Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

WP:POINT rampage[edit]

Have you tried asking him to stop? Or to talk to him? SoWhy 21:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather somebody external looked at the situation. I've had quite enough of dealings with this editor in preceding discussions. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Fine if he wants to write an essay, but this spamming should to be stopped and reverted. Hopefully just this and a warning would calm the situation. Verbal chat 21:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
"Spamming" implies bad-faith indiscriminate placement of the essay. I haven't looked at every single edit he's made, so it's possible that this is an accurate characterization, but do you have a particular diff where he's not taking a good-faith position? THF (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'd consider this to be spamming. This article is completely unrelated to anything Samj seems to work on. In the case of this article, I feel it was intrusive and unwelcome. I've been attempting to work with another editor to rewrite and check the sources used in this article. I simply chose to keep it listed as COI until everything has been verified as that was one item listed on a previous {{prod}}. I'm concerned that this COI thing that was left on the talk page may be a distraction for the editor who has taken on the task of fixing this article. I also found some of the edits to Subnotebook to be a bit disturbing but I'm waiting to see what happens before I begin restoring content that was removed. Tothwolf (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm also not quite sure what to think about the Desktop replacement computer AfD that Samj has initiated... Mutual assured destruction? Tothwolf (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what? The AbleNET article is clean of any obvious e.g. WP:NPOV violations and the other two (removal of linkspam and a good faith effort to clean up the {{computer sizes}} articles) are irrelevant - if we're going to criticise every edit I've ever made we'll be here for a long while. WP:COI allegations are very serious (especially for those of us who edit with our real names) as they disparage both author and article subject. They're also very difficult to defend against (which is probably why they are so often [ab]used), as evidenced by your admission to unsupported punitive use of the tag. -- samj inout 14:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering where this edit came from about a podcast where one of the podcasters had previously edit waring over the removal of some of the article's content, specifically some nominations for awards. Now I see he was just whoring out his essay. --Farix (Talk) 23:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's another admission of punitive use of the {{COI}} tag to punish an editor (and article subject) for behaviour that by Farix's own admission is historical. No current violations have been identified in the Anime Pulse article and yet there seems to be no intention to remove the tag or even move it to the talk page. -- samj inout 14:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a pretty bad faith accusation by describing the tagging as punitive. From my understanding of the tag and it documentation, it is meant to mark article where an editor with a COI has been heavily engaged in the article's content. To me, and edit warring over content is being heavy engaged in the article's content. Thus the article was tagged appropriately. If edit warning is not a violation of Wikipedia's guidelines, then we should throw the whole WP:EW policy out the window. --Farix (Talk) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The template is for identifying articles that "may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view". Edit warring is irrelevant unless the article still has residual issues (which should be tagged as such and resolved). By your metric the only way to ever shed the tag would be to completely rewrite articles, which is clearly nonsense. -- samj inout 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
SamJ is a bit too confrontational for his own good when faced with COI allegations (and I have suggested WP:COOL to him with respect to the pending AfD), and his edits on his own article have strayed a bit far into WP:LARDing, but some of the attacks he has faced have been quite uncivil, and he's stopped edit-warring on his article. I don't see anything wrong with the essay or with noting that there are articles marked with the COI tag as punishment when there is no NPOV problem with the article. I don't see a WP:POINT violation here; WP:POINT comes about when someone accused of violating X then takes Rule X to the extreme on one or more articles. THF (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the WP:POINT aspect is that it does look like a tit-for-tat reaction. He was rightly warned for COI, and is now off pursuing an agenda to diss the use of COI tags. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I spot-checked a couple of his edits, and they happened to be on pages where the COI tag was grievously misused to punish editors who had made sound edits, and SamJ would've been well within his rights to simply remove the tag instead of merely questioning it on the talk page. It's certainly within the realm of possibility that that was happenstance and SamJ is being abusive with his edits, but I'm still waiting to see a single diff that shows he is making any of these talk-page comments in bad faith. THF (talk) 05:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Ok so editor Gordonofcartoon votes to delete an article that I've put a good deal of time and effort into on the basis that there are "no third-party reliable sources [they] can see", which is no surprise given that nominator (User:DreamGuy) deleted them before listing said article for deletion. I point out some reliable sources only to have them revise their complaint to assume bad faith in stating "And overt promotional use of Wikipedia" (as the nominator did in asserting that "right now it's just someone abusing Wikipedia as a press release for his cause"). Editor then declares that they will "view it as notable when it gets into newspapers" (?!?) and cites WP:COI for good measure; if anyone has a point to make here I'd say it's not me you should be talking to. There's over 2,500 articles currently tagged with {{COI}} and of the 50 or so that I checked almost all of them were tagged punitively and [semi-]permanently without identifying any policies or guidelines that had been breached. Thanks to User:THF and User:SoWhy for being reasonalbe when others aren't. -- samj inout 06:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:COOL. As Farix says, a COI tag is not punitive; you're getting aerated about a false assumption. It merely tags an article (and associated edit patterns) for scrutiny because of the potential breach of policies/guidelines commonly associated with such a user/article relationship. In many cases you don't even appear to have looked (e.g. for COI questions raised at user pages, or ongoing neutrality violations for SPAs). Mainly, I think you're assuming bad faith over processing backlog; often editors pass by, tag possible COI (e.g. [[Mousterian Widgets]] created by [[User:MousterianWidgets]]) and then, responsibiity being diluted in such a vast project, no-one gets around to tackling in more detail. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • To many people (myself included) unjustified accusations of conflict of interest are highly offensive and an article tagged as such is seriously undermined. This is not fair to the author, editors, subject and even the readers - thus the tag alone is punitive and can be especially so when misused. Furthermore the onus is not on me to scour user talk pages for historical discussion, rather on the tagging editor to identify other violations that were caused by the conflict. -- samj inout 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • We need two separate tags then because we're asking the COI tag to do two separate things, and that's what is causing bad feelings. Like pov and pov-check, perhaps we need coi and coi-check. It is unfair to editors complying with Wikipedia policies to tag a neutrally-written article with coi. THF (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"Using Wikipedia as a press release for a cause" certainly looks like a reasonable characterization of that article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I would agree that Save the Netbooks was overly promotionally written, but the means by which that was done--excessive quotations from non-RS blogs and the primary source and similar WP:LARD--is the same good-faith mistake made on almost every WP:WEB article (someone want to scrub Ctrl+Alt+Del sometime?), and SamJ was really bashed with personal attacks that had nothing to do with the quality of his edits. THF (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

FWIW there has already been some really good and positive discussion resulting from this action as well as removal of some of the inappropriate tags. The response has been overwhelmingly positive, compared to say, removing the tags without consultation. There was even some positive feedback about the essay itself from an editor who "agree[s] that people vehemently spew the term around". -- samj inout 05:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sam, with respect I think you're missing the point. I agree with the crux of your essay, that COI is thrown around wildly and that being associated with something shouldn't stop an editor from making well-sourced, neutral edits. But the problem with your conduct to this point is twofold: first, it appears that most !voters at the AfD think you created an article about yourself that's otherwise not notable enough to have an article. Without passing judgment on whether they're right, I believe there's an important distinction between editing an article about yourself to add accurate information and creating an article about yourself when the subject's notability is dubious. Secondly, going around making wild accusations of sockpuppetry and advertising on random talk pages is not the way to save your page, nor is it the way to affect a change in policy/practice. May i suggest the village pump? Oren0 (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't the point of this discussion the essay? Nobody said anything about trying to "save my article" (which was only ever created because the article that should have contained the information was being WP:OWNed by an editor since blocked for same and which was never "about myself" given there's something like 200 of us). There are larger issues at play here so I think you might be looking for this discussion. Anyway we've got a policy which states "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article" and yet the first dozen or so votes said stuff like "Major COI problems", "clear case of COI", "yes, COI is a reason for deletion", "The COI issues here are too large to overlook.", "Clear COI interest", "Clear COI", "COI", "WP:COI". The article already satisfies WP:WEB (here and here for example), there's new coverage every day and it has almost half a million Google hits now - articles routinely survive with a lot less coverage, especially with subjects that are gaining notability. The sock puppet investigation was sufficiently valid as to be relisted by a clerk and your allegation of canvassing is completely unfounded. The only thing to take away from this given the personal attacks et al is to always hide behind an alias and never declare conflicts. -- samj inout 10:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus that Samj did something wrong by posting the essay, and this is turning into a rehash of the Save the Netbooks debate at COIN and AFD. In the interests of reducing ANI wikidrama and personalization, as well as WP:MULTI I point people to a discussion about the underlying policy issues at Template talk:COI, and ask that this thread be closed. THF (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, there is still the problem of the spamming of this essay across multiple talk pages that should be addressed. Is this behaviour that we should encourage? In areas such as pseudoscience I'm pretty sure this kind of behaviour would lead to a block and topic ban. Verbal chat 12:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the second time you've repeated the allegation of bad-faith editing, and you still haven't provided a single diff. If you can provide one where the posting of the essay cannot be a legitimate good-faith disputing of the COI tag, I will warn Samj personally, and then we can drop the matter. THF (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The spamming may have been done in good faith, it was still uncalled for and doesn't answer the points raised. I have made no accusations of bad faith. Is this behaviour that we should encourage? Verbal chat 12:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
If the edits are good-faith (and Samj does appear to be distinguishing between pages with problems and pages without problems, as best I can tell from spot-checking), then it's neither spamming, nor a problem for an editor to systematically address a series of pages where a problem exists. It wouldn't be spamming if someone were to go to five hundred pages and add an {{externallinks}} tag to the various LINKFARMs out there. Samj is simply looking at all the pages that have been tagged with COI, and trying to determine whether there is a real problem on some of these pages. It's not disruptive, because it's on the talk page instead of blindly removing tags. A COI tag that is placed improperly is indistinguishable from a personal attack that criticizes the editor, rather than the edit. Wikignoming incremental issues is part of the project. Why shouldn't we encourage that? THF (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and personal attacks by Calton[edit]

Calton is attempting to evade the prohibition on BLP violations on his user page. He is packing the text he wants to keep with identifying information, but leaving names off that page (putting some more information in his insulting edit summaries). Despite criticisms from many editors, including Jimbo Wales [2] [3], he is very nastily editors who have commented unfavorably on his actions. Examples: describes user who agrees with Jimbo about use of real names as "spamming crybaby" [4]; personal attack on talk page of editor whose comments resulted in Jimbo's intervention [5]; personal attack on another editor who expressed similar sentiments [6]. From recent past, personal attack on administrator who wouldn't do what he demanded. [7] Calton has an extensive block log for incivility and personal attacks [8] and his behavior has been the subject of numerous discussions here [9] and here [10] among many examples. As someone who got dragged into this mess over what I thought was a simple BLP issue, and may be targeted in the future, I think that action as suggested in the most recent AN and AN:I discussions and in some of Jimbo Wales's comments is sorely sorely needed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Notified User:Calton about this thread. Exxolon (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Two Three points: 1) I don't understand why Hullabaloo Wolfowitz links to Calton's block log, and refers to it as "extensive". I suppose you did notice the "unblock to change length+reblock" types of block in it, HW? Are you aware that those are not actual blocks? Discounting them, Calton was blocked once in 2008 and twice in 2007. Extensive? 2) I'd estimate that there are probably more personal attacks and incivility, by admins yet, on this one page of ANI, than Calton has achieved in his entire wiki-career. To take an example pretty much at random, Jimbo Wales, since you repeatedly mention his input, might want to get a whiff of the real wikiworld by taking a look at the thread Disruptive editing by User:Ohconfucius and User:Tony1 above. Coincidentally, notice the input there from Tanthalas39 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Calton's 2008 blocker. Is incivility all about who has the power of the buttons? 3) Preemptively to all, not specifically Hullabaloo Wolfowitz: Please use space below for rubberstamping "Two wrongs don't make a right." Bishonen | talk 14:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC).
  • If I remember the rules properly, whenever we see "Guy", "dtobias" and "BADSITES" in the same ANI thread, everyone has to finish their drink :/ SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Guy, Dtobias and BADSITES? Isn't that redundant? Guettarda (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Calton's behaviour seems to have generally improved somewhat, and apart from being a bit soapboxy, I don't see a huge issue with the userpage business. –xeno (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The userpage is a non-starter for me as well. However, I would not say that his incivility has been entirely mitigated. I warned him recently about this little warm fuzzy hug he gave as a response to this issue: [11]. Certainly, the userpage is not a big deal, but stuff like this comment is. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussions regarding Wikipedia Review may be useful. But they have nothing to do with the user page violation I was trying to report. From the Arbcomm decision re Tobias Conradi [12]: While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users". Calton is violating this principle and trying to wikilawyer his way around the rule by removing the names but leaving so much other information in (sometimes adding more in edit summaries) that it is clear his comments are directed at individual users and allowing those users to be recognized. His newest revisions actually expand the list and provide additional personal information (location) about the user he has added to the list. It is this defiance of the Arbcom ruling that prompted me to post this notice. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Folks, say hello to indefinitely banned user named TruthCrusader (talk · contribs) ('aka the long-dormant Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)), whose history includes real-life stalking, obscene e-mails, and attempts to get me fired from my job. So no, I'm not sympathetic regarding his laughably ginned-up complaints or those helping him. I can see why he objects to any reminder of his past activities. --Calton | Talk 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
You're making some pretty serious, and potentially defamatory, accusations... it's probably time for you to be told to put up or shut up, and either prove or retract. *Dan T.* (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Calton's something of an expert at recognizing TruthCrusader socks; you might not like how he talks, but he doesn't lie about people or their behavior. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I generally believe Calton on this as Jpgordon does, and I am trying to work with him here. As I explained on Calton's talk page, if this was the first time Calton has been incivil, and if his accusations are true, then they may be excusable. However, given Calton's history of rudeness and incivility towards a multitude of good-faith editors over the past years, it becomes a noise that makes it hard to see the truth through. When I see Calton calling someone names or cussing them out, my brain says This is just Calton being Calton, and it makes it all too easy to dismiss his complaint. Also that he tends to only behave rudely, and to refuse to use the standard channels to resolve these very serious accusations seems to compound the problem. Its just hard to cull out the "Calton is cussing this guy out because its another sock of the guy that's been harrassing Calton in real life" from the "Calton is cussing this guy out because that's just what Calton does when people disagree with him". It can be really hard to tell the difference. I hope he can start to see the difference, and work in a way that helps us help him with problems like this. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
You should not believe Calton. Calton has been making his false accusations against me, without any real evidence, for some time. They were disproved by two different Checkuser verifications some time ago. [13] The fact that Calton repeats the disproved accusation again and again should be taken as unfavorable evidence concerning his truthfulness. I cannot tell you whether he is lying or ignoring the truth but in either case it is just another example of malicious behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Technically speaking, a checkuser report can't actually "disprove" anything, for the same reason that "you can't prove a negative". However, the checkuser has failed to prove the accusations, so Calton should be more careful about asserting them as fact. *Dan T.* (talk) 21:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right about that, technically, but they showed me editing from a different continent that the person he claims I am is editing from. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I suppose somebody who wants to go to really heroic lengths to fake their location could arrange for a dialup account on a distant continent and then call in to it at great expense; or at even greater expense, they could actually take a plane, train, or ship to a faraway location to access the net. If they get a job as a flight attendant, they might have plenty of opportunities to log in from a variety of exotic places. *Dan T.* (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, the checkuser that HW shows says nothing about the continent he was editing from. HW himself those claims. The checkuser only stated that the IPs were unrelated, not about the specific nature of their unrelatedness. It would be false to extend a simple statement of the checkusers, which only stated that this account and that single IP were unrelated, to a general statement that they had determined that the user mentioned by Calton and HW are unrelated. It does not prove they are related either, but it neither confirms nor refutes the basic premise of Calton's accusation. I agree with the sentiment that Calton needs provide evidence; which is why I have advised him to do so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Various histrionics by various people aside, as long as Calton leaves any slagging of usernames off of User:Calton and agrees to not reintroduce BLP violations like happened at least once[14], can we all leave this be? Calton, please do not put real names back up there. rootology (C)(T) 02:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Off a week long block and still not getting it.[edit]

Resolved: User indefinitely blocked by Tan | 39

User:Ada Kataki has come off a week long block for edit warring on musical genres and patently hasn't learned anything. Unilateral edits, ignoring attempts by myself to guide him into more collegial editing practices and a sequence of four pretty horrible edits ([15],[16],[17],[18]), the second a pretty vicious personal attack makes me believe he's not going to get it and it's time to show him the door. Exxolon (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

User indefinitely blocked. Tan | 39 22:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks - obviously not willing to play well with others. Marking resolved. Exxolon (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by IP addresses allocated to Hughes Network Systems[edit]

Several IP addresses from within the pools allocated to Hughes Network Systems have been adding and restoring the same incorrect information, despite warnings, to 2009 Kids' Choice Awards. Most of these appear to be persistent vandals and have been warned numerous times. I suspect that the same user(s), using dynamic IP addresses, is/are responsible. Since 29 January 2009 there had been 43 edits by users all with IP addresses originating from Hughes Network Systems pools so I requested semi-protection for the page, since this seemed the easiest way to resolve the matter, but this was denied, with a recommendation to list the matter here.[19] A range block would require blocks of both 68.19.14.xx and 66.82.9.xx.

During compilation of my RPP I discovered an open abuse report regarding the 69.19.14.xx pool. However, there has been no action since 9 September 2008. Despite this I added a report, for what it's worth, but this doesn't resolve the issue relating to 2009 Kids' Choice Awards and there has been another attack since submitting the RPP[20], requiring yet another reversion[21]. I suppose it's easy to decline an RPP and pass the buck onto somebody else but that's where we're at.

Vandalism by addresses from the 68.19.14.xx pool: [22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]

Vandalism by addresses from the 66.82.9.xx pool: :[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] --AussieLegend (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the page in question. I suggest a rangeblock if these users from these IP ranges start causing similar problems elsewhere. -- The Anome (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
As a note, this is Hughes the ISP (I think), not Hughes the company (as in, those aren't corporate addresses). From a look at the contributions for the two /24 ranges which would need to be blocked, the collateral damage would be high, even for softblocks. I recommend against a rangeblock. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

More block evasion by User:台灣共和國萬歲![edit]

User:阮明珠 ... the same old deleting a citation in the Peter Nguyen [66] and Vietnamese people in Taiwan [67] articles because he doesn't like the newspaper in question (the United Daily News; he accuses them of lacking "Taiwan spirit"). Articles are currently semi-protected, but it seems he's now figured out how to work around that (make a few minor edits, wait a few days). cab (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And now that he has been blocked through a WP:AIV report, he has immediately created another sock 阮公政 (talk · contribs) with the exact same user page, and started the same strategy of making minor edits (e.g. creating useless redirects from foreign language titles like オーストラリア to Australia) so that five days later he can vandalise again. cab (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
And another one, 阮明惠 (talk · contribs). cab (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
And even more, 阮正義 (talk · contribs). cab (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi cab, I've blocked them. If this happens again, I suggest you file a sock puppet report. PhilKnight (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I-210 abuse[edit]

This user:

1) Persists in reverting expired notices on my discussion page after I have deleted them, despite my request to stop, which was left on user's page.[68] [69] [70]

2) This user failed to assume good faith, then falsely accuses me of vandalism. Despite my warning that vandalism is clearly defined here, and my actions do NOT meet that criteria. In fact, per WP:VAND#NOT, my actions are expressly NOT vandalism.

3) This user then, in an obvious attempt to intimidate me, threatened me with permanent blocking, in clear violation of that policy, and also in violation of policy regarding permanently blocking IPs, and in equally clear abuse of the tool this user has been given with WP:TW. [71]

4) This user has already repeatedly been warned in the recent past that their actions do not conform with policy, and has demonstrated no interest in conforming to either policy or guidelines. [72] [73]

This user deserves to be sanctioned for each of these 3 violations of policy, and the right of this user to use the WP:TW tool should be removed, as it is clearly being abused. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • We don't generally remove block and warning notices from IP pages. Oh, and [74], [75] ... hardly constructive. Black Kite 01:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Understood. However the edits you referenced were in response to both [76] and [77]. Neither of which received a constructive or even communicative response, if any response at all. And that per CAT:RECALL, any admin is subject to recall, if he/she fails to display the proper temperament for the responsibilities, or acts in a capricious or unnecessarily draconian manner. As for removing expired notices, especially from IP pages, it's my understanding from reading guidelines and policy, that it is reasonable. 68.183.246.93 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Recall only applies to those Admins who have opted in to it. What you need is first a Request for Comment. --Rodhullandemu 02:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • FWIW the complaining IP left this warning to me after I removed this from his talk page as not being a forum. Tom 04:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

SassoBot[edit]

User:SassoBot is cleaning up interwikilinks. In doing so it is breaking several between surnames: ten examples [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87]. User:Djsasso seems to be offline. --Rumping (talk) 02:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I can stop it from removing them, however this rule is in the standard pywikipedia bot code. So its nothing I have decided to do on my own. I have interpreted it to mean that its a standard rule that disambig pages don't link to non-disambig pages. Perhaps the actual issue is that those pages should be marked disambig? -Djsasso (talk) 02:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion, but I did not find any answer. Improper removal of links where a disambiguation was involved was reported on meta on 23 July, 2008. There seems to have been no response or follow-up in that thread from anyone who knows about interwiki.py. I recommend that Djsasso not continue *removing* any links until he can get an answer from someone who knows about interwiki.py and can explain why this is considered to be correct. If it is a bug, then removals should wait until it is fixed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I already plan to stop removing them until its fixed or whatever. -Djsasso (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

SPI request[edit]

Resolved: 03:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, could an admin please indef all accounts at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sleepydre. CheckUser shows they're all the same user...again. Thank you, §hepTalk 02:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • On my way. Only be a moment.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Seems everything has been taken care of. Thanks, §hepTalk 03:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion re. chronic vandal[edit]

It isn't a new suggestion, but maybe it's time to make a policy re. the Pee-Wee Herman vandal.

I've had a few comments for Pee-Wee since he seems to have it in for me to which I say, great. I'm getting under his skin. Since he clearly is craving attention based on the fact that he wants to be noticed based on his naming variations of the same tired Pee-Wee theme, say we simply block him on sight, protect the talk page and leave it at that? Just like we're doing with the little Grawpies. Just revert, block on sight, lock out the talk page and boom. Done. Perhaps we can go so far as to delete the user and talk pages of the blocked socks as well. Why enshrine this punk kid? It's attention he's craving. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be the default? Any other approach is probably wrong. Tan | 39 03:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm hoping. No "blockedsockpuppet" template on the userpage and therefore no list of blocked socks for the little dingaling to point out with pride to his friends. BTW, he just hit my talk page again with a painfully obvious username. It might be the Grawpies with a copycat attack. Just a thought. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Just happened again. The edit summary tears it for me; we're dealing with different people a la Grawp. I need to log off, so I'll lock down my talk page for the time being so that the RC patrollers don't have to tear their hair out. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Might want to remove the recognition from your talk page header now, too. Tan | 39 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just thought of that...will do. Thanks for pointing that out. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've busted a few imps and have requested their renames at WP:CHU so as to remove the attackiness of them or to annihilate any chance of confusion. -Jeremy (v^_^v Dittobori) 06:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Probable not here, but where? – technical(?)[edit]

When I pushed the ‘History’ tab here, I got something unfamiliar. Specifically, I got ‘Database error’, which stated: A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:

(SQL query hidden)

from within function "IndexPager::reallyDoQuery (PageHistoryPager)". MySQL returned error "1054: Unknown column 'ts_tags' in 'field list' (10.0.6.32)".

Where should this go? It takes too long to find the correct pigeon hole. CasualObserver'48 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Technically I think these go to the developers through bugzilla, although they happen with some frequency. Usually hitting "back" and trying again will take care of it. Hersfold (t/a/c) 06:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
database errors may mean nothing more than a server hiccup. unless it's happening repeatably and/or regularly, I wouldn't worry about it. remember Wikipedia servers get hit with god knows how many millions of queries a day. even if the odds of totally random fubars are miniscule, they're still going to happen fairly frequently. --Ludwigs2 06:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Hollaback Sock[edit]

The latest sock of The Hollabck Girl is Hollaback Editor is Back (talk · contribs) returning for regular disruption and taunting. Thanks in advance for the attention. Dayewalker (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

  • An admin already blocked this user, and marked it sock. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
    • It's nice when socks have names similar enough to the originals that they're easily identifiable. Such courtesy should be rewarded. Perhaps by reducing the length of the puppetmaster's indefinite block by a day or two. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
      • So having it expire a couple days before the heat death of the universe, then? I don't know we can actually calculate that correctly right now, but I'll do that when the opportunity arises. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
        • Could we just add Hollaback (and variants) to the blacklist? Is there some way of doing that but still allowing someone with the ACC flag to create the account on their behalf if it's in good faith?

Andrzej Gołota[edit]

Resolved: Admin intervention not needed. Users directed to use article talk to work out differences

Please calm User:Vintagekits. He still moves Andrzej Gołota to Andrew Golota. A.Gołota is Pole and has to have Polish name, beacuase he didn't change his citizenship. It has no meaning that he lives in US. Of course, in he is also known as Andrew Golota that redirect is necessary, but only redirect, not main article, like f.e. Lech Wałęsa, not Lech Walesa (redirect) and Aleksander Kwaśniewski not Aleksander Kwasniewski (redirect). Regards, pjahr (talk) 10:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am extremely calm so I do not understand that statement. In May 2008, I posted a notice of intent to move the article title per WP:COMMONNAME in this discussion on the articles talk page. After FIVE MONTHS without objection I replied saying I was going to move it and the following month I moved it.
Five days later User:Pjahr moved it back without any discussion with the edit summary "Polish!".
I then politely asked the user why he had done this and he replied because he is Pole. He then refused to reply to my further comments after I pointed out the reasons why it should be Andrew Golota and he then (on 11 November) deleted my comments saying "tnx" and added nothing further. So on the 13 of November I changed it back.
Then today he moved it back - again without any discussion and when challenged as to why he said he didnt have time to discuss it.
Now I dont think I could have been more patient or polite in the way I handled it and if we look at the facts there are alomost zero non-Polish language google hits for Andrzej Gołota and thousands for Andrew Golota. I rest my case.

(e/c) Have you made any attempt to discuss this with Vintagekits beyond the cryptic "because he is Pole" on his talkpage? How about on the article talkpage? I notice that MOS:PN hasn't been mentioned anywhere - it says that diacritics should be used unless there is a well-established English standard otherwise (personally, I have never seen Golota's name written with the diacritics in English media). Maybe this new info will help - try a fresh discussion on the talkpage and ask for a third opinion or file an RFC if an impasse is reached. east718 | talk | 10:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. There's a section at Talk:Andrzej_Gołota#Article_name_II. Start Article name III and go discuss it. The move was in October so why should we be concerned about a move made months ago that you weren't involved in? I have reverted it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. There does not appear to be any role for admins here. I have marked the thread as resolved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

BLP trouble at Anthony Bennett (English politician)[edit]

Anthony Bennett (English politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has seen a concerted effort in the last few days to add a block of rather defamatory-sounding, uncited text to the article by "two" users:

The similarity of edits and the fact that DerekDawes took over for DrDanDare upon the latter's accumulating all four levels of warning template show evidence of sock puppeting to game the system. Both accounts should be blocked. The content of the edits and the tenacity with which they are being added seems to call for at least temporary semi-protection for the page. --Dynaflow babble 13:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be done now. --GedUK  13:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Would semi-protection be appropriate here? I noticed in the page logs that this article has been the subject of an OTRS ticket for WP:BLP issues in the past. Can someone with access to OTRS look to see whether this new incident is similar to the one that last caused the article to be protected? --Dynaflow babble 14:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
They were different. Leave any protecting to us, thanks. Daniel (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Got a rangeblock going, if they get through that then feel free to sprotect. Daniel (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

20 July plot[edit]

Resolved: No Admin input required. Content dispute.

Reporting: Baseball Bugs (the main player in all of this). A team of two editors have been removing cited information on this page. They complain (on the talk page) that "execution by means of murder" is POV pushing, despite it being sourced.They also say that the positions of historias and ths the cited data is "irrelevant". One editor said Hitler was legally elected, and the people that tried to murder him were executed. That some historians don't like it is irrelevant. "Executed" is the proper way to say it - which is a complete falsehood. Any and every prominent historian I know of rejects this. The bottom line is: 1) It was sourced 2) Hitler was not elected, thus.. 3) The Nazi State was not legal, thus.. 4) Its laws were not legal either.

Yet these individuals reject ithe position of A. J. P. Taylor as propaganda. Am I dealing with Neo-Nazis here? Dapi89 (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Note that this is also being discussed here.
Bugs, a neo-Nazi? I don't think so. Bugs is a Marxist.
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, a Marxist of the Groucho variety. And a liberal in general. The complaint by Dapi89 here is frivolous, and is part of his ongoing POV-pushing as being discussed at the NPOV page, as noted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Been there, done that, still want the t-shirt though... LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
As an uninvolved observer, I have to point out the incivility by the complaining party in this edit here as I believe it is relevant. I also don't know why a content dispute should be reported to ANI. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't. It's a content dispute being discussed at the NPOV page. I'm not by any stretch the "main player", I'm just trying to help keep the POV-pushing out, as others have already tried to do. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 15:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are. You have no grounds for accusing me of "POV pushing", a term you don't understand. As far as incivility goes, it is not so. I was pointing out the overwhelming ignorance and lack of knowledge in this case, which I am entitled to do given this editor thinks he knows better than the academics - laughable when you consider he believes Hitler was elected by the German people! Dapi89 (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I would second his assessment that you are POV pushing. And forum shopping over a content dispute that does not require any admin intervention. Work to form a consensus, and accept it, regardless of which side you end up on. I would also point out that regardless of your opinion of the legality of Hitler's ascension to power, his government was recognized by world leaders of the time, thus was as legitimate as any other government formed via power takeover in world history. Your argument is without merit, as is this complaint. Resolute 16:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, Hitler was appointed by the ChancellorPresident, and the NSDAP were subsequently elected by a popular vote, so it's a reasonable, and frequent, misconception, and one that seems to have very little bearing on this matter.
False, Hitler, like all German Chancellors until 1949, was appointed by the Reichspräsident, which was Paul von Hindenburg Beneckendorf, at the time. During the 1933 elections the NSDAP received round about 30% of the votes, making them the strongest party. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Correct - obviously the Chancellor couldn't be appointed by the Chancellor. I've struck-through "Chancellor" and added "President". My point was that Hitler was appointed, not elected, but that many people get confused about this due to the election shortly afterwards, which the NSDAP won. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Be that as it may, how is this not a content dispute? What admin action is required? Where is the apparent urgency to address this "incident"?
Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I would also have to agree that this looks like POV pushing. But as mentioned there is nothing here to warrant admin action. -Djsasso (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
So, I am being told sourced information from a leading historian can be removed at will because a group of amateurs don't agree? As I keep saying this is a justified complaint, and in the process of arguing against it, you have all managed to contradict a number of basic wikipedia principles this forum is supposed to protect, namely verifiability. Not one of you here has been able to present a proper factual argument against it, and when there has been an attempt is has served to highlight a distinct lack of knowledge or understanding of the subject matter. I hope that none of you have aspirations in the historical field. Dapi89 (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
That's being disingenuous, and, no, that's not what you're being told. A J P Taylor was a controversial historian; his views on Germany and Nazism were controversial; his tenure at Oxford wasn't renewed as a result. Be very careful of giving undue weight to his views; be open to the opinions of other leading historians. And don't assume that your "opponents" are amateur historians; some of us simply want to maintain a balanced encyclopaedia. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 16:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate that. On the other hand, if there are not interested or don't have particular knowledge of historical articles they shouldn't be editing them or arguing about very complicated issues. I'm no expert on Cats, so I would think more than twice about engaging with you in a debate about their daily habbits! As it happens Taylor was the books editor, the section written about the July plot was written by a Gunther Kurtz. Dapi89 (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, "I know more than you" is a ridiculous argument that is not going to get you anywhere. How to deal with this content dispute is being hashed out at the NPOV noticeboard. It is not an admin issue, so I suggest returning to the appropriate forum and working to help form a consensus. Resolute 17:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
No it isn't. Besides, a source was given, a group of people who didn't like it got it removed. So I was talking about "knowing more than the historians", not "me knowing more than you". Anyway I'm done here. Dapi89 (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Historians have no jurisdiction in determining whether murder was committed. That's strictly an opinion on their part, not a fact. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

New pages relating to International Relationships[edit]

Many articles, relating to different nation relationships, are being created (mostly by User:Plumoyr). I feel that these articles are completely unneeded, as they simply state the date the countries recognized each other. Here is an incomplete list:

et cetera. The main issue is not so much with the editor (whom I have never met before) as with the articles. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

So nominate them for deletion if you feel that way. There's nothing to be done here. Grsz11 18:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there are a ton, and images too. Grsz11 18:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The point is that unless some notable incident occurred, I see no reason to include all those articles/images. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 18:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

A similar discussion came up just two weeks ago, that is probably relevant here. Concerns the same user... it seems like he is constantly doing this and administrator intervation has done nothing. Might be time for the next step in WP:DR. D.M.N. (talk) 18:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ugh...It seems to me that the editor in question is ignoring the previous discussion. I doubt he'll listen to this one, either. Should more drastic action be taken (Such as a warning)? Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 18:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I'm going to start prodding some of the lesser known ones. Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 18:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Again? Block him to end the disruption and unblock when he agrees to stop doing this. //roux   18:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think blocking him right now MAY be a tad premature. I have notified him of this new thread, and have informed him that if he persists he will be blocked. Near as I can tell, this was the first time that someone has told him that blocking was on the table. IF he creates one more of these, he should be blocked. But lets give him at least a little chance to stop of his own accord. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
(So far) I've prodded about 75 articles dating back a couple of weeks, still more to sort through. These are all rather non-notable, (Bulgaria-Nigeria?). Grsz11 22:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I had some suspicions of sockpuppetry (Groubani and Plumoyr – I thought Koov was the sockmaster), so I ran a CU.  Confirmed Groubani (talk · contribs) = Plumoyr (talk · contribs). I have blocked Groubani indefinitely and Plumoyr for 72 hours. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I saw that he was creating some articles, some of which looked good, so I had created a few international relations stubs myself. I did not know that he had been warned before and I will no longer create stubs if the said entries are systematically refused/deleted from Wikipedia. I am a conservationist however and I would probably not mind keeping them. ADM (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Last time this came up the articles got sent to AFD, where we were able to show almost every single one was encyclopaedic and noteable. While sockpuppetry is a problem, why are we re-enforcing abusive blocks? WilyD 23:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Argentina–Singapore relations
  • Allow me to point out that Peru–Romania relations and Bilateral relations of Ireland both resulted in deletion, so WilyD's claim that Argentina-Singapore settled the question in favour of presuming notability for bilateral relations stubs is not quite accurate. Argentina-Singapore was a flawed nomination (by me) in that it involved a grab-bag of different countries (although consensus was rapidly moving toward deletion until WilyD started hyperventilating), but by no means is it our sole precedent. - Biruitorul Talk 01:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • See also this, the original discussion of the sockpuppet creations. Grsz11 03:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Note: The general AfD was closed as "no consensus". Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 02:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

A little assistance needed[edit]

I hate when I've dropped a final warning on someone's talk page, and subsequent conversation makes it clear to me that someone just isn't getting the message. What I need here is just a friendly drive-by from someone else to make it clear that constantly inserting data from known bad charts and attempting to evade AFD results by creating shadow copies of articles isn't just a problem to one cranky editor.

Kokuna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) began his editing career as 93.177.186.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), adding sections to 2009 in Music based on the United World chart (a chart deleted from Wikipedia, listed at WP:BADCHARTS, listed in XlinkBot's revert list ... just the worst of the worst). He then began editing as Kokuna, readding the section, then doing it again and again, while vandalism warnings are piling up on his talk page. He finally gets the clue, and takes a break until the 25th of February, when he creates Best selling albums in 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a recreation of exactly the same material as a standalone article. I take this to AFD, where it is currently going down in flames. In reaction to this, he created a third copy of the material at Best selling music in 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ... kind of like a reposting of deleted material done a day ahead of time, as I noted in the AFD for that article. Then, the conversations started. First, questioning why I alone don't like his articles, despite a 7:0 AFD result and a consensus listing at WP:BADCHARTS. The next one essentially demands that I take his article to AFD, even though that is exactly what I have done. The next one finally reads the AFD, but accuses me of meat-puppeting and acts like he can ignore the AFD results, followed by what appears to be a stated intention of ignoring the AFD. I'm really not sure what that last one was, because he implies that I gave him some kind of idea.

As I said at the beginning, what I think is necessary is just for someone to step in and make it clear to him that AFDs, XlinkBot, and WP:BADCHARTS do pretty much represent consensus on the topic, the risk of being blocked for disruptive editing is genuine, and that he shouldn't be viewing this as an individual struggle.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

My advice is be cool and wait for the AfD to run its course. Assuming the result is Delete, any fork of the article can then be speedied. The important thing is to get community input on whether the article should be part of Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Innapropriate user page[edit]

Resolved: Clear G10, deleted

Innapropriate use of user pages at User:Robinhwang/Books/Jollan Zheng. I think this page should be deleted but don't know where else to list it. SpinningSpark 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, please visit WP:MFD next time. //roux   21:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

WBOC-DT2[edit]

Resolved: See note.

User:Atroxi‎ has added that WBOC-DT2 runs on 21.2 on PSIP. Normally this wouldn't be a problem, but since there is no confirming reference and possible original research, I reverted the edit. The user again added it with the edit summary, "I manage the operations department at WBOC and confirmed 21.2 with the engineering department as well as examining the software that inserts PSIP information". We are now in original research and conflict of interest territory. I reverted again....but I am unsure what to do past that. Help? - NeutralHomerTalk • February 27, 2009 @ 21:01

No admin assistance needed, user worked with me and I will be adding sources, references, and information to the page. - NeutralHomerTalk • February 27, 2009 @ 21:43

User:69.243.191.241[edit]

This 69.243.191.241 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has harassed me because of a way i spelled a word wrong so i removed it from my talk page but they continued to put it back i would really like for someone to look into this they also have been stalking just because i have try to explain why something should not be added to the list and they don't agree. They have also mentioned it here [88] Kyle1278 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're spelling it that way in articles, then he's over the line. Rather than complaining about it and getting bent out of shape over it, he should merely ridicule you for it and be done with it. >:) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
69.243.191.241 is being a bit inappropriate here, and your warning on their talk page was correct. I've left a further explanation on their talk page. Unless they keep at it, I don't think any further action needs to be taken. -kotra (talk) 02:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments about the "Jewish POV" about the Holocaust on Talk:Ion Antonescu[edit]

Resolved: Moved to WP:FTN. Protonk (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Another incident on the Ion Antonescu page. Eurocopter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) claims that the article is POVed, and has tagged it for neutrality - I pointed out that the info, which could perhaps be rephrased, is compliant with the Wiesel Commission's report on the Holocaust in Romania - which is the view of mainstream historiography in Romania, and is the basis for legislation. While the article still needs a lot of sources, Eurocopter has stated his intention of replacing the info with quotes from an essayist with no scientific credentials who is often described, including by the Commission, as a "Holocaust revisionist" (see Talk:Ion Antonescu#NPOV and sources for sources on that). He considers the info in the article, sourced or unsourced, "communist propaganda-style facts and disinformation". Eurocopter's tags are designed around that, and reflect this intent of introducing questionable material - while the info is (partly) unsourced, or not clearly sourced, this is POV-pushing at its grandest. What I find especially worrying is a comment he made in relation to the Wiesel report as a source. Verbatim: "Regarding the so called Final report of the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON THE HOLOCAUST IN ROMANIA, I doubt its accuracy considering that the president of the comission was a jew (they were certainly not neutral historians). Unfortunately, the official position of the Romanian state in the past 20 years has been in accordance with foreign interests and pressures." How should wikipedia relate to such POVs? Dahn (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You may be able to find some assistance at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. - Nunh-huh 00:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, so moved. (I wasn't aware of that noticeboard.) Dahn (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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

New SPA[edit]

Resolved: User has been blocked 24 hours for 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrist Instability (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)

The user above has removed sourced content from the article Faceparty and has replaced it with unsourced biased comment. When confronted with this, he, like many users who get blocked for such, argues that truth is on his side, in more or less words. Either way, we have an obvious SPA here, and I don't really think there will be anything constructive happening once his 3RR block runs out. Any opinions?— dαlus Contribs 09:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

He was originally indef-blocked a week ago, and someone removed the block. Maybe the one who removed the block should be asked to re-assess the SPA's alleged "sincerity". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Which I did, but he has not yet responded. To clarify my point, the one who unblocked showed good faith, and the SPA stomped on it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Even though this is marked as resolved, I'm adding a bit of info in case this comes up again, which it probably will after the block expires. Wrist Instability (talk · contribs) isn't an SPA, as they've also edited several other articles not related to Faceparty. There are some clue-level issues with this user, and mentoring might be appropriate. (See multiple very long postings at my talk page starting here and going on for several sections.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

70.137.184.193[edit]

After coming off his block, this IP took offense to my removing trolling from his userpage comparing Wikipedians to Nazis, and, after his attempted restorations were reverted, has started marking them with a :L2 header as "Censored" ([89], [90], [91]). I've been reverting him on the grounds it's disruptive, but he insists on keeping at it and has called my removing it censorship. Could we give this user a bit more clue? -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 09:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(Comment: not sure if it has any bearing here, but the IP is editing another IP's talk page; though I have little doubt that the "new" editor is the same editor with the IP that was originally blocked. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 09:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC))
I noticed that right after I posted here and came here to amend, but he posted on my talk page before I came back here. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 09:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk page bullying by User:Harry the Dirty Dog[edit]

Resolved: Already being discussed at WP:AN/Edit warring#Harry the Dirty Dog etc. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

On Talk:Fritzl case, User:Harry the Dirty Dog reverted a good-faith comment, failing to use any edit summary and marking the edit as minor ([92]). Needless to say, I can understand why he has been accused of "bullying other users" ([93]). Because the IP's initial post contained unusual assertions that could reasonably lead one to question whether it was made in good faith, I decided to research the claims he was making, and I found a fair amount of support for them. Upon finding the IP's assertions reflected in a few sources ([94], [95], [96]), I restored the section ([97]) and added an explanatory comment ([98]). Harry then reverted me ([99]) due to his personal opinion that the sources I provided were unreliable. I refuted this claim in the edit summary of my second restoration of the material ([100]), and reiterated my belief that Harry's actions were inappropriate in a reply to another editor ([101]). Harry again reverted based on his personal opinion ([102]) and then reiterated that opinion on the talk page ([103]). I took issue with this opinion in my comment at the bottom of my next restoration ([104]), as well as in an addition to that comment ([105]). Harry then reverted me ([106]) with no edit summary, just as he had done to the IP, and even after I requested that he not revert my (and others') good-faith contributions to talk pages. He apparently has limited interest in engaging in civil discussion with his fellow editors (to be fair, he will sometimes explain his actions--[107]--but not before actually carrying them out, without seeking any consensus as to whether they should be carried out), and has taken the extraordinarily unusual step of edit-warring on talk pages. In addition to this, the apparent implication that his reading of WP:BLP is somehow superior to others' strikes one as condescending and, well, bullyish. Bear in mind that his recent actions are being discussed at WP:AN3. However, because the edit warring is occurring on talk pages, it A) limits the likelihood of an AN3 conclusion of "talk" and thus directs me to ANI, where the options remain comparatively open; and B) suggests that the issue at hand is not simply 3RR but also qualitative incivility and disrespect for fellow editors. Another editor has voiced concerns similar to mine on the talk page ([108]), tempting me to restore the section again on the basis that Harry is acting without consensus. However, I have not done so, lest I approach 3RR territory myself. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Other party advised of this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
3RR does not apply to WP:BLP reversions. The initial comments were not sourced (and the sources that Cosmic Latte has added do not meet the standards). The edit refers to the state of mind of a living person, thoughts he may have had etc., which violate WP:BLP as speculation. Even sourced speculation is still speculation, and not acceptable under WP:BLP. They can and should be removed immediately without discussion. It really is as simple as that. Harry the Dog WOOF 17:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The talk page comments Harry is deleting are indeed BLP violations and speculative junk that have no place in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with the suggestion offered in the IP's comment, but the appropriate way to voice such disagreement is via discussion, not reverting. Because the information is sourced, it does not blatantly violate BLP. Because it is arguably sensationalist, it arguably contravenes the BLP cause, "it is not our job to be sensationalist." The key word is "arguably," but there can be no argumentation when comments are removed rather than refuted. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit conflict] The sources might not meet your standards, but that doesn't mean others will agree with you. As the AN3 discussion demonstrates, the fact that you have an opinion does not guarantee that everyone else will share it. I have read BLP, and am aware of no prohibition against "sourced speculation." The fact that something is sourced makes it a plausible topic of discussion on talk pages. Opinions about the merits of the source may be discussed on the talk page, but they are not a justification for going on a rogue mission to censor good-faith edits on the talk page in the name of BLP. You have absolutely no consensus in favour of such a mission, and appear to have garnered a fair amount against it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Are you reading what others are saying? Another editor has backed me here and on the article TP. You don't need to form consensus for removing WP:BLP violations. They must be removed immediately, without discussion. The discussion should revolve around if and how the information could be included. If consensus evolves around an acceptable version, it can then be added. But speculation remains speculation, even if backed up by sources (and I maintain that the sources you included aren't reliable in any case) and we must err on the side of caution when including such things in a BLP. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Removing talk page comments may be questionable especially if the aforementioned speculation about state of mind goes no further. Asking a question does not necessarily mean that the topic being discussed would ever make it to the main article. I think if the question of speculation was approached on the talk page, it would allow for editors to comment on the appropriateness of adding the material to the article. There is a parallel "string" on this and a similar issue on this noticeboard. FWiW The issues seemed to be coming to a resolution and this new incident report is an escalation of the rhetoric. However, I can see both editors' viewpoints and neither is acting in anything but the best interests of the project/community. This still may be a classic case of a lack of communication. Bzuk (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC).
  • Please continue this at the Edit warring noticeboard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Bzuk and there is a huge difference between an editor commenting on the TP "I wonder what Fritzl thinks about that?" and saying, "Fritzl is said to be thinking X". The latter is what was on the TP (among other comments by the editor on his reaction to the news). That is why I removed it, although as I have said on the TP if the consensus is to let the edit stand that's fine by me. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Facepalm city. I can't believe someone seriously asserted that this addition was anything but an egregious violation of WP:BLP principles:
To be explicit, yes this was an entirely proper deletion of inflammatory speculation, and no this doesn't belong at AN/I. arimareiji (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I concur, the topic is already under discussion in an edit warring noticeboard still the removal of talk page commentary troubles me?! WP:BLP is almost an sacrosanct dictum, so I can appreciate Harry's concern if the supposition made it into the main article. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC).


There is no Wikipedia article for Robert Ackermann or even a deleted one. Googling the name tells the person's story. Nothing actually says Robert Ackermann killed a pedophile and it even says Robert Ackermann was 19 when he did the crime. Googling "Robert Ackermann" and then the word pedophile only finds one news link, this http://www.austriantimes.at/index.php?id=9632 and it purely talks about the Fritzl and basically all the stuff that the BLP issue centered around. It is a newspaper, though, and a reliable source. Well whatever this means for BLP, you be the judge. Though I must mention google isn't that reliable if you google "Austrian pedophile", well see where it says "Did you mean".

In addition, is this BLP issue to protect Fritzl? Or is it to protect Ackerman? This must be clarified. As the reason for blanking is unclear. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Self-reporting "vandalism"[edit]

Hi, I'm being called a vandal because I added a cite to the Atlantic Monthly and five books to the article Far right. If I am a vandal, can someone warn me about my vandalism, and if I'm not a vandal, can someone take a look at the recent contributions of 94.192.38.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log ·