Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

block review of admin fastily's indef block of Threeafterthree

The New York Times and the Holocaust

The New York Times and the Holocaust... now I'm a Holocaust denier

The page is currently protected from editing, but the hostility of one of the editors has just gone way over the top. The content disagreement is clearly outlined on the rambling talk page (if anyone cares). The current version of the article is the result of a massive cleanup i did on the article in January -- look at the series of edits i made then and the summaries to understand my reasons. Content disagreement, whatever. However, I and a few others have been consistently attacked as having an agenda over there by User:Cimicifugia, who wrote the article in the first place. He has been asked to desist multiple times. He has just gone far beyond the pale of what's acceptable; here [13] he accuses me and two other editors who disagree with him of being "Holocaust deniers," "malicious," "hostile," "spoilers." The post at the Judaism project is emotive, prejudicial, deeply hurtful and entire unsupported by facts or evidence (his case of holocaust denial against me comes down to my assertion that he was drawing conclusions that went far beyond the source material used in the article). He writes: "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article." Also [14] this edit summary: "asking for advice re hostile holocaust deniers". I'm livid.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:55, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Severe problems at The New York Times and the Holocaust Page

I was trying to get help on the proper way to seek relief from wiki administrators, but as two complaints were immediately posted against me for how I did it, I am going to proceed as best I might. I apologize if this is longer than it is supposed to be or if i have missed a step.

We are having severe problems at the New York Times and the Holocaust article. The topic is a small but for Americans, significant, part of the history of the Holocaust. Like history of the Holocaust in general it is well documented, incontrovertible and not controversial among decent people. It is very well known in the field of Holocaust studies, but unknown by the general public. The information in the article could be based on references from the New York Time’s 100th anniversary apology and especially their full-page, 150th anniversary apology for purposefully burying news of the Holocaust on its inside pages (see [15]; the founding director of the U.S. Holocaust Museum; the founding director of Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism; the founding director of the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies; the top academic who has written in detail on the subject, Laurel Leff and other academics. The Time’s itself called its policy to not report adequately on the Holocaust ‘tragic’ and “the century’s bitterest journalistic failure”, that it had significant impact on the failure of the U.S. to rescue Jews from Hitler, and concluded that generations of journalists have learned from it not to underreport genocide.

Unfortunately, this topic has attracted the attention of three malicious editors who are very experienced in all the procedures of Wikipedia: bali ulimate, Phgustaf and loonymonkey. They claim the topic is an original POV by the wiki editor who first introduced it; that it is ‘trivial’; that it is fringe; that the Times apology is ‘just one man’s opinion’; that we can’t use quotes from the founding directors of the U.S. Holocaust Museum, Harvard’s Shorenstein Center of Journalism or the the Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies because they all come from one source (the script for a History Chanel program written by the Newseum called “The Holocaust: the Untold Story”, available in its entirely on the web here [16]); that the New York Times ‘may have dropped the ball a little’ but that the topic is worth no more than a couple of sentences on the New York Times page.

These same wikipedians previously blocked a paragraph on the subject on the New York Times page, where the topic is currently reduced to a few sentences buried in the section ‘criticism of the Times’ next to a paragraph on a minor editor who plagiarized. In short, wiki is being manipulated by these three hostile wikipedians to recreate in a microcosm the burying of information on the Holocaust.

When the original version of this article was posted it needed more work. Instead of collaborating to improve it, these three hostile wikipedians first tried to have the topic deleted entirely. As part of that discussion they suggested at most it should be a stub. When they were voted down on deletion they proceeded to delete the entire article anyway and substitute a polemical and inaccurate stub, which is what appears on wiki now. They have been belligerent, name calling and working together to drive constructive editors off the page and to impose complete control. They have not once replied to constructive attempts to reach consensus. Repeatedly calling for balance, they have not once produced a reference to provide such ‘balance.’ (There are no opposing references they can produce. There is complete consensus on the basic facts of this topic, just as there is consensus that the Holocaust happened.) They have now changed their tactic to a proposal to merge the article back into the New York Times page, which is a transparent ploy to delete it by another name. The page is frozen and there is no possibility of working on an improved version as long as these three wikipedians are playing the role of spoiler.

I am fairly new to wiki. I am frankly having trouble following the gazillion rules, each with subsets and complex definitions. Baliultimate and his cohorts are very well versed and use wiki rules like insults and weapons to hurl at their opponents. There is something very abusive to me and other sincere editors in the way the wiki consensus process is playing out on this page. It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers. They are denying the validity and facts of this small chapter of Holocaust history, not working sincerely to produce a good article. I respectfully request they be permanently banned from editing this article.Cimicifugia (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2010

Another allegation of holocaust denial against me and two others who happen to disagree with him on content. "It is not fair to us to be asked to collaborate with what are functionally Holocaust deniers." Wikipedia is entirely too tolerant of this kind of stuff. I've also been dealing with insinuations of this very thing from other editors who are smart enough not to cross the line. Absolutely poisonous.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Could we merge these last two sections together here? The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 14:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done, though I suspect there's some cunning {{anchor}} magic I've missed out... TFOWR 14:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Other editors' comments

Cimicifugia, I appreciate you may be new to all this, but accusing other editors of "holocaust denial" is hugely, hugely offensive. See WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and - above all - WP:AGF. Would you agree to apologise to all editors to whom you've made that claim for making that claim, and conditionally drop your complaint against Bali ultimate (see below)?

Bali ultimate, would you agree to drop your complaint against Cimicifugia if they in turn dropped theirs, and agreed to avoid "holocaust denier" claims in future?

Cheers, TFOWR 14:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

He accused two other people of same. I'm absolutely furious, and justifiably so. He has no evidence to support the disgusting allegation whatsoever.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've amended my request - big bit added - to clarify what I'd like to see Cimicifugia do. As a good faith gesture, and I do appreciate that claims like this are incredibly hurtful, would you be prepared to accept an apology from Cimicifugia if they were to apologise to all insulted parties and undertake not to repeat this? TFOWR 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment Cimicifugia (talk · contribs) posted a couple of {{helpme}} requests about this on their talk page; I gave some generic advice on remaining calm and civil, etc, but I did not look into the specifics; I said that, as the incident was now on this noticeboard, they should comment and respond here.  Chzz  ►  15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegations of "holocaust denial," "malice," etc... continue. i don't think it is appropriate to use mediation with what are functionally Holocaust deniers.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for persisting in attacks, even after it was pointed out how offensive they were. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that I attempted to intervene in the dispute and help the two editors resolve the dispute peacefully. Cimicifugia was willing to accept neutral intervention, and had asked me for advice on how to properly request intervention. I told Cimicifugia that it was best to talk with the user first before reporting them. I then tried talking to Bali Ultimate explaining that I would attempt to mediate. Bali was unwilling to compromise or talk to me on the matter and told me "You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue" also in the editing summary to "Go back to editing Star Trek Articles". I informed Cimicifugia that my attempt to talk with Bali had failed and the only option left would be to report Bali here with a neutral post. By calling Bali a holocaust denier the post was obviously not written neutrally. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Full quote from me to the trekkie who barged onto my talk page with an offer of "mediation." "I suggest you go the relevant talk page and participate. You have no standing to mediate anything and you're hereby invited not to return here again to discuss the content issue best dealt with over there."Bali ultimate (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Isn't that the basic premise of Wikipedia:Third opinion? Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion is to give a third opinion, not mediate. We have an actual mediation project here.--Crossmr (talk) 23:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the third ANI filed by Bali. Each report he's filed is against editors who oppose his POV. I was the victim of his last report just a few days ago. How many more innocents will Bali bring to ANI? When do the games stop? Let me remind folks here that Bali is the true problem. He's highly disruptive, uses vulgar language, is incivil, rude, attacks others and never gives any straight answers to those who question him. Just have a good look at the article's talk page and you'll see that he has done plenty that deserved a block long ago. Have a look at his own talk page and you'll see how mean he can be. How this guy gets away with such bad behavior is a mystery to me. Unless of course it's true what they say on WR. Otherwise, I have no clue how he gets away while others are blocked for less. Caden ^cool 00:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I tend to agree with Burpelson AFB: What's wrong with an uninvolved editor trying to mediate? Dealing with problems in a way which will minimise drama is a positive thing. Avoiding further escalation is a positive thing. TFOWR 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment First, Bali ultimate & I are hardly friends: last time we interacted it was on opposite sides of a content disagreement of some sort (I honestly don't remember what it was, sorry). That said, calling anyone a "Holocaust denier" who has not explicitly denied the holocaust existed is a personal attack. Stick that label on any Wikipedian, & people will refuse to extend good faith to that person. I find Cimicifugia's edit to be one instance of doing just that: accusing not only Bali ultimate but also Looneymonkey and PhGustaf of denying the existence of Holocaust. That was the only instance on the page; if there are any other instances elsewhere then we have a problem with Cimicifugia. But until they are provided, nothing can be done. -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan blocked Cimicifugia for repeating the attack in a later post, but I'm inclined to agree with Llywrch in principle. (Good block: prevented immediate disruption; but there's not yet any indication of long-term behavioural issues). TFOWR 10:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we're well on our way to that now though, given the latest invective from this morning. The unblock request contains lines such as "To me, it is Holocaust denial in action", and a followup contains "...you may disagree with my use of this term, but it is a use about which reasonable people may differ. i am not going to apologize for using it. the apology is owed to me for being abused for speaking out for the truth about Holocaust history". This is a user who has clearly dropped others perceived as battleground opponents into the category of Holocaust deniers; his entire premise here is that he is the aggrieved party. Unless someone can convince him to do a 180, this is a block that should be extended to prevent further disruption, IMO. Tarc (talk) 12:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Blimey, that's very poor. I'm personally reluctant to extend the block (involved, newbie admin, blocked editor venting etc, etc) but would not object if the block were extended. TFOWR 13:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

His unblock request boils down to saying me and two other editors who disagree with him are, in fact, holocaust deniers. The votes arguing for merge on that page are now running at something like 9-2. An outside editor came in to say both that he doesn't like me but that I was right on the substance. Commenters in some of the AN/I threads on this have agreed that the shorter version was preferable; the admin who reviewed his unblock request tells him that there was a problem with his content; are all these people Holocaust deniers? And now i'm expected to merrily collaborate with him? He's branded me and others as something particularly vile because we have the temerity to disagree with him. And he continues to poison the well. From his unblock request: they denied the use of experts such as the founding director of the Holocaust Musuem. what do you call behavior like that? To me, it is Holocaust denial in action: it wasn't true, it wasn't significant, it wasn't six million only half a million, don't believe those giving you the facts. It's all small scale as in a petrie dish, around this one small piece of Holocaust history, but the germ is the same. This is from a note he left on his talk page after the unblock request: the apology is owed to me for being abused for speaking out for the truth about Holocaust history. the fact that bali admits he has been called a holocaust denier before should be an absolute red flag. this is not an accusation people make for no reason. I have never been accused of this before and have never said I was. Bali ultimate (talk) 13:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So the message is clear that it's okay to treat newbies (and experienced editors) who oppose Bali's biased POV like dirt? So it's okay to be disruptive (as long as your Bali) and censor historical, truthful facts, that are and can be sourced? It's okay to be abusive to other editors and break the rules just as long as your like Bali? It's okay to protect the NYT, (who admit they were wrong) by censoring the truth in order to not make them look bad? In other words, editors like Bali are valued and respected? Wow! No wonder all the good newbies quit! Caden ^cool 21:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As I believe you have been told already, if you believe another user's actions requires admin intervention, then you are cordially invited to file a report here...of course with evidence, diffs, etc... This vague "but but but he did it too!" hand-waving, like some footballer protesting a yellow card, brings more heat than light to the situation. Tarc (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Bali ultimate is certainly not a Holocaust denier. If Cimicifugia doesn't straighten up and fly right, an indef is in order. I've not looked all the way through this, but from what I am seeing, we're prolly past that point. The diffs offered by Tarc above are quite damning. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend anyone calling another editor a Holocaust denier without solid evidence. Cimicifugia was rightly blocked. However, it might be worth reflecting on how Bali ultimate's editing could have lead someone to make such an inflammatory charge. The persistence by some editors in trying to delete, cut down or merge this material was quite confrontational, and on such a sensitive topic as this it was probably unwise to characterise the topic of the NYT's coverage of the Holocaust as 'fringe' or 'non-notable' (the subject has had one book written about it, and appears in many other sources, e.g.[17][18][19][20][21] from a quick search). A more compromising approach might have been to widen the scope of the article to contemporary American coverage of the Holocaust in general. Cimicifugia was infuriated to the point at which they were convinced they were dealing with editors who were historical revisionists. Lacking an understanding of the tendency of Wikipedians to doggedly persist in trying to remove content they object to, they could see no motivation for wishing to downplay this content other than Holocaust denial. Fences&Windows 20:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

What that suggestion of yours essentially amounts to though is special treatment be given to Holocaust topics, to treat them with kid gloves. There's no shortage of hot-button, controversial, and emotionally-laden subject areas that this encyclopedia has to deal with each and every day. Yes, Cimicifugia was infuriated, but the the responsibility for that is his and his alone. Some people simply cannot handle criticism or dissenting points of view, especially when it comes to religion, and IMO this one. This user needs to check his emotional baggage at the door if he wishes to edit collaboratively, and not see Holocaust deniers behind everyone who holds a different opinion. Malcolm Shoshsa (the socking 173.52.182.160 IP that infested this article's talk page) went down a similar road, calling his perceived opponents, myself included, antisemites. Tarc (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I was offering an explanation, not an excuse. I said Cimicifugia was rightly blocked: he should not have accused anyone of being a Holocaust denier. We are all agreed on this, but do we not wish to learn how to avoid antagonising other editors? Yes, on controversial topics we should be careful not to belittle the concerns of good faith editors. The AfD in January closed as keep (Bali ultimate called the article "effectively a topic made up one day by a wikipedia editor"), but editors including Bali ultimate persisted in trying to remove the content. Bali ultimate said things like "You seem to be peddling the Truth", "your earlier screed", "filled with lies and distortion", "such edits are deceitful, the acts of an agenda driven editor or editors, or merely irresponsible and incompetent ones", "numerous lies were told in the original writing of this article." This is not just about "dissenting points of view", persistent hostile editing was occurring. If you look at the original version of the article it was scrappy and went into too much detail on Arthur Hays Sulzberger, but it does not resemble what Bali ultimate said about it. The editing and talk page of this article do not put Wikipedia in a good light. Fences&Windows 17:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some people would be quite pleased to be called a Holocaust denier. Many would not -- Bali among them. As such, use of the phrase here is inflammatory. If Cimi wishes to make a point, I would suggest he in the future use different phraseology that is not so inflammatory to Bali (and many others), though it might be longer -- such as, "Bali, who has IMHO deleted perfectly reasonable RS-supported information about the Holocaust". Or something on that order -- I expect others' here could come up with a shorter phrase, that would also pass muster. I believe that if he were to do that, that would allow for the parties to continue in their merry conversation within wiki rules, and focus on the merits of edits, in a more civil environment. In short, Bali has every right to object to being so labeled.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Relief from abusive editor

Some feedback: this has not been a good experience of fairness, equality before the law, innocent until proven guilty, a thorough review of all the facts, or any of the standard practices through the centuries to prevent abuse of power.

I respectfully submit that bali’s complaint that I called him a holocaust denier is misleading. I used the term ‘functional holocaust denier’ – which means he is not literally a holocaust denier, but his behavior has the same effect as one. It was an analogy. It was also used in a question on my talk page where i was trying to get help in formulating a clear description of the problem with hostile editors. I will try again without using that term.

I do respectfully protest, however: it seems there is a double standard when bali's repetitive insults and name calling get a pass. Why would my one instance alleged name calling be a worse offense than his vandalism? A worse offense than his long time pracice of bullying, abusive tactics? Look at the discussion page – my record is a model of self control and politeness. His model is a scandal. Yet his histrionic ‘I am livid’ response to being compared to a holocaust denier was considered the big problem.

People, like bali, phgustaf and looneymonkey, who find mainstream, impeccably referenced facts about the holocaust not worthy of inclusion in Wiki because the topic is a lie, trivial, just an opinion – such people are not at all likely to be welling meaning. I gave the hostile editors on this topic the benefit of the doubt for months, trying to answer the valid parts of their demands for more references. First they didn’t like just having Proessor Leff as a reference. Quotes to show she is respected as the top authority were met with silence. Then they didn’t like the actual apology of the NYTimes itself – just an op ed they said. They wouldn’t include the fact it was a full page op ed in the 150th anniversary edition. Then they didn’t accept the fact the Times acknowledged their failure in the 100th anniversary edition as well. They claimed the Newseum reference wasn’t usuable, so I found the entire, intact script the newseum wrote for the history channel. Then they insisted the material wasn’t to be used because it was from a single source. they claimed the program wasn't about the topic, even tho' the Times is mentioned over 50 times. They wouldn’t allow those of us who wanted to use information from the Holocasut Museum, the Wyman Institute on Holocaust studies, or the Harvard Shorenstein center on journalism. They accused the constructive editors of cherry picking, but when invited to provide the balance they claimed was missing, they provided nothing. At this point it was clear that their claims this was a trivial, fringe topic with no validity that didn’t belong in wiki was not from ignorance with the references. They now had all the references, top references, exact quotes, Cambridge University Press. They still wanted a misleading stub. They are not sincere. They are not well meaning. They have a Holocaust problem – call it what you will. I ask for the three of them to be permanently banned from working on this article, since all they doing is sabotage.Cimicifugia (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia

You just essentially repeated the attacks that got you blocked previously. Do we have to permanently block you to ensure that these attacks stop? If you cannot assume good faith about other editors and edit without making personal attacks you cannot participate in Wikipedia. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I consider the screed above a work of fiction. You'll notice the absence of diffs supporting any of his assertions.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, I had a feeling that a "if I add the qualifier functional then it isn't really an insult" defense was on the horizon. Indef this user and save us all further headaches. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

• As an involved editor on the page in question, I do feel that while it is 100% clear that the "denier" label needs to be apologized for and a block is quite reasonable here, Bali has been anything but civil on that talk page. His behavior, IMO, is so poor that it might even amount to baiting. I've found his behavior impossible to deal with and so largely left the discussion. The 30-day protection was also uncalled for and if anything made the situation worse. That we are back here _again_ for the same page twice in 30 days should say something. And the attempt to remove the page even after a keep result at AfD should make it pretty plain where the problem is. This is a topic with an entire book written about it and significant coverage well beyond what we'd generally look for in a topic. Hobit (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Clarification: Nobody on the current page wants to remove the current content. Some want to merge it with Criticism of The New York Times. I think this is a good idea because the current title is an unlikely search term and the information would be more accessible in the larger article, but I don't see it as a big deal either way. PhGustaf (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments by Involved Editor PhGustaf

I will respond to an assertion that I'm a Holocaust denialist about as soon as I respond to an assertion I fuck pigs.

Bali's edit summaries were unfortunate, but his edits probably saved the article at AfD. I nominated the initial mess for deletion; I wouldn't nominate the current one.

Cimicifugia is not a newbie[22]. He doesn't have a lot of edits, but anyone who has been around for nearly two years and learnt not a whit of policy just isn't trying.

All his edits this year have been on this topic, including edits to the topic, talk about the topic, canvassing for support, and attempts to insert big chunks of his stuff into other articles he thinks appropriate.

On his talk page he asked for help several times, and each time chose to ignore the help. (He certainly ignored my mention of WP:TLDR.)

It's not hard to conclude that his sole goal here is getting his essay onto wikipedia.

Unless this guy has a Gestalt or an epiphany or something he's not going to be a good editor. PhGustaf (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that I had 13 relatives die in the thing and our family permanently lost properties including a hotel, so my opinions on the Holocaust are pretty strong and it's not something I usually go near. That being said, looking at the article (and I read it for the first ever time about 10 minutes ago), it appears that the argument is fundamentally between a version which looks like this, and a version that looks like this (not accounting for minor modifications either way, and noting the editors those diffs are attached to are not the primary parties responsible).

The second of these is a major, major violation of WP:WEIGHT and had significant sourcing issues. There is more than a screen devoted to a single editorial and two people's opinions. The sourcing almost entirely goes back to a limited number of publications, and to be honest, parts of it look like advertising or promotion for at least one of the authors - see WP:SOAP. The grammar makes it almost painful to read. And there is a hell of a lot of POV wording, suggesting almost a measure of liability in the actions of the editor. e.g. "In 1944, the Jewish death toll was officically four million dead. The Times editorial still supported restrictive quotas against Jews." WP:SYN advises strongly against making such links without very strong evidence.

The alternate, shorter version, while using the same sources, uses them reasonably sharply and effectively, and on a topic which has been judged to be notable, I think it does the job reasonably well. I can actually read this and understand what is going on. And it's written in standard English. And WP:NPOV is respected - this is the opinions of a former editor, a professor and a historian and they are presented as such, not as immutable fact.

On the separate matter of behaviour, my view is that Cimicifugia's allegations are beyond the pale - the version Bali ultimate supports does not deny the Holocaust, so to call him such is pure polemics and does not aid constructive dialogue in any way. If they don't give this sort of stuff up soon, I don't think their chances of staying on Wikipedia are very high. On the other hand I can see plenty of evidence that Bali ultimate has been far from an angel in the conduct of this matter, which muddies the waters a bit. I can't fault Bali much on the content, but there is an old saying "one can be so right that one is wrong" and they would do well to consider how their actions come across to others. The other players in this (on both sides) appear to have behaved reasonably, apart from an IP address which may or may not have been a sock of a blocked editor and has itself been blocked. Orderinchaos 11:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

On further review, User:Cimicifugia appears to be a WP:SPA on this particular topic, and has been so for much of their two-year editing history. Some revealing comments on their talk page suggest they don't understand WP:OWN very well. Orderinchaos 11:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

(od) Hmm. To me, the most interesting thing about this discussion is there is an article on wikipedia titled "The New York Times and the Holocaust". What's going on with this project? --RegentsPark (talk) 17:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

What's going on is that the page is locked down for a month and is being discussed here. If you're interested in contributing to it, join the pleasant chat at its talk page. PhGustaf (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Null edit to defer archiving. I think this matter needs some sort of resolution. PhGustaf (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Well, not much in the way of resolution, more commentary, but Cimicifugia has made only one edit since their block expired. Unfortunately that edit suggests that the problem remains: I respectfully submit that bali’s complaint that I called him a holocaust denier is misleading. I used the term ‘functional holocaust denier’ – which means he is not literally a holocaust denier, but his behavior has the same effect as one. I'm unconvinced that Cimicifugia understands the problem. TFOWR 19:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm convinced that he does not understand the problem, and has been unswayed by any argument for at least six months. This thread has unfortunately has made him even more defensive. If we just let the thread lapse, we'll be back soon with another one. I'm trying to think of a less drastic response than a topic ban, but I'm coming up blank. PhGustaf (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• There hasn't been any activity either at this page or on its talk page, & Cimicifugia has vanished, so the matter at the moment is at an impasse. We could unprotect the page & force the issue. Or just merge it into Criticism of The New York Times & protect the redirect. Or just move onto other things & if Cimicifugia returns & repeats this routine block him indefinitely then. I know this sounds like a cop out, but there is nothing else that can be done -- unless one or all of the three parties Cimicifugia attacked need people to affirm that none of them said or did anything here that justifies being called a "Holocaust denier". (Which is a reasonable request; this is not a label the vast majority of people wish to have.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It may be premature to say that the problem has gone away, as he tends to edit sporadically. Perhaps we should close the issue for now, but I think it wise for a couple of admins to keep an eye on him and ensure that nothing more happens. A further block is unwarranted at this time, but a far more substantial block may be necessary if the behaviour continues. At this time, however, I think we can mark the issue resolved. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Cimicifugia wrote that he called Bali a "‘functional holocaust denier’ – which means he is not literally a holocaust denier, but his behavior has the same effect as one." "His behavior has the same effect as one"? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Sounds like more wikilawyering gibberish to me. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Propose community ban

Would a community ban on Cimicifugia be appropriate? Looking through his edit history, it appears as though the account's sole purpose is to push a particular POV, and he has engaged in disruptive editing in the past (including adding an editorial on the topic of "Arab Nazism"--an apparent neologism--to the Nazism article, as well as a section to September 11 attacks which attempted to smear American Muslims by insinuating that they supported the attacks; [23]). I fail to see how any of this user's contributions could be considered constructive or beneficial to Wikipeda, as he/she is attempting to push a clearly bigoted agenda. The recent, ridiculous personal attacks from this editor pretty much prove my point. That is why I am proposing a community ban for User: Cimicifugia. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think a ban at this point is unwarranted, as they have not reoffended since their block. This editor is, however, treading on thin ice. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This talkpage thread might be notable. It's from two years ago, and is similar in many ways to his current work: tendentious, POV, WOT. He hasn't learned anything, and he'll be back. PhGustaf (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support first (and so far only) edit after block was a repeat of the appalling behaviour which led to the block. Verbal chat 15:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we even need this article at all?

Quite frankly, I fail to see why The New York Times and the Holocaust needs its own article at all. The fact that many of the folks who have been working on it are generally acting in extremely uncivil and obnoxious ways (one user even called another a Holocaust denier with no proof) makes me doubt whether such an article can ever truly satisfy NPOV, or whether it, by its very nature, is bound to remain a magnet for POV-pushers and general ne'er-do-wells. The very title of the article could be construed as inflammatory, and that is probably why this article has caused so many problems for the Wikipedia community. In general, I don't like articles with titles of the form "X and Y", since such articles by their very nature run into problems with SYNTH; when Y is something as emotionally and politically charged as the Holocaust, the problem is only magnified a thousand times, since the article essentially becomes an attack page on X.

I was going to nominate the article for AFD, but I see that it is currently protected from editing (preventing me from adding an AFD template) and so I'm going to bring up the issue here instead. Any content that is worth keeping could be merged into other articles, like that of the New York Times or Criticism of The New York Times. Does this sound reasonable? Stonemason89 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected articles can still be nominated at AfD; they're not exempt from deletion consideration. You can create the AfD nomination as normal and add it to the AfD listing, then ask an admin (either here, if the discussion is still going, or using {{editprotected}} on the talk page) to add the AfD template to the article. Bencherlite^Talk 13:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Note that it has survived a previous AfD. It's been long enough for a renom, in my opinion, but has the situation changed sufficiently so that the outcome is likely to be different? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to the AFD template, just waiting for an admin to add it to the article. I also nominated one of Cimicifugia's own articles for AFD as it was little more than than an essay. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done here. TFOWR 14:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To Stonemason above: I suspect you are trying hard not to single out any specific person in your comment, but unless I'm missing something, only one person was calling anyone "Holocaust deniers". Can we assume that was your intent before someone takes offense & reopens this fading thread with something along the lines of "I didn't accuse anyone of being a Holocaust denier, nor did I accuse anyone of an unpleasant form of animal husbandry"? -- llywrch (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't want to misspell his username at the time so I just decided not to mention him by name at all. Thanks for pointing this out; I've refactored my comment above to be more accurate (many users were being uncivil, but only one dropped the HD-bomb). Stonemason89 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a period of time when the Holocaust was taking place. The New York Times was a functioning newspaper at that time. Surprisingly little coverage of the Holocaust found its way into the New York Times, at least not prominently placed, such as on the front page, except in a few instances. In retrospect that seems odd. Commentators have looked into this. Laurel Leff is one, writing a book called Buried by the Times. Also, Deborah Lipstadt has studied the subject. There are sources specifically on the scope of this article. Its parameters are delineated in these sources. In what way is the article in violation of WP:SYNTH or WP:NPOV? How is it an attack page? It is not "created primarily to disparage its subject." It is documenting the news coverage of a very sensitive event. The sparse news coverage of that event by one of the most prominent news outlets at that time is a well-sourced phenomena. Why subsume it into another article? Isn't it a stand alone subject? The failure of the Times to cover that event is a topic in its own right. WP:NPOV in this case means providing counterbalancing material to the notion of "failure" to to cover an eminently newsworthy event, if such material is available. Bus stop (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There was sparse coverage or knowledge in general at the time. Singling out a sole newspaper smacks of agenda-driven purposes here, to be honest. But anyways, we're at AfD #2 now, so let's see how it goes. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pickbothmanlol ban proposal

I just removed a post placed here by a sock of indefblocked Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs). I think everyone here is familiar with the background of this person, so I won't waste any time rehashing. I'm proposing a community ban on Pickbothmanlol. I know that's 2 ban proposals in one day, but as with the previous proposal, this helps us revert on sight without the hassle of 3RR and such. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You can revert on sight any indef blocked users' contributions without a community ban. Can you link the diff for the post here that you reverted? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

And - is the sock identified and blocked yet? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes [24], and Yes [25]. There is a benefit to banning over indefinite blocking. it was discussed recently but I can't find the discussion. Will look for it. Per WP:3RR reverting an indef'd editor can result in a block for a good-faith editor. A community ban changes that. There is value in a community ban over an indef-block-with-no-admin-prepared-to-unblock. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I helped instigate that discussion. But I am not yet convinced that the user is socking badly enough to justify it here... Maybe. How often are you seeing them return like this? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pickbothmanlol/Archive seems pretty convincing. I'm sure that this isn't even all the PBM socks since some tags have been deleted and some haven't even been tagged. Elockid ^(Talk) 04:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's my concern about PBML - the last few socks discovered have had attention brought to them by their own unnecessary actions, almost as if they've been wanting to be blocked. That could simply be lack of self-control, but it could also be gamesmanship: while we're going along happily "discovering" PBML's obvious socks and dealing with them, could there be a deeper sock with a longer history who is being protected by these distractions? I don't want to get into the morass of John LeCarre/mole thinking, and maybe I'm giving the PBML editor too much credit, but I do wonder about the obviousness and ease of capture of those socks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and on topic, I'm in favor of a community ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... support ban. I'm not sure if he's genuinely stupid or pretending to be- he's taken to trolling some of the small wikis by creating many socks that have suicidal names. Also, this is Pickbothmanlol (or at least his username was). {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 09:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, positively support a ban. This dingaling tends to work indirectly in concert with User:Bambifan101 who, I'm pleased to say, seems to be very quiet as of late. PBML attacks the same articles and games the system in the same way. I for one am tired of babysitting this undisciplined brat. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Support ban Enough is enough.  – Tommy [message] 15:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban He isn't community banned yet!? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto This is just getting out of hand. As tommy said, enough is enough. Pilif12p :  Yo  20:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Per the last discussion about the particulars of community ban discussions, the preferred location for such discussions is on the main administrators noticeboard rather than here on ANI. I believe that our current working consensus on "bannable" includes someone who's disruptively sockpuppeted that long and that badly. I recommend opening a ban proposal over there and will do so later tonight if nobody beats me to it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It would probably be easier to just let the discussion here run it's course. Why restart discussion from scratch somewhere else? Something tells me more people watch AN/I than AN anyway. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the theory is that AN has a tendency to have somewhat less drama about it, which is in part a function of its lesser rate of traffic. Probably a question of balancing having enough people involved versus the quality of the response. I agree with GWH that ban proposals in general are better off at AN, but I concur with BurpelsonAFB that there's no particular reason to re-start this one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. George, if you really want to move it go ahead, but maybe it would be better to move the existing discussion and just leave a little note here saying it's been moved. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I am inclined to be lazy and just post a notice there about the ban discussion here, I think. It would have been better done visa versa, but I don't see any harm or foul in leaving it here, on reflection. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support - per nom and PMDrive1061. Enough is enough and this will free us up a bit re: 3RR. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be heading towards a SNOW with around 7 people saying yea and nobody saying nay. PBML's userpage is current protected, could an admin add the BAN tag to it please? Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the direction is fairly clear, but I neglected to get the notification on AN of this thread up until earlier today. I suggest it be left open overnight so that AN-only readers who may care get a chance to come comment. I will close tomorrow if nobody else does, unless a vigorous discussion has ensued. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine George, thank you. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban - Wikipedia has got to fight against this sort of thing. Case made convincingly. Jusdafax 23:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support Ban - Aside from the socking, the other garbage he's done is enough to show him the door, forever. --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban per Burpelson AFB's comments — no reason to make someone blockable for violating 3RR just because they're fighting against this vandal. Nyttend (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

unban of User:Drsjpdc?

Resolved

 – He was unbanned over 24 hours ago. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Drsjpdc was banned back in January [26] They have written an "open letter" apologizing for their errors and are requesting to be unbanned. Jimbo has endorsed [27] their unban as he has apparently been conversing with them via email. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I will not be available for the next several days. If a consensus emerges before I return any admin may feel free to close this up Beeblebrox (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Why not take an initial course of engaging with Drsjpdc on his talk page (unblocking it if need be) and see if the community can form its own judgment on this? Jimbo is very likely to be right, but if the community is being handed this, the community should do its due diligence.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I follow your logic there, Walt. I brought this here exactly because he was banned by a discussion here so another discussion here is the best way to discuss lifting the ban. If I was just going to disregard the community, take Jimbo's word for it and lift the ban myself I would have done that and been emergency desysopped by arbcom already... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just as a technical point, there is no way the ArbCom would desysop anyone for that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not a technical point, it's your personal opinion of what Arbcom would or wouldn't do. Anyway emergency desysops are to allow time for discussion, and are not permanent. DuncanHill (talk) 08:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I tussled with this editor once but believe he could be a good editor if allowed back. Its been almost six months, so I think the ban has served its purpose at this point, and the editor is respectfully requesting to return.--Milowent (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have also considered welcoming him back as I was on friendly terms during his time here. I'll alert him to this discussion just in case anyone hasn't done so already. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I never read that, nevermind. I still support him though. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The tone seems respectful enough, and there are editors vouching for him. Some sort of probationary or provisional unblock therefore sounds like a good idea. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

• This discussion here serves as a community unban discussion. As nobody has posted any substantial reasons not to unban, and there appears to be support for unbanning, I am going to unblock the user (on probation). Should the discussion take a sudden turn in the other direction, the user can be reblocked. Please feel free to continue discussing. Jehochman ^Talk 12:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, that is fine. I just wanted to make sure that this didn't wind up in a lot of drama.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support unban - But the ban should be immediately reenabled if the editor in question resumes their disruption. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support unban despite quite a list of infractions, it looks as if he went through the proper channels, I look forward to dealing with this user in the future, so long as the editor does not resume with the behaviors in question! --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Problematic situation at 2001 anthrax attacks

Wiki-ny-2007 (talk · contribs) has restored content to 2001 anthrax attacks, which contained, among other questionable wording, the phrase

At least four newspapers have commented upon this information: The New York Times, The Washington Post (which got a lot of the information wrong), The Register in the UK and The Frederick News-Post.

I have contacted Wiki-ny-2007, but the user has not responded yet to my post. (The user has not responded to any of the other queries on his talk page either.) The user may not have been aware of the extent of the ongoing discussion on the issue.

The references to secondary reliable sources have been added by EdLake (talk · contribs), the original contributor of the content, after he was advised by three editors, including myself, to use the DOJ report on the Anthrax investigation, the source he initially has cited exclusively, as well as independent secondary sources, but to do so in a way that follows the relevant policies and guidelines.

Controversial content should be discussed at the talk page, before an agreed wording is added to the article itself. EdLake was advised to follow this approach, and he participates actively in the discussion at the talk page of the article. Currently, the issue is being discussed at this section of the talk page.

More discussion of the issue is at the talk page of 98.144.51.230, the IP from which EdLake has edited before he created his account, and at EdLake's talk page (see also the following section on that page).

It would be helpful if an experienced uninvolved editor could have a look at the situation.  Cs32en Talk to me  20:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In what way does this require administrator intervention? Also, you are required to inform both editors of this discussion, which you have not done. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)ETA - I have now informed both editors.

I have left a note at the this section of the article's talk page. I'll also contact the editors now. I don't want to revert the edit, as an involved editor, and in order to avoid edit warring. I don't think any blocks or other such measures are necessary or appropriate at this point. Nevertheless, this is not a content issue only, but also a user conduct issue. Unfortunately, there is no "Experienced editors' noticeboard", which would be the best venue for my request.  Cs32en Talk to me  21:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that you have already informed both editors. Thank you!  Cs32en Talk to me  21:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that the main editor (EdLake) is trying to do a good job, and has expertise in that field, but he is but is very unfamiliar with Wikipedia. I think that Cs32 got him more confused by deleting material citing only the (arguable and weaker) basis that an FBI report was a primary source, when in fact, there were many other problems with the material. Not being familiar with Wikipedia, EdLake is not understanding the input being given, and is misinterpreting CS32's input as being opposition to his content or FBI report source. Then Wiki-ny-2007 (who I think has not been involved) reverted CS32's deletions thinking that CS32 was trying to suppress an idea / theory. I think that the underlying material that EdLake is trying to put in there is reliably sourceable, but what he wrote has many wiki-problems. Wiki-ny-2007's reversion derailed a process where EdLake had put the material on the talk page to be reviewed and worked on. This is just my take, I could be wrong. North8000 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like everyone needs to go back to the talk page. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It looked to me that CS had an agenda in mind. Maybe I'm right, maybe wrong.

This too, shall pass.

22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-ny-2007 (talk • contribs)

sorry about not signing....., something is hiccupping when I enter the tildes.. wiki-ny-2007

22:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-ny-2007 (talk • contribs)

I agree with North8000 -- I think EdLake's intentions are good, and that he is still having trouble understanding Wikipedia policy. I also agree with Cs32en that the information Ed wants to add to the article can be used if cited properly, but that doing it right is a little tricky. I would help at greater length but I am trying to minimize typing for the time being for health reasons. Tim Pierce (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I could very well be having trouble understanding Wikipedia policy. The argument is that the FBI Summary report is a "primary source" and cannot be used. But, a "summary" by definition is NOT a "primary source." The "primary sources" would be the original FBI interviews, the anthrax letters and envelopes, the anthrax and possibly the original FBI field reports. And the rules just say that "primary sources" should be used "carefully." Their use is NOT forbidden. I believe I used the FBI Summary very carefully.

Also, at first I just cited pages 56-64 of the Summary report. But then I was told that that wasn't enough. So, I added citations to specific pages for specific quotes. But I was then told that that just made it difficult to read and understand the section. So, I'm going to go back and delete some of the more confusing citations to specific pages. (Added note: I went back, but I couldn't figure out what to delete. Sorry. I'll just leave the deletions to others.)

I'm open to suggestions of how to do things better, but the suggestions so far look to me like I should write things the way someone else would write them and using a different point of view. I don't know how to do that. EdLake (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that "secondary source" refers to something coming from a third party which is at least one step removed from the originating primary source. As both the FBI report and the FBI summary report were generated by the same institution, they are both primary sources, and, as such, must be handled carefully. Use of primary sources on Wikipedia is not forbidden, but care must be taken that they are not given undue weight, and that they are not used via editor-generated analysis or interpretation, which would be considered original research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very important point and seemingly needs clarification by administrators. When doing any kind of research or analysis, a "primary source" cannot be an entire government organization. It can only be as I described it: "original FBI interviews, the anthrax letters and envelopes, the anthrax and possibly the original FBI field reports." However, a "primary source" can be interpreted to be an entire government organization if you wish to weigh what "they" say against what someone else says, giving both equal weight. But, is that the Wikipedia way? EdLake (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

An example might be relevant here: How do we weigh the DOJ/FBI's Summary report against The Washington Post information about the hidden message in the media letters? The Post says:

"The new documents also suggest for the first time that Ivins, who was known to have a fascination with hidden codes and ciphers, might have sent a hidden message in the handwritten labels on the anthrax envelopes sent to NBC anchor Tom Brokaw." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/19/AR2010021902369.html

and in their illustration they say:

"Investigators isolated the bold letters and got an A and two T's. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2010/02/20/GR2010022000200.html

The hidden message was NOT in handwritten labels on the envelopes, and it did NOT consist of only an A and two T's. I pointed out that both of those statements by the Post are WRONG. Is that an "original analysis" on my part? Or is it simply clear to anyone looking at the DOJ/FBI's report that the Post was careless and wildly misinterpreted the facts presented by the FBI/DOJ? Is the Post to be given equal or greater weight anyway because they are a "secondary source?" Am I showing bias by stating that the Post was wrong? Or am I showing care to make sure no one believes the Post's errors? EdLake (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ed: the reason this summary is considered a primary source here is that it's the FBI's summary of their own investigation. In other words, it's not the FBI evidence viewed through another set of eyes -- it's the FBI investigators summing up the evidence that they found themselves. It's as if I wrote a report on my own investigation into the attacks and then published a synopsis of my own report. The fact that it's a "summary" doesn't change the fact that it comes from the same original research that the report itself was based on. If a newspaper or journal then analyzed my report and published their summary of what I found, that summary would constitute a secondary source. I don't think I agree that an entire government bureau cannot be considered a primary source. In this case it seems implausible that the authors of the summary report are far enough removed from the initial investigation to make them a secondary source. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing if your interpretation of "primary source" is the interpretation of most editors or the administrators of Wikipedia. Either way, the rules do not FORBID the use of "primary sources," they only advise that "primary sources" be used "carefully" - which I did. EdLake (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I also have no way of knowing if everything I'm adding to the anthrax article will be someday totally deleted because one editor believes it's "primary source" material that was not used "carefully." I'm putting a lot of time and effort into updating the article with new information released on February 19, 2010. I'd hate to see it all go to waste. EdLake (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, there is never any guarantee that some editor in the future won't object to the some previous edit -- that's rather the nature of the beast -- but if the information is well-sourced and pertinent, other editors will, presumably, revert those edits and restore the material. There's no guarantee of that, though, and no possible way that a guarantee can be issued. If you don't want to contribute under those circumstances, then you shouldn't. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not worried about people deleting things, I'm worried about arguing with people who are using totally illogical and irrational arguments. See below:

Here is Wikipedia's definition of "primary source" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source which agrees with MY definition:

"Primary source is a term used in a number of disciplines to describe source material that is closest to the person, information, period, or idea being studied.[1]

"In historiography, a primary source (also called original source or evidence) is an artifact, a document, a recording, or other source of information that was created at the time under study. If created by a human source, then a source with direct personal knowledge of the events being described. It serves as an original source of information about the topic. Similar definitions are used in library science, and other areas of scholarship. In journalism, a primary source can be a person with direct knowledge of a situation, or a document created by such a person.

Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. "Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.[2][3]"

So, the arguments I'm seeing here disagree with Wikipedia's definition (and every other definition) of "primary source."

A simple question might help clear things up for me: In the anthrax attacks article, in the section about the National Academy of Sciences review, there is an interview of Dr. Henry Heine by the New York Times. Who is the "primary source" and why? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks#National_Academy_of_Sciences_Review EdLake (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the question needs to be a little more complex. If the person being interviewed by the New York Times is the "primary source," why isn't the person being interviewed by the FBI also the "primary source?" EdLake (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, the arguments conform to WP policy because:

"Primary" and "secondary" are relative terms, with sources judged primary or secondary according to specific historical contexts and what is being studied.

If the FBI summary of the FBI report had been done by an outside organization, or, possibly, even by another disconnected agency of the government, such as a Senate investigative committee, it would be a secondary source; but since it was created by the same agency, with presumably the same precepts and prejudices, it's not. It might even be acceptable as a secondary source if it was generated by a semi-independent arm of the same agency, such as an ombudsman or an inspector general. Is any of these the case? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, it looks to me that this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page, in regard to the content dispute, or on WP:RSN in regard to EdLake's misunderstanding the difference between primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia, as there doesn't appear to be anything for admins to do here, unless someone edits against consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me like a BASIC problem with the definition of "primary source" which only administrators can resolve.

From my perspective, you are being illogical. You are saying that if the FBI interviews Dr. Heine, the FBI is the "primary source." But, if The New York Times interviews Dr. Heine, Dr. Heine is the "primary source" and the New York Times is the "secondary source." And the reason is? Historical context? What "historical context"? Is history different for the FBI than for The New York times? EdLake (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. WP:RSN is yet another discussion page? Could we get some clear decision on where the definition of "primary source" should be ironed out? EdLake (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RSN is the noticeboard for questions about WP:reliable sources -- and I'm afraid your misperception about Wikipedia is showing in another way: if there is a question about what is and what is not a primary or secondary source, it cannot be resolved by administrators, that is not their function here. They administer policy, they do not set it -- policy is determined by consensus brought about by discussion between editors. Admittedly, the act of administering policy sometimes requires a certain degreee of interpretation, but that is not the admins' primary function, and if an admin strays too far from the accepted consensus interpretation, you can be sure that editors and other admins will let them know.

So, in short, there is nothing for admins to do with your complaint, go to WP:RSN and raise it there, and discussions with other editors will determine what the current consensus is in regard to your request. I'm almost certain that you will find that you are wrong in your interpretation, and that both the original FBI report and the subsequent FBI summary are primary sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned -- that is, after all, what a number of editors have told you here already. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Zlykinskyja's talk page conduct

Since administrator MLauba imposed a month-long block for using Wikipedia as a battleground (13 June), Zlykinskyja (talk · contribs) has continued to personalise and dramatise the actions of other actions on their talk page. On 22 June, FormerIP raised legitimate grounds for a sockpuppeteering investigation concerning the user, and apologised for potential distress when the result proved to be negative. Zlykinskyja's response to the investigation went beyond refuting the case at hand to making personal attacks and casting hostile aspersions on FormerIP and other editors, as the edits here demonstrate. The text of the sockpuppet case is now prominently displayed on the talk page, with FormerIP's apology ignored. Editors including FormerIP are referred to as a "pro-guilt/anti-Amanda Knox group" with relation to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article, which discusses the conviction and imprisonment of Amanda Knox. A request from Pablo X to amend such remarks about other editors has been dismissed as "harassment", while subsequent pleas from Pablo X and FormerIP have been removed due to illegitimate claims of "insults and attacks". When I noted assertions on the talk page which misrepresented myself and another user, the section was again removed and, far from revert or strike through the unfounded allegations (which concern multiple users besides just me), Zlykinskyja simply substituted my username into the text of their response to the sockpuppet investigation, despite the irrelevance of the paragraph to the matter in question and the innaccuracy of the accusations detailed.

I would have added a message about all this to the blocking administrator's talk page, but MLauba appears to be on a Wikibreak. As it is currently presented, Zlykinskyja's talk page is a series of vitriolic swathes of texts which vilify other users, which I do not consider to represent civil behaviour that is expected of a Wikipedia contributor. There is surely no justification for posting baseless allegations on a Wikipedia page, even if a user is currently blocked and unable to edit any other areas of the site. No diffs are provided to substantiate claims in the response to the sockpuppetry investigation. I'll leave the content of other areas of the page (such as sections on BP and "anti-Americanism") for others to judge, but could an administrator please firmly warn Zlykinskyja about their actions? In my opinion, however, the threshold for the removal of talk page editing privileges has unambiguously been crossed. Thank you. (I shall inform Zlykinskyja, FormerIP and Pablo X of this report.) SuperMarioMan 20:58, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• I won't do this myself, as I'm previously involved, but someone really needs to go through that page, remove all the personal attacks (that could take a while, frankly), also remove all the WP:SOAPBOX content (mostly at the top and bottom of the article), and remove talkpage access for the remainder of the block. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not caused significant distress by the contents of Zlykinskyja's talkpage. However, I think that Zlykinskyja has gotten very much into a battleground frame of mind and is unhealthily (perhaps slightly masochistically) dwelling on perceived conspiracies against him/her whilst serving the current block. On the one hand, taking away the facility to use his/her talkpage in this way might actually be helpful to the user. On the other hand, it may increase his/her sense of victimhood. So I have no recommendation. I don't take any pleasure at all in Zlykinskyja's unhappiness, but he/she is a very disruptive editor and ought to get out of blaming other users for the consequences of that. --FormerIP (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja has complained a number of times that other editors involved in the Murder of Meredith Kercher article are anti-American, and has asked for an American admin to look into the matter, but apparently no-one has been willing. It might be helpful if someone felt able to oblige. --FormerIP (talk) 22:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry. You don't get to ask for a referee from your hometown. It would be chaos if editors with a nationalist POV could demand that there case only be looked by admins of their nationality. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I get that. --FormerIP (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, please be assured that I was making no attempt to speak for your feelings, just to report what precisely has been going on during the last few days. On a side note, if piecing together all the diffs in the original report is too time-consuming, I offer this as a fair summing up of the majority of the civility problems that I perceive: claims of victimhood interspersed with attacks (genuine ones), gross misrepresentation of other Wikipedia users, woefully inaccurate assumptions (I don't know where Zlykinskyja got the idea that I support Knox's conviction, since to my memory I have expressed no personal opinion, which is irrelevant in any case. I have also made precisely zero edits to the Murder of Meredith Kercher article.), a hostile partisan atmosphere drawn up on the basis of nationality and UK/US/European divisions, dredging up past comments from users to provide "evidence" that the current contributors to the page are anti-American, tired accusations of censorship, harassment and bullying, a vociferous objection to all who dare to question their multiple violations of multiple Wikipedia policies, and, in general, blowing out of all reasonable proportion the perfectly sensible actions of other editors. That this user has responded to evidence of attacks (see the diffs) with yet more attacks (natually, with no support from diffs) indicates their sheer lack of understanding of the consequences of their actions on the collegial spirit of Wikipedia. SuperMarioMan 22:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

By "just for the record", I meant to register that I didn't feel that I was being caused any harm by the talk page diatribe. I didn't mean it in a "ahem, let me speak for myself" type way, Mario, and I don't see anything wrong with the way you reported the details. --FormerIP (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Briefly: - I am personally annoyed with the behaviour of this user and how he/she portrays other eeditors on the talkpage, particularly claims that various editors belong to agenda-driven 'groups'. However, any attempt to change this behaviour is seen as harrassment. The user is currently blocked, so what is an admin to do?. Well, it would be nice if someone were to have a word, however this will most likely be seen as more harassment.   pablo_hablo. 23:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied from talk:

The information I posted on my Talk page was posted there due to the fact that I was blocked, but was involved in an unjustified sock puppet investigation. There was no other way for me to respond to the false sock puppet charges. There had also just been a prior charge a few days earlier. This also necessitated a response on my Talk page. As the situation is rather complicated and I am currently blocked, and SarekOfVulcan has been gracious enough to post this here at ANI, I would just ask that for my further comments in this matter, that everyone please counsult my Talk page, which is the only place I can speak at all on Wikikpedia due to a very long one month block. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusions of User:SuperMarioMan about Zlykinsyja's use of their talk page while blocked. Unless Zlykynskyja is willing to remove all content arguments about Meredith Kercher from their talk page, and all complaints about persecution by editors or admins who they believe have the wrong nationality, I suggest that Zlykinskyja should be blocked from the page for the remainder of the one-month block. EdJohnston (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposal re Zlykinskyja

I'm rather involved in this entire matter and am no fan of Zlykinskyja's, as I fear most of you know; however, it actually makes me sad to see her feeling as if she was being poked. If she accepts and if there's consensus here, I propose to change her sanction to:

• restriction to only edit the talk page of the article about Meredith's murder for the remainder of the month;
• mentorship by a fellow editor in good standing of her choice;
• civility parole for no less than three months.

Keeping on blocking her for longer periods of time doesn't help, in my opinion, because she thinks she is doing nothing wrong. It only makes her belief that she is being censored stronger. I think we should deal with this editor differently, trying to get someone she trusts to explain her why this community tends to react the way it does — that is to say, badly — and how to avoid further blocks. Do you think it would be acceptable? Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• No comment (yet) on the above proposal; off-hand it looks good but I've only skimmed Zlykinskyja's talk page and the issue at hand. One additional comment I would make is: Zlykinskyja appears to have a concern about non-American admins. Speaking as a non-American admin I'm surprised, and naturally regard the concerns as being without merit. However, as a means of addressing and resolving Zlykinskyja's concerns, I have no objection to any American admin assisting Zlykinskyja. (Why should I?) I'd personally be prepared to recuse myself on grounds of nationality until Zlykinskyja was satisfied that we all strive for WP:NPOV. (This is in no way intended to set a precedent: I reject the basic premise that an admin's nationality necessarily has any bearing on their work). TFOWR 11:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• I think it could be helpful for an American editor to try and mentor her, but I'd be concerned at the suggestion that she thinks we have taken sides and wants the involvement of admins from what she perceives as her side. In the case of this article we have a dead Brit and an Italian court jailing some people including an American. I like to think that any of our admins could get involved in this case, but as a Brit I wouldn't be offended if an editor asked that the relevant admins not be British, Italian or American. I'm not offended by her request for an American admin, but I'd have been much more impressed if she'd asked for one for one from a "neutral" country. So as for the proposal, I'd agree with the mentorship, disagree that the community tends to react badly, and disagree about confining her to the talkpage of the contentious article. I'd be happy to end the current block early if she agrees to a period of editing collegially on a completely different topic, and taking a break from this particular murder. ϢereSpielChequers 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I realise I worded the first point in a terrible way and it may mean all but what I had intended; I meant to say that she can edit all articles she wants, except the one about Meredith's murder; in that case, though, she still can edit its talk page. Re-reading, I see it was a blunder on my part; so, anyone willing to help might assist me in saying what I wanted to say. ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 14:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not necessarily against your proposal, Salvio, but it does strike me as being a reduction on the current sanction - should Zlykinskyja be rewarded in that way right now? On the other hand, some sort of mentorship might be effective (although it would require an admin to put in the necessary time and effort. I know of one case where mentorship plus a lengthy 0RR restriction did seem to have positive results. I think Elen of the Roads makes a valid point about the dangers of allowing users to ask for a particular nationality or whatever of admin. Imagine if this was allowed on Middle East articles. --FormerIP (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

  I think Elen of the Roads makes a valid point about the dangers of allowing users to ask for a particular nationality or whatever of admin. Imagine if this was allowed on Middle East articles. It must never be allowed to happen. I think in this case, however, we're well before that stage. There isn't an entrenched "US editor vs. European editor" mentality surrounding the case, just one (or two) problematic editors. I'd certainly trust US admins to edit, protect and take other admin actions with this article: that's a degree of trust which I might not have at more WP:POV-orientated articles. TFOWR 12:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose one way you could distinguish this case is that other involved editors are not objecting to a US admin being asked for (whereas in something like a ME article they probably would). --FormerIP (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think we're just rewarding this editor. We've been down this road before: she was blocked twice for one month (in the first instance, it was sockpuppetry, in the second disruptive editing or something like that, I haven't checked) and yet she did not change her editing habits. She just came back from her block and behaved just as if nothing had happened in the meantime. That's why I think we should change our approach to this matter. Since blocks do not seem to help, my opinion is that we could give a crack at something else, to see if it works. That's why I proposed mentorship (coupled with a civility parole, because I wouldn't want to come back in a week, complaining about this editor's attacks). This user is well-meaning, she is not a vandal; she really thinks she is trying to improve the article. She just goes about it the wrong way, in my opinion (and, if I may say so, she should grow a thicker skin). That's why I think mentorship might help. And, if it doesn't, there's always time to adopt stricter sanctions. At least, we will have tried. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 12:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Salvio that blocks do not appear to be encouraging the user to amend their (her?) behaviour. Prior to her standing one-month restriction, on 14 May MLauba imposed a two-week block with the proviso that "Once you return from your block, you are strongly advised to unwatchlist the above article and find other topics to edit" (i.e. outside the Murder of Meredith Kercher topic). An increasingly belligerent series of nationalistic attacks led to the removal of access to her talk page the next day, and still the page is home to insinuating remarks of a comparable "United States v. United Kingdom and the rest of Europe" slant, which still pertain in part to the Kercher case. The user appears to be drawn to high-profile, highly-charged topics well-documented in both the British and American media: first Kercher and the subsequent conviction and imprisonment of American student Amanda Knox, now BP and the (as yet unresolved) situation in the Gulf of Mexico in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill (see these sections of the current page). She seems to require that any intervening administrator present their personal opinion on the case, as if personal opinion were at all relevant to the production of an impartial encyclopaedia. In particular, it is concerning that within the timeline of this ANI discussion, she has pestered the administrator who transferred her response to this page for their view of the perceived bias against American editors ("But what about the anti-American issue?") Judging from the quotations that she has pulled from the Kercher article history and outside newspaper sources (see sections linked above), the user has a propensity for sweeping generalisation about nationalities (for one thing, how reasonable is it to suggest on the flimsiest of evidence that all Britons hate Amanda Knox with a passion?) How nationalities are perceived in the media of different countries is a side issue or a metatopic which is well beside the issues that Wikipedia is duty-bound to document.

In conclusion, since there appears to have been no meaningful change in the user's attitude to editing, I agree that a different approach is required, hence I support the proposals of mentorship and strict monitoring of civility. However, I feel that altering or lifting the one-month block so soon is too lenient: this particular block has succeeded one of a shorter duration, and when MLauba set the first, he unequivocally warned Zlykinskyja about the consequences of resuming such conduct in future. SuperMarioMan 13:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

My point is that, if past behaviour can be used to hypothesize about future one, this block risks being not too useful (granted, it's preventative, in that it prevents her from disrupting the article further, but once it expires we'll back to square one); so, we should try to get her to accept mentorship and the civility parole, to try to make it palatable to her, more than it would be to make her sit out her block, and on top of that, accept further limitations. However, I very well understand your point and if my proposal were to be accepted, we should make it very clear that she's not getting away scot-free with her accusations and personal attacks, but that we've just decided to give her a second chance to see if she can understand what it means to edit in a collegial fashion. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 15:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, perhaps rescinding the block is indeed a reasonable idea. Certainly it would send out a message that Zlykinskyja's suggestions on the Kercher/Knox topic are welcome, on the condition that she is mentored and monitored to ensure no further incivility problems in her contributions. "Reform, not punishment". I don't really have much experience on the Murder of Meredith Kercher talk page or any sort of long-running dispute with this user — I came to ANI primarily just to have the unsubstantiated talk page claims about me and a number of other editors withdrawn (although this still hasn't happened). SuperMarioMan 19:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Zlykinskyja has no unblock request currently on their page. If they would begin an unblock dialog, and offer some concessions about their future behavior, we might have something to work with. To request unblock, they should use {{unblock|Their reason here}}. EdJohnston (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that her ongoing behaviour such as this is not encouraging. Rather than deleting her words that others object to, she simply deletes their objection and leaves her offending words in place. If there was actually some indication that she wanted to change then there might be some cause for hope, but at present I don't see any. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• So now what? The editor in question is not willing to remove their uncivil comments and allegations against fellow editors on their talkpage and neither shows interest in an conditional unblock as laid out above in this thread, at least for now. Time for an uninvolved admin to step up/in?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree. I would remove the comments myself if I were not the initiator of this discussion. SuperMarioMan 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Zombie433 keeps on original research

He is often creating hoax or read wrongly and then create a very wrong information. Other problem is provide a transfer fess but not citing any reliable source, Or he wrote a sum with cite, but the references material itself did not say the sum (Ondřej Mazuch case). For the serious case, there is no single reliable source he provided for Fabio Borriello current club (i can't find any either), but he wrote his current club is A.C. Rodengo Saiano. And for Mayola Biboko, the source his cite, just wrote Visé against Union Namur, but he wrote Mayola Biboko current club is Union Namur!

And look at his talk page he receive enough afd and message to warn him. Matthew_hk tc 22:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Zombie433 (talk · contribs) for linking purposes. -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs 06:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

"often creating hoax"?, Matthew_hk I think you need to provide diffs so we can see what the (AGF)alleged problem is. -- 220.101 (talk) ^\Contribs06:31, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Zombie433 likes to add imaginary/unsourced playerstats to infoboxes. An example of how he works, look at this: [[28]] he later changes it into this [[29]] when he finds new details of his career. I've posted the real stats here: [[30]] Cattivi (talk) 07:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Still Biboko: he adds 1 cap for Benin [31] (unsourced)in previous edits he added category Camerooniaan footballers (unsourced) These are examples from 1 page I'm afraid there arre many, many more to be found with the number of edits this user makes. Cattivi (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

moreover, i think he had many socket puppet, or the group of accounts are used by a group of people. Matthew_hk tc 13:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting allegation. Do you have any evidence to support this? Can you, at least, provide a list of accounts? MER-C 13:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I have only this account and an account in the German wikipedia, not more. I am knows not one people outside from here. I knows only the people like you (Matthew) from the History or talk page. t Zombie433 12:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It isn't socket. It's sock, as in the sock-based puppet you wear on your hand.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I will collect info on sockpuppet on separate request. Focus on original research. I will check every recent edit (may be 500) and made a list on his talk page and here. Matthew_hk tc 23:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Deceased WikipedIans

Is it usual to block the accounts of deceased users? There has been a report at WP:EAR that Pete Fenelon passed away in 2008 and the account has not been blocked. Checking the memorial page, I discovered JuJube, Nitelinger, and David Shear have also missed being blocked. Just thought I should let y'all know since I don't think any admins patrol the EAR board. Thanks. --Diannaa ^TALK 19:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

All blocked. Thank you. We need a process for this. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely we've discussed this process before, somewhere. Didn't we remove the tools from deceased admins, at some point? Might be worth discussing again. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 22:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There was this a few months ago, [32], I don't think there is any full discussion about it, just going on common sense I think--Jac16888^Talk 23:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

There was a much more thorough discussion of this and the related issues, with some valuable input that might point to some areas of consensus. Steveozone (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I blocked because it seemed to me an obvious precaution - passwords might have been written down or be stored in the computer, and by definition any use of the account would be not under the control of the owner. I wasn't aware of WP:DWG, linked to above, which says "As a symbolic gesture of respect, accounts of deceased Wikipedians should not be blocked unless they have been compromised"; nor do I see how that represents the consensus of the discussion here on which it is based - there are two discussions, one with 21 voices for blocking and 16 against and one with 10 for and 9 against, mainly because reports of death might be in error or because family might want to use the account to post messages. In these four cases the date of death is at least five months ago, so neither of those reasons should apply; but I will not object if anyone chooses to undo my blocks. JohnCD (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Resolved

 – BLP violation removed, no block is coming, OTRS is handling the rest. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

[33] What do you guys think? Indef block or not? -- œ^™ 03:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't editors meant to be given an opportunity to withdraw the statement or something like that ? Sean.hoyland - talk 03:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I just added the NLT warning template to the talk page; it seems to me he should be warned before being blocked. Actually, for that matter, you need to notify him that there is a discussion here pertaining to him; I'll go do that now.Qwyrxian (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm no softie as far as NLT is concerned, but in this case it seems that he actually has a good case on the merits, and isn't familiar with how our system works. I don't think a block is necessary at the moment, as long as he withdraws the threat it should be fine. T. Canens (talk) 03:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I posted a helpful link on his talk page. I also revised the information as one of the sources provided was from user-submitted blog content and therefore not reliable. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• But if there is no retraction in 24-48 hours, a block is not unreasonable, as I see it. WP:NLT is a big deal. Jusdafax 04:23, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree w/Judasfax. It's a very big deal; this isn't just an interpretive reaction to some unimportant vague wiki guideline.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this a textbook case of the relevance of WP:DOLT? 70.120.175.157 (talk) 04:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. And I see the user in question has re-edited [34] what I presume is this article about him. Since he still may not fully grasp the importance of responding/retracting his threat, and appears to have a strong desire not to have some particular sourced information about him in this article, I'll see if I can't leave a message on his page that will make it clear that his statement is a matter of concern. Jusdafax 05:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It seems exactly like that (WP:DOLT) to me. The information User:Burpelson AFB added was completely wrong--he misread one source, and the other was a personal blog that he had to withdraw. It's reasonable the User:Oepps, assuming he is in some way involved with the subject in real life, might have had a serious concern about an error in the subject's BLP. Furthermore, since (according to my understanding) blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive, and since we have no indication that User:Oepps is intending to continue making legal threats, I don't see any reason for a block here. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree and noted, and so I am writing my statement to the subject with that added perspective. Thanks Qwyrxian. Jusdafax 05:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE With what I hope is a firm yet tactful statement [35] I hope for a fast resolution so that all parties are satisfied. Qwyrxian correctly observes the blocks are not supposed to be punitive, and yet WP:NLT is why this was reported. If the user shows up here, says they understand the issue and won't do it again, fine. If not, well... I'm not sure doing nothing at all is an option. As I see it the part we are concerned with is "Legal action will be taken..." Jusdafax 05:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the common sense approach would be to block the user for NLT (while making it clear they'll be unblocked as soon as they withdraw the threat), but at the same time do whatever it takes to either source or remove the objectionable content from the article. Just because a user is blocked for legal threats doesn't mean we can't see if their claims have any merit. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC).

Nah, the common-sense approach is not to make a mountain of a molehill. The IP was right, they were removing BLP violations, the other users involved have apparently understood that the info was wrong and the BLP violations are gone now. Case solved. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite so sure... but I'm leaning away from a block, at this moment. Jusdafax 09:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Nah don't block. I'm handling the content side of it via OTRS. I can certainly understand why the subject was angry - content was restored under the guise of "being sourced", despite the fact that the sources didn't say the things that we did. I believe the issue is resolved now. Daniel (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Good, glad that's settled via OTRS. Suggest an admin or really confident regular at this board give this the big ol' green checkmark then. Jusdafax 11:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Unresolved

Ummm, User:Oepps is still edit warring over the reference. Can we get the page protected for the time being? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Future Perfect at Sunrise has protected it. It would really help if people didn't keep restoring unreliably sourced info, especially where the subject is complaining. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I saw another legal threat here from him Pilif12p :  Yo  14:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And I saw a load of BLP violations from established editors who should know better. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. –MuZemike 14:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

But with a revert and a block, both have been taken care of. Blocking for legal threats is not a punishment: "it is required that you do not edit Wikipedia until the legal matter has been resolved to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels". S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That probably wasn't necessary. As I said above, I'm corresponding with the subject via OTRS. They are very understandably pissed off that users, experienced users, are restoring clear BLP violations cited to references that don't include the content that they're referencing. I ask that you unblock the user. Daniel (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, correspondence or not, the way to deal with BLP violations is to discuss, not edit war and make legal threats, and the user had already had WP:NLT explained to them, and policy states that if he wants to pursue the legal route he cannot edit in the mean time. If he wants to discuss the content in wikipedia, then he can retract the threat and discuss it. He cannot do both. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the way to deal with BLP violations is to remove them. Period. A number of editors, including an adminstrator, restored unsupportable material - they are the serious problem here, not an article subject (or representative) who is understandably annoyed. CIreland (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Or you could just add a different source such asthis one which directly reference the contested information. --Smashville^talk 15:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly the high quality sources mentioned in the BLP policy, when you look closely. I notice the same source from a year earlier source credits "Celebrity Baby Blog reader Tomika" for the information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does WP:BLP differ in verifiability requirements from WP:V? --Smashville^talk 18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

From BLP: "Be very firm about the use of high quality sources." V does not have that instruction. Active Banana (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. And if a piece of info from a source of questionable or unknown reliability, such as a celebrity gossip site, is contradicted explicitly by the article subject, and the piece of info is of a personal, private kind and of next to no public encyclopedic value, the safer choice is to decide that the source must be unreliable rather than that the subject is lying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've went ahead and unblocked Oepps (very irritably, mind you), knowing that this is being handled via OTRS. I just hope he doesn't continue to intimidate and/or harass others like he has been doing. –MuZemike 15:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I made it pretty clear he needs to stop that in future edits or he'll be reblocked, and I probably won't be able to help get him unblocked if it happens again. That being said, and as I told him, now that the article is locked in the proper state and there's a large admin contingent watching the article (I hope), he probably won't have to edit Wikipedia again in relation to this issue. Daniel (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone posted a note on my talk page that I was being discussed here... I already knew about this thread, I even posted to it up above. I modified the entry and posted an appropriate link for the OTRS team to the talk page of Oepps. He revised the entry somewhat to remove the name of some ex girlfriend and I figured that would resolve it, guess I was wrong!

EDIT: Interesting... if you look at the last entry on the associated article talk page, it looks like this has been going on for like 2 years. This is exactly the kind of thing that would benefit from flagged revisions, or whatever we're calling it now. This could have turned into another Ron Livingston, kudos to OTRS for resolving it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

With respect, when a non-autoconfirmed account is correcting information, and one sysop, two reviewers, one rollbacker, and another editor with nearly a thousand edits are all blindly reverting and one of the reviewers is even warning the editor for vandalism, I'm not sure what difference flagged revs would have made. What would help is if everyone paid particular attention to the content and references, and to WP:DOLT and WP:BLP, when they see someone complain about a BLP, instead of reaching first for the revert and block buttons. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The BLP violations were all inserted by Anon IPs. The IPs were whining about their BLP violations being removed from the article as long ago as 2008. Flagged revisions would have prevented them from being seen by the general public, would have likely prompted them to be reviewed more closely and removed, and perhaps none of this would have happened in the first place. Anyway, I'm glad it was resolved. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mac

• Mac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nudecline (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nopetro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nukeless (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As the admin who ended up processing the above SPI request, I'm requesting the input of the community in determining what action should be taken. These users are suspected of being the same person in the above sockpuppet investigation. (Nopetro == Nudecline by own admission.) There are substantial evidence of them being the same user:

• The following observations by Cool Hand Luke (talk · contribs), which I am quoting verbatim from the SPI case:

Mac and others since 2005

Mac and others summer 2008

“ I think these are socks. User:Nukeless was also suspected. I've made some charts to show editing from all four accounts. Same timezones, patterns, interests.

The contributions also fit very well together. Take a look at June 30, 2008 in the more detailed summer 2008 chart. On that day, Mac was mostly editing, except for some spells when Nopetro was editing. They both voted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. presidential candidates position on plug-in hybrids within minutes of each other. An even better example is June 24, 2008. On this day, Mac was editing from 0541 pretty much continuously until 1357, except for a one-hour gap from 1003 to 1108. On the same day, Nopetro was editing from 1006 to 1106. Given their shared interests and common editing times, I don't think this is a coincidence. I think all four accounts are piloted the same user.

”

• The following observations by Good Olfactory (talk · contribs), which, again, I am quoting verbatim from here:

“ User:Mac had a habit of creating improbable redirects that ended up getting deleted. These tended to be about "alternative energy" topics. Some of the last ones the user created on 10 November 2008 were All-back-contact solar cell, Silicon solar cells, Carbon dioxide emissions reduction, etc.

After that, nothing is deleted from either account until 1 December 2008, when User:Nopetro's creation of Solar Roadways is deleted, which was also a redirect. Later in 2009, Nopetro's redirects of Green garage and Lithium-ion phosphate are deleted.

I perhaps overstated in my offhand comments when I said that this alone is enough to convince me. I should clarify—I personally wouldn't be comfortable blocking the users for sockpuppetry based on this evidence alone. I guess what I really meant to say was that this is further evidence that they may be the same, and that a checkuser could probably be justified, because this evidence, combined with the other points initially made in the CU regarding improbable energy-related redirects, is enough to raise my suspicions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

”

• The overlap in pages edited between Mac and Nopetro includes a whopping 782 pages, including 730 articles. This is something I have never seen before in two users with ~20k and ~10k edits, respectively.

I requested input from others at SPI on what action, if any, should be taken; however, none appears to be forthcoming, hence this posting. T. Canens (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Yeah, I saw that at SPI, but really the information set is so huge... I'll check back tomorrow, and see what we can figure out. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very sad situation where an editor who has contributed very low quality content to WP has evaded an indef block and continued to struggle on. But in doing so he is continuing to damage the project, so he must be stopped. Johnfos (talk) 07:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• If all this is confirmed, as I believe it will be, this sickening case of abusive editing should of course be blocked asap, then banned asap. A flagrant misuse of editing privileges, and reading this fills me with disgust... a slap in the face to those who play by the rules. And if I seem over-angry, it's because, in my opinion, it now gives those editors here with a genuine interest in alternative energy topics a whiff of taint, which this cheating editor failed to think about before committing wiki-fraud. Throw the book at 'im. Jusdafax 08:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
• Here appeared the real problem: I am editing about "alternative energy" (this only can be said by a person that thinks that petroleum is the main energy and the other ones are only residual). The real problem is that Wikipedia is better petrified. All new edits can be considered a risk for people that wants that the real world and the encyclopedia do not have any evolution. I have also created and written in other article, but of course, to say only the part that interest, they are not mentioned. They also write about "alternative energy" (i.e. Camry Hybrid), but do not like other contributions (Wikipedia is theirs), not to Deepwater Horizon oil spill. The have been some tries before by some of the same that writes here, but I was declared innocent. But they have the eternal right to same the same thing, specially if they think that non-neutral articles are good for the encyclopedia (and that they don not have mistakes - I can give some of caused by them). Or accusse people of suckpuppetry if they edit the same page (sic!). On the other hand, there are shame lynch calls to "friend" editors from one of them. --Nudecline (talk) 10:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

To quote an editor responding to you on your talk page: "Your response is very cryptic at best." Let me get this straight... do you deny you also edit under "Mac" and another name, "Nukeless"? I understand that you say you have edited as "Nopetro". The evidence against you that I've read seems quite solid, but it is really important that we get it right, since we are talking about major issues here. Jusdafax 10:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to Tim for raising this here. I've been following this editor and this case closely over the past few weeks so I guess I ought to weigh in. After much attention to his various edit histories, and much thought, I've come to the conclusion that the only way he would be a net positive for the project is if editors continue to watch him and clean up his ill-advised edits on a regular basis. If not, the harmful stuff will just pile up to the point where it becomes a huge task to clean. Anyone who's been following my CfD work on his categories will know what I mean. I'm amazed that he got away with it as long as he did, over a period of years. I've successfully nominated dozens of his categories for deletion or merging, usually unopposed (except at times by Nopetro himself). What we need are editors who can police themselves, who can learn when not to create or do something. Over the years, he still gives no sign of being able to do this. And that is a key point, imo. This doesn't seem to be a situation where someone is willing to be tutored, either (not that I'd be volunteering for the job). Even in the face of inanely wrong, WP:SNOW-y CfDs, this editor has insisted he's right and everyone else is wrong. He's laying relatively low of late in terms of category creation, but he's been adding pointless red linked cats to articles that I and other editors have been removing, so I worry he's just gearing up for another flurry once the attention shifts away. He also continues to make paste copyvio text into articles, create generally pointless red links, and the like. And if he is indeed lying about his previous sock identities, then it seems to me he's in violation of the terms which his conditional indef block stated he needed to meet in order to rejoin the community. Hope this is useful. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well... still waiting for a reply to my direct question to them above, and for any additional confirmation about the socks. As I say, if the stuff about the multiple identities voting in Afd's etc. is proved to be true, we have no choice but to throw the book and throw it hard, at least as I understand it. I thank you Shawn, and as you note, 'Tim' (I assume up mean the OP here) and the others taking the time in this issue. Jusdafax 17:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, Tim is me. (Hint: check my username) T. Canens (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'd never noticed him voting simultaneously in AfDs, I must say. He seemed to me assuming these identities sequentially. 18:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Appropriate response is indef block. Block evasion and ongoing disruption, even with good faith on the part of the evader, isn't ok. The community has spoken on the acceptability of the contributions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) I'm more interested in hearing how this person, if all the accounts really are them, has engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. It looks like they votestacked once or twice, which isn't good, but is there a longstanding pattern of abusive sockpuppetry? I think the quality concerns are somewhat subjective, as the child computer article they apparently submitted seems ok. Not everyone can write in beautiful flowery prose, this doesn't mean their content contributions are all garbage. Here is what I think: Assuming all the accounts are the same person, let's look at the possibility of abusive sockpuppetry. If they have votestacked multiple times or engaged in other violations of WP:SOCK, then tag the main account with puppetmaster, the socks as socks, block all and leave it at that. If they've only done the one or two votestacks and otherwise are just evading a block, I would be satisfied with making them choose one account to edit with, block the other ones and keep a close eye on them with the understanding that they must agree to work with a mentor. If that doesn't work out, indefinite block. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• If he could be mentored by someone, I for one would be okay with trying this approach. I don't think it will prove successful. His comments above are a good indication of the level of incoherence, one that I suspect goes beyond a mere language barrier, but if people want to try, sure. I would not have prodded Child computer, either. The editor can usefully add content: problem is, he's caught between a lack of basic competence in English, and pasting copyrighted text to circumvent that. What are we to do: teach him English? More seriously, imo, is what happens when he moves into logical thinking related to category structure. Then it really gets wild and woolly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with User:Georgewilliamherbert that indefinite blocks are needed. The Nudecline account was created in late May, a fact that reveals that the deception is current and ongoing. He knows that his edits will encounter opposition, he wants to avoid scrutiny, so he keeps on creating socks. I issued the original indef block of User:Mac back in 2008, due to his high volume of unusual edits that were done with no consultation whatever. The 2008 complaint at ANI called 'Tired of cleaning up after Mac' included an estimate that he made 20-30 bad edits per day, out of a total of 200. To keep up with the damage seemed like it would take a full-time person. The advice given above by Shawn in Montreal, that "editors continue to watch him and clean up his ill-advised edits on a regular basis," does not seem justified by the lack of good faith and the lack of WP:COMPETENCE in the past contributions. The sock charges might go away if User:Mac would confess everything and apply for unblock under his main account. However I would not favor that unblock. The following remark, from one of the CfD pages, could be a veiled confession: "I have announce in my page that I use my right to change my name to Nudecline. Of course this is not sock of any class, as the mentioned Mac, that is also closed. This is your bad faith." This conveniently overlooks his evasion of the indef block on Mac. EdJohnston (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Does anyone know where he's from? Maybe we could steer him towards improving the wiki in his native language. I've had a look at a few of his article contributions and he is submitting some good topics. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• He speaks Spanish and I think may be a Spaniard. He has been active on the Spanish-language version. I know this from following some of his interlanguage links. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Constructive and compassionate thoughts, and there may indeed be some hope in this somewhere, but the lack of a reply looks increasingly like my direct questions above to the subject, regarding full disclosure of their sock identities (or a flat denial), may go unanswered. Standing by. Jusdafax 01:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Strange unblock requests via email for Tallicfan20

I've been getting a series of emails from Tallicfan20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) asking to be unblocked. As far as I can tell, they aren't blocked and there are no autoblocks in place, and as far as I can recall I've never had anything to do with this user. My intention is to continue to ignore the emails, but I'm just noting this here in case anyone else can shed light on things. EyeSerene^talk 10:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't appear to be blocked, but why not message the user and tell them that? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Good question :) Two reasons really: one, they've edited since their last block (August last year); and two, the nature and circumstances of the messages set my "something's not quite right here" radar pinging (unpunctuated one liners in broken English that don't really match their posts on WP). I've now sent them a note via their userpage email link though. EyeSerene^talk 15:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like phishing to me. Step 1(A-Z), break into a Wikipedia user's account. Step 2A, get the e-mail address of an admin. Step 2B, phish them... Is there a checkuser-type process to see if the e-mail and/or password of that account has been changed recently? Thundermaker (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha

Resolved

 – Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha has been courtesy blanked, closed, and fully-protected. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a doubt that you are running Bleekers9 and Muthuwella sock puppets accounts . The person Anushka Wirasinha will be Running Both. it was deleted deletion review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anushka Wirasinha .And advice him to not make personal attacks. I invite to make an investigation about this situation to Administrator --Wipeouting (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

the AfD has been closed, hidden and protected. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin abusing authority

Wrong venue. Please move to Audit Subcomittee

 – NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 21:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Complaints about checkusers go to the Audit Subcommittee. If you feel I have abused my checkuser rights, complain to them. Contact information is here. --Deskana (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Deskana has blocked me indefinitely with no rationale whatsoever. He gave me no means by which to appeal for unblock and when I asked for an explanation, he blocked and ignored me. Forgive my appearing here as an IP but I didn't know what else to do. Could somebody please talk to Deskana and find out why he blocked me and perhaps even persuade him to unblock me because I really don't know what I've done wron. During my brief stint on Wikipedia I've made many positive contributions and would like to continue to do so. --User:The Oh-So Humble One —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.231.236 (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The block rationale claims that it was a checkuser block, so the assumption must be sockpuppetry but he hasn't cited what CU that is or who you are supposed to be a sockpuppet of. You can post an unblock request on your talk page if you believe it is in error.--Crossmr (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked them for clarification. It looks pretty unusual, there being no block template or anything. Hopefully Deskana can provide some insight. Throwaway85 (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I've put a block template on their user talk page. Recall that checkusers have the ability to place blocks without giving reasons if they're based on private checkuser evidence, and this is one of those cases. Rest assured that I wouldn't have placed the block if I wasn't sure about it. --Deskana (talk) 19:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not denying the ability to do so, but nothing is lost by greater communication. I myself was wrongly identified and banned as a sock, and I know what a frustrating experience it can be. At any rate, Humble is well within his rights to place an unblock template on his talk page. Thanks for the clarification. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

He is indeed allowed, and if he does then I'll ask another checkuser to check the block but I'm confident they'll agree with me. So far all he's done is evaded his block though. That doesn't work in his favour. --Deskana (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider a single edit to AN/I block evasion. He hasn't edited the encyclopedia. Obviously, we'd prefer an unblock template in the right place, but I think starting this thread is forgivable.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

He's evading his block, so it's block evasion. It's not particularly troubling or worrying block evasion (as evidenced by the fact that I've not blocked the IP for block evasion), but to say it is not block evasion would be incorrect. Also, the checkuser evidence clearly showed this person is not as new as they say they are, so they're probably well aware that they're not supposed to evade their block in this manner. --Deskana (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Deskana, could you (or another CU) elaborate as to whose sock this account is so we can out the matter to bed? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Firstly, remember that checkusers are identified to the WMF, and they are required to keep with in the bounds of the privacy policy (and the checkuser policy), failure to do so could result in at least on-wiki effects. As such, checkusers are at liberty to exercise discretion over what information they release publicly, if they decide not to release something, pressing them on it is probably not advisable. They are elected and trusted to deal with such situations. Although of course, if you feel there has been abuse here then you are welcome to bring it up with the CU directly, and a second checkuser may review the situation, which Deskana has already suggested as a resolution. Secondly, posting on AN/I whilst a block is active against you most definitely qualifies as block evasion. Given the circumstances, the user should be told how to appeal their block in the appropriate manner, which they have been, however, the IP is still evading the block, and the block against it for evasion was appropriate. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, in order to answer your question, I'd have to reveal information in direct violation of the WMF Privacy Policy and against the general advice of the AUSC. So no, I'm afraid I will not tell you anything. You'll have to trust me. --Deskana (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Deskana, since HJ Mitchell and Wehwalt are admins, you could email them with the information from the checkuser you did. This would be admin-to-admin communication and that would be allowed. One could call it an "independent review of the information" and would put the matter to rest. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That'd be a great idea. If Deskana wants CU rights permanently removed that is.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The WMF privacy policy can go hang. We don't indef people and then say "It's a secret" when people want to know why. Jtrainor (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really, I have had checkusers give me information via email and I am not even an admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Depending on what kind of information, that's fairly alarming. –xeno^talk 20:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, admins are not identified to the WMF nor permitted to receive private checkuser data. If anyone thinks Deskana has acted inappropriately with regards to checkuser tools, they are invited to contact the Audit Subcommittee. –xeno^talk 20:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct. Administrators are not WMF-identified and as such cannot receive information protected by the privacy policy from a checkuser. As a checkuser, I will not ignore the WMF Privacy Policy. Anyway, we're finished with this thread. If you feel I have behaved inappropriately or abused my checkuser rights, report me to the AUSC. Contact information is here. --Deskana (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

How could anyone possibly form a view as to whether you have behaved inappropriately or abused checkuser rights? No-one knows why you have done what you have done. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Since Deskana (who I have nothing against) is hiding behind the "it's a secret" and will tell no one what they have found (even an admin or another checkuser), I request that the block be overturned and Deskana admonished for not even attempting to give any user information. Bad block. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Administrators are not allowed to undo checkuser blocks without explicit permission from a checkuser. Any administrator who undoes this block does so at their own peril. Additionally, I've said above in no uncertain terms that I'll ask another checkuser to check the block if the user submits an unblock request (diff). --Deskana (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just above an IP address posting about a user being blocked as a sockpuppet of another user. If Deskana tells us which account was blocked, that would provide a direct link betweeen an IP address and a username - a violation of our outing policy, not to mention the Wikipedia:CheckUser policy, which various posters here might benefit from reading. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• • • Sorry Deskana, when I can, a lowly editor, can be emailed with checkuser information, I believe a fellow admin can as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
      • The fault there is with the other CU('s) who are apparently acting in direct violation of the privacy policy they agreed to follow rather than Deskana. All depending on what information they actually shared with you. Would you care to elaborate on who gave you the information, and what it was? Resolute 21:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I trust Deskana. It would be nice, for purposes of transparency, to know the name of the master account, but if Deskana says it's a privacy violation, then that's good enough for me. I'm sure "the powers that be", ie the AUSC and the ombudsman are aware of the relevant details and they are best placed to handle it. That should be the end of this thread. As Deskana says, complaints about CU go to WP:AUSC. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That's my point. It's not a master account. It's a master IP address. I cannot reveal IP information due to the privacy policy and the general advice of the AUSC. Where is the issue? --Deskana (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So far as I'm concerned? There isn't one. You made a block based on information I don't have so I'm not in a position to question that. That's what we elect CUs and arbs for. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reservations about transparency and fairness, but I'm with Deskana on this one. Linking an IP to another, currently unknown, account would be a violation of his duties. Let the checkusers sort it out. Having been in Humble's position before, however, it might be considerate to at least email him detailing some of the charges against him. It was a bitch to get my block overturned, and it was only possible because I happened to realize that the person I was accused of being was editting from my university. I had to go to the network administrators and pull IP logs to clear my name. I can see exactly why J.Delanoy made the original block, and it would have been very hard for me to defend myself without the information and access that I had. Having no information at all would make it impossible. Deskana, whatever information you might be able to provide to Humble and Humble alone so that he at least knows where he stands would, I'm sure, be greatly appreciated. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Editing to drive business?

User:AllieLGray has made a total of 41 edits, all related to Rasmussen College, a private, for-profit school. Lately, the editor has been going to articles about each city they have a "branch campus" in and changing the entry so that the link goes directly to the company/school website, rather than to the article about the school or using the school website as a source to show the campus exists. I'm suspicious of the activity being done this way, especially when the editor hasn't edited on any other topic. This seems more like covert marketing than good faith editing to me. Would someone else take a look and see if they get the same feeling? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• A person of that name has written numerous articles for their blog [36] and has a profile on linkedin listing Allie Gray as the Online Marketing Manager at Rasmussen College.[37]. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked for spamming/advertising. It looks clear cut to me, it would be a massive coincidence for this to not be a marketing ploy, as where better for an 'Online Marketing Manager' to advertise than by embedding external links to their site in Wikipedia articles? Whilst it is arguable the user was not warned with the usual 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, block system, but I think it is difficult to assume good faith here, as it is almost a certainty that the account was only created to spam. If it is a huge coincidence however, they are free to request unblock and review. --Taelus (Talk) 16:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm going to unblock, this is way too soon. You need to actually tell them, at least once, that this is considered spamming. We can't assume everyone knows all the rules we operate under the second they start editing. It is, in fact, fairly easy to assume good faith here, certainly at least as much good faith as we show a common vandal. If they resume doing the same thing without asking for help, then we can consider blocking. There are more tools in our toolkit besides templates and the block button. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Are there really? You wouldn't know from the way the block hammer is waved around. Malleus Fatuorum 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Indeed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
        • "If you kill me, how are you going to get the bird? If I know you can't afford to kill me till you have it, how are you going to scare me into giving it to you?"

          Gutman cocked his head to the left and considered the question. His eyes twinkled between puckered lids. Presently he gave his genial answer: "Well, sir, there are other means of persuasion besides killing and threatening to kill."

          "Sure," Spade agreed, "but they're not much good unless the threat of death is behind them to hold the victim down. See what I mean? If you try anything I don't like I won't stand for it. I'll make it a matter of your having to call it off or kill me, knowing you can't afford to kill me."

          "I see what you mean," Gutman chuckled. "That is an attitude, sir, that calls for the most delicate judgment on both sides, because as you know, sir, men are likely to forget in the heat of action where their best interests lie, and let their emotions carry them away."

          Spade too was all smiling blandness. "That's the trick from my side," he said, "to make my play strong enough that it ties you up, but yet not make you mad enough to bump me off against your better judgment."

          Gutman said: "By Gad, sir, you are a character." – Dashiell Hammett, The Maltese Falcon (1929)

          Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• It's worth pointing out that a number of the edits were reverted, often with links to the policy in the edit summary and she went back in and added them again. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You still can't assume that she's seen the summary. She may be checking the pages on occassion and changing it back then... yeah, I know, stretching AGF, but we still can't make the assumption... a warning first, then a block. The only time a straight to block is appropriate, IMHO, is when a person is actively vandalising numerous articles and that's all they've done.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't assume anything. I pointed out that her edits were reverted and that some of the reverts did link to the policy. If I was assuming anything, I'd assume that someone who is the online marketing manager would familiarize themselves with policies before pushing their ads onto a site. But she's been made aware now and I'll assume that it'll stop. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have little doubt that she knew what she was doing was questionable at best... but blocking without a direct warning, doesn't fly. The fact that she probably knew and if she was watching the pages might have seen the summary, doesn't ensure that she knows.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 20:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I apologise. On reflection I clearly over-reacted here and jumped the gun. Foolishly, whilst I did ask myself about good faith editing, I looked at this scenario from completely the wrong angle and didn't assume good faith at all. I will apologise to the user in question, as looking at it again several hours later I did it wrong. I have no real excuse, I hold up my hands here, this was a bad block. Again, I apologise, and will strive to do better in the future. I hope I will not misanalyse the facts so badly again, especially as I will most likely always reflect on this mistake. --Taelus (Talk) 21:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Don't worry Taelus, you can wipe the humble pie away from around your face; we all make mistakes. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed so, but I feel particularly bad as I have effectively become my own worst enemy, in that I am opposed to overly hasty blocks. It's one of those scenarios where I look back on it and think "What on earth was I thinking?!". Fortunately though, I think this will always lurk at the back of my mind and thus hopefully prevent such a foolish thing occuring again. That is all I can hope and promise anyway. My apologies to the community. --Taelus (Talk) 22:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

NPA violation - ArmchairVexillolgistDonLives

The above named user has a long history of disruptive edits and blocks. He recently made a personal attack on the British Isles article and even after being warned re-inserted the same comment. Pages associated with the British Isles are always sensitive and prone to edit wars. Is it possible that an admin would have a word so that this type of behaviour is nipped in the bud? Thanks. --Snowded ^TALK 21:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

5 year old debate, 200 verses of Matthew

5 years ago, the community decided to merge and redirect 200 articles that a single user had created dealing with individual bible verse by verse. That same user, 5 years later, has quietly restored/reverted those articles with no discussion. For past history see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/KJV and the many links in those pages. For the 200 articles, see Category:Gospel of Matthew verses. My gut feeling is to simply revert those changes (i.e. restore the 5 year redirects), but I want to get additional input. I was pointed here after posting elsewhere, but understand that this requires no admin intervention and is mostly a content dispute (besides the user issue of having lost a debate 5 years ago and being cautioned by arbcom, then restoring the exact same 200 articles which caused the problem all those years ago without further discussion). -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm similarly inclined. (To restore the redirects) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As am I, I might even go a little further and request WP:SALT if it continues, but for the moment, I would request they just be reverted and the editor reminded of ArbCom's 2006 decision. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Errrr, SimonP (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is an administrator.

And it looks like he was a member of ArbCom when this went down. As such, I'm sure he's aware of the decision... Bobby Tables (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As am I, and I have begun doing so. This was clearly against consensus. If the user wants to restore them, he needs to change it. Not edit war against it.

• Matthew 1:1, Matthew 1:2, Matthew 1:3, Matthew 1:4, Matthew 1:5, Matthew 1:6, Matthew 1:7, Matthew 1:8, Matthew 1:9, Matthew 1:10, Matthew 1:11, Matthew 1:12, Matthew 1:13, Matthew 1:14, Matthew 1:15, Matthew 1:16, Matthew 1:17, Matthew 1:18, Matthew 1:19, Matthew 1:20, Matthew 1:21, Matthew 1:22, Matthew 1:23, Matthew 1:24, Matthew 1:25
• Matthew 2:1, Matthew 2:2, Matthew 2:3, Matthew 2:4, Matthew 2:5, Matthew 2:6, Matthew 2:7, Matthew 2:8, Matthew 2:9, Matthew 2:10, Matthew 2:11, Matthew 2:12, Matthew 2:13, Matthew 2:14, Matthew 2:15, Matthew 2:16, Matthew 2:17, Matthew 2:18, Matthew 2:19, Matthew 2:20, Matthew 2:21, Matthew 2:22, Matthew 2:23,
• Matthew 3:1, Matthew 3:2, Matthew 3:3, Matthew 3:4, Matthew 3:5, Matthew 3:6, Matthew 3:7, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 3:9, Matthew 3:10, Matthew 3:11, Matthew 3:12, Matthew 3:13, Matthew 3:14, Matthew 3:15, Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17
• Matthew 4:1, Matthew 4:2, Matthew 4:3, Matthew 4:4, Matthew 4:5, Matthew 4:6, Matthew 4:7, Matthew 4:8, Matthew 4:9, Matthew 4:10, Matthew 4:11, Matthew 4:12, Matthew 4:13, Matthew 4:14, Matthew 4:15, Matthew 4:16, Matthew 4:17, Matthew 4:18, Matthew 4:19, Matthew 4:20, Matthew 4:21, Matthew 4:22, Matthew 4:23, Matthew 4:24, Matthew 4:25
• Matthew 5:1, Matthew 5:2, Matthew 5:3, Matthew 5:4, Matthew 5:5 Matthew 5:6, Matthew 5:7, Matthew 5:8, Matthew 5:9, Matthew 5:10, Matthew 5:11, Matthew 5:12, Matthew 5:13, Matthew 5:14, Matthew 5:15, Matthew 5:16, Matthew 5:17, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 5:19, Matthew 5:20, Matthew 5:21, Matthew 5:22, Matthew 5:23-4, Matthew 5:25, Matthew 5:26, Matthew 5:27, Matthew 5:28, Matthew 5:29, Matthew 5:30, Matthew 5:31, Matthew 5:32, Matthew 5:33, Matthew 5:34, Matthew 5:35, Matthew 5:36, Matthew 5:37, Matthew 5:38, Matthew 5:39, Matthew 5:40, Matthew 5:42, Matthew 5:43, Matthew 5:44, Matthew 5:45, Matthew 5:46, Matthew 5:47, Matthew 5:48
• Matthew 6:1, Matthew 6:2, Matthew 6:3, Matthew 6:4, Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:6, Matthew 6:7, Matthew 6:8, Matthew 6:9, Matthew 6:10, Matthew 6:11, Matthew 6:12, Matthew 6:13, Matthew 6:14-5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 6:17, Matthew 6:18, Matthew 6:19-20, Matthew 6:21, Matthew 6:22, Matthew 6:23, Matthew 6:24, Matthew 6:25, Matthew 6:26, Matthew 6:27, Matthew 6:28, Matthew 6:29, Matthew 6:30, Matthew 6:31, Matthew 6:32, Matthew 6:33, Matthew 6:34

I've already got one down. Please update the above list as the articles are fixed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. We've already gone through this debate. Restore the redirects until such time as someone can demonstrate consensus to do otherwise. Kaldari (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Did a few more. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Question: Any reason why they are redirects to Genealogy of Jesus and not Gospel of Matthew? Shouldn't they all just redirect to Gospel of Matthew? — Timneu22 · talk 22:33, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone requested User:SimonP to refrain from restoring these? Also, why does he have a biography on wikipedia just because of being a wikipedian / admin / fleetingly mentioned in news as such? --Ragib (talk) 22:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I did a few. Thinking about it, however, it might be wise to figure out why he did it before acting so quickly. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 22:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would be tempted to block the user until he promises not to do this again. This is a ridiculous amount of work for people to roll back. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

On the bio, seems there was an AfD back in 2006 which was closed as "keep". Yworo (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Would this be considered correct use of Rollback, as I could knock all these out right quick. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • It isn't the normal use of rollback, but given the sentiment expressed here to uphold the prior consensus (which, after all, went all the way to ArbCom), I don't think you would get in any trouble for using it for this. --RL0919 (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm using Twinkle AGF rollback, but I think it would be ok to use rollback; it's not vandalism, but there a massive amount of edits to revert, so, if I'm not mistaken, it is allowed under WP:ROLLBACK. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 22:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, with that I will knock some of them out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. More I've reverted; Matthew 7:19-20, Matthew 7:16,‎ Matthew 7:7-8, Matthew 7:9,‎ Matthew 7:6 , Matthew 7:5 , Matthew 7:4 , Matthew 7:23 ‎, Matthew 7:24 Black Kite (t) (c) 23:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that I've only had a quick skim over the discussion, but I have good reason to trust at least 2 or 3 of the editors who are working on this so I'm helping out with the reversions. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted some with rollback and some with copy/paste edits of the redirect link. Seems we are done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I rolled back anything with no intermediate edits by other editors, and used twinkle's restore version on the rest. I knocked out a good chunk of the articles like that; it looks like it went pretty quick with a few of us working on it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I got a few in Matthew Chapters 5 & 6. MtD (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Done already? ;) Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 23:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. As a seven year admin and former arbitrator I would have appreciated being given the respect of at least asking me about this before going ahead a reverting me. Please look in greater detail into the history of this before making the changes. The decision was not to delete those articles but to keep the content by merging them. This was the end result of a campaign to get rid of these articles that was largely pushed by -Ril-, who was banned soon after as being a sock of CheeseDreams. He only began pushing to merge them after a long series of AfDs either resulted in keep or no consensus decisions. (See debates on Matthew 2:16, John 20, John 20:16, Genesis 1:1, Matthew 1, Matthew 1:verses.)

The end result was a series of cobbled together articles, that never worked. See for instance the discussion at Talk:Genealogy_of_Jesus#Overhaul_.26_Archive. Since most of the specific verse content was not relevant to the grand theme articles that they were merged to, overtime most of this content was removed. And with good reason. Seeing this it made sense to go back to the old system, and I began doing so several months ago. I also greatly expanded most of the articles over this period, adding much new content. All of it immaculately referenced. Simply going back and reverting all the page to the redirects has erased all that content from Wikipedia. In effect the articles have been deleted in all but name, but as you see there was never in anyway consensus to delete any of these pages. - SimonP (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is, you went against consensus and remade the articles even though ArbCom said not to....right? Cause that is what I am hearing. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really see that Arbcom said not to -- it appears they rejected that fairly strongly. [[38]] - — Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs)

What to do Next?

• Guess I will say it, what should be done with User:SimonP? Strong admonishment, block, taken back to ArbCom, what? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know much about this stuff, but if the Arbitration Committee made a decision which Simon has defied, should it be referred back to the Committee? MtD (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, the current situation doesn't reflect any community consensus. What from Matthew 1:18 has been merged into Nativity of Jesus, the content was simply erased and replaced by a redirect. I am perfectly fine with it going back to the committee. What I would really like though is for the articles to be considered on their merits. I'm proud of pages like [1:18], if all that content is to be deleted I'd like an explanation for why it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. - SimonP (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but only you say it doesn't have consensus, but the 2006 ArbCom decision, which this is all based on, does, which put them all to redirects. Sorry, but you defied ArbCom and Consensus in a very sneaky way, no matter how you want to spin it. As an admin, you should know better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Where does the Arbcom say they should all be redirected? Could you point out that part of the decision? - SimonP (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be here, where the consensus was redirect. Sorry Dude, you are out of line. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please read the discussions. I will always follow the consensus of the community, but can you honestly say that redirecting all of them was the decision of Wikipedia:Bible verses or of the hundred people that commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individual Bible verses. Who there supported redirecting all the pages? - SimonP (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I really don't care who said what in 2006, I wasn't even a member than, but what I do care about is you have gone against consensus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And, I am asking where the consensus is to redirect the pages. As discussions from back then show, such consensus clearly didn't exist. - SimonP (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm the one who rollbacked Matthew 1:18, since I thought consensus was to turn those articles into redirects. If I was wrong, I'd be glad to self-revert (or, if you prefer, you can do it; I won't mind). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If it is reverted, it should be subject to several edits, as some of this appears to be OR and not the "immaculately referenced" page you claimed above. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you point out any such flaws you've observed? I'm certainly willing to fix any such problems that are pointed out to me. - SimonP (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You could fix the problems when you get consensus the pages are needed in the first place. We don't have every single verse of the Bible here, not every single verse of the Torah, not every single verse of the Qur'an, the Hindu texts or the Buddhist texts, so what makes Matthew so special that it needs every single verse on different pages? Seriously. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

My belief is that any content that can be referenced to quality academic sources is encyclopedic. Many Bible verses unquestionably qualify, as I think a page like 7:15 demonstrates. The Gospel of Matthew is just the first that I'm working on. I do firmly believe that other holy books deserve a similar treatment, and encourage others to start work on them. There is just as much, if not more, analysis of the Koran and Torah out there and I'm sure some amazing articles would result. - SimonP (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, at present, there isn't consensus on this very thread for Matthew. I do agree we should make the books of the religions public, maybe via a new Wiki...WikiReligion anyone?...but that isn't what we are here to decide. We are here to decide what to do with you because you readding information to several pages after an ArbCom decision and against consensus. You can side-step and change the subject, but you screwed up dude. As a Lutheran, I am told to forgive you but as a Wikipedian, you need to own up, take your medicine (whatever that may be) and move onto something else, which I really do think should be starting a new Wikimedia project, WikiReligion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That is a good point, no one really knows what the current opinion of the community is. I've thus created a new discussion page at Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010, and I hope you and everyone else will participate. By the end last time the months of debate had left a somewhat poisoned atmosphere, so I think a fresh start to everything might be very helpful. - SimonP (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Done and done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

A lot of minutia in those individual articles that seems to be beyond the normal scope of wikipedia, but that could be a matter of opinion. It's interesting that it took like 3 months before anyone noticed these reversions by the admin, which suggests they are not high-traffic items. Maybe the admin could consolidate them into his userspace and come up with an encyclopedic article, instead of a cluster of articles with detailed commentary as if he were writing a New Testament version of the Talmud? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The other option is that people did read them and didn't have any problem with their being in the encyclopedia. They did get a reasonable number of edits by other users, though mostly minor changes. Matthew 1:18 got 221 views last month, which is about average for a Wikipedia article. - SimonP (talk) 05:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we need an article on each verse of the Bible - and while we're at it, an article on each verse (or whatever they're called) of the Quran. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's why I think this would be better used if an entirely new Wiki that focuses on just religion. Put the books of the Bible (Christianity), the Torah (Judaism}, the Qur'an (Islam), Bhagavad Gita (Hinduism), the Analects (Confucianism), the Tao Te Ching (Taoism) and the Discourses of the Buddha (Buddhism) (and whatever books the lesser known religions use) all in one website so there is no favoritism about the site. Source the ever-living-hell out of each and every page and make it great. Doing it here, it would be just about the "English" religions and not inclusive to all the religions of the world. It needs to be a seperate website and inclusive to everyone. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Lord of the Rings, we need an article about every chapter, every kind of creature, and every character from those books. But wait, I think we do! - Wikidemon (talk) 07:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I may be thinking big on this one, but I think with people who know what they are doing, know the verses, chapters, books, etc., I think it could be done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Salt

To of course prevent future disruption, these articles need to be salted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't SALT only apply to deleted articles to protect them from recreation? These articles have become redirects. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I sadly, both as an editor and a Lutheran, have to agree that SALT is necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Giftiger Wunsch; salting is for deleted pages; in this case, admins might protect the pages, but it wouldn't be useful, since Simon is an admin (and, quite frankly, I see no need for that, as he is discussing right now). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been here nine years, I can assure you I'm not going to launch some 200 page revert war. - SimonP (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I had no doubts whatsoever (and wasn't being sarcastic). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite overly dramatic this is. No pages are going to be protected. Prodego ^talk 02:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Totally overdramatic. -- JALatimer 04:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can we just calm down here?

Hi guys! Hope you're all doing well -- Can ya'll just calm down a minute? Why are you discussing deleting these articles and giving them the Rome-on-Carthage treatment? What would be so terrible about keeping them up? It seems to me a lot of the objections to these articles could be eliminated by removing the wholesale copying of KJV text into wikipedia. But some of the articles are much longer than just the KJV text and include information that is nowhere else on wikipedia. Yet User:Neutralhomer, for example, redirects without regard to what information gets obscured or lost. No offense to you neutralhomer, I just disagree with you on this point. Personally, I think its better to keep stuff than to delete, generally. Why not try and make it better? Stub articles in this grouping seem fine for redirecting, but other, longer articles -- it's just not appropriate to delete that much labor, individual or collective. (The article I've been in conflict with you is not the sole work of User:SimonP. Yet that fact is not reflected right now in teh discussions here and elsewhere.)

My vote: Keep these articles up; then judiciously select articles that are destined to be stubs forever and redirect or delete them. No salt. No big grandstanding and yelling and shouting and saving the world and fighting for the all holy wikipedia policies necessary.

My suggestion: don't include the original text, particularly not a translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JALatimer (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, at the very least, if you redirect an article, do the hard work and make sure all the info is included in the redirected-to article. Thanks. -- JALatimer 04:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no current discussion in deleting these articles, just redirecting them. The information remains in the history of each page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is that the information is not visible to a normal peruser of the encyclopedia. Which amounts to de facto deletion vis-a-vis the reader. I am well aware that the article can technically be restored, as you well know. :)-- JALatimer 04:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be called edit-warring against consensus...and you are asking for "calm"? Let's not mess with the articles until the outcome of this and other threads. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Gotta say, the one example article linked above looks pretty well-referenced to me. I don't see what the big deal is: they were redirected, the content was deleted, and someone came along and turned each redirect into a referenced article. If you want to AfD them again, in hopes of forcing a redirect, feel free. I'm simply not seeing any wrongdoing here. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, I have two additional concerns: 1) The ArbCom case is from 4.5 years ago. That's an eternity in Wikipedia time! Trying to use that as some sort of a bludgeon is unsupportable. 2) Looking at Matthew 1:1, the text appears to be nominally referenced. The previous consensus was (at most) that notable Bible verses should be kept as their own articles, so by referencing multiple independent reliable sources, there is at least an argument that each particular verse is independently notable. Now, that may not stand up to scrutiny, but having seen plenty of Bible commentaries, I can agree that any arbitrary verse has offline, non-trivial mentions. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I've set up Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010, where we can hopefully come to some consensus on these issues that will work for everybody - SimonP (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Thanks. It's good to get this actually discussed. Also, note that SimonP is a sysop. Hence SALTing doesn't do anything but put salt in the wounds. (Whether they be existent or not) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Humerus pun. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How to find the contribution of an ip range?

79.53.229.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) edited several pages in April but i find all were vandalism. I can check every pages in Category:Italian footballers to find him out, or just pages i created. But it is time consuming. Matthew_hk tc 23:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

In the standard skin, go to My preferences → Gadgets and check Allow /16 and /24 – /32 CIDR ranges on Special:Contributions. I think you can also go to Special:Gadgets or something like that. See Classless Inter-Domain Routing for how to use the results, and use the links under the contributions history to narrow your search parameters to the relevant range. If the range in question belongs to a university, be prepared for a lot of results.

Related question: does anybody know of a way to filter that result list by time of last edit? - 2/0 (cont.) 01:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There's also a toolserver tool by X! called Range Contributions. It can be found at toolserver.org/~soxred93/rangecontribs/index.php. --Bsadowski1 06:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Deletiion of spam advertising edit

Please can the following be deleted as it is just a spam advert [39] many thanks. --Lucy-marie (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing in there that needs deletion. Deletion isn't supposed to used for trying to clean up edits otherwise there would be a lot of things here that could be cleaned up. Normally spam edits aren't deleted unless they could compromise the integrity of an individual or something more serious. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible WP:LEGAL situation

Just want to drop notice here of this edit, where the summary left was "Image is a violation of 18USC1466A and has been reported authorities". Tabercil (talk) 00:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a tough one. At the very least, Stillwaterising needs to be informed that he is not, in fact, the foundation's lawyer, and that he has no responsibility or duty to act as such on its behalf. And I very much doubt he's reported said image to the authorities, which is a cornerstone of why we instituted WP:LEGAL - because 99% of legal threats aren't real, but they still poison the well. --Golbez (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The image has been reported, as per proposed guidelines, to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children this morning. It is something that, by law, they are assigned to handle. The are not law enforcement, however they do investigates reports and refer to law enforcement when appropriate. Before anybody asks, yes, they do handle reports of cartoon images of child sexual abuse. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Then your work is done. Don't continue to edit war; if it's illegal, I'm sure Mike Godwin will receive a phone call soon. Otherwise, it's no longer your responsibility. --Golbez (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Random question, but why is everyone assuming that the cartoon is depicting children? I can't tell from the cartoon that they would be underage... Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think "everyone" is saying that, I think it's Stillwaterising that is making that claim. I don't see it at all. I definitely don't think the cartoon represents "children" at all. In fact, it's hard to tell just what is trying to be depicted, as I am unfamiliar with the Futanari topic. Although reading through the description, it seems as if the grahpics are depicting "she-males" or Hermaphrodites. In my opinion, this is an extreme reaction by Stillwaterrising with no basis in reality. Dave Dial (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

By definition futanari can't be she-males, instead they are hermaphrodites, sharing both genders and have an feminine appearance. There are some different variants of futanari, which were long part in japanese believes. In the 90th they became a popular extension to the yuri genre, with the aim to attract male customers. --Niabot (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I'd prefer an image where the subject(s) is/are blatantly obviously grown women (yeah they're chicks with dicks, but you know what I mean). The one on the left isn't, IMO. However, neither of them are obviously meant to be children either, and it is worth noting that pubic hair is censored in Japan (or at least it was, I'm no expert), meaning anime and manga usually don't feature it and even images drawn in the style of Japanese comic art may also lack it. I don't know if that is part of what is causing the concern. Members of the anime and manga project will have much more informed opinions, suggest someone invites them to have a look. Someoneanother 01:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest this invitation. And you are right, nearly every picture/manga/anime is drawn without pubic hair, since this was illegal in japan for decades and this kind of censoring forced by the US after WWII is also the reason for things like tentacles. --Niabot (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Seeing this show up on my Watchlist I finally gave a damn to take a look....and with all the mentions of Mike Godwin here and below, I have emailed him and made him aware of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm a little surprised that no one continued the WP:LEGAL discussion, instead moving on to the more salient points. I suggest perhaps a "WP:Don't be a vigilante", "If you think illegal content is on Wikipedia, contact the foundation, don't edit-war to remove it yourself." --Golbez (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Futanari

Several users (User:83.100.224.86, User:Cherryblossom1982, User:Niabot (uploader/creator), and User:Dogcow so far) have attempted to insert a cartoon depiction of child sexual abuse (my personal opinion) into this article starting the June 21rst. I have made two reverts today, and have been threaten on my talk page with violating wp:legal. I have only said that that image potentially violates 18 U.S.C. § 1466A and warned the users not to insert the image again. I'm afraid this has escalated into an edit war and this needs to be delt with appropriately. I feel that these users should be disciplined and the article be set to temporary full-protection. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think an image is illegal, contact the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel. Apart from that, all other Wikipedia rules apply, including the rule against edit warring. --Golbez (talk) 00:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Contacting Mike Godwin will get the response of "My advice is that anyone concerned that they might violate child-pornography law send these links directly to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The Wikimedia Foundation will defer to NCMEC's expert judgment on these matters." This isn't helpful. 18 U.S.C. § 2258A requires all suspected child pornography (no "proof" required) that is reported to the website administrators be taken down and reported "in a timely manner". I'm still wondering why there's no policy for dealing with this. If two or more established editors think it's illegal it probably is. - Stillwaterising (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm amazed at your ability to predict Mike Godwin's response. And according to Wikipedia (an esteemed location of trustworthy information, from what I gather) and their article on simulated child pornography, even 'realistic' virtual child porn is legal in the United States, unless judged obscene; this is far, far from realistic. Perhaps you should edit the article if it is wrong. As for "if two or more editors think it's illegal", first of all, where's your second? And second of all, what of the two or more editors who think it's hunky dory? --Golbez (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And for someone who cites the law so well, I'm surprised you haven't looked at 18 U.S.C. § 2258E, which states that only a "computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" falls under the definition of child pornography. Unless you are exceptionally blind and think that drawing looks like two hermaphrodites, you're way off on sending this to the NCMEC, or anyone for that matter. This image is no more 'child porn' than the movie Scream was a snuff film. Less so, since there's no actual, y'know, children involved. --Golbez (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A includes any cartoon depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct. I think the moral of this story is, I'm not a kiddy porn lawyer, you're (presumably) not a kiddy porn lawyer, and I doubt Mike Godwin is a kiddy porn lawyer (but possibly is unfrozen and caveman), but he's a lot closer to that "lawyer" part than any of us. Stop being a vigilante. --Golbez (talk) 01:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

18 USC 2258E has been amended by 1466A due to Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition. User:Golbez is a known supporter of pornography on Wikipedia and Commons. I'm requesting neutral admin opinions. Also, if people are going to bring out WP:NOTCENSORED they should read the whole listing, which also says "Content that is judged to violate ... or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's servers are hosted, will also be removed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, my name is right there. Really. (edit conflict: you changed it before I got to post this) Second of all, I'm not sure I recall ever defending pornography on Commons (I admit having some porn articles on my watchlist, hot womens are nice to look at), and I frankly have no interest in this pornography, I simply get drawn to WP:LEGAL issues because I enjoy permablocking people. Thirdly, did you yourself not save the article on Heather Harmon, an Internet porn star, from deletion? So basically, I'm bad because apparently I'm like you? Finally, if it is removed, it will not be by you. It will be either through consensus, or through an WP:OFFICE action. But y'know, thanks for attempting to sully me in a public forum like that, especially when I never did the same to you. Class act. --Golbez (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Stillwaterising, I would agree with you if I thought the image depicted children engaging in sexual acts, but I don't see that the two figures in the cartoon are children. You have good intentions, I'm sure, but this cartoon doesn't seem to depict children at all, and that's my stance. Perhaps if you could explain why you believe one or both figures in the cartoon to be underage...? Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 01:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He reported a cartoon to the missing children's bureau??? I fail to see how this is a good use of our tax dollars. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The image on left appears to depict a adolescent minor and the one on the right is meant to be an adult. It doesn't matter is the subject is post-pubescent or not, it only matters if the subject is appears to be under the age of 18. Obviously, their ages aren't included in the description, however there are identifing characteristics. 1). Breasts. The adult has larger, full breasts with normal adult-sized nipples. The adolscent has nipples that are smaller than an adults, and small underdeloped breasts that are found on a minor in Tanner stage III (the images and information in the Wikipedia is not accurate, however even if the girl is Tanner stage IV that would put her in the 13-15 year old range). 2) Build. Adult on right has full height, musculature, and proportions. Figure on left is proportioned like an adolenscent. 3) Head. The face on the image of the right is typical of an a child. The head is proportioned and shaped like a child. The hair is styled like a child. 4)Penis. The image on Commons was kept, in part, on the argument that this girl has an adult-size penis. Really? Like this characteristic makes the above irrelavant? Hardly. It's large because this image was intended to be sexually arousing, and the scenario of an adult fondling an well-endowed adolescent likely appeals to the "prurient interests" of some users, which BTW qualifies it for the first part of the Miller test. Bugs, read 18 U.S.C. § 2258A(a)(2)(B). All 1466A violations are included in the statute and must be removed and reported "as soon as reasonably possible." Also, in general, I would think it would be the criminal that wastes tax dollars, not the person reporting the crime. - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, they look like adults of an alien life form, as their anatomy does not conform to humans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"In general", I would think that someone calling the cops to report a jaywalker is, assuming good faith, an easily-upset, histrionic hall monitor. Assuming bad faith, I would assume this person lives under a bridge somewhere. Either way, the jaywalker may be the criminal, but the "upstanding and concerned citizen" is without a doubt the one wasting tax dollars and time. Unless and until any pen-and-inked, two-dimensional intersexed children with bright pink hair have been reported missing in the vicinity of a foggy bathhouse with disco lighting, perhaps last seen in the company of an older-looking, brown-haired similarly-inked two dimensional intersexed he-she - and do notify me on my talk page if this is the case! - I would "in general" argue that you're getting worked up over the erotica equivalent of jaywalking. Badger Drink (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Editors, administrators, etc do not deal with takedown requests. If it is clear an image should be removed, we will of course do it. But you need to contact the Wikimedia foundation if you have a takedown request for legal (not content) purposes. There is nothing else to discuss here. Prodego ^talk 02:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Predego, what I hear you saying is that current policy does allow this image to be deleted, or for the users to be blocked, etc. This goes against all public statements make Michael Snow and Mike Godwin, such as this, as well as illegal removal clause in WP:NOTCENSORED (above). - Stillwaterising (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's just get this out in the open: Will you continue to edit war to remove this image from the article? If so, and you then continue to do so, then you will blocked for edit warring. If not, we are done here, as it is no longer a concern for the administrator noticeboard. Which is it, so we can either go to bed or release the hounds? --Golbez (talk) 02:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(EC) "If it is clear" != "one person makes a very dubiously-argued near-rant that is, at best, an illustration of that one particular person's personal thought process". Hope this helps. Badger Drink (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We aren't lawyers, and we aren't qualified to make a judgement here. That is why you have to contact the WMF - which does have lawyers in their employ precisely to get input in situations like that (among other things of course). If it is obvious an image should be removed (i.e. consensus) it will be done. But that doesn't seem to exist here, so if you believe there is a legal issue you need to contact the foundation. Prodego ^talk 03:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Both characters appear to be sexually developed (considering the subject matter) making any determination of their "ages" extremely difficult. They could range from their late-teens to their early 20s. I also don't see anything about the character's suppose ages in the image's description page. Also, you can't point to artwork of a character with a small bust and calm that the character a "obviously" a minor. Especially when it's clear that the rest of the body proportions are way off as well, such as the size of the head and the length of the arms and legs in relation to the torso. While I don't claim to be an art expert, even I can see the problems with the overall body proportions. —Farix (t | c) 04:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I go out for the evening and look what I miss! I've only just seen this discussion and am only contributing since I have had my name mentioned in what I believe is an erroneous and libelous manner. Firstly, I did not insert the image in question, I simply reverted vandalism from an IP contributor complaining about a depiction of pornography. Not child porn, just porn. Secondly, in my opinion, the image depicts two adults as far as one can determine age in what are, after all, imaginary creatures; they cannot biologically exist as humans. And if we're going to try to sound scientifically impressive talking about Tanner stages, it should be realized that one cannot determine age by Tanner stage, any ages given are only for theoretically "typical" individuals and many fully adult women never develop breasts beyond Tanner stage IV. To see this fantasy image of non-existent beings as child sexual abuse is ... (well fill it in yourself, if I did, it would probably not be polite). Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of returning to more rational discussion, isn't the image the equivalent of original research? It's licensed as user-created content; it's therefore simply one user's opinion, accurate or not, as to what an example of this type of pornography might look like. I would think that the only appropriate illustration for the article would be an NFCC-compliant image from a publication described in a reliable secondary source as futanari. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:OI covers this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And as I read WP:OI, it fails the test, because the image creator's ideas of the nature of the pornography involved are unpublished etc. Of course, right now the entire article is minimally sourced and at least borderline OR.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Are we really arguing the artistic merits of an image of two anime dickgirls, and whether or not it is a faithful representation of the subject matter? Tarc (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If the image is representative of how Futanari characters are depicted, it's not original research. Also a non-free-use image cannot be added to the article because a free-use equivalent can be created to illustrate the subject, thus failing WP:NFCC #1. —Farix (t | c) 13:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But isn't the determination that the image is representative essentially OR, since it's based on the opinion of the image creator? As for NFCC#1, this analysis would also exclude all use of NFCC images to illustrate articles on non-living persons, since an editor could always create an original drawing/painting/image.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The only reason someone would take such a tack would be to game the system and create a Catch-22. But really, how hard is it to compare a free image with a non-free image and determine that the two depict the same subject? —Farix (t | c) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't address the policy issue. Take a look at Jazz. By your analysis, all the illustrative nonfree sound samples at the end f the article should be removed, because they could be replaced, in theory, by original compositions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Potentially replaceable music samples on another article has no relation to whether a free use image can be created to illustrate THIS article and is tantamount to WP:OTHERSTUFF. —Farix (t | c) 15:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Come on, this is getting very silly. I never even heard of this subject before, but all you have to do is type the article subject in teh Google to see the image covers the article subject. Are we going to argue someone's drawing of an Apple is original research because it's his/her interpetation of an apple? I think Brandon had the right idea, close this thread. If the disruption is started again, someone can make a new thread. Dave Dial (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Things are getting worse

[40] Stillwaterising is now informing people - without any legal standing and, furthermore, without any authority - that they may be breaking the law if they revert his edit. I'm a little personally involved in this, what with being pissed at his assassination of my character, but I think we're approaching the level of a civility or legal block here. --Golbez (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well they might be. But that is certainly bordering on legal threats. Seems worth letting him/her know your concerns. Prodego ^talk 03:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

... I ... I think he's well aware of my concerns with his behavior here, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't care. You know, the whole argument for the previous two sections. As for 'Well they might be', it's not up to you or me or any individual Wikipedia editor to make that determination. That's why the foundation has lawyers. The only legal issue we tend to care on an editor level is copyright. Anything beyond that, we have the foundation. I don't get to tell people that I'm going to sue them if they revert me, and I find telling people they're breaking the law if they revert me to be very similar. And when we're dealing with copyright issues, it's the foundation we're protecting; Stillwaterising is specifically saying the person who reverts him is committing the crime. I call for a warning shot. --Golbez (talk) 03:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I left him a note on his talk page encouraging him to enjoy the fine weather they're having in his city of residence (Austin, TX, according to his userpage) and take a walk, gaze at the stars, or perhaps go on a nocturnal bike ride...in essence something that will cause him less stress and hassle overall. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 03:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That looks like exactly what WP:NLT is there for. He's made his point, he's been warned that he could be blocked for it, he should be blocked for it - not warned again. I don't say this in defense of the image itself, by the way, since we plainly could replace it with one that doesn't have the problem under discussion, or with no image at all - but nonetheless, his behavior is unacceptable. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I would like to again say, just for those who missed it, I emailed Mike Godwin (legal counsel of WMF) and notified him of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I think someone should remove the threat that SWR placed on the talk page. This is exactly the kind of thing that NLT is meant to prevent. Telling other editors that they'll be in trouble with the law if they revert you, even when the threat is absurdly, obviously wrong as this one is, has a chilling effect. The threat should be removed and SWR blocked until he shows that he "gets it." In the meantime, I've posted a response telling other editors to ignore the threat.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't that character blocked already? He's leveling legal threats left and right, and shows no sign of retracting them. He's complaining about a cartoon character which, by definition, has no "age" - and cartoon characters with features that wouldn't exist in real life anyway. Put that guy on ice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It is going too far and has needlessly turned an extremely borderline case into a pressure cooker. If Godwin or the powers that be don't see anything to take action over then an RFC should solve it. Bandying around terms like "criminal" really isn't on, if there was any real doubt then the image would be gone already. Someoneanother 07:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Brandon closed this thread and I reopened it. I don't think it's proper to close this without some kind of admin response to the NLT violation. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it not obvious that Stillwaterising deserves a block? He has been warned already, yet he continues to issue legal threats and continues to edit war. A 24-hour block should be instilled immediately. I am appalled that no one has issued the block yet. Feedback (talk) 08:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering a couple of the userboxes on his page ("This user finds censorship offensive", "This user believes in logic"), I'm very tempted to label this entire temper tantrum as a textbook WP:POINT violation - and I'm very loathe to fling that particular label about, as far too often it seems to be used as a synonym for "[having or expressing a] point". This here, though, is disruption, borderline trolling, plain and simple. For a person who claims to believe in logic, Stillwater's behavior over the past few hours has displayed a remarkable lack thereof. Badger Drink (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, he seems to have stopped what he was doing a few hours ago, probably upon retiring for the evening, but this doesn't change the fact that there are still unretracted threats on the record, threats that are based entirely on SWR's wholly subjective interpretation of a cartoon, an interpretation shared by no one. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And therefore a block should be issued. If he just returns later in the day and experiences no consequences for his actions, what does that say about the system here? Feedback (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) WP:NLT is clear, legal threats are not a valid WP:DR mechanism. Indef block (which could last only 5 min, etc). Legal threats of any kind should not be tolerated. Verbal chat 09:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could everybody.. please stop edit warring over the closure of this thread. The whole thing is over an editor steaming ahead without using the options available, no need for anyone else to do the same. It's getting depressing. Someoneanother 09:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the early closure of this thread is disruptive, especially as the problem hasn't been addressed. Verbal chat 10:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I actually didn't have a problem with Brandon closing it, figuring that since nobody had blocked on the basis of the discussion either nobody was going to or what was there would lead someone to block without further repetition. Conduct aside it's just waiting to see what Mike Godwin says, which is another matter. Though quite why the thread needed labelling as "nonsense" I don't know. Someoneanother 10:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats are forbidden. The user must be blocked indefinitely until or if he withdraws the legal threat. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a legal threat. "We should not include this image, because I think it's illegal" is no more a threat than "we should not include this image, because I think it's a copyright violation". Watching out for Wikipedia content being legal is a good thing. Warning fellow users if you believe what they are doing might cross a dangerous line is a reasonable thing to do. A legal threat is "I'll sue you if you do X". Different issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It IS a legal threat. It's an attempt at intimidation. That's what NLT is about. Unless he retracts, he cannot edit. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What could he possibly "retract"? He made a claim of fact (or opinion), not a statement of intent. If he had said "I'll sue you", he could now retract by saying "okay, I changed my mind, I'm not gonna sue you". But what he did say was "I think this picture is illegal". What do you want him to say now? "Okay, I changed my mind, I no longer think it is illegal"? If that's what he thinks, that's what he thinks. If you are confident he's wrong about it, where's the intimidation? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I retracted the statement. I made no threats. LEGAL pertains to treats of lawsuits and even if changed by consensus (ex post facto) it does not apply to this incident. I find it offensive that I'm under attack while a potentially serious legal issue goes completely unaddressed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's all just drop it, people. Comments on the legitimacy of the legal issue have been made, comments on the validity of the statement that this is a threat have been made. Rehashing them will just stir up the pot. All that can be done now is to wait for Mike Godwin to reply, and leave things be in the meantime. {{Sonia|ping|enlist}} 12:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dots to be connected

I am reluctant to wade into this mess, but it should be pointed out that Stillwaterising made a similarly pointy edit on Child erotica, adding an image that they apparently believed was child erotica. It was discussed at Talk:Child_erotica#Images. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

DC, I know you and I are friends with a long history, that aside - is this really relevant to the conversation? Also, the point I made there WAS legal according to US law. - Stillwaterising (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

But can you see why people might think it's rather odd? On the one hand, you've reported a cartoon to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and on the other hand, you've posted what looks like an exploitative photograph of a real child. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

And although he claims to have "retracted" his legal threat, in his latest diff as of a minute ago he's still beating the same drum.[41] He needs to be put on ice like others who make legal threats, until he understands a few things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He will not be blocked for raising what may well be a valid and serious concern, in the proper forums. And the idea that the inclusion of the other image pointed out above was in some way "pointy" is plainly absurd – the whole point of that other image was that in fact it is believed to be not a child. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He's used threats and intimidation. Not that it's worked. But you need to be real careful about letting editors get away with legal threats. It sets a bad precedent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The only threatening I see us from Bugs and limited number of other users. NLT pertains to threats of lawsuits, not warning users that their actions may be against the law. Wiser minds here have recommended that this issue should be put to rest. If this incident leads to a revision of NLT then so be it, but as of now it doesn't apply. Please assume that I have the project's best interests in heart, which I do. - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Warning users that their actions may be against the law isn't a legal threat... in the same way that warning Scooby Doo and the gang to stop snooping "or else" isn't a threat. It's a form of intimidation. If the users' actions are really "illegal" (which it's likely that they're not, as any legal actions would be taken against the foundation, not the individual users), then it's really not that big a deal. The worst that could happen here is that the feds would say "please take that particular image off your servers", and then the foundation would comply. Stillwaterising has already (purportedly) reported it to the feds, so what's done will be done. So he needs stop making a big deal about it. What will be done will be done. [flaminglawyer] 18:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin note

 Administrator note Since apparently I'm not allowed to close this, I kindly request no admin block Stillwaterising unless he continues being disruptive. There is obviously no legal threat he can revoke, as he only claimed that the editors would be in violation of the law (which is still just as disruptive, just removes any benefit of the instant block). Blocking would just inflame the situation and asking him to "revoke" the legal threat would be akin to asking him to renounce a position he is very keen on. I have warned him on his talk page that any further edit warring on the article or legal posturing will be met with a block. That is all. Brandon (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• That is a legal threat. I request that an admin does block until the threats are rescinded and the user states that they will not repeat this behaviour. Closing an ongoing discussion is disruptive.Verbal chat 09:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  You can't rescind a legal interpretation. That doesn't make it any less disruptive than a legal threat, which is I've already given him a final warning. Brandon (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  Of course you can. Verbal chat 10:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

  And this should be moved to the bottom, as you have no special status to override community discussion. Verbal chat 10:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Most of you have to cut the crap. If this were a newer editor, he would have been blocked on site. He's being disruptive and yes he has not only issued legal threats, but has acted upon them supposedly "reporting to authorities". What the picture depicts is subjective to the viewer. If a 5-foot 30 year old flat-chested woman with soft skin is depicted in a picture, we can't assume its a teenager. If he wants to assume so, tell him to go ahead. However, wasting our time with these silly discussions, reporting to "authorities", issuing legal threats and reverting good edits is just not okay. He should be blocked for at least 24 hours and if not, a 1-month "Pornography" topic ban should be issued. Feedback (talk) 18:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:DUCK block

SPI is hopelessly backlogged, so I'm bringing this blatant sockpuppetry here. It's classic DUCK. Bell Partners, Inc. is a spammy article about a non-notable property management company. It was written by an SPA User:Bsumme whose only contributions have been to this article. I tagged it for speedy and shortly thereafter another brand new account User:Docgrl85 with no other edits came along and blanked the speedy template [42]. It should be pretty obvious that the second account is a sock of the first, or if not then a meatpuppet. Both should be blocked. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Go back to SPI, we do peruse these cases once and a while. Besides, this post isn't an incident and would be better suited there. Sorry for appearing as a jerk but evading us might backfire someday. You could always try the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-spi for rather quick results. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

SPI has been a useless mess for a week. Several people including myself have posted at AN asking for help but the backlog just keeps growing. It seems counterproductive to add to an already huge backlog with an obvious DUCK. Also, I don't use IRC and have no interest in doing so. It would be nice if admins willing to work at SPI would work at the SPI page instead of chatting on IRC. If nobody is willing to block blatant sockpuppets then just leave them unblocked, I guess. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the backlogs are a big pain. Unfortunately the populace here doesn't want to add more checkusers to fix this up and get more interest in the non-checkuser section. Try pinging Timotheus Canens (Tim Song's IRC nick) there as he is useful with things like that. Looking there, did even create an investigation for the user or am I missing something? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked one, warned the other. Not really worth an SPI on this. On somewhat related news, SPI has been unbacklogged by the Godking of SPI. T. Canens (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo attacks an editor on AFD?

Resolved

 – User is blocked for 48 hours for disruptive editing. Kevin Rutherford (talk)

64.255.164.0/25 blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 03:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Can someone look at Jimbo's new comments at the AFD attacking all the editors who are criticizing him for demanding an article be deleted? I mean should Geo Swan have to be be criticized like that? I mean how can anyone want Houston McCoy deleted and redirected to Charles Whitman without demanding that Tony Blair be redirected to George Bush? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.27 (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's sock are you? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

These things get a life of their own after a while ...--Wehwalt (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, attack the messenger. Isn't it possible that someone would be bothered that Jimbo says to delete an article, an admin does it, the deletionists cite "secret" discussions and then Jimbo returns to get it deleted? Nobody else concerned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.27 (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been no attempt to resolve the issue with Jimbo, so bringing it up at ANI is premature. Discuss any issues you have with an editor with that editor first, then bring it up on ANI if that does not succeed. Prodego ^talk 02:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Provide us with differences and we might listen but until then abstract accusations won't help your cause. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the AFD. Half of it is attacks against Geo Swan and the rest of the ARS.

I did read it. I saw no attacks. If you disagree, please post diffs. Yworo (talk) 02:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I voted "Keep" on the article (which is probably going to be deleted), but I see nothing in Jimbo's remarks which can be construed as an attack. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've seen quite enough from this IP range. 64.255.164.0/25 blocked 1 week. –MuZemike 03:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've no opinion about this block, but I just wanted to link to the diff that the IP was talking about. I think it's important that people not think that I attacked anyone. The idea that my comment might be thought of by anyone as an attack was a surprise to me.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an attack in that diff, though I suspect questions will always arise when you contribute to AfD and similar discussions, for if you were to interpret a policy in a new way - "I have recently begun to think about BLP1E in a fresh light, and think that the way we currently frame it may be missing a core point and therefore leading to some problems" for example - well, it unavoidably sounds like new policy creation rather than the verbalising of random user-thought, simply because you are who you are and some newer users are unsure as to what position you hold here. My two cents. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

OttomanJackson and Michael Jackson

• OttomanJackson (talk · contribs)

This user has been the subject of 2 previous AN/I's; here and here. The problem is rampant MJ fanboyism, which manifests itself in the Wikipedia via the continued creation of non-single, non-notable songs from MJ albums, and has earned a 1-week and a 2-week ban so far. Today, it is more of the same, the creation of Fly Away (Michael Jackson song), sourced to...sigh...the album's liner notes. Mr. Otto has a complete disregard for notability policy, and the guideline WP:NSONGS in particular. There is also a DRV attempt from the other day to resurrect one of his earlier attempts, currently running at unanimous opposition. I don't see what other avenues there are to pursue here, other than a topic ban. Tarc (talk) 04:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

AfDed the article. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The editor in question should be blocked for a longer period of time (1-month?). If he has already been blocked twice before, he has obviously been warned and nose the consequences of his actions. Assuming good faith can only take us so far, it is obvious he is consciously being disruptive. Feedback (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I agree; and if he nose not, I'm sure he'll soon 'ear from this discussion. (Sorry, I couldn't resist :)) GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How can a song released on a Michael Jackson album not be notable? Certainly, reliable sources (album reviews) will cover the song. What am I missing? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Why should Michael Jackson songs be notable simply for being Michael Jackson songs? Reviews of an album that include a song will not make that song's article any more than a stub. It needs sources that specifically address the song itself and make it something more than just another album track. 14:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Bretonbanquet (talk)

So what if it's just a stub? We don't have any deadlines. As long as it's not violating WP:V, WP:OR, WP:NPOV or WP:BLP, I don't see the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In that case, millions of songs would get articles, which would be ridiculous. From Wikipedia:Notability (music): Notability aside, a separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We're not a paper encyclopedia and the last I checked, disk-space is cheap. I'm still struggling to see the harm in having this article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the typical "it's harmless" inclusionist mantra. What you are missing is reliable sources addressing the song itself. Not contained in a track listing, not rattled off in a simple "these unreleased songs will be on the album", as in the MTV source you just added to the article. Look at articles for One After 909 or The Happiest Days of Our Lives to see what kinda of threshold we're looking for here. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How does deleting the article make Wikipedia a better place? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Because all of that info - what scraps of info there are - could be merged to the album article to greater effect than having a three-line article standing alone, never to be anything more than that. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed topic ban and possible block

I propose that the user be topic banned from Michael Jackson and songs produced by that artist. Another block may also be in order. History of socking too. User has had ample warnings about notability and music. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I support the proposed 1-month block and topic ban. This user very rarely makes constructive contributions, and instead decides to be nuisance. Pyrrhus16 12:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is such a wide topic ban necessary? Does the problem extend beyond creating articles with notability issues? Rehevkor ✉ 14:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We have had other problems as well, such as the creation of Michael Jackson is awesome! nonsense. Tarc (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

He's a troll. WP:AGF has gotten him this far and it is time WP:BLOCK takes him stops him in his tracks. Feedback (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

An attempt to prevent users for participating in discussions

Resolved

 – Drork gets WP:BOOMERANGed yet again. Tarc (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, a group of users with certain political views try to block users who have different views from commenting on this page: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel and the apartheid analogy. This is a sensitive politically-related subject, which may result in a policy change. Therefore any form of censorship in this topic should be strongly condemned. In contrary to that, User:ZScarpia and User:RolandR asked User:Elockid to block me, since I expressed view which were not in line with their views, and jeopardized their attempt to change policy. Instead of rejecting their request and warn them about conducting the discussion fairly and cooperatively, User:Elockid decided to response positively, which implies personal connection among these three users and authority abuse on behalf of User:Elockid. As you can see, User:Elockid's action was not only illegitimate but also futile, because I can still edit freely and express my views. Nevertheless, his conduct should be condemned, and this discussion Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-04-14/Israel and the apartheid analogy should be canceled due to unfair process. 79.182.10.212 (talk) 10:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Elockid has never commented there, neither have you on this IP, so - please, which account is yours? :) S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

From what I have seen, Roland has made no edits to the linked MedCab, ZScarpia has but has not messaged Elockid in his last 1000 edits (dating back to January). I find this to be a very misquoted post and should be marked resolved as unfounded. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, would you by any chance be User:Drork previous editing under the now blocked 109.67.38.10. Opps! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

An identical thread has been started at the Village Pump by the same user. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)'

• I have notified all three users of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Right conclusion SGGH, that is Drork. Elockid ^(Talk) 11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Blasted internet connection or I would have had it me'self - apologies. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You are supplying wonderful material to people who condemn WP. Is this your motivation? 79.178.50.16 (talk) 11:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Would any comments from me beyond stating that I don't think that anything 79.182.10.212 says bears much resemblance to reality be helpful?     ←   ZScarpia   13:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Independent admin required to review Request for Page Protection

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I made a request for page protection. The request was declined with the reason that it would be ineffective as one of the parties in the dispute was an admin and protection wouldn't prevent them editing. While this may technically be the case, is this true that an admin could evade protection in a dispute they are involved in without that resulting in swift sanction? The admin declining the RFPP recommended asking here for uninvolved admins to review his decision. I would like page protection combined with mediation (which I will seek if protection is achieved). Without protection, I don't see how mediation can work. I do not want this request to escalate into drama so would appreciate if we keep this in the abstract here and not name names. If page protection is of value when one of the disputees is an admin, please review the decision at RFPP (you can review my contributions to find it). If it is not of value, please advise me on what dispute resolution steps I can take next. Once again, please no drama. Colin°Talk 13:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC) I have a couple of thoughts. First, that RFPP wasn't the right place to start. That's for requests to protect pages from vandalism. If there is edit warring going on 3RR would be the right place. If there is a difference of opinion on the content, then Third Opinion or an RFC might be the way to go. Second, if an admin locks a page to force everyone to discuss the matter on the talkpage, then an involved admin should not edit thru the protection. This has come up a few times, and the consensus has always been that the admin should consider the page blocked as if they were an ordinary editor. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC) For info, this is the decline [43]. The page is Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. The admin that the user has an issue with is SlimVirgin - have you notified her? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC) I think this was supposed to be kept abstract :) -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC) How the hell was it supposed to be kept abstract - he was asking people to review TFOWR's decision and invited us to review his contributions to find it. Which is what I did. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC) RFPP is often the right place to request full protection, which, in policy, does prevent admins (especially those involved in the dispute) editing the page. However a quick review of the history and related discussions doesn't particularly suggest to me the need for full protection (or blocks which are often preferable with a limited number of edit warriors) at this time. I believe this was also alluded to in the response. -- zzuuzz (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC) No opinion of the merits of the protection request itself but I don't see how the administrator status of one of the parties in a dispute should affect the decision to accept/decline a RFPP in any way. Would you fail to block an administrator for violating 3RR because he could theoretically unblock himself? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Agreed. I think it is probably newness on TFOWR's part - he's a fairly new admin. I've known admins regularly lock pages where other admins are involved in the dispute. And the suggestion that SlimVirgin would just edit thru it probably shouldn't have been made....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC) Point taken, and thanks, Ron Ritzman and Elen of the Roads. TFOWR 15:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC) I specifically requested no names, which is why a certain editor was not informed (though the Admin at RFPP was). I did not want the details of the dispute or any editor behaviour to be discussed in this forum, and still don't. The question of whether that lock affects an admin has been answered. Two independent admins feel page protection is not necessary at this stage. While I disagree and think it would be helpful, and that third opinion (tried) and 3RR (unlikely to be breached) aren't options, I would like this section closed as Resolved. Thanks. Colin°Talk 15:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Stonehenge Apocalypse

Resolved

 – page semi'd and up to 80% complete bollocks removed -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Stonehenge Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think this page needs attention from one or more admins. The content is quite obviously vandalism from more than one user IP, and it's going to take more than the few "undo"s that I just attempted to get it into shape. I have requested that it be protected at WP:RPP. I just don't know enough about the subject matter to know what content is correct and what is utter bollocks. -- role^player 13:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've so far semi'd the page and removed 5Kb of complete bollocks. There's still some way to go. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The page is looking a lot better now! -- role^player 17:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Request speedy close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masonic Temple (2nd nomination)

I'd like an uninvolved admin to take a look at the situation surrounding the relisting of this AfD by Spartaz (talk · contribs). Spartaz was the closing admin on the original AfD. When I questioned his close, he tried to start a lengthy discussion on his talk page about the sources presented (a discussion that had already taken place ad nauseum during the original AfD), even going so far as to invite other editors to the discussion. I clearly indicated that continuing the AfD discussion on the closing admin's talk page did not seem appropriate, and clearly noted that I didn't intend to participate in that discussion. Then, I took the issue to deletion review here, and notified Spartaz on his talk page. 66 minutes after being notified that the DRV had been started, he relisted the AfD, apparently in an attempt to derail the DRV. I ask that the new AfD be speedily closed before editors start contributing to it, pending the outcome at DRV. SnottyWong ^prattle 16:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it's the DRV that needs closing as moot, by restoring the article and opening a new AFD, Spartaz has, in effect, vacated his own closure, and restarted the process. Courcelles (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• That is exactly what I have done. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure DRV is the venue in which uninvolved editors decide whether or not to relist the article, or overturn/endorse the close. Relisting the article doesn't vacate his own closure. Reversing the decision on the original AfD to Keep or No Consensus is the only way to vacate his original closure. Relisting the article is just a continuation of his original supervote at the original AfD. The article has already been discussed at great length, as have the sources that Spartaz claims to have a problem with. All Spartaz needs to do is read the original AfD if he is looking for a discussion regarding the sources. If the AfD needs to be relisted because some important topic was not discussed during the previous 6000+ word, 49KB discussion which ended 2 days ago, then the uninvolved editors at DRV can decide to relist it. SnottyWong ^confess 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Having been a regular at DRV for nearly 4 years I think I can safely say that a closing admin is always allowed to vacate their own closes. Whether to restore an article or refer back to the community for further discussion is within administrative discretion. DRV will always prefer to see an admin take this course of action themselves rather then wait for a discussion to run for 7 days and then do it for them. In this case the issue over my close is the nature of the sources. DRV is not equipped to have that discussion as its remit is simply to review closes and this is rather more technical and needs people who have read the sources. My belief is that the community needs to decide if the sources you put forward are good enough when the original author of the article, who is a long standing and respected editor, asserts that he has read them and that they not up to scratch. The correct venue for that debate is AFD and that is why I relisted it and why I indicated this morning that I would be relisting it at some point today. Frankly you are like a dog with a bone here, demanding to get your own way and scattering aggressive notes and assumptions of bad faith around numerous venues insisting that it has to be done your way or not at all. I'm rather tired of this and won't be responding further. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• So when an admin makes the wrong call at an AfD, the appropriate reaction is to relist the article? I disagree. The AfD has already been discussed for 7+ days. There is nothing more to discuss except repetitions of what has already been discussed. You obviously have an opinion about this article, which you tried to crowbar into your closing action on the original AfD. Relisting the AfD is just a resumption of your attempts to insert your opinion where it is not needed. Your job as closing admin is to assess consensus, not add your own vote, and you clearly didn't do that. Relisting the article doesn't fix that, it's just going to waste 7 more days, and the time of a dozen more editors, to come to the same conclusion the last AfD came to: Keep. SnottyWong ^babble 17:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Close the DRV, and proceed with the relist - though it should be an actual reopen and relist of the first AfD, not a new AfD! Spartaz said this morning that "I'm going to relist this later today for further discussion of the sources", so discussion with the admin had made DRV moot, but Snottywong deliberately ignored this and went to DRV instead. Fences&Windows 17:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I would make an observation that the conduct by SnottyWong throughout the AfD in question, and the attacks on Spartaz following the closure would generally be considered as unacceptable. Repeated accusations of bad faith against a number of other participants in the discussion, jumping the gun on DRV and AfD and an approach that could easily be considered as personal attacks on talk pages are pretty unreasonable.

I'm not sure what the deal is, but there was some pretty clear axe grinding going on in the AfD, and it looks as if this is more of the same.

ALR (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Moot the DRV and this ANI thread, but notify all AfD(1) participants of the AfD(2), and move on with life, shall we? Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
• Just let the AfD process run its course. We don't have a better venue for deciding whether to delete articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Supervotes

Supervotes are not always wrong. If there were an AFD on an obviously unnotable living person or an obviously unverifiable subject (WP:HOAX etc), then it would be proper for an administrator to close "delete" even if every !voter says "keep". There's no need to do this for "low risk" articles like Masonic Temple. If a closer wants to drive the point home that the apparent consensus is counter to policy then close it "no consensus" or relist it and !vote "delete".

Also, if you have to say "this is not a supervote" in your closing rationale, then it's a "supervote". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

abuse of admin tools on John Buscema

User:J Greb has activated the review function on the John Buscema article. As an active editor involved in a specific past dispute mainly between myself and Tenebrae, I find his actions demonstrate various problems of conflict of interest and non-neutral actions.

My effort to resolve the problem is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJ_Greb&action=historysubmit&diff=370277267&oldid=370265225

Besides having expressed viewpoints on the editorial direction of the article, there is the question taking sides in the dispute as expressed in his reply above.

Besides his self-confessed involvement, here are a few more examples:

He was active as an editor in various arb enforcement discussions concerning the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement&oldid=200244529#User:J_Greb

Here is evidence I had presented at the arb case, alledging his collaborative relationship with User:Tenebrae: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/John_Buscema/Evidence#Corroborating_evidence

Here he is cited as being involved in a discussion on the John Buscema talk page (he had contacted myself and User:Emperor) concerning a web site link that he was disputing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:John_Buscema#Nationmaster_links

I think he's crossed the line here. --Scott Free (talk) 18:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how the review function is abusive towards the article? It is still freely editable. --Jayron32 18:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a problem with the review function per se, although I don't think that it's necessary- it's the principle of an involved editor using an admin tool in a dispute they are involved in. Also I think that the collaborative way it was done, could give the impression of one side being favored. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:J_Greb#Help_with_an_RfC) Also since the tool is used for edits that show "vandalism, inappropriate, or contain clear errors", it could give the impression that one editor is supporting unproven claims that only one other user is making. Then there's the fact that one of the parties had been given reviewing priveldges just a few days before, I think creates another potential conflict of interest complication --Scott Free (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Histomerge Required.

Just wondered if someone could merge the history of an article I created in a sandbox: User:Lil-unique1/Rose Colored Glasses with the new article created at: Rose Colored Glasses? Thanks, Regards Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Doing... Courcelles (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Done. I'm not sure about your assertion that this is the primary topic, but that's an RM debate for anyone who cares, and I really don't. If you want the redirect I left in your user page gone, just let me know. Courcelles (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you. Please can you remove the redirect and delete the sandbox? Regards Lil-unique1 (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

• Zapped. Courcelles (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

How is this the appropriate page for this sort of thing? Feedback (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What do I mean? Do you even know what this page is for? Feedback (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah sorry I do know what the page is for. I though it was for incidents and administrator attention. I've seen that it isn't. I should have known this because I've used this noticeboard quite a bit. I apologize. I should have maybe brought this up at the content noticeboard. Regards, Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)