! Proposed article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Obama_assassination_scares&action=historysubmit&diff=334197314&oldid=334197197 ArcAngel has made an error because he cites that he is following the logic of editer Hunter Kahn. However, Hunter is not an uninvolved editor. Hunter has spent a lot of time creating 2 articles about 2 minor assassination scares. After careful study, I (and not only me but a few others) think that they should be merged into one article about scares. I created an article to do that. But Hunter probably fears that his articles will be merged into it and wants his own articles. He should get a pat on the back for effort in writing but not for his logic against merging. But ArcAngel should not condone blanking out an article and redirecting it since there has been no discussion about the redirect or even an AFD. Requested action: an administrator says "this issue should be settled by not redirecting it without discussion, instead, restore the article and discuss an AFD or merge". This is the calm way to deal with it. I accept a deleted article or a redirect if calmly discussed, not heavy handed redirect. JB50000 (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC) The way you created this thing by copy-paste is in conflict with wikipedia's attribution-licensing and cannot remain lest we face copyright and/or creative-commons violations. The redirect is a quick-fix solution to avoid such calamities. Mergers such as the one you propose are not done by copying and pasting into a new page, but by performing a page-history merger after consensus to perform one has been established. You have been informed about this earlier on your talkpage. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC) It was put up for AFD and the consensus was Speedy Keep, so there was discussion on it. ArcAngel (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Just a railroaded discussion, why the rush to speedy it? JB50000 (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC) GFDL says we can copy anything in Wikipedia. There was no discussion on the redirect. The speedily keep did not reject merging. The speedy mistook the request for a pointy request when it was really an attempt for fairness and uniformity. The merge is an even better neutral handling and logical move. ArcAngel, the best way to handle this is to just let some others chime in. You can see that I'm not serially reverting but calling for some discussion, not just 5 minutes then shutting discussion down. JB50000 (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Resolution: Chooy, ArcAngel, and JB5000 will stop adding comments for 12 hours. Other administrators will not close this. Others will just add useful comments and opinions. Muzzling people or closing down discussions is just disruptive and pours fuel on the fire! JB50000 (talk) 04:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Again, you did not perform a merger, you did a copy-paste. Our current license is CreativeCommons3 which calls for attribution. (GFDL cannot be applied to content that was added after November 2008.) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Just to avoid spreading misinformation, our current license for most content is the disjunction of CC-BY-SA-3 and GFDL; that is, most new textual material is still licensed under the GFDL, but since November 2008 all such material is also licensed under CC-BY-SA-3. See foundation:Terms of Use, linked on the bottom of every page of every WMF wiki, for more on this. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's more precise. Thank you. The attribution-question still applies though. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Indeed, both licenses do require attribution, and in practice that means that we must have an intact and traceable article history, since that is our primary method of attribution. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] 12 hour block of disruptive editor User:Seb_az86556, aka Choyooliihi, should be blocked for disruption. She/he keeps marking the above section as resolved when she/he is an involved party and cannot shut down discussions like this. Just be an adult, state your opinions, and let others chime in. Don't just muzzle discussions. If I did that, I could mark all of ANI as resolved. This user has been told of this but persist in this very disruptive stunt. JB50000 (talk) 04:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Look -- the legal question is settled, and thus resolved. Your copy-paste cannot stand. If you want a merger, you can start a merger discussion, and we have templates for that: {{merge}}, {{mergeto}}, and {{mergefrom}}. You are welcome to use them. In the meantime, I have gone ahead and fixed the second AfD you started since it was incomplete. Where there any other concerns? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] JB50000 (again) and reopening of AfD hours after I closed it

JB50000 requested closure of this section, so be it. ArcAngel (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.
JB50000 (talk · contribs) is new but also being very disruptive. Unhappy with the progress of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Obama assassination plot in Hawaii he opened what I saw as a pointy AfD for that article and two others under the heading Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee which I speedy closed as an attempt to make a WP:POINT and as it was a duplicate AfD for the Hawaii article. Within hours, instead of going to DRV, he opened Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee/2 which didn't include the Hawaii article. Part of his nomination statement says "Since another article has significant delete support, the same standard should apply. That's like speeding, you don't execute one driver but give a medal to another speeder. I think the best compromise would be to merge all 3 assassination plots so we can see and compare the 3." And he doesn't actually want anything deleted, he !votes for 'Merge all 3 articles'. Would someone else please deal with this so he doesn't see it as personal? Of course my original close is open for review, but I think it was correct. I'll notify him of this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC) You can see I am being very helpful and not disruptive by not reverting back, unlike Choyool. I also see that there is a merge process. Unless there are objections, I will close this as there is nothing for administrators to do unless someone wants to help fix any merge proposals that I might make. JB50000 (talk) 07:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC) That's exactly what several people have been trying to tell you since... yesterday. Go ahead with your merger-proposal, that's the way to do it. Excellent. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC) That's a nicer tone of message. Let's close this section and the one above. JB50000 (talk) 07:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Y Done ArcAngel (talk) 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars Kid vs Google

If you search for the Star Wars Kid's real name (which I'm NOT going to put here - WP:BLP absolutely applies) on Google, our article comes up as the first result - despite our ongoing and deliberate omission of it on the article.

1. Why is this?
2. Can we get Google to remove/stop this?

Exxolon (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See PageRank and, especially, Google bomb. If a lot of pages linking to our article use a particular term (even a term which doesn't appear on our own page), our page may be perceived by Google's PageRank algorithm as a relevant result for that term. If this is done deliberately, it can be described as 'Google bombing'. (A few years ago, Google searches for 'miserable failure' returned George W. Bush's biography as the first hit; a coordinated effort by hundreds of bloggers and website owners created hyperlinks from that term on their own pages to Bush's White House biography page.)

As far as I know, there isn't anything we can do from this end, short of deleting the page outright. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 08:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea, but even if there was something else we could do instead I doubt it would have any practical effect when almost all pages found when one finds when searching for this name do clearly identify him as the “Star Wars Kid”. ⤺ms.⁴⁵ 08:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Is there no way to request Google to remove that page from the results? Exxolon (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't see how BLP applies here. His name has been reported in the press repeatedly. BLP only applies to things we cannot source well. Many many well known reliable sources have stated what his name is.--Crossmr (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See Q1 of the talk page FAQ. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's not the case - read the policy page - this falls under the "Presumption in favour of privacy" clause of WP:BLP, specifically "This is of profound importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely from their being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Exxolon (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but our BLP is for us not the rest of the internet. Deleting an article because of something that is happening on Google is simply not on in my book. Theresa Knott | token threats 11:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's get this over with. Sign up for a Google Account, and use SearchWiki and click the X on the result. It's just that simple. Problem (temporarily) solved. ConCompS (Talk to me) 16:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If a lot of web sites use his real name and link to us then we cannot help that, not are we responsible, it is not a BLT violation. This is no basis for the deletion of anything. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The only true BLT violation is too much mayo, if you ask me.GJC 16:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If somebody already knows this unfortunate guy's name then the fact that our article turns up on top when they enter it is quite appropriate. If they don't know the name then no harm is done because they won't know to type it. If they hear his name and wonder who he is then hundreds of websites will be returned by the result, but if ours is at the top that's a good thing because our article is written to the highest standards and does not trash him. --TS 17:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See Q5 of the FAQ, which I just wrote. --TS 17:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Undo Page Move

Can an admin undo the mess made by cutting and pasting Kesha (singer) to Ke$ha? The undiscussed move was done here against the consensus achieved last month and has lost page history. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. The diff of the cut-and-paste move was actually here; note that the newer edit of those two was previously at the title "Ke$ha". Graham87 11:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sock / spam needs investigation & stopping

There is a pattern emerging with at least three (I suspect more) accounts. A new account is created, an existing user's userpage is copied to the new user's talk page and user page, then the same spam link is added to a Wikipedia article. Perhaps someone here has seen this before and knows who is behind it (i.e. who the original sock is) or whether this is simply a spammer abusing multiple accounts. Either way I suspect someone here has the time/skill to stop it.

• Marcduc (talk · contribs)
• Zeninre (talk · contribs)
• Damueo (talk · contribs)
• Senxone (talk · contribs)
• Gabrido (talk · contribs)
• Mendiwe (talk · contribs)

--Biker Biker (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the same case discussed below and also previously. Whoever the puppetmaster is, they are very intent on placing their links. --RL0919 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sock of Alex contributing from LA, much in the same vein

This should be a well-established and benchmark case by now, but I have trouble finding a better venue to address this. The indeffed User:Alex contributing from L.A. (here), who is but one avatar of the same editor, among banned/blocked accounts such as User:Alexander 007, User:Alexandru, User:Winona Gone Shopping etc., has returned yet again as User:Alex '05, and uses his own pages as a venue for attacking me and other users over and over, picking exactly where he left off as Alex contributing from L.A. This man has admitted to having behavioral problems (for one, a drug addiction, which he claims over and over has led him to use seriously mood-altering substances while editing wikipedia), and, in his long disturbing rants, he even went as far as to state that I and several others are part of a giant real-life conspiracy against him. The speculations he makes about me, and the many imaginary issues he takes with me are serious harassment, particularly given that this guy is only enticed by the possibility that I may experience discomfort. It seems he is untouched by the blocks, and simply creates a new account when his older one is compromised, without even bothering much to conceal that he is the same guy. He has probably opened up several new ones as we speak, so I would like to ask admins to make a special note of this.

PS: Pl;ease don't tell me to repost this on a more specific subpage; as you can see, there are several very serious issues that relate to more than one specific area. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"he even went as far as to state that I and several others are part of a giant real-life conspiracy against him."---I never made any such statement. Link the diff where you believe I stated something like that. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to be allowed to edit here in the future. I was harassed by psychopaths at another website, then I developed a situation with editors here. Furthermore I was blocked by free-wheeling individual parties without them considering my case. Alex (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to edit here then you should probably refrain from calling other editors "stupid pieces of shit" or "use them as punching-bags". --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Some psychopaths attempted to murder me in 2007 and early 2008 at another website, so I have problems I'm clearing away. I was giving back to the world what it tried to do to me. But no, I'm not giving it back to the psychos responsible, one of the psychos responsible is <redacted>, a psychopath wanted for hurting many people. Alex (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Alex, allow me to just say this. If what you say about users on some other forum is true (though, if I got it right, you earlier claimed that those people "tried to murder you" using magic!), you have my sympathy, but wikipedia is not therapy for either this or any of your other problems. Above, you implicitly admit that all of my assessment is true, and, no matter how much any wikipedia could be persuaded to sympathize with you over those problems, this small segment of the many serious ways in which you break rules central to wikipedia has made it impossible for you to continue contributing here. And that fact that you still don't see the problem only adds to the problem. As for your conspiracy accusation against me (one of the many accusations, all for no reason): the diff, if I recall correctly, could only be picked up from the deleted talk page of your earlier account.

That's all I will say to you, and I sincerely hope this is our last encounter. Have a nice life. Dahn (talk) 12:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the account. At least a coupe of his previous accounts have been indefinitely blocked, and he assured me that he would not return.   Will Beback  talk  12:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This is a disgrace. This Alex guy was nearly murdered for Pete's sake! Cut Alex some slack and unblock them IMMEDIATELY. Was-new-cola-fan-in-early-90s (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The above is obviously yet another sock of Alex. --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Highly likely considering the account was created today and yet they already know how to find ANI! HJMitchell You rang? 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No I am not a sock of Alice, why does wikipedia always presume that when a User defends a blocked User that the User is a sock of another User? Now yes this is a result of me getting to big for my boots and sticking my nose into Another's business but did'ent the same thing happen with User Mcjakeqcool? I suggest wikipedia stops abusing it's community before it has no more editors. From what I know User Mcjakeqcool acted in good faith, clearly something wikipedia does not know about. Was-new-cola-fan-in-early-90s (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am confused. Is the person editing as Was-new-cola-fan... the same as Alex 05? Why are their User pages showing them as being socks of different people? Woogee (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Apparently it was decided further down, but I am clueless as to what evidence that shows it should be that McJackcool something guy and not the Alex user, which Dahn clearly shows to be a master puppeteer as well.--Saddhiyama (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Spammers are back

The spammers cited from the last thread are back with brand new accounts:

• Damueo (talk · contribs)
• Gabrido (talk · contribs)
• Marcduc (talk · contribs)
• Mendiwe (talk · contribs)
• Senxone (talk · contribs)
• Zeninre (talk · contribs)

Since they're only editing a couple of articles:

• Bolivia
• Cable (from the last batch of socks)
• Micro
• Microprocessor
• Spanish language

is it possible for a short term semi-protection to stop the disruption? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well if all they're doing is spamming, surely it's preferable to block the accounts rather than to protect the articles, which would affect any new or IP editor making good faith edits. HJMitchell You rang? 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is that new accounts are popping up (there may be more) and blocking them doesn't seem to have any effect since they just keep coming back with more sock accounts. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well they are not having any effect. Why not simply keep reverting them until they learn that they cannot succeed? Theresa Knott | token threats 14:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been going on for over a week now and their edits have been reverted during the time period. But sometimes, constantly reverting and blocking doesn't work especially with sockpuppetry and determined users. Also, what I meant by short term semi is like 3 days or something like that. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The concern is that they will move on to other pages. i think reverting will work as we a clearly far more determined than they are and there are a lot more of us. We can always win in a straight fight like this. A useful tool can be found here to see if the links exist anywhere in Wikipedia. Never the less I will try a 3 day protect for you. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I have protected them all for 3 days to give you a bit of a rest from reverting. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully they won't move on to other pages and this will work. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we consider a sockpuppet investigation while we are here so we can find all of the users? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll file one, but I don't know who the sockmaster is or what would be the sockmaster. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just look at the one with the earliest creation and go from there. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Filed an SPI case under a new name: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carmendi. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Both urls have been Blacklisted --Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between Roman and Han Empires (2nd nomination) outside opinion

I would like to get an outsider opinion on the way this AFD was closed. The current way it is closed, is a userification which is only used for material that is inappropriate for the encyclopedia, which the article clearly wasn't (there were more keeps than deletes, and several strong delete editors had switched to keep). Since the majority of the content was moved to article incubator, which has a poor track record of being a place where articles never leave, I consider this a de facto deletion.

Userfication is usually performed because material is added in article space that is inappropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but not objectionable as content in a user page or a subpage thereof. This can be a satisfactory result for new users unfamiliar with the boundaries of Wikipedia content, and for users who inadvertently create personal templates in the main template space.

This is clearly not applicable to this case. Therefore, I request an outside opinion on whether this AFD was properly closed, or should it be overturned to keep . I had previously sought help at WP:DRV, but they said this was out of their scope.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I see the nature of your concern. Why do you disagree with this close? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Having had a very brief look and nothing more, it seems to me that many of the delete votes were because of the poor quality of the article. Is that correct? So why not spend an intensive week or so improving the quality? Then ask the closing admin to move it back into the main space. If that doesn't work, then come here and ask for outside opinions. Theresa Knott | token threats 15:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought the normal procedure for AFD's was to keep if a large portion of the editors voted/argued to keep and to delete/userify if the majority thought the article was unencyclopedic. In this case, the majority of editors voted to keep and even the nom clearly thought the article was encyclopedic; so why was it userified? That basically amounts to a deletion. Also the way the closing admin put it, the article won't be moved back into userspace until both sides of the dispute think it is good, which is a blank cheque; people who's been agitating for a year to delete the article no matter what won't be moving it back to mainspace anytime soon.see this link when they argued that not being able to insert Pro roman OR was a reason to delete the article.Teeninvestor (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Very well put, Theresa. If the article sees significant improvement, I'm sure the closing admin or any other would be willing to move the article back to mainspace, or, not wanting to encourage edit warring or wheel warring, if there's nothing at the target page, you could just move it back yourself once the improvements have been made. It's not doing any harm where it is atm and to argue against it on procedural grounds is a little pointy. HJMitchell You rang? 16:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't exactly move it back considering it is protected.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, ask the closing admin to do it for you. But the first step has surely got to be addressing the concerns of those who voted delete. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Then I'd respectfully suggest you make the improvements required to the article then ask the closing admin nicely to move it back to mainspace when you're done. At least where it is, you can make them in your own time ratger than having the threat of another AfD hanging over you- think of it as the same kind of thing that happens at AfC. HJMitchell You rang? 16:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, first of all. But if you read the AFD, most of the delete voters who were strong deleters have already switched to keep (the article was overhauled massively during the AFD), while the ones that remain were the ones that have been agitating for nearly a year to delete this article. see this link when they argued that not being able to insert Pro roman OR was a reason to delete the article. They're not giving me any advice cause they don't have concerns; they just want the article deleted. The way it is now, is perfect for them (an AFD where keep exceeds delete results in delete). I'll try to work on the article for a week, but unfortunately I think I'll be back at ANI soon.Teeninvestor (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

And those !voters wanted an article without original research which drew on sources that actually made the comparison, not an article stitching together various sources on the two empires separately. Gunpowder Ma, by the way, is not 'they'. There were a lot of legitimate concerns about the article. Please remember that although you started the article it is not your article. Dougweller (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out one example of "original research" in the article?Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

An RFC has been filed for this topic.Teeninvestor (talk) 18:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

• Block requested I am the closing admin and teeninvestor did not notofy me of this thread. The close is currently sitting at DRV with a clear consensus to support the close. Teeninvestor then brings it here because he doesn't like that and not getting his way promprtly files an RFC. This appears to be blatently disruptive forum shopping. I'm too involved now to block myself but I would be grateful if someone could review teenivestor's recent edits and dish out the appropriate block for disrupting the project. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about ready to comment that the article is currently at WP:DRV and the consensus there is to endorse the closing. It very much seems that Teeninvestor (talk · contribs) is going around forum shopping the outcome of the AfD. —Farix (t | c) 20:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his talk page. There's definitely forum shopping occurring and if he continues this crusade, any administrator should probably issue a block. AniMate 21:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning Animate. I also see that they have been warned for canvassing the RFC. Priceless. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's my opinion that it is this sort of behaviour that has made it difficult to improve the article and led to the present situation. He's persistent, I'll give him that. Dougweller (talk) 21:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

userification is properly employed for material which is not currently suitable for the encyclopedia but which might become suitable if sufficient work were done on it--normally finding additional evidence of notability. It is not properly employed for material which which would never be suitable, or which violates the basic rules such as WP:NOT. This was a suitable case: the material was considered incomplete and not sufficiently representative and NPOV. These are correctable faults, bnd working on it in userspace is a suitable option, complaining about the results is,just as Spartaz says, not the appropriate response--the proper response is to take the opportunity to work on the article. Now, I supported keeping the article in mainspace, but I certainly thought it needed improvement. The goal of AfD is to =help people make acceptable articles.and where top do it is secondary. Userifying an article shoudl be seen as an expression of confidence--confidence that the article could become a suitable article if dealt with properly. It's almost a varianty of keep, not delete. ` DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Block-evading "Dakota Fanning" vandal

There's an active IP-hopping block-evading vandal vandalising articles, often (but not always) making references to Dakota Fanning in their edit summaries. They seem to particularly like editing the Ron Guenther and Iron Man (film) articles, although they have also edited many others. They are very actively evading blocks at the moment.

Some sample IPs:

• 201.43.149.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.92.135.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.42.212.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.92.134.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
• 201.13.197.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The address ranges 201.13/16, 201.42/15 and 201.92/15 are all listed by WHOIS as being assigned to "TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO S.A. - TELESP"

-- The Anome (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Well 201.43.149.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is in violation of 3RR at Iron Man, everything else aside, IMO that and the personal attack in the edit summary are blockworthy. I'll check the rest out unless an admin beats me to it and blocks them. HJMitchell You rang? 16:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Sad case. It appears that the IP originally tried to discuss this issue with Crotchety Old Man (talk · contribs) but was so frustrated by COM's rude response, has reverted to uncivil interaction, block evasion and WP:TE. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

He was banned long before he and I had ever interacted. Learn the facts before wasting our time. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pé de Chinelo; and also note that 200.158.192/18 is also listed by WHOIS as being assigned to "TELECOMUNICACOES DE SAO PAULO S.A. - TELESP" -- The Anome (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Their edits are getting more and more aggressive: see the edits of 201.43.34.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and they've range-hopped again to 189.46.27.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), on the same ISP, address range 189.46/15. -- The Anome (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting: reverse DNS addresses are of the form:

189-46-27-93.dsl.telesp.net.br.

201-43-149-157.dsl.telesp.net.br.

201-92-134-193.dsl.telesp.net.br.

It looks like telesp.net.br are either giving out very short address leases, or this user has access to a large number of DSL lines. -- The Anome (talk) 16:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

See also 201.68.111.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), address range 201.68/15, WHOIS details as before. Note the use of Unicode obfuscation to hide rude words in edit comments, which looks like an attempt to evade countermeasures. -- The Anome (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the usual targets of this editor. I'll let someone more familiar with rangeblocks take care of the broader question. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite tempted to do a short rangeblock across all these blocks, but they are very wide, and the collateral damage seems excessive at the moment, if they are kept under control for now by other means. However, if anyone else thinks it's necessary, I'll gladly do it: a softblock would seem appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I came to the same conclusion. See if they stop, otherwise a very short soft block might do the trick. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No, that didn't stop them: see 201.68.111.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): applying softblocks now. -- The Anome (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple /16 softblocks now applied. -- The Anome (talk) 17:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Here's another one. 201.95.48.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Not sure if it is covered by the softblock or not. --Slp1 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

201.95/16 now also softblocked. Please let me know if this vandalism/block evasion pattern resumes, and I'll re-block the appropriate ranges for longer. -- The Anome (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

SPI page for these IPs here. ConCompS (Talk to me) 17:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User Off2riorob: Bad faith

Archiving as clearly nothing to answer. Off2riorob (talk) 19:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] block evasion?

I came across an issue with this unregistered user ; he/she has been blanking sections in the Lebanon article and was blocked following a number of warnings, the block includes account creation (i guess), yet this person managed to bypass or outpace the block and created this account and has made what seem to me like an attack on a veteran editor (here), which was later reverted by the same editor. I'm concerned that this petty bickering may not stop here, is there no way to prevent this kind of mishaps ? Eli+ 18:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The account was created prior to the ip being blocked, as were the noted edits by the account - technically thus not block evading. Under the circumstances, even on the basis that ip and the account are the same editor, a softblock on the ip would not stop the account from being able to edit. I think attention should be given to the purpose and good faith of the accounts edits, rather than making a case that editing at all was in violation of policy. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] We have no TFP

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#We have no TFP. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive editing by IP in Subaru Sumeragi

An IP has been repetedly inserting content which at first seems an honest mistake (describing manga instead of anime plot and inserting a pairing bias), but has re-inserted their addition again and again after multiple reverts (e. g. here, here, here, here and here). He/she does not react either to messages left on their or on the article's talk page. I'm at a loss what to do. --KagamiNoMiko (talk) 00:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Subaru Sumeragi protected for a week. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sock puppet vandalism again

User:InkHeart (banned for abusing multiple accounts) is back again, this time using the sockpuppet anon Special:Contributions/99.253.86.157 to again remove maintenance templates. Ωphois 04:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User: BQZip01

Hi all. It has come to my attention that BQZip01 (talk · contribs) and Hammersoft (talk · contribs) have been in a dispute over the copyright statuses of files File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg and File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png. As some of you might be aware, this dispute has been going on for some time now; it has resulted in several WP:ANI threads and nearly a year's worth of slow motion edit warring at File:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg and File:WestVirginiaMountaineers.png. As an uninvolved user, this dispute came to my attention with the posting of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive588#Edit trying to force an image as free of copyright/submitting editor trying to force personal preferences as if they are policy on the Administrator's noticeboard. I looked into it and had to agree with Hammersoft that the files were non-free content. Noting that the on going discussions regarding this topic were producing nothing but more tension and hot air, I marked the most recent relevant ANI discussion and discussion at File talk:West Virginia Flying WV logo.svg as closed. However, this did not settle well with BQZip01 (talk · contribs). He has repeatedly asked to create a WP:RFC to discuss further should he wish to but he has completley ignored those requests. To date, he has been repeatedly reopening the archived discussions [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67] to make accusatory statements, distuptive comments, personal attacks, and troll, only to be reverted by other uninvolved users. Since those tactics have been unsuccessful, he has resorted to accusing User:Hammersoft and users who have reverted his reopening of discussions as sockpuppeteers (see [68], [69], [70]). Once again, he was not successful. BQZip01 is now trolling on my talk page here, here, and here, as well as removing/refactoring other users' posts. This disruptive behavior needs to stop. We're here to build an encyclopedia and not drama monger. BQZip01 needs to be reminded that he is not above Wikipedia's policies and free to harass users he disagrees with. I am requesting that another uninvolved sysop review the situation and block/warn BQZip01 as necessary. Thanks for reading. Regards, FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As a partial aside, should other images that BQZip01 has fought to claim that they are PD-text (several other University sports teams symbols, not limited to those that were added to the userbox templates, all of which are here) be investigated? I know that I had reservations with File:Miami Hurricanes logo.svg being determined as "PD-text", but I only decided to step back because of the way BQZip01 and his supporters handled the matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I only decided to step back because of the way BQZip01 and his supporters handled the matter."

If by that you mean that it was handled in a rational manner with lots of evidence, thank you. If you mean it to demean my contributions and that of others, don't be vague and accuse me of something when, in fact, I did nothing wrong (WP:PROVEIT). — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Your threshhold for originality is much lower than everyone else's. You and your supporters simply said "That is just a U, and because it is just a U it cannot be copyrighted", when the University of Miami "U" symbol can certainly not be emulated in any typeface I am aware of.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. I have a valid concern and, instead of discussing it, an admin just trusts a new IP ("strangely" well-versed in WP policy, edit summaries, etc) over a user with thousands of edits and assumes I'm to blame for "drama" and accuses me of being a troll without discussing any merits of the issue. The admin then decides my questions aren't worthy of any discussion and deletes them! When I ask about this, he ignores me.

I have a valid, rational point. I provide LOTS of proof that my point is valid. His response is "no" with no explanation and makes reversions. Then he makes these baseless/skewed accusations here twisting normal conversation and requests for clarification into villainy.

I have made no personal attacks of any kind.

I have not accused Hammersoft of being a sockpuppeteer.

If you can look at these contributions and not see the sockpuppetry: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76], and not see the similarity between it and User:Grandma Dottie/User:TomPhan, you are being completely unreasonable.

I've never called someone's points "tension and hot air". I've contributed LOTS to this encyclopedia and I find his dismissal of my contributions as being worthless completely baseless!!! It is also quite hostile; not the nehavior I'd expect from an admin

At least three other users agree with me regarding this image, so my point is, at least, not unreasonable and has support. Asking for clarification from and admin and getting a request for a block is completely inappropriate! — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

He is making a new section as asked on the talk page, so I am not sure why his comment is being removed and the archive template is being added back. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The archived template should remain however. It'd be much appreciated if you could restore that. Thanks! -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does Fastily just get to decide when discussion is over (we talked about the issue for all of 2 days)? Where is the policy that guides this? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, but I added that new section you wrote, so the discussion can continue. Also, Ryulong, come speak to me on IRC about the U of Miami logo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)