Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive188

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Harsh blocks

Admin Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has been making extremely harsh blocks recently, for example:

06:26, 29 January 2007 Jimfbleak (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "12.164.196.100 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (repeat vandalism)
06:38, 27 January 2007 Jimfbleak (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "72.94.83.75 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism only account)
17:30, 26 January 2007 Jimfbleak (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "65.68.135.137 (contribs)" with an expiry time of indefinite (vandalism only account)
17:17, 26 January 2007 Jimfbleak (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "217.155.137.166 (contribs)" with an expiry time of 6 months (vandalism only, mostly offensive)

More instances can be found here. These are especially unacceptable, since he has been handing out long blocks to (possibly shared) IP addresses, for minimum rationale. Not only may this result in collateral damage, but it is also basically wrong, for the simple fact that it makes wikipedia out to be an autocracy with admins holding the reins of power. The basic fact is that anon IPs should and are allowed to edit, and there can be no reason to deny that basic fact of a free encyclopedia.

In most of these cases, he has blocked the offenders without proper warning, not even a generic message, such as {{test5}}. Also, he has, in some cases failed to revert the vandalistic edits, for example:

among others.

I do not know if Jimfbleak is trying to prove his rougeness through these actions, or if there is some other reason (such as the fact that the IPs are open proxies), but I would request them to provide proper rationale to avoid disambiguity. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 07:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this is completely inappropriate - indefinite blocks for IPs are forbidden per WP:BLOCK unless they are open proxies, and Jimfbleak is giving no indication of that intention. I'd suggest a Wikibreak for Jim; these are the signs of a stressed user. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
No such thing as a vandalism only account when it is an IP - it is, by definition not an account. This is very troubling. Have you spoken to him about it? If you do talk to him about it and don't get a satisfactory response, consider opening a RfC. ViridaeTalk 08:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Someone finally let me know this discussion was taking place, so hopefully I'm allowed to comment.
In the first example listed, I gave an indefinite anon-only block because there was a message from the ISP apparently asking for that on the talk page. In other cases where I've blocked shared ISPs (usually US educational establishments), it seems to me that there is a duty on the schools to monitor pupil activity, which of course is easily done.
Despite the amateur psychology above, I'm not stressed about Wikipedia or anything else. However, I have got a couple of weeks in South Africa coming up, so there will be a Wikibreak.
If my CSD/NP patrol and vandal blocking are seen as a problem, I'm quite happy to go back to mainly writing articles, I have no wish to do more harm than good. Thanks, jimfbleak 08:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Having followed the rougeness link, I'm unclear whether it's a joke or incivility - am I being dim? jimfbleak 08:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Like many issues on this noticeboard, discussion with the user should have been done first (or at least attempted), not brought here first. NoSeptember 08:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
On a side note, enjoy your wikibreak and visit plenty of our tourist attractions while you're down here. Zunaid©® 12:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
On another side note, I have indefinitely softblocked IPs when there's been no good edits. A lot of these are school IPs. Anyone who wishes to edit from such an IP can still log in and do so. Static IPs are also potentially subject to lengthy blocks if they are clearly static and clearly solely used for badness. Proto:: 15:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone talked to him about why we don't indef block IPs? Before taking this to RFC, try communication. I don't see any lasting harm here that couldn't be fixed in a minute or two. 6 months is acceptable for a static IP with persistent vandalism problems. Tone the other blocks down to a few months, bring him up to speed on why, and move on - unless there's more to things than this thread indicates. DurovaCharge! 23:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User IP:24.65.60.219

This person already had a final warning for vandalizing Temperate Hardwood Forest. He was warned by Heligoland. He vandalized this article Himation. Just wanted to let you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gibith (talkcontribs)

Edit reverted, IP warned. Thanks for bringing this issue here! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 21:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

User deleting massive amounts of information from multiple articles

User:CyberAnth (contributions) [1] has been deleting massive amounts of text from multiple articles on the basis that ANY uncited text in a Biography article must be removed or else it violates WP:BLP. I engaged him on his talk page and pointed out that WP:BLP requires the removal of controversial uncited items from a biography, but his reply was that since we have no way of knowing what items may be controversial to the subject, everything uncited must be removed. This deletion in particular is a good example. [2]. The Frank Abegnale article (the guy portrayed in the movie Catch me if you can. He removed MOST of the stuff that the subject is known for. None of what he removed had {{citation}} tags on it. He just deleted it all. Other articles he is simply stubbing, like this diff [3]. This seems more like an example of WP:POINT than trying to improve the articles. Am I off base on this??? WP:BLP does not require that every statement of fact be cited. I really don't see how this is constructive and resisting the urge to start reverting as vandalism I wanted to get a second opinion. Can anyone advise me on this? Caper13 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support the first diff (Frank Abagnale). That is precisely what admins and other experienced users should be doing, aggressively, and blocking people who refuse to write appropriately. (Not blocking people just for doing it once or twice, mind you, we do still practice WikiLove, but people who refuse have to be blocked.). As for the 2nd diff, it seems a bit aggressive, but the article was pretty awful, so I see no major problem. Routine editing. :-) --Jimbo Wales 00:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The diff that you strongly support has been reverted by an administrator. The same administrator who blocked CyberAnth. Frise 01:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, WP:BLP says potentially controversial (and if it doesn't, it should). We shouldn't have things without a source, anyway, so the best way to solve this is just to find sources. It does not hurt Wikipedia to remove statements which may be untrue. -Amark moo! 02:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Take a look at his contribution list though. Rather than placing citation tags on items to encourage others to cite, he is just stubbing entire articles and deleting pretty benign information. This is an example of text deleted "- In the California State Senate, Dr. Aanestad's top priorities are preserving rural health care, protecting North State water, and serving the needs of the citizens of the 4th Senate District, which includes Butte, Colusa, Del Norte, Glenn, Nevada, Placer, Shasta, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity and Yuba counties." Caper13 02:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
...uncited, unreferenced claims, that could be pure bogus and therefore very controversial to someone, including the subject. CyberAnth 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Tags are cool. But for BLPs, no. CyberAnth 02:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
What was controversial about the passage above about the California State Senate that caused you to delete it? Caper13 02:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean about the living person said to be in the CA state senate. Said with uncited, unreferenced claims. For all I know the info was made up in school one day. It could therefore be controversial to someone somewhere, and libelous. CyberAnth 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The edit to the Frank Abagnale article you link to above was a good edit, and is mandated by WP:BLP. CyberAnth should be encouraged in removing any more entirely unsourced accusations of crime from biographies of living persons, even in the case of someone whose notability rests on criminal behaviour. Jkelly 02:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I get the criminal behavior thing on Abegnale. I still a better approach would be to put citation tags in rather than deleting in this case, but I cana see the point. I am not trying to be troublesome because I am still learning some of the rules, but in this latest edit [4] He deleted all information about an Italian Conductor other than the fact that he is an italian conductor. This doesn't make sense to me. Caper13 02:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
For all I know, the stuff other than that he was an Italian conductor was made up in school one day. This is a living person we are speaking of, and none of the info beyond what I left was verifiable. The info does not stand WP:BLP. CyberAnth 03:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You left his birthday and his occupation. How do you know either of those were true. Neither were cited. and they are about as controversial as the information you did remove. You gutted an entire article which no one had previously questioned. Doesnt that seem a little extreme? Caper13 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I should not have left the B-Day info. CyberAnth 03:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I see you've removed it. WP:POINT. The fact that he is a conductor is uncited as well. Why don't you delete that. Then the entire article can consist of his name and no identification of who he is.
In the current drive to improve the site by fixing its highly unreferenced state I would agree with CyberAnth's removal of unsourced info. Any unsourced info on a BLP article is potentially controversial so it shouldn't be there. (Which, I suppose is counter to my original arguments about the same actions on the Ron Jeremy article, but we live and learn)-Localzuk(talk) 03:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ron Jeremy - that is a very well referenced article. :-) CyberAnth 03:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It is since it was blanked and dozens of editors stormed over there to fix it up :) It was a bit 'shock and awe' to blank it but it did the job well.-Localzuk(talk) 03:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It may just be me, but I completely fail to see how removing unsourced info is bad. I view WP:BLP as "in these cases, nobody may revert removals", not "this is the only reason to remove unsourced info". -Amark moo! 03:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP (emphasis in original): "Editors must take particular care when writing biographies of living persons and/or including any material related to living persons. These require a degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to our content policies:

  • Verifiability
  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  • No original research"

CyberAnth 03:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No doubt CyberAnth is acting in good faith here but this seems to me very close to breach of WP:POINT. Many of the articles stubbed contained no material that could conceivably be seen as controversial. WP:BLP does not require such extreme action for uncontraversial material. Articles can be tagged as unreferenced without danger. Better still, if CyberAnth has reason to doubt the truth of some of the information, contrary sources or discussion on talkpages might be appropriate. But blanket stubbings without controversy is unnecessarily disruptive. WJBscribe 04:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
For WP:POINT to apply, it must be deliberately disruptive, which you admit it is not, and it must prove a point, which it does not do. And while it is true that BLP does not require such action, that does not mean that unsourced material can't be deleted, only that it is not always mandated. -Amark moo! 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The intention may not be disruption but disruption is the result. It is incredibly disrespectful to other users' contributions. There are other ways to go about this without going on a wikilawyering crusade to have every article meet the strict letter of WP:BLP in one night. By all means delete contraversial material, but simple career information without comment is harmless. It can be tagged, or queries raised on talkpages. But blanket deletions of this nature are not helpful. WJBscribe 04:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, people who write BLPs without strictly citing their sources show a serious lack of respect for the subject, their readers, and other Wikipedians. The Burden of evidence is not on me to find sources for every article on Wikipedia. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article" (WP:V#Burden_of_evidence). This is especially so with BLPs. If something is potentially controversial to someone somewhere it is therefore controversial. For all I know, or someone else not knowledgable about the subject, the "basic career information" could have been made up in school one day. Cite the material per WP:CITE and you will have nothing to worry about. When editors get away with this sort of stuff it may seem disruptive, but it is for the better of the article, the subject, and this Project. CyberAnth 05:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
This edit on Cyberanth's talk page suggests suggests that the disruption is intentional, and designed to provoke a response. that Hank Aaron was elected to the hall of fame" - I do not know hardly a thing about Aaron, so that can absolutely be a controversial statement, given that it is not verifiable. Cite it. That shows you care. CyberAnth 03:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC). Yes, Hank Aaron being elected to the hall of fame is SO controversial. Obviously, it is easily cited, but his actions here are disrespectful to the work of editors. The stubbing of this article [5] removed completely neutral information from an article that only gets a couple of edits a month and probably doesnt have people watching it, so what is he expecting to accomplish here other than to destroy months of work by editors who had no other intention than to contribute to wikipedia. The information removed is not controversial in the least. Additionally when I pointed out that in his initial stubbing, he left nothing but the date of birth, he went back and deleted that as well WP:POINTCaper13 05:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You can try to divine my motives all you want. The content policies is what I am following. Of course, the solution to the birthdate issue is to cite it. For all I know, it is false and could be considered offensive by the subject if not true. CyberAnth 05:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That is patently ridiculous. You are trying to impose a new interpretation of BLP which says that EVERY statement should be deleted if it is not sourced. BLP has never been interpreted that strictly. Current BLP policy requires the citing of potentially controversial statements, but you are redefining EVERY statement as potentially controversial to force citing of every statement. It is a good goal to have well cited articles, but forcing this change overnight especially to little trafficked articles is WP:POINT Caper13 05:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth engaging in vandalism through misapplication of policy

I have just noticed that the above user has made a series of edits to over two dozen articles removing material he claims violates WP:BLP. I have not looked at every one of these edits, and some of them may well be valid, but to use just two examples he has removed from the Hank Aaron article the fact that Aaron was elected to the baseball Hall of Fame and removed from the article on golfer Tommy Aaron every bit of information in the article save for his name and profession, including his finishing places in various golf tournaments. WP:BLP exists to make sure that libel is not placed in wikipedia and specifically mandates that only controversial information should be deleted. None of the information presented above, and presumably most of the rest of the material removed, has been challenged by anyone or could fit into a rational definition of controversial. Furthermore, the user did not attempt to resolve what problems he claimed existed through dialogue on the talk page of the article or through use of tags. I posted about the issue on his talk page, and he was unapologetic. I reverted some of the changes and he immediately reverted me. Administrator action would appear to be required to end this user's disruption of wikipedia. Indrian 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already a thread here started on this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_deleting_massive_amounts_of_information_from_multiple_articles
What would you like to do, dialog about allowing BLPs that do not adhere to WP policies?
That Hank Aaron is in the Hall of Fame may seem incontrovertible fact to you. But many people, like me, know hardly a thing about Aaron, so that can absolutely be a controversial statement, given that it is not verifiable. Cite it. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence.
CyberAnth 04:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a difference between "not verifiable" and "not verified". There's your verification. You may have a point with many of your edits. There is far too much unverified information on Wikipedia, but I'd still say you're mostly making a point this evening. --Onorem 04:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
So, is the Burden of evidence now on the reader? Per WP:V#Burden of evidence, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." The solution is cite it. CyberAnth 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You'll have a hard time convincing me that you actually believe that calling someone a Senator or stating that a baseball player is in the Hall of Fame would be considered libelous. These are statements that should have, at most, been moved to the talk page. --Onorem 04:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You must be referring to the litany of claims about a Senator...unsourced, uncited, unverifiable claims. The cite for the HoF is just above. Feel free to add it. CyberAnth 04:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If your intention was anything other than to prove a point, you could have added it yourself rather than deleting the work of others. Caper13 05:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The burden of evidence for every page on Wikipedia is not mine. Per WP:V#Burden of evidence, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article." The solution is cite it. CyberAnth 05:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If it's a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, it is not vandalism. If it is an edit based on a misunderstanding of policy, it is not vandalism. In fact, I think CyberAnth understands BLP policy and is applying it mostly correctly. Tags are fine for Civil War generals, but potentially controversial material about living people has to be sourced when added. The burden of proof is on whoever wants to add the material. The solution is to cite it and add it, not to revert to the uncited version, with or without a tag. Tom Harrison Talk 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You gotta be kidding me. CyberAnth, who has been here before about POINT violations, is REMOVING facts like "Hank Aaron is in the Baseball Hall of Fame" and whether so and so is a SENATOR... and that's a GOOD THING? If we required cites for every sentence, then the whole article would be unreadable. I strongly disagree. SirFozzie 05:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It may seem common knowledge to you that Aaron is in the HoF. For all many know, it could be false. Cite it. Pick any dozen of baseball figures. By golly, if an editor makes such an exceptional claim that they are in the HoF, it better be cited in a BLP. As for the Senator, you must be referring to the litany of claims about a Senator I removed...unsourced, uncited, unverifiable claims. CyberAnth 05:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
CyberAnth is continuing his process despite the fact that there is active conversation and discussion of his edits here at AN/I. Would it be worth it to request a temporary stop while the extent of WP:BOF and what is, is not, or might possibly be controversial is worked out? ThuranX 05:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The material being removed ranges from statements with legitimate potential for being defamatory, to easily-sourced, common knowledge, positive statements about the subject. The fact that CyberAnth doesn't appear to be able to tell the difference indicates that he doesn't understand the policy, and rather is going about removing uncited material from bios at random. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Suppose of every four edits CyberAnth removes three uncontroversial and sourcable but currently-unsourced statments and one instance of potentially libelous misinformation?
Jimbo Wales as quoted in WP:BLP, "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."
Once again, life isn't a game (and I note CyberAnth's involvement in both threads.) Wikipedia must not do capricious harm to real-world individuals, however valid our inside-the-box concerns may be. Talk of wiki consensus and congenial editting is valid in itself, but in such situations is beside the point.
I'd be curious to learn what blocks, if any, have been imposed against editors who've added potentially libelous unsourced material to biographies of living persons.Proabivouac 11:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Alkivar's block of CyberAnth

User:Alkivar has blocked CyberAnth for one week. I have asked for a reconsideration of this block. Jkelly 06:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion of this block has happened at User talk:Alkivar, but I'd like to invite more admins to weigh in. Jkelly 06:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Reading the above discussion I'm fully in line with the block. CyberAnth is antagonistic to the point of POINT. Removing uncited, common knowledge and *refusing* to do any trivial research, or work *with* other editors is highly detrimental to our aims. Wjhonson 07:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd say a block was necessary, but a one-week block probably too long. – Chacor 07:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think this is more of a case of WP:SPIDER than WP:POINT. CyberAnth is mixing in good removals of uncited material that violate BLP, but the removal of some thing such as that Hank Aaron is not in the Baseball Hall of Fame because there wasn't a cite next to the "claim" is not appropriate behavior, namely (edited) blanking sections. More diffs are readily availible in the contribution history. There are much better ways to conform biographies, and disruption is not a way. Preventative block. Teke (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I fully agree with the block. As someone who was once blocked for WP:POINT - I know it when I see it, and boy did I see it in CyberAnths actions ! Thank you Alkivar - well done. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 08:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You are aware that User:Sandstein unblocked him about two hours ago, right? User:Zoe|(talk) 08:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
That's... unfortunate. SirFozzie 08:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Was it done with reference to the blocking admin? That is a courtesy at least in a situation like this... ViridaeTalk 08:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you just look on Alkivar's talk page and see? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 09:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah prob should have, I didnt see anything on sandsteins talk page so I didnt look any further. ViridaeTalk 10:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am interested that the block was given as edit warring, while the unblock was "no evidence of 3rr" - they are different issues, edit warring is disruption (broad) whereas 3rr is violation of a specific policy. ViridaeTalk 11:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm getting deja-vu over this. There was a similar problem, as I mentioned above, with the Ron Jeremy article where the entire thing was blanked under WP:BLP as unsourced. The outcome of that was that the blanking was the right thing to do. I think this block is out of line and the editor is doing a good job in removing some of the large amount of unsourced information from the site.

Every article on this site has at least one editor who has worked on it. If another editor comes along and deletes info as unsourced and doesn't actively try and source it himself, instead of revert warring over it or violating WP:V by re-inserting it without a source, why don't we leave the community to re-add it with the citations? We have policies, why are we telling off and blocking an editor who is editing in good faith to enforce them? It just doesn't make any sense. If we do that then we are just going to drive editors who do controversial but good things away.

As CyberAnth states, the burden of evidence is on the editor who adds or restores the info and re-adding it without a source is against policy.-Localzuk(talk) 12:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Only properly sourced information should be added to an article, especially where living people are concerned. CyberAnth is correct in removing and challenging information that was added without a source. Frise 14:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Are we really changing the policy to one of 100% Citation at all times? That is patently Absurd. If that's done, it would kill the project, because it disregards WP:AGF and WP:CS entirely. to go back to the Hank Aaron example above, we should erase such things as Aaron being a baseball player, male, black, living(or dead), american, and so on. Looking at a number of the articles Cyberanth has blanked or reduced, they now are completely non-notable people, given the lack of WP:V information there. I think CyberAnth's next step it to recover his ground and nominate all such articles for deletion on teh grounds of unsubstantiated notability. I have always been under the impression that Verifiable and Controversial were two entirely different priniciples here. Instead, CyberAnth has taken the interpretation that anything NOT citation verified is by its very nature a Controversial statement. I think this is a bad direction for Wikipedia to go in, but I look forward to watching CyberAnth's behaviors spread. When Thousands of editors are marginalized by having any and all work they've done deleted, and quit, I think we'll see the folly of assuming that 'Hank Aaron was a baseball player.[citation needed]' is a good way to be.ThuranX 15:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've bashed heads with Cyberanth numerous times. I think he is often a very good editor. Cyberanth is sometimes a big problem though. The problem is not in erverting or removing a small bit of text in one article though. All editors do that from time to time. The problem is that he gets in a mode of deleting large chunks of material, in a a great many articles to the point of disrupting editing by other editors on those articles, and Wikipedia wide when we get into these long discussions. It is a variation of the same old deletionist argument, applied to the specific case. Cyberanth is a deletionist, for good or for bad, and spends mos of his time deleting other peoples work. In some cases, the work deleted is garbage and opinion that is not, or can not be sourced. In some cases, it is perfectly good material that has not yet been sourced, but would be, given time. If Cyberanth's method of operation was one based on consensus, discussing the faults of a given article in detail in cooperation with other working on the article, and eventually removing material that no one could, or was willing to source, then we would not be discussing his actions over and over and over. His method of operation is to blindside editors who have worked together for weeks or months on an article by swooping into an article and removing the bulk of an article, making it a stub. The editors of that article become angry that their efforts are swept aside by someone who has not bothered to even explain to them on the discussion page what the problems are. At best the edit summary gives a vague reference to Wikipedia policy on providing sources, often not even that. If Cyberanth removed material from articles where no one was contributing or editing, or after a discussion with editors, no one would be complaining.

To reiterate, the problem is not whether or not it is okay to remove unsourced material. The problem is the method of operation. Cyberanth is not interested in communication, negotiation, or working towards consensus with others. Cyberanth is entitled to work on Wikipedia however he pleases. But, when that method becomes dysfunctional, and creates more negatives than positives wikipedia wide, then it is necessary to take action, such as this block. The block is appropriate and necessary. Cyberanth may be insulted, but that is needed to get his attention. Eventually he will get that disrupting other editors on wikipedia is not acceptable, and that editing wikipedia cooperatively with others is necessary. Atom 15:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

While it might be argued that Cyberanth was a bit over the top here, I don't think too far so. I've really never understood the constant objection to sourcing "obvious" information. If it's so obvious, it's trivial to find sources! I've found tons with just a cursory Google search, and probably any given one could source 95%, if not 100%, of that disputed "obvious" information all on its own. If information really is obvious and widely known, then it's widely stated and widely sourced! If not, maybe it's not really so "obvious". Seraphimblade 15:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think that is what the problem is. Cyberanth could have gone to baseballhalloffame.com and cited the claim in under 30 seconds. The user didn't do this, because they are being disruptive to make a point and if it hadn't been that particular "fact" in question, the user would have just choosen another article to go after. And that is where to no-no is. Teke (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The person who added the information in the first place should have taken the thirty seconds to properly source their addition. Frise 17:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that editor inserting has the burden of proof. We are discussing CyberAnth's actions and whether they were appropriate, disruptive, or both. It in my opinion that CyberAnth did not remove the unsourced material because it failed BLP; it was disruption to illustrate a point and had nothing to do with the original author's lapse in citing that Hank Aaron's a retired professional baseball player in the hall of fame. For crying out loud, the encyclopedia Britannica is not aswath with this footnotes and citations. Tertiary sources are not written in the same manner that academic research and Wikipedia should not adopt the standards of academia. The sort of research and reference found in journals and trade publications that cite every single statement is because it is technically original research]] and we don't allow that no matter how many citations we use. I agree with the statement below that the application of BLP is getting out of hand. What's next, I cite a source and then have to source to source to prove it exists? This is policy wonking to the extreme and is in no way productive. In fact, it is destructive. Teke (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Teke. Further, Frise, pleaes remember that many editors, especially newer ones, operate without the serious investment in time that learning the nuances of every wikipolicy takes. There are still dozens of policies and groups here at WP that I don't know, and I'm coming up on my first year anniversary(of membership), such as the OTRS remarked upon below. It is incumbent upon established editors and admins to HELP newer editors who edit in good faith whereever possible. Without going being WP:Just plain obtuse, no one could argue that an editor who adds Hank Aaron's Hall of Fame status isn't acting in Good Faith. Such an edit should be supported by other editors, who can, as demonstrated, fix this in 2 minutes or less. If CyberAnth had gone through all those articles, tagging them wih the top of page uncited template and then hitting the talk page with a simple 'Hey, Let's work this weekend to fix this article's citation needed tag', he'd probably be collecting barnstars, not criticisms this weekend. Instead, he's deliberately AVOIDED explanations on some of the pages he's edited. CyberAnth has demonstrated that he can understand Wikipolicy when he wants to, but chose to disregard the spirit of WP:BITE and WP:AGF here in a big way, in favor of WP:BLP. That picking and choosing bothers me greatly. I didn't see any controversies being debated at Hank Aaron, so the slower, measured style could've worked well there. Further, CyberAnth could've just picked an article and fixed it, then moved onto the next. Why didn't he do that? Finally, As I've mentioned before, CyberAnth has juxtaposed "Controversial" and "Uncited". There is NO controversy about the fact that Hank Aaron is a member of the HoF. The fact is, however, an uncited inclusion in the article. Not every uncited claim is by its nature controversial. Hank Aaron is male. That shouldn't need citation. Hank Aaron is alive. That shouldn't need citation. (and good luck getting a continuously current citation on that one.) There's WP:COMMON to consider here. Certain facts shouldn't be removed because they are uncited. At best, they need a cite tag, and others are just going to have to remain uncited.(standard disclaimer - I am not an admin, if this is inappropriately posted here, please delete.) ThuranX 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BLP should not have been expanded

When the BLP policy was introduced it was originally for 'negative comments' and worked fine except for occasional disagreements about what was 'negative'. Then people suggested (correctly) that allowing unsourced 'positive comments' to remain could result in equally biased articles... just in the other direction. That was true, but IMO missing the point... nobody is going to sue Wikipedia for having unsourced positive comments about them. The BLP policy was changed so that any 'controversial comments' could be removed. Various people predicted that this would result in endless conflicts as there is always someone who will label any detail 'controversial' and then insist that they are allowed to edit war over it (free from 3RR violation no less). Sometimes the people restoring the comments are blocked, sometimes the people removing them are blocked, sometimes it turns into a massive mess like the above... but it is always disruptive and pointless. The BLP policy was enacted to protect Wikimedia from legal jeopardy. It allowed draconian reversion free from 3RR to achieve that aim. It should not have been expanded to cover things which do not place Wikimedia in legal jeopardy. We have long-standing procedures at the verifiability policy for handling unsourced claims in general... the special strictures of BLP should be restricted to claims which may be legally actionable. Not every fact someone decides to object to. Otherwise we will continue to have nonsense like the above over and over and over again. --CBD 15:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is denying that CyberAnth's edits should be subject to 3RR, except maybe herself (himself?). I know that I am not. That does not mean that the removal is bad, just that it isn't protected by BLP. -Amark moo! 16:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hear hear, CBD. Teke (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
nobody is going to sue Wikipedia for having unsourced positive comments about them - that is a bit presumptuous of you. What if the comment was a claim that a person had won a nobel prize. OK, the person in question wouldn't be doing any suing but the Nobel Foundation may... Many things that are seemingly innocuous can actually be a problem to people other than the person in question if it is belittling to their own achievements. Anyway, what I'm saying is that anything that is unsourced could be actionable on a BLP by that person or someone related to that fact... The idea of removing unsourced information is not new - it is one of the aspects of WP:V and the problem is the re-adding of info and anyone who is engaging in revert warring over re-adding such info should be blocked and not someone removing it. I think that those who are saying that CyberAnth's actions were wrong are incorrect, his actions are zealous but not wrong. (and to amark, I would say that his actions are covered by BLP.)-Localzuk(talk) 17:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with a lot of the spirit of CBD's comments, but at the same time, positive vs. negative is not always so clearcut. Saying that a person is gay would be viewed as negative by someone who believes homosexuality is wrong, but wouldn't be viewed as negative by many other people. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There is another problem here. And that is with the fact that the authors of articles often object to 'non negative assertions'. And OTRS often has to pick this up. E.g a bio of Jean Smith says "she was once a director of firm xyz'. If Jean Smith contacts OTRS and says 'no I wasn't - and I object to being associated with them', The OTRS operative will remove the claim unless it is verified to the point that the complainant is obviously lying. In these cases putting [citation needed] on it will not do. If the subject, or anyone claiming to be the subject, e-mails OTRS, or even edits the article themselves, then the default position should be that any unverified information can be removed and should not be replaced without solid verification. This isn't just about who can sue us, this is also about real people who have a right not to have us hosting potentially misleading unverified information about them. I will remove any unverified information from a biography in response to any OTRS request, and I expect it to stay removed unless verified.--Docg 17:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's break it down then. There are some comments that almost everyone agrees are potentially negative/controversial/legally actionable (e.g. 'this person enjoys sacrificing puppies to Beelzebub', 'this person's parents hate them', 'this person has sex with <whoever/whatever>')... such comments should be covered by BLP. Then there are comments which seem innocuous to some and potentially controversial to others (e.g. 'this person is ## years old'). If we are contacted through OTRS or some other means and told that the person does object to some such statement then it falls under BLP and must be sourced for inclusion... any uncertainty has been removed by the person themself. However, extending BLP to cover seemingly innocuous statements that anyone objects to leads inevitably to continuous disputes like the above. We have a verifiability policy for that stuff. It still requires sources... it just doesn't give people a license to edit war over anything and everything. --CBD 18:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
So you are saying that we should allow unsourced information, that might mean people complain to Wikipedia, to be left in articles? Surely that is completely backwards. We should be striving to only include well sourced or blatantly obvious information (ie. water is wet) and anyone who tries to re-add unsourced information to an article is violating WP:V and in this case WP:BLP as it could be seen as controversial (an example of something innocent - Jimbo recently posted regarding the date of birth on his article here saying that it was wrong and unsourced. Should we just slap an unsourced tag on it? No. We should remove it and only re-add it if it has a source).-Localzuk(talk) 18:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You say that 'water is wet' is uncontroversial... I say that 'Hank Aaron is in the baseball hall of fame' is uncontroversial... but we see above how that worked out. Yes, "we should be striving to only include well sourced or blatantly obvious information"... which is what WP:V is for. We should absolutely follow that policy. When Jimbo says, 'hey my birth date is wrong' we should absolutely put that under WP:BLP. However, putting everything under BLP... even things that the person has not objected to and which there is no significant reason to think they would object to is a great way to cause massive pointless disruption... and not much else. It effectively means that all un-sourced statements in biographies of living people, sentences which mention living people, and/or sentences which mention groups that livng people belong to can be removed at will without restriction by 3RR. Note, we aren't saying that all these things must be removed... presumably because if we did the database size would be cut in half, but we are giving anyone who wants it free license to edit war over any and all pages they like. WP:V is a perfectly sound and reasonable policy which has been used to deal with unsourced statements for years. It can continue doing so just fine. There is no reason to extend BLP to cover objections to claims that 'water is wet'. If someone needs a citation for that they can go through WP:V procedures to get it... rather than using BLP as an excuse to edit war about it. --CBD 21:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a big difference between that situation and this one. If someone tells you that a piece of information in their article is false, then you have good reason to distrust the claim. If any editor actually distrusts a claim in an article, and the claim is uncited, he should remove it. This doesn't characterize CyberAnth's actions, however, because he was removing (among his numerous edits) facts that no reasonable person would distrust. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Re-insertion of unsourced material using rollback

I see admin Jaranda has restored 20+ articles containing unsourced information in a little over one minute using the rollback tool. Frise 23:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is out of line. It is a blatant violation of WP:V and should be undone as far as I'm concerned.-Localzuk(talk) 00:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
It's not going to be undone, I saw blanking vandalism, many of the articles was created by trusted admins like User:Rebecca, not line of everything needs a citation, only conterversal stuff etc, if that ever happens, most users including me will quit Jaranda wat's sup 03:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Again? Frise 03:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Applicable comment from Jimbo

From Talk:Ron_Jeremy#WP:BLP

I think that Frise has done the right thing here. Yes, it is entirely possible that he could have done more... by going through this thoroughly horrible article and trying to extract the tiny handful of facts which are properly sourced. I hope that he, or someone, will take the time to do so... fact-by-fact, very carefully.

But simply restoring the unsourced junk in this article and adding fact tags to it is not really enough. We must take quality very seriously, and this is precisely the intent of our ongoing efforts to raise quality standards.

The version I just blanked contained such gems as an unsourced claim that Mr. Jeremy is known as a "The Hedgehog", that he was but is no longer capable of autofellatio, that he was arrested on two occassions, that he has had unprotected sex with thousands of people, that he claims to have had sex with 5000 women, etc.

Are those claims true? Well, in the case of Mr. Jeremey who has admittedly led a colorful life, it seems likely that they are. But "it seems like something that could be true" must not be sufficient cause to re-introduce questionable material into Wikipedia, and if all that someone has time to do is nuke a bad article, the right response to those who want to restore it, is to restore it fact by fact, piece by piece, making absolutely certain that the quality is right.-- User:Jimbo Wales 07:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is the edit Jimbo made.

CyberAnth 00:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This seems to me quite compelling. He concedes that the information is "likely" to be true, yet still blanks it. By the standards put forth here, Jimbo should be blocked. What does Jimbo (like CyberAnth) understand that a substantial element of the community here doesn't?Proabivouac 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see Jimbo's further comment at the top of this main section, second from the top. CyberAnth 01:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Jimbo, CyberAnth, CBD, Doc, and just about everyone else here as valid points have been raised from all sides about referencial information in BLPs. What I disagree with is the blanket application and methodology of the actions taken. I'd consider Ron Jeremy's nickname and other such "fact" to be trivial and unencyclopedic, even if it were sourced. Especially since it wasn't, kill it. But there is a huge, huge difference in some of the blankings. I would agree with 80% of them, but the ones that I do not I have a huge disagreement with, as in the much referenced Hank Aaron case.
As an example, last March there was a big hubub over at Talk:Neil Patrick Harris over whether or not the actor's speculated homosexuality warranted inclusion. I argued against inclusion, as there were no reliable sources or verification possible. If/when Harris "came out of the closet", it might merit inclusion then. The content was agreed to be removed, and when Harris declared his homosexuality publicly a month or so ago the information was reinserted, as now it met with BLP and WP:V. No one ever blanked the fact that he is an actor, as that is not what BLP is for. It simply is not. Removal of unreferenced, trivial, obscene, positive/negative, ORTS requests, etc is fine. Removal of the obvious to prove a point with a unilateral response of "It's policy that's what Jimbo says" is not working with the community and is not helping to resolve the issue at all. Jimbo is not our God, and policy is not law- certainly not strict interpretation. A unilateral approach that does not involve the OFFICE strangulates the goal of a shared effort. Teke (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Please feel free to join me in going through Category:Living people. If one views the meta-information in the page here, one can see the category exists "per Jimbo Wales". Its purpose is "to help Wikipedia editors improve the quality of biographies of living persons by ensuring that the articles maintain a neutral point of view, maintain factual accuracy, and are properly sourced." If anyone wishes to team together in systematically going through each-an-every biography of a living person on WP, kindly leave a note on my talk page. That way, through non-duplication and coordination of efforts, we can make the effort more effective. CyberAnth 07:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of CyberAnth's edits that I'll be repeating

Lest CyberAnth's good work be overlooked in allegations of POINT, I thought I'd pick out a few edits that I'll be repeating (since they all seem to have been reverted).

This edit to Yakub Abahanov (an article about a Guantanamo detainee) is completely appropriate. The bulk of the article is not sourced, most astonishingly a list of allegations against Abahanov which are, in the language used, presented as fact. Moreover, at least one of the citations dsiguises original research (the paragraph about the FOI request). It's shocking that all of this material was restored. I've made more comments on the talk page.

This edit to Jarle Aase removes unsourced statements about Aase's sexual orientation and criminal record. I would have thought this would be a fairly obvious edit to make, but it was inexplicably rolled back by Jaranda.

This edit to 50 Cent removes much information which may well be true but was nevertheless uncited, and in that state cannot be distinguished from apocrypha. The material removed includes the statement that Fiddy's mother was "a bisexual crack dealer", that he had "a lengthy rap sheet", and so forth. To take an example from the article, 50 Cent's disputes with various other rappers are well known, but without sources then the statements about the exact cause and nature of the disputes can't be trusted. Details need sources, even if the broad outline is widely known enough to be common knowledge.

See also this edit to Jimmy Swaggart, not a case of removing unsourced information but of stubbing an article which consisted entirely of negative information about Swaggart, after a paltry attempt in the lead to provide some biographical information. See discussions on the talk page and here on ANI. Also, take a look at the history of Christian evangelist scandals.

Providing sources and maintaining neutrality in biographies of living persons is hard work, but it is necessary work. Anyone who has volunteered for OTRS can tell you that what Wikipedia has to say about living people can affect them, and does so on a regular basis. It is especially important not to be lax and let material that is 'good enough' or 'sounds true' to remain in articles. After all, it is the falsehoods that appear plausible to the uninformed eye that are the most dangerous of all.

We must get the article right, and if the price is having to work a little harder to find sources, or accidentally removing too much material once in a while, then that's a price I'm more than willing to pay. --bainer (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

That is well said. Teke (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why we are still talking about it. It has been said over and over that the issue is in taking a legitimate policy, and pressing it to obscene ends to make a point, disrupting Wikipedia in the process. All of those changes could have been made in a graceful, cooperative, collaborative manner effectively, without upsetting anyone. That would have required more time, more patience, and more adept listening skills, but it would have been done according to the way we have all agreed to deal with each. How many more times will Cyberanth disrupt Wikipedia, step on a dozen or more editors toes, and get away with it while well meaning wikipedia look aside quoting wikipedia policy. Many of you keep turning your attention away from the poor communication, poor cooperation and disruption to explain how some small part of that process of disruption was beneficial. It doesn't matter whether 1% or 99% of the edits were legitimate, the intentional act of disrupting is the topic, not the method used to disrupt and insult other editors. Cyberanth should have been blocked two weeks ago when he disrupted wikipedia, and he should have been blocked again this time — not blocked for four hours, and then unblocked by another admin who disagreed with the previous admin. Atom 04:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I admit to having an uninformed eye about Hank Aaron. CyberAnth 04:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a start, CyberAnth, if not a bit seemingly tongue-in-cheek. The objections that Atom, others and I have both been making is that there is being bold, which is good, and making a point, which is bad. Mixing up the two, which happened here, causes conflict and controversy and devolves the discussion into vague arguments where we're all trying to win. Thebainer pointed out good diffs, as most of them were (I have no comment on the rollbacks used). But there are instances in removing content where you know from experience that an edit summary, vague or explicit, will not suffice. Drop a note on the talk page before/after you do something like the Hank Aaron situation to get opinions. Without communication, both process and policy fail. It is a social interaction that builds the encyclopedia. I supported the block as preventative, at this point I support the unblock so that you may reply here. Either way, I think that the situation is done and there really is nothing more to say. Any other <reporter>alleged</reporter> abuse of admin tools does not relate to this thread directly. The storm has passed, happy editing to all. Teke (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The reason people read encyclopedias is because they have an uninformed eye. The reason we have WP:V is because of this. And please, please, please everyone stop trying to divine my motives with this inane "POINT" insinuation. You wanna know my motive? Here it is: WP:BLP CyberAnth 06:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Look, I'm not trying to be unfriendly, really. You aren't getting it still. No one is trying to divine your motivations, we are describing the results of your actions. The results of your actions (very strict interpretation/application of policy) was disruption (stepping on editors toes, breakdown in communication). Because this is the second time it has happened, and caused great disruption, and your continued argument is based on application of policy, it may give the appearance that you are trying to make a POINT. Regardless of whether that is true, and regardless of whether your intent is pure, or not, the result is the same. If you could please consider listening to a wide variety of people who offered advice here this time, here during the last brouhaha, and on your user page – to communicate with the editors on the talk page, and give them time to respond before applying policy in the manner you choose. This effort to work with others will take you more time, and slow the process, but the result will be the desired result (improvement of the article through additional citations, and removal of OR material) while at the same time using the consensus based approach that is the foundation of Wikipedia. I believe that most Wikipedia editors would say that an environment with more consensus and communication, at the cost of taking more time resolve loose ends in articles is preferred. Most of us vary somewhat from the median within a few standard deviations in how we communicate in working through issues. My opinion is that the result of your actions gives the appearance that you deviate substantially further than that. Enough so to outrage, upset and disrupt large numbers of otherwise reasonable and easy-going editors on multiple occasions. Moving from the bulldozer in the china shop to the bull in the china shop would be an improvement. As always, I wish you well. Atom 18:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Administrator's code of conduct?

I am the person who reverted CyberAnth's original edit to the Guantanamo captive. I disagree with User:bainer on the appropriateness of the original bold excision, and his or her repeat of that bold excision. I replied to his or her warning on the talk page. I tried my best to be civil in that reply. And I tried my best to be civil in a note I left on his or her talk page.
I found the tone of the warning bainer left on the talk page inflammatory. It puzzled me, because I don't believe we have ever encountered one another before. And when I looked into bainer's contribution history, I was alarmed. The use of scornful language, the warnings in bold —— was I at risk of a sudden sanction?
I don't know if you administrators have a code of conduct you all agree to.
  • If you don't have one, I urge you to develop one.
  • If you do have one, I urge you to make it more prominently known.
  1. After some experience with grumpy or high-handed administrators I would urge you all to agree not to exercise your administrator privileges if you don't have the patience to attempt to make a civil answer to a civil question. If you don't have the time or energy to be patient to those who pose civil questions about your exercise of authority, then you don't have the time or energy to exercise your authority, and you should leave whatever raised your concern to other administrators who do have the time and energy to be civil.
  2. Remember, if you leave scornful warnings the ordinary users to whom you addressed them have no way of knowing whether you might make a sudden rogue exercise of authority.
    1. It would probably be best if you refrained from making any warnings whatsoever, unless you really were considering using your administrator's authority.
    2. In that case you need to agree on the way in which you will inform the correspondent you are warning that you have administrator authority, and are considering using it..
    3. If you have already participated in a thread, particularly if you had made even a small lapse from civility, you should consider taking off your administrator hat, recusing yourself, and asking another administrator to take a look and see if they share your concern.
I spent some time, a day or two ago, looking at this particular thread, because material I had added was in one of the articles under discussion. I saw that this discussion grew heated. Now that I have returned to it, I have a theory as to why bainer used such inflammatory language while addressing me. My theory now is that bainer got heated after reading the heated exchange here, and unloaded some of that heat on in their warning to me.
Well, please don't do that gang. — Geo Swan 23:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Be Excellent to Each Other. Teke (talk) 02:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

An appeal for help

I've put an appeal for help fixing some of the artivles more seriously affected by Cyberanths actions here. I don;t really know where else to put it, but I feel that whether or notCyberAnths actions and motiations are good it seems reasonable this kind of thing should be flagged so that there's a chace for the articles to be improved rather than just truncated. Artw 18:01, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Violation of NO LEGAL THREATS by User:DeanHinnen

I think though this is mentioned in another entry above, it deserves consideration on its own.

Attorney Dean Hinnen has the following legal threat on his user page;

"My entire purpose here is to protect Wikipedia from being sued for libel,
and Wikipedia administrators understand that. Free Republic has already successfully sued the City of Fresno for libel, winning a $60,000 out-of-court settlement and also costing the City of Fresno maybe $100,000 in attorney fees (maybe a lot more; lawyers in Southern California are expensive). So they're inclined to litigate.
The Free Republic article is being edited and "owned" by some very reckless partisans from a rival left-wing site named Democratic Underground. They don't care whether Wikipedia gets sued. What's important to them is making sure that the most derogatory material about Free Republic that exists anywhere on the Internet either becomes part of the article, or is linked to the article. They are defending it with a fanaticism that reminds me of Iwo Jima.
If Wikipedia gets sued, there will be a dozen administrators stripping every defamatory statement and reference out of the article and blocking the editors responsible, and I'll be saying, "I told you so." But by then it will be too late. If I can succeed in getting this material removed, I'll take your advice and start editing other articles. Thanks for looking out for me. But I'm looking out for Wikipedia. Cheers. Dino 14:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)}}"

This is a threat because he also appears to represent Free Republic in legal matters, and so is saying here (as I read this) 'do not put things I object to in the Free Republic article, or we will sue you.'

Now, he says it is no threat, and that he is here for reasons of pure altruism.

But I think it is more like when the mob sends people around to your place of business and says "Nice soda shop you have here. It would be a SHAME if something HAPPENED to it."

Now, he has threatened me with getting me blocked forever for mischaracterization. And maybe he will, though I am not attempting to mischaracterize anything at all. This is just how I read what I see here and how I react to this and his pattern of other statements and actions. If you want to make this into a mischaracterization and send me packing, fine. But I think this person is a danger to Wikipedia, and needs to be warned in the sternest of terms not to threaten and bully his way through content disputes. I wish I could let this matter drop, but my sense of duty demands that I try to do something about it. --BenBurch 17:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a legal threat to me.--MONGO 17:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Any chance of a source or other evidence for "he also appears to represent Free Republic in legal matters"? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I'd just hit the Edit tab to ask the same question. Where does that assertion come from? JDoorjam JDiscourse 17:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There was discussion of the Free Republic talk page by User:BryanFromPalatine whom checkuser recently (on Friday) said has a pattern of edits consistent with being a sock puppet of User:DeanHinnen about his filing legal briefs on their behalf in the Free Republic vs LA Times lawsuit. Now he claims that Bryan is is brother, so there is *some* doubt in this matter. But his edits and concerns have been exactly like those of his brother, Bryan, and so if they are not they same person they are acting in collusion. And so if Dean is not himself a lawyer for FR (though I asked him and he did not deny it) he is relaying a threat from his brother. At least that is how I read this issue. I'm trying to let you know every doubt I have here so he cannot say I am mischaracterizing it. --BenBurch 17:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Definitive proof of him being FR's lawyer posted from unblock-l - see below. --BenBurch 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You would think a lawyer would know that a lawsuit would be unlikely. Regardless, it seems to me an attempt to gain influence through legal intimidation. However I think a warning and an education on how we deal with dispute resolution would be more productive than a block. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 17:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
A stern warning is all I am asking for here. He, on the other hand, wants me blocked forever. --BenBurch 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If he's not a lawyer for FR, I'm not sure how it's a legal threat. Also, BenBurch and this user have been sparring for a little while (see this thread), and there's an undercurrent of political disagreement as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't deny that we have a history. So I am trying to be very careful here. His brother sockpuppeted his way around block here, and Dean was initially blocked as being Bryan's sock puppet. I think he still is, but people may disagree with me on that. --BenBurch 18:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I agree with the interpretation as a legal threat. I have looked at the Talk:Free Republic page, and do see a lot of tendentious editing. Ben in particular seems to make intemperate remarks there (I plan to totally ignore any comments here by User:DeanHinnen and in fact, to totally ignore his existence henceforth. He can say whatever he wishes to say about this article, but I will edit it as though he never had said a word. --BenBurch 17:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)). I am concerned that a content dispute is being carried over to WP:ANI. Jeffpw 18:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I said that. I was being uncivil and have apologized for it. (Which apology Dean accepted) --BenBurch 18:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
From Ublock en L
Luna lunasantin at xxx Sat Jan 20 22:27:15 UTC 2007

Previous message: [Unblock-en-l] Request to unblock Next message: [Unblock-en-l] Fwd: Please unblock my Wikipedia account Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

"Like Wikipedia, Free Republic is run by volunteers.I am one of those volunteers, Im part of the Free Republic legal team. I mentioned the TJ Walker article, however I most certainly did not impersonate him. I can only conclude that after I spoke with Carolyn [WMF Bookkeeper] the first time, she called TJ Walker herself and made a determination as to its authenticity and accuracy. Carolyn encouraged me to just open a Wikipedia account and remove the libelous material myself. I indicated to Carolyn, based on my review of the article and its Talk pages, that such an action would be like taking a stroll on the beach ... in Normandy on June 6, 1944. That remark has proven to be prophetic.

As I've done with other websites in similar circumstances, rather than edit the material myself (and be called a vandal), I encouraged Carolyn to enforce her own policies on her own website." Fairness & Accuracy For All 18:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I was unaware of that statement. OK. So he *is* FR's lawyer. --BenBurch 18:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
He 'claims' to be. I suppose someone could verify that with JimRob. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 18:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I am willing to accept his statement on its face because otherwise he would have lied to the people at the unlock list, and I know he would never have done that. --BenBurch 19:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not Free Republic's retained counsel; I'm just a volunteer. I receive nothing in return for my efforts except a measure of satisfaction now and then. BenBurch has chosen to engage in a campaign of misrepresentation, deliberately misconstruing my statement that I'm attempting to AVOID litigation, into a threat that I will CAUSE litigation. I don't know how I could state this with greater clarity: I am trying to protect Wikipedia. BenBurch and his ally, FAAFA, are being extremely reckless in pursuit of their partisan agenda: to smear Free Republic with libelous accusations that have already been withdrawn from publication by the original sources. Jim Robinson has proven to be litigious, winning $60,000 in a settlement of a libel suit against the City of Fresno.

Would someone here please get this individual off my back? Dino 19:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It matters not at all that you work Pro Bono you are still on the legal team. --BenBurch 19:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Tricky. He is a lawyer and seems to be restricting himself to Talk, other than two edits (one of which removed a citation and replaced it with {{fact}}, the other removed the entire para). Is there a problem needing fixing, disruption for example? Guy (Help!) 19:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Guy, I do think he is being quite disruptive. We were working hard on making the FR article a good NPOV article with RS-V sourcing and I was looking for POSITIVE things about FR to add to it prior to his return from his block. --BenBurch 19:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ben is correct. I recently researched, compiled, wrote and added significant a amounts of info that reflects only positively on FR - About Tony Snow being a member, the Dixie Chicks 'crediting' FR for the boycott against them ('speaking to their power and influence' is what I first wrote), and even how FR prevailed over Code Pink - running them off from Walter Reed hospital. Dino is mischaracterizing the siutation entirely. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 19:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Dino, regardless of your intentions, posting a comment stating that you are a part of the FR legal team and stating that you are here to prevent wikipedia getting sued, like someone else did, is what we class as a legal threat. It has the implication that if we don't do something then there will be a lawsuit brought against the site.
Stop threatening legal action. Also, I would advise looking at WP:COI with regards your involvement in the organisation. If there are legal issues you wish to discuss I would advise your organisation to contact the foundation directly. Any actions accompanied with what we see as threats are liable to get you blocked.-Localzuk(talk) 19:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the topic (arbitrary section break)

Getting back to the topic without all the unnecessary bolding and blindingly colorful text, here was my original assessment of the message on DeanHinnen's userpage, from an above thread:

May I casually ask why, DeanHinnen, is there a seemingly legal notice on your userpage? --210physicq (c) 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
After reading all of this, do you really have to ask? Dino 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because the notice on your userpage can be construed as a violation of WP:NLT, subtle though it may be. --210physicq (c) 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean "misconstrued," don't you? May I cordially direct your attention to the big, bold, green lettering across the top of that page? Dino 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
And indeed I have read the big, bold, green lettering across the top of that page, and I thank your courtesy. I have also read in between the lines, and find that my use of "construed" is correct, as though the message is not worded as such, it can be considered, in my opinion, as a subtle violation of WP:NLT, semantics notwithstanding. --210physicq (c) 05:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Construed, misconstrued, it should come down. I don't see it as a clear violation of NLT (which would more or less mandate a block), but it's too close for comfort, and frankly it comes across as hostile as well. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Derive your conclusions as necessary. And BenBurch and FAAFA, please get back on topic, and hold your fire for another, more pertinent, thread. Your comments seem to only distract attention from the necessary matter at hand; that is, that the message on DeanHinnen's userpage is a violation of WP:NLT, if I may rehash my comments repeatedly without losing context. --210physicq (c) 19:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I plan to do JUST that, my friend. I have wasted enough of my limited time on this planet on this already. Thank you. --BenBurch 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, good then. I thank you for your self-control. --210physicq (c) 19:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like Dino to document his claim that Jim Robinson is 'litigious'. I can find no cases other than Claridge suit and the Fresno 'hate group' settlement. Fred Phelps has filed 100's of cases. That's 'litigious'. Considering the things written about Free Republic, such as this article American Politics Journal (which is the same publication that Dino 'claims' he got to pull a 'libelous' article) I see no proof. (I'll bow out for a while too, This has become very time consuming - and I have laundry and cleaning to do) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I would like Dino to document his claim that Jim Robinson is 'litigious'. is exactly the sort of comment that doesn't belong on AN/I. It has nothing to do with the matter at hand and is not something that requires admin attention at all. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The bottom line is that the statement on the page is very close to a legal threat even if it isn't one (and it reads to me like it is so close that it doesn't make a difference). This would be unacceptable even if the individual in question didn't identify as being part of their volunteer legal team. As it is, this is so over the line it isn't funny. The statement should be removed or the user blocked until he agrees to remove it. This is no --partial and unsigned comment by User:JoshuaZ

User:DeanHinnen has voluntarily removed the above statement Still on talk page.

That closes this matter. Thank you Dean for obeying our rules. --BenBurch 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I see that this statement still exists on his talk page' - I have asked him nicely to remove it from there, too. --BenBurch 01:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

As has been said earlier, we can argue for a little while on whether or not there is an underlying legal threat with what's left on the user page but the fact is that it's too close for comfort. It reads like an appeal to (legal) authority, it's hostile and it's quite simply unnecessary. Please remove it and let's all move on. Pascal.Tesson 03:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he is reading this page. You might have to ask him directly. --BenBurch 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Another implication of legal action

Dino posted this to me today - after being warned about threatening legal action;

  • "But by scouring the Internet until you found a cached copy and fighting tooth and nail to keep it linked here, you ensure that the libel is distributed by Wikipedia. Therefore you place Wikipedia at risk". Dino 12:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC) LINK

This is in reference to a claim that isn't even in the article anymore, hasn't been for days, and won't be again until the noted author who wrote it verifies that he stands behind it! (and maybe not even then) - Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Were you finally able to contact him? I thought of calling him up but I am SO reluctant to bother folks over online disputes like this. --BenBurch 21:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the article in dispute - http://web.archive.org/web/20000303144134/http://tjwalker.com/7-6-99.htm --BenBurch 21:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

AND HERE (also TODAY)
  • "Ken, please help us out
  • "The people who "own" the article now are putting Wikipedia at serious risk of a libel lawsuit from Jim Robinson, who has already been proven to enjoy suing people and organizations that say bad things about Free Republic. " LINK (remember, he claims to be a member of Free Republic/Jim Robinson's legal team, in a pro bono capacity)- Fairness & Accuracy For All 20:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My Head Hurts

I just want all this to be over with. I didn't ever want to do more with the FR article than keep people from deleting properly sourced stuff and remove un-sourced stuff, and it has now turned into a three month waste of my time that I could have been working on other things here. --BenBurch 20:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Threat still on his User Talk Page.

He has announced a Wikibreak and left the threat where it originally stood on his user talk page. (The version on the user page was created after the one on the talk page.) How should this be dealt with? Wait for him to come back and trust that he will remove it? I have asked him on that page twice now to please remove the comment. I should not be the one asking, though as I only seem to goad him when I say anything to him. Will somebody else please take up this matter so I can finally drop it? --BenBurch 00:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen reverting my edits

Someone please examine this. Note that Irpen has not attempted to discuss this matter in any way, he is simply revert-warring. --Ideogram 18:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

  • As are you, now. Certainly there should be talk page discussion before either of you are saying stuff like, "discuss or get blocks"; yet I don't see any evidence that you've ever used the talk page at all. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I have opened discussion. I hope you will advise Irpen to discuss. --Ideogram 18:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
How exactly am I to have a rational discussion with someone bent on proving I am a troll and that I am engaged in WP:POINT? --Ideogram 19:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Tough one, isn't it? But it's not Irpen you need to convince; you need to establish a consensus for your change among the other editors of the article. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I will wait for them to weigh in, then. --Ideogram 19:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen is continuing to revert war while refusing to discuss. Please advise. --Ideogram 04:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I am really sorry about this, but I'm not going to give in to Irpen. I'm making my third revert. --Ideogram 06:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have reverted you. Controversial edits to pages such as WP:TROLL should never be done unilaterally. They should get consensus first. Khoikhoi 06:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why you are willing to revert but you are not willing to join the discussion to help build consensus? --Ideogram 06:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't really feel like getting involved, as your edit didn't appear to be made in good faith anyways. As another user pointed out on the talk page, "This seems unnecessary and oddly specific to a situation you are currently dealing with." Khoikhoi 06:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think revert warring, in fact I think reverting without discussion, is not a good policy. There is no consensus for change on the page, clearly, so Ideogram ought not to have reinserted the same changes, but I think Irpen might have at least popped in to say that rather than just reverting. That said, Ideogram has been cautioned by many to cool it in several different areas. THAT said, I'm not sure I support Blnguyen's block log and support Aaron's unblock. Ideogram does need to reel back, a lot, though. Hope this is the right thread! ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

To try and modify a policy just because it fits a situation you're currently dealing with is a pretty poor way to deal with policies. It is therefore not surprising that you're reverted. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 11:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with that and think that the proposed change, whatever the merits, isn't likely to stick now, consensus seems against it. What I'm saying though, is that I am not sure (I could be misreading the logs) that warning, then blocking without any intervening issues, will be be the best approach, which is why I support Aaron's unblock and ALSO think Ideogram has some thinking to do (see my talk page, i was asked to comment to Ideogram) and ALSO think that Irpen could have piped up on the talk page a little instead of just reverting. Hope that's clear. Sorry if not! ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
See also User_talk:Ideogram#Bright_line_violations..._and_the_rest where this is also discussed ,Brenny explains why he unblocked and further cautions Ideogram on how to edit effectively. ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I have made my point sufficiently elsewhere so I will not prolong this argument. I realize I have made mistakes and I can only ask all parties concerned to AGF. --Ideogram 01:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion out of process

User:GunnerMike89 acting as sock account for a friend

GunnerMike89 (talk · contribs) seems to be acting as a sock for a friend of his, or is himself that person, judging from [6] [7], etc. The whole lot of them have been acting mildly disruptive in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top gun mach 2. I'd probably opt for an immediate block, but should some sort of warning be issued first, considering that this may not be the same person? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the comments and blocked an IP that I know to belong to Claytonchilds89 unticking the box that sates "block anons only" if GunnerMike89 is editing from the same IP he won't be able to edit for a week. If not, well I told him to stop on his talk page and will block id he does it again or shows any moere interest in blocked accounts particpating in the AFD debate. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The precurser to this situation was discussed on a thread here on ANI last week arising from an indef block I gave to User:Claytonchilds89 (actually, I blocked him for authoring a series of what appeared to be vicious attack articles, although the subjects turned out to be fictional characters, "members" of the supposedly mythical but actually just hoaxical band that is the subject of the article). The AfD is headed to a foregone conclusion of delete and I considered speedying the article, but GunnerMike89 has indicated that if the article is deleted he's going to go away, plus when I saw this it was already days into the AfD and another user recommended that the process be completed to avoid drama, DRV, etc. Once the AfD is over I'd support (and issue) long-term blocks for any attempts at re-creating the hoax or any other nonsense. Newyorkbrad 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The abuse continues under his new user name New identity

Following on from yesterdays racial, sectareian personal abuse and which has just been archieved see here

The abuse and policy violation continues. He has started posting under his new account New identity today and continues to break with the mediators requests and violate policy.
  1. On the Thomas Begley page he continually make reverts, such as this, this and this despite being asked by myself, Logoistic and Weggie not t oand to discuss the issue.
  2. Continues to break with mediation (full details above) by replacing Volunteer with member here, here, here and here. In these edit he did not just break with mediation but also deleted referenced material.
  3. His vandalism is probably most evident here and here here
  4. In additon to the above his abuse and personal attacks have continued. You can see the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vintagekits#Banned messege he left on my talk page and also the comment he makes after his edit which is "IRA honorific by pro-IRA propagandist Vintagekits". Is anything going to be done here? Why wasnt action taken over yesterdays attacks?--Vintagekits 00:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring at Anesthesia

It appears that a number of IPs and single purpose accounts have been edit warring over this article for the last few days. Both sides are accusing each other of vandalism. I am at a loss to work out if either side is in the right (but doubt it) and how the article should actually read. Can someone look into the situation? WJBscribe 02:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the page, hopefully the parties will come to an agreement soon. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, though I'm a little concerned that the version protected is quite far away from the last stable version of the article (back on the 24th), as this dif illustrates. Quite a bit of good material seems to have been deleted during this dispute it would appear... WJBscribe 02:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:64.136.173.16

Look at this user's talk page I really think this troll needs to be blocked permanently or at least given another block he/she's been given three "last warnings" since his/her last block. Quadzilla99 03:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's an IP address. IPs are not typically given indefinite blocks (excepting open proxies and exceptional circumstances), and there is no indication that this person is the same one who was warned for those edits. IP addresses can and often do change. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

CSD backlog

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to post this here but I figured since administrators follow this area it would be. There's a pretty big backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. The backlog would be much bigger except while all the time new pages are added, many people remove the CSD tags (from their own articles, instead of contesting the CSD) because no admin is quick enough to check the page that was marked for speedy deletion. Yonatan (contribs/talk) 17:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If someone is removing Speedy tags before an admin get to it, warn them... if they do it again report them. I'm working on CSD as quickly as possible while still making sure stuff isn't getting deleted because it is tagged wrong.--Isotope23 18:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
(currently zapping images) It'd be a lot smaller if we didn't let people upload images with unsuitable licences. What's the point when they are immediately autotagged for deletion under CSD I3? I ask you. Proto:: 18:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Because if they didn't have those I3 tags, they'd just upload them under an incorrect tag and create even more bloody work? REDVEЯS 21:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You think it'd be more work? Who's to say the 'legit' images are all tagged correctly right now? Proto:: 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Take it up with Jimbo. Or write a new policy proposal. Grandmasterka 04:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems with BoxingWear

I’ve been having trouble with BoxingWear for a couple of weeks, mainly centering on the Rocky Marciano page. He has continually reverted my edits with no explanation given except calling them “vandalism” [8] or “terrorism” [9].

He also has a habit of leaving disparaging comments about me on others’ talk pages. For instance, one of his favorites is that I am using another IP address to make edits he does not like [10]: “have evidence he was logging on under some other ip 58.8 and had some of his friends join in on the ‘fun’ He was warned not to revert many times in the past” or here [11]: “he also uses 58.8 ip to get his point across, when he has no point, switches off and logs on thru his ip, the guy is totally out of line.” He even once said on my talk page that he had traced my IP [12]: “above message 58 user is you, i traced the ip, ok, cool off, i will make sure you are blocked here, do you understand me?” All this is, of course, false. I only make edits under my MKil username and welcome any attempt to trace my IP to prove it.

Now today he has left messages with Kuru [13] (“Hello, can you check ip 58.8 if it belongs to mkil, he may be using those, or may try to get others in trouble. If you go on rocky talk page, i explained in detail, also on my talk page, I am requesting more protection over rocky page, since mkil has his mind set on destroying it and adding his own wit to it, I believe current version is good, he will revert it claiming info is missing, it needs cleaning up, etc, etc, etc, all explained. I just do not want that guy to touch that site, because of him we had all this problems.”) and Virdae [14] (“Well, watch out for mkil, he is in high gear again”) attacking me. He also left messages on pages of anonymous users claiming that they were me [15] [16].

I asked for a third opinion on our Marciano disputes and Pulltoopen looked over both sides of our arguments and chastised BoxingWear for his behavior [17]: “BoxingWear is unilateraly and arbitrarily reverting your edits, calling them vandalism; this is BAD. BoxingWear failed to assume good faith, and this time, it will cost him. Users who try to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia should never be accused of vandalism. His accusations of vandalism are also a violation of WP:POINT, . . .” BoxingWear then started attacking PTO [18].

I have tried talking to him about this but he keeps saying things like this on my talk page, “Do not leave me any messages, DO NOT TALK TO ME,…” and “DO NOT TALK TO ME, DO NOT CONTACT ME, I DO NOT WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU” and “It is you and I had enough of your stupidity and sophisticated vandalism.”

These are only a few of the instances of this type of behavior. Just check his talk page or his user contributions.

I am tired of him trashing my reputation here so I turn to you for help. MKil 02:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)MKil

I've protected the page again for a short duration due to some rapid edit reverts after the previous protect wore off, left a civility warning, and invited both parties back to the article's talk page for further discussion. The checkuser request seems spurious, but I've left him breadcrumbs to RFCU if he has some other claim. I really hate protecting articles on principle, so I would welcome other eyes. Kuru talk 04:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Protection is probably the right thing to do. BoxingWear is this editor. Look at the deleted history, and check the contributions of the enormous sockpuppet and anon list, and it will be perfectly obvious from his interests and editing style (comma-spliced invective, all lower-case rants, all upper-case rants, accusation of vandalism and corruption of admins, and so forth). As far as I know he has never been banned either by community or ArbCom (both are options for the future), and I've naively hoped for reform, but ... who knows. He's collided with a lot of editors in the last couple months. Any of them will likely recognize him from his peculiar syntax and confrontational style.
Here are some of his accounts prior to his switching to User:BoxingWear for boxing-related editing (he still uses anons for edits to articles on political figures in the Middle East):
Hope this helps ... any suggestions on how to deal with this person appreciated. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromise of User:Zazzer

This was brought to my attention through this AfD discussion. "Zazzer" created the article in question, and I thought that this was rather strange because the article was an obvious hoax, but the user has a barnstar and is generally a good contributor. I concluded that the account had probably been compromised. What's the appropriate thing to do in this case? I didn't simply post on the talk page in case the compromiser was still using the account. --N Shar 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is Advanced Physcho-Neuroschlorosis. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, on his user page, he claims to be a 15-year-old engineer graduated from the Royal Military College. Not to suggest he is a troll, but there is quite a sense of humour demonstrated there. Risker 03:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Userpage vandalism/harassment on User:SchuminWeb by SPA socks

Schuminweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) sure is getting a lot of harassment recently on his user page and on his talk page. He tends to get a lot of it, but this has been quite frequent recently (since the 26th of this month). I suspect that these are all WP:SPA sockpuppets based on their edits to User:SchuminWeb, User talk:SchuminWeb, and Step by Step.

Regards, Tuxide 04:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Block of Nadirali and MinaretDk

Hi - I'm reporting the blocks of Nadirali (1 week; as a consequence of immediate disruptive behavior just hours after returning from a 2-week block) and MinaretDk (48 hours) for causing disruption through their conflict just a few hours ago with Rumpelstiltskin223 (currently blocked for 1 week]]. These gentlemen were engaged in edit-warring on 2002 Gujarat violence, Anti-Hinduism, Gun culture in Pakistan, Persecution of Hindus, User talk:Rumpelstiltskin223 (see editing histories). Their precise offenses were persistent incivility, disruptive editing, personal attacks and malicious accusations (not in WP:AGF or substantiated, but rather like personal attacks and defamation). The diffs in question are: [19], [20], [21], incivil edit summary, [22], [23], [24], [25]

Here are diffs of Nadirali interjecting diffs in MinaretDk's unblock request, which I see as an example of meatpuppetry and dishonesty (he could have provided those links separately): [26], [27]. MinaretDk also proceeds to remove Rumpel's warnings from his own talkpage while warning Rumpel not to do the same: [28], [29], [30], [31]. Some abusive edit summaries: [32], [33], [34]

Applicable policies
  • WP:BP: A user may be blocked when their conduct severely disrupts the project — their conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Disagreements over content or policy are not disruption, but rather part of the normal functioning of Wikipedia and should be handled through dispute resolution procedures. Blocks for disruption should only be placed when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia.
  • INCIVILITY examples, both petty and serious
  • WP:NPA: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. These examples are not inclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all. and to an extent, Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion, including the suggestion that such a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit the external source containing the substance of the attack.
  • WP:DE

I request input and criticism from all. There were numerous attempts by me, user:Fowler&fowler, user:Nobleeagle to advise these users to keep calm and seek Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but they chose to start a vicious cycle of accusations, revert-warring and serious incivility. Rama's arrow 05:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Primal Therapy

I had a lenghty (two weeks) discussion (only the Paris issue, the PubMed section was solved) with user User:GrahameKing at Talk:Primal therapy about a sourced (albeit sensitive) section introduced by me he blanked [35] weeks ago.

After a lenghty discussion and a third party translation [36] of the original source (in Spanish), we were unable to reach an agreement (I want the essential contents from that source to be present, he wants nothing from that source to be present), so I proposed a RfC. GrahameKing agreed [37].

Next , I propose him a text for the RfC [38]... and the next thing he does is to blank the whole two weeks discussion from the TalkPage [39] invoking Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources.

I ask for an administrator to tell him/me what´s next.

I do not know if this is relevant: A message I received about User:GrahameKing [40]

Randroide 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


User Fadix (ix)

To the attention of administrators: for some time now, a few users have been comitting recurring attacks on my persona, with one, Fadix (ix), being particularly obsessed and persisting with daily insults both on my Talk page and on other Talk pages. What started of groundlessly accusing me and another user of sockpuppetry (an allegation which I welcomed the interference of administrators to disprove the false claim) [41] has been escalated by (ix) to personal insults, even threatening using one of our real life affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting our views (myself, like some other targets of (ix), post under our real full names, unlike my courageous attacker), and threats or actions which expose such Wikipedia editors as myself to political, religious or other persecution by government, my employer or any others -- all of which contradicts Wiki policy of civility [42] and no personal attacks [43]. At the same time (ix) is a self-professed liar -- "Do you want to know why I ended up here; I have lied" (in bold, 03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)) [44]

Here are examples of Fadix's unfounded and irrelevant to Wikipedia accusations: "The interesting is that both Adil and Tabib work with Azerbaijani political parties" [03:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)) [45]

"to have published your crap in his newspaper" (04:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)) [46]

"Tabib who's think thank is related with political parties on Azerbaijan are involved" (04:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)) [47]

"you have not credibility to lose, since you don't have any", "since people like both of you have the credibility so low", "you bring the same BS Atabek brought" (21:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC) [48]

"Pathetic, some biggots have toyed with the credibility of this title" (21:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)) [49]

I request that for the repeated insults and harassment, Fadix (ix) be dealt with with full extent of the Wikipedia rules. --AdilBaguirov 22:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Was User:Fadix warned to cease his behavior? If so, please provide the relevant diff. Thank you. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 22:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he was repeatedly warned in the course of several days, and has been before, last year, when he and his friends first started it. See for example: 1) "Fadix, stop your insults and harrassment, as well as all those baseless allegations." by AdilBaguirov 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC) [50]

2) "This is a new all-time low by Fadix. Stop harassment and attacks". --AdilBaguirov 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC) [51]

3) "Fadix, don't overheat yourself in the hollow pursuit, your witch hunt against me (I'd be interested to find out which political party do I allegedly work for, among other weird allegations) is nothing new, and very typical of you." --AdilBaguirov 04:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC) [52] AdilBaguirov 04:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, here's the "legacy" of user Fadix: [53] AdilBaguirov 06:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meditation for Spiritual Unfoldment

This is beginning to get out of hand. With the exception of one, every person 'voting' to keep this article has registered with Wikipedia for the sole purpose of writing about this practice, or, in most cases, for the purpose of voting at the AfD. Moreover, many of these editors are 'voting' more than once, by prefacing their long, rambling comments with a 'not delete' in bold each time they write something, which is misleading and annoying. The AfD is becoming unworkable because of the endless semiliterate maunderings posted there, and the puppetry (of whatever description). Can someone take a look and see what needs doing? Thanks. Rosenkreuz 06:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess, but it's not a speedy close as the article at least contains some tenuous claims to notability through media reports, and there are now a number of apparent bona fide "keep" opinions. Just keep applying {{spa}} tags where necessary and the closing admin should discount those contributions. Sandstein 06:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:WeTube

WeTube (talk · contribs) — is this a permitted username? Has made no contributions except to welcome himself through his talk page, and upload Image:Wetube567.jpg for his userpage. Carson 07:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to the right place, WP:RFC/NAME--Asteriontalk 08:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Oops, didn't know that even existed, thanks. Carson 08:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

User:1B6

Seems to have gotten into a bit of incivility already with some administrators and myself (oddly enough, the incivility has come about as a conversation about his civility): "loathe you with a passion", "wanker" (granted, in reference to me referring to WP:DICK) etc. etc. etc., and has tried to get JDi desysopped for failing to block an IP he reported on AIV (the IP has only two edits, none reverted, and both were over a day old). This case really isn't that complex; not much to look into; asking for some sort of block for incivility. Part Deux 09:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind (for now); looks like it'll probably work out on its own. Don't want to pile on too much. Part Deux 09:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Final warning issued, however. Part Deux, it would be best if you don't leave any more messages on his talk page, as you seem to be provoking him. Proto:: 09:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, sorry. Will stop. Hopefully he'll just go to class, and we can all forget it. Part Deux 09:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
About 1B6, I reverted this edit he made and left a notice on his talk page. He then left this message on my talk page. I reminded him of WP:POINT and WP:VAN, but I'm not sure if other action should be taken on this. Robotman1974 10:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hate to make a big issue out of this: anyway, I say, looks like he's done for the night. If he keeps on harassing, maybe a 24h block would do well (I hate to call for cool down blocks, but this one would certainly be protective to avoid community disruption). Part Deux 10:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I certainly don't feel harassed after my interaction with 1B6, but the admission of deliberate vandalism worries me. As far as that goes, I'm tempted to say let it drop, but I really don't know for sure. Robotman1974 10:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You seemed to give him a fairly sensible warning not to do it again; if he does, then let an admin know (via this board or whatever). As it is, I think barring any more tantrums, we don't need to block anyone. Proto:: 11:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's easy. If he shows any further signs of vandalism, block him. Admitting you're trying to vandalize doesn't make it a punative block, it's one to protect the 'pedia. - Mgm|(talk) 11:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick report

Jxokix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) - only contribution is an attack page Wikideletion - seems an odd place to start on the encyclopaedia. Orderinchaos78 10:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Deleted it and posted to their talk page. - Mgm|(talk) 11:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppets of User:BryanFromPalatine via checkuser.

Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine Not sure how it ought to be dealt with, I will leave that up to admins. I will say that I am mighty suspicious of this pattern of behaviour and the ever-changing story that has been presented to explain and justify it. Is the current story the truth? It *might* be, but I am full of sincere doubts about this. I'd rather that people not evade blocks (in this case a PERMANENT block) by using sock accounts, and there is NO doubt that at least some of this activity was exactly that, and has been admitted to. Are the present ones socks? I will leave that up to y'all to decide. --BenBurch 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Before anyone goes off half-cocked, examine BenBurch's block log. He's just returned from a 24-hour block for incivility and "misrepresentation." Dino 23:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Which I apologized for. There is NO Stare Decisis on Wikipedia, my friend. And this is new data as requested for re-opening this matter. So please stop attacking me and explain these sock puppets one of which you just ADMITTED to below. --BenBurch 23:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Next, let's examine this. I will cut and paste the relevant sections for your review below.
This account was initially blocked for being a BryanFromPalistine sockpuppet. After investigations and substantial and very civil discussion with this user on unblock-en-l, our opinion is that this person is Bryan's brother and not actually a sockpuppet. Furthermore, although the edits looked like meatpuppetry, they were actually legitimate and good faith attempts to remove libel from Wikipedia articles. To avoid even the appearance of meatpuppetry, this user has agreed not to edit the article, Free Republic, directly but may still participate in that article's talk page and is specifically encouraged to report libel on that page at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard (assuming that is the right forum for the libel). Once again, this person showed nothing but civility during the investigation on unblock-en-l despite the time it took. He has our apologies for the block. Dean, please feel free to leave a brief note on the talk page for Free Republic referencing this message if you feel it appropriate. --Yamla 18:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Yamla's analysis. Dean: If posts to the Free Republic talk page aren't getting corrections done fast enough, please let me know, and I'll try to help transcribe stuff if there is clear consensus for it. Long term I'd like to see this self imposed restriction become liftable as long as we don't have any issues around the editing and content... ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Lar and Yamla are two of the most senior administrators at Wikipedia. They were joined in this unanimous Unblock-en-l decision, after an extensive, exhaustive and time-consuming review of the overwhelming evidence in my favor, by Luna Santin, another senior administrator.
In addition to the public evidence presented at Unblock-en-l, I also presented abundant evidence privately via e-mail to these administrators. Please consider the fact that they reached the decision to unblock me unanimously, less than 48 hours ago; and that I have carefully adhered to the very letter of the self-imposed restriction on my posting privileges, in order to avoid even the appearance of meatpuppetry.
The Friendly Ghost was created by another family member -- neither Bryan nor I -- to remove a violation of Wikipedia's privacy policy. The violation had been created using an open proxy, and was being used to harass my brother's family. After that, the account was used to "Wikify" an article and then nominate it for the "Did you know" feature on the Main Page. No disruptions, nothing abusive, purely defensive and then constructive. Any objections?
H4672600 was created to combat the rampant "mischaracterizations" of BenBurch. BenBurch actually engaged in edit wars to protect those "mischaracterizations."
Fensteren has been cleared. Dino 23:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so you're Bryan's brother. Can you call him and ask him to stop creating sockpuppets? Picaroon 23:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If checkuser is confirming that they have used the same IP, then they must live together or interact daily in some way. Note that Bryan was not unreasonable either, except for the puppets. Therefore, I suspect that all the accounts were created by the same person. But of course I do, I made the original block, with Mackensen's agreement (before the CheckUser). Prodego talk 23:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Dino - so H4672600 is your account too? Your admission of family members editing on your behalf is an admission of meatpuppetry, EXACTLY what the Admins on unblock L warned you about. Those emails are public, by the way. Any Wikipedian with a valid account can sign up to that list and read the archives, as I did, where I read the specfic, direct warning and instruction for you to NOT engage in meatpuppetry. Should I post it, or do you admit that they warned you about meatpuppetry? - Fairness & Accuracy For All 23:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I can make those into a web page and link that here if you like. I won't censor anything at all, leaving ALL of the content intact just in case somebody wants to accuse me of misrepresentation... --BenBurch 15:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And this is new data as requested for re-opening this matter.

It is a rewind and replay of the original data that led to Prodego's premature block on my account. No inquiries, no investigation, no Check User. Just lock up Dino and throw away the key. Exactly the same IP address data, plus a wealth of additional data that I provided, led to my unblocking at Unblock-en-l less than 48 hours ago. Family members can innocently share IP addresses without being sockpuppets or meatpuppets, can't they?

... explain these sock puppets one of which you just ADMITTED to below.

This is another misrepresentation, identical to one of the misrepresentations that produced his just-concluded 24-hour block. Would anyone care to give BenBurch another 24-hour block for this misrepresentation? Dino 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"H4672600 was created to combat the rampant "mischaracterizations" of BenBurch. BenBurch actually engaged in edit wars to protect those "mischaracterizations." is what you said. This is an admission of an account found to be a sock puppet. It is not an attempt at mischaracterization! It is your own words, just typed here mere hours ago. Now, please stop with the un-civil attacks on my person and deal with how you have so many "family members" that you can have an unlimited supply of editors willing to make the same edits to the same article using the same terms and the same sources. I'm sorry, but this isn't right at all. Nothing about what I have seen here since User:BryanFromPalatine checked in is right, and that includes the notice on your user page that I cannot read as anything at all except a legal threat against Wikipedia. So, I am asking you; 1. How many family members are you going to trot out as editors here? Is there a limit? And how is that different from the Wikipedia term-of-art "meatpuppet"? 2. How is what is on your user page not a legal threat? How is it different from when some guy comes into your business and says; "Nice soda shop you have here... It would be a SHAME if something HAPPENED to it!" ??? Now, you can probably get somebody to block me for writing this. Maybe permanently. If you can, have at it. I won't sock puppet my way around it like I honestly believe you have, but I'll be damned if I'm gonna shut up when I see this sort of thing happening here. --BenBurch 05:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Lar, Yamla and Luna Santin have reviewed far more evidence than any Check User could ever provide. They unanimously agreed that I'm not a sock puppet, and that I could avoid even the appearance of meatpuppetry by refraining from making any edits to the Free Republic article. This I've done. No one denies it. Accept their honest review and their final judgment in this matter. Dino 00:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits were identical to a user known to be using sockpuppets, and those were your only edits. I am sorry if I incorrectly blocked you, but there was sufficient evidence for me to feel comfortable doing so at the time. When you asked for an unblock, I directed you to unblock-en-l, because I was not willing to unblock. I am glad they could help you. Also, as you can tell, blocks are not permanent, so I hardly "threw away the key" ;-). Prodego talk 00:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Prodego, I accept your apology. Let's not allow any misunderstandings to get in the way of creating an NPOV article. What is your response to BenBurch's mischaracterization above? It is virtually identical to a previous mischaracterization that resulted in a 24-hour block. That 24-hour block expired just a couple of hours ago. Apparently he's learned nothing. Are you at all inclined to do anything about it? Dino 00:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Isn't this an admission of a sock account? "H4672600 was created to combat the rampant "mischaracterizations" of BenBurch. BenBurch actually engaged in edit wars to protect those "mischaracterizations." Fairness & Accuracy For All
Note : Dino wrote in unblock L : "Any skeptics among you can feel free to monitor my account after it is unblocked, and block me again at the slightest hint of abusive or disruptive behavior." On the FR talk page he writes, while 'claiming' BLP, even though he admits BLP might not apply: "Tbeatty, I encourage you to remove it [contested material] aggressively per instructions by Jimbo Wales. As you can see from the boldfaced portions above, no need to worry about the 3RR rule." link - Fairness & Accuracy For All 00:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Admin Jossi, the article mediator, said that BLP doesn't apply
That's another misrepresentation. Jossi didn't say that BLP doesn't apply. He asked, "Why is it WP:BLP mentioned?" How can anyone get anything constructive done around here with all of these misrepresentations? Dino 00:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You've GOT to be kidding me. I suggest you read the Wiki article Rhetorical question - Fairness & Accuracy For All

Isn't this an admission of a sock account? "H4672600 was created to combat the rampant "mischaracterizations" of BenBurch. BenBurch actually engaged in edit wars to protect those "mischaracterizations." Fairness & Accuracy For All

You've GOT to be kidding me.
Did he, or did he not say "that BLP doesn't apply"?
Isn't this an admission of a sock account?
It isn't. I said that it was created. I did not say that I created it. I didn't identify the creator of that account at all, but I will spell it out for you in no uncertain terms right now, so that there are no misunderstandings: I did not create the H4672600 account, nor have I ever used it. I have never created or used any account except this one. Stop posting these misrepresentations. BenBurch was blocked for it, and may be blocked again just a couple of hours after the previous block expired. It is in the nature of presenting false testimony. Sanctions for such misconduct are appropriate. Dino 00:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: Dino claimed above: "Lar and Yamla are two of the most senior administrators at Wikipedia." Lar was adminned on May 08, 2006. That's not very 'senior'. Why would Dino make up a totally bogus false claim like this? Please see the claims here where Dino says that he spoke to noted author TJ Walker who he says denied writing one of his own articles BLP Noticeboard - and then the story changed - entirely. Meaning no disrespect, but IMHO from my close observations of this persons claims and actions, he will say and write anything. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 01:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There really isn't any seniority as far as being an admin goes. Prodego talk 01:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Please see the claims here where Dino says that he spoke to noted author TJ Walker who he says denied writing one of his own articles BLP Noticeboard - and then the story changed - entirely.
The fun just never stops. This is yet another misrepresentation. The story never changed. First I called TJ Walker's office, then I called Carolyn Doran's office. Evidently Carolyn then spoke with TJ Walker's office. That story has never changed, because it's the truth. When is an administrator going to do something about all of these misrepresentations on an evidence page? Dino 01:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Now, just a moment here - Are you claiming that Author TJ Walker claimed never to have written the article that archive.org puts on his web site in 1999, which at least one other site used here as an RS republished, that is still in the index of all of his articles on his web site, and which you are seemingly threatening suit over? Is that what you are claiming? And you are claiming it on the basis of an unverifiable telephone call? I think the fact that archive.org has the complete text of that article online and linked to its historical place on TJ Walker's web site is absolute proof that he did write it, did publish it, and that it did exist. The fact that it is not currently online anywhere does not mean that it is not a valid cite for any article here on Wikipedia. We can prove its content. We can prove it was published. archive.org does not make stuff up. We can also prove that the quotes used in that article absolutely were on Free Republic. I am going to stick my neck way out here and say that I very much doubt that you ever called author TJ Walker. And also say that if somebody claiming to be TJ Walker called Carolyn at Wikimedia Foundation, that was not likely to have really been TJ Walker. I see no proof of the truth of either event being proffered here. --BenBurch 05:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

YES - he did : Dino claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that he PERSONALLY contacted noted author TJ Walker CBS News and that Walker PERSONALLY told him that he never wrote the particular article in question "I contacted TJ Walker and asked him whether he authored the article. He said, "Of course not." He contacted AmericanPolitics.com and asked them to remove the article from their website. They complied immediately" here

Note : That Dino is also editing as a numeric IP 209.221.240.193 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) the same corporate IP that Bryan (alleged to be his brother) and 5 (6? 7? - I've lost count!) confirmed sock puppets have edited from. My advice would be the block this whole IP netrange. Dino can edit from home if his editing privledges aren't revoked, but for him to be editing on the same IP as multiple banned sock puppet accounts just isn't right. Fairness & Accuracy For All

the same corporate IP that Bryan (alleged to be his brother) and 5 (6? 7? - I've lost count!) confirmed sock puppets have edited from.
Yet another mischaracterization. Bryan has been proven to be my brother. Apparently only one sockpuppet (ClemsonTiger) has been "proven" to have edited from the IP address 209.221.240.193, and Bryan disputed that finding. I have also edited from IP address 209.221.240.193 and it has been proven that I am NOT a sockpuppet. Dino 01:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

May I casually ask why, DeanHinnen, is there a seemingly legal notice on your userpage? --210physicq (c) 01:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading all of this, do you really have to ask? Dino 02:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, because the notice on your userpage can be construed as a violation of WP:NLT, subtle though it may be. --210physicq (c) 02:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
You mean "misconstrued," don't you? May I cordially direct your attention to the big, bold, green lettering across the top of that page? Dino 02:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
And indeed I have read the big, bold, green lettering across the top of that page, and I thank your courtesy. I have also read in between the lines, and find that my use of "construed" is correct, as though the message is not worded as such, it can be considered, in my opinion, as a subtle violation of WP:NLT, semantics notwithstanding. --210physicq (c) 05:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I can address that, Physicq --- "Dean" here is a member of the legal team of Free Republic. He therefore represents Jim Robinson, the owner. On the talk page for Free Republic, "Dean" says, (prarphrasing here) 'I am just trying to keep Wikipedia from being sued as Jim Robinson is litigious.' - Well, as Jim Robinson is his client, this is just a lawyer saying Do as I say or my client will sue you. isn't it? It is absolutely a legal threat from a lawyer who WORKS FOR FREE REPUBLIC. And he works for them whether he has ever taken a dime from them or not as he has represented them and written briefs on their behalf, and bragged about it in the Free Republic talk page. Now I haven't gone over there and looked up exact quotes, but I am not attempting to "misrepresent" anything here, or being "uncivil" here. I am giving you my understanding of the actions of this person as expressed by what he has said in the past and applying logic to see what deductions arise. And my deduction is that he has directly threatened wikipedia with suit if material not to his liking is incorporated in the Free Republic article. If there is some other way to read this, I don't see it. Again, if you want to say I am misrepresenting anything, and block me forever, go right ahead, I am doing what I think is right in making this observation here. I also am going to make the observation that I do not believe for even one moment that these many usernames are not a single person trying as hard as he can to game the system here, but I will leave the determination on what to do that up to admins here and abide by whatever is decided. --BenBurch 03:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

BUT....WAIT ! It's 'Bryan' who claims he's a member of the FR Legal Eagles who flew out to L.A. to advise them on the L.A. Times v FR lawsuit 'in the summer of 2001" (when FR filed their final appeal April 2001) (my side aches) [www.freerepublic.com/~Bryan/ Bryan] What's this claim about JimRob being 'litigious'. I can only find one lawsuit. (not counting LA T V FR that he LOST) Fred Phelps is litigious. JimRob? Yet another of Dino's unsubstantiated 'claims' Ouch. My side. - Fairness & Accuracy For All 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NOTE : Subject: TJ Walker's 07/06/99 article :

Dino claimed on Jan. 15, 2007, that he contacted noted author TJ Walker