Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive528

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

Noticeboard archives



I signed up less than a week ago to edit an article that I felt needed improving: Oliver DeMille. I found there a caretaker editor with a long history of warnings for violations who has tried to silence me with two administrative actions--a baseless sockpuppetry allegation, and now an investigation into whether I am Oliver DeMille (I am not). He refuses to address the question of whether my edits are appropriate--only that I am not. I note that he was given a "final warning" for editing violations in September 2008, which was repeated again this week. The communications between him and me (you may see on my talk page) and involving DGG, and in defense of the allegations of sockpuppetry which were made against me, will demonstrate that I have been peaceful and tried to address the issues of neutrality, form and content of the article. I have only resorted to this request for intervention after TrustTruth's second administrative action against me. I hope you will consider not just my interactions with him over the past week, but his fitness as an editor in general, as I think he has demonstrated either a lack of understanding or a lack of regard for the purpose and policies of Wikipedia.

I have a serious concern for my own security. Within two days TrustTruth has made two distinct requests (the sockpuppetry and on the talk page for GoodOlfactory) that an IP check be run on me. Will he have access to that information? If so, I object in the strongest fashion to this threat to my privacy and safety. He's starting to really freak me out.--Ibinthinkin (talk) 12:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The details of checkuser results are not made known to the masses here. All that's made public is whether the checkuser result came back positive or negative. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
There was one warning for me in September 2008 made by DGG. Ibinthinkin is running interference for himself here. --TrustTruth (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded to a request by TrustTruth to ask Ibinthinkin if he is in fact Oliver DeMille, since some of Ibinthinkin's edits to Oliver DeMille appeared to TrustTruth to suggest that he was. I agreed with TrustTruth's assessment of these edits--that some gave that appearance, since Ibinthinkin had access to very obscure sources about DeMille's school days and knew where to find a scan of an academic transcript on-line, for example.

Ibinthinkin has made a clear declaration that he or she is not Oliver DeMille. I am willing to believe Ibinthinkin and assume good faith on this matter. We have to assume that other editors are honest about things like this. I suggest that all parties drop the issue of Ibinthinkin's identity and return to a focus on content rather than users. Of course, any material that violates WP:NPOV or WP:OR can and should be removed from Oliver DeMille. (If there is ever any future evidence that Ibinthinkin has been less than candid with us, then we can deal with it then, but I don't anticipate that that will be the case.)

The sockpuppetry case is a different matter, and I agree that the CU should be performed so we can put that issue to bed one way or the other. No invasion of privacy will resulted from the check-user, just a positive or negative match will be returned. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The check-user was performed, and it confirmed that User:Arationalguy was a sock of User:4by40. Those two accounts have been blocked indefinitely. User:Ibinthinkin came back as "unlikely". So I hope we can put at least this issue to rest and try to begin to work together without the suspicion between the parties that has existed thus far. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A rather inappropriate dressing down on an AfD discussion[edit]

Resolved: Resolved for ANI, per Oliver's last comment on this thread. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have never complained before, but I just experienced a complete and unprecedented verbal tirade calling me every kind of moron under the sun, in very wonderful precise English, containing no vulgarity at all, but making me feel like a dumb school child. If it had appeared on my talk page, as a training tool (in a much more diplomatic way) I could understand, but I mean really... [1]. How can 3 words in a discussion (Delete: Original Research) provoke such a flood of didactic vitriol, that I'm tempted to grab a tissue. (just a bit of levity here) If this AfD discussion is archived, and this article were to be re-listed, this would be visible again, for all the world to see, perhaps even over and over. A wonderful tribute to the community. If the goal was to correct a mistake I made, the more appropriate place would have been my talk page. If the goal was to humiliate me, it succeeded. If the goal was to create a soapbox for a larger audience, I suggest Oprah. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 15:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Just as a note, the relevant discussion can be found here. I'll also inform Uncle G of this thread. TNXMan 15:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • UncleG does appear to have gone a little too far, especially as much of his point is an assumption of bad faith that people said to delete because of Harvard referencing (really?) --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Uncle G was wrong to make those assumptions about how the delete voters came to their conclusion. But it wasn't an assumption of bad faith. WP:AAGF. (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Quite right. I didn't assume that they were acting in bad faith. Indeed, I've already explained that I neither assumed that they were sheep voting nor assumed that they were ignorant of policy. I have no reason to believe that they have anything but the interests of the encyclopaedia at heart. But I have, in long experience, seen exactly this happen before, at AFD and at Proposed Deletion, time and again. People see an article that is badly structured, in whatever manner, whether it doesn't have summary style, or has Harvard referencing, is unwikified, and immediately say "essay". In many cases, all it takes is some cleanup, and then it's obviously a stub, not an essay at all. It never really was. It was merely an article in need of some cleanup, like this, for example.

          Ask yourselves a question: If you had first seen that cleaned up version of the article, properly wikified, with <ref> references, and the excessively repeated references consolidated, would you have concluded that it was an essay, or a simple stub in need of some stub tags, clarification, and expansion?

          Then ask yourselves another question: Why does Harvard referencing and bad structure make people think of essays? It clearly does, in my experience. The very ironic answer lies, in part, in this very subject at hand, a topic in social psychology known as source credibility, and its closely related topics of source values and source attractiveness. People do go by looks when presented with exactly the same information.

          Want to know more? Read the sources handily cited by the original creator in the article, the sources cited in the AFD discussion, chapter 11 (pp 180–183) of ISBN 9780761922537, and the works of Carl Hovland and others from as far back as 1953. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

      • Why don't people realize that acting like that will get people to disregard your arguments? Do people really think that being nasty is going to change people's minds in a debate? Chillum 16:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Except that I was not nasty in the way that the start of this discussion would make one think. I said no such things. I said nothing about morons, schoolchildren, or even surrender-eating cheese monkeys. I didn't address the editor at all, but the argument, the rationale, and the application, and misapplication, of policy. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment There seems to be a tendency to misunderstand that discussions regarding policy consensus are not supposed to be terse invocations of WP:TAGS. They are, I believe, supposed to be forums where the applicability of said policies are argued for. I can fully sympathize with what I understand as UncleGs frustration. It is unfortunate that you understood his (somewhat brusque) explanation of why your WP:OR tag invocation was incorrect as a personal affront. When you then seem to change the argument to be about notability and frame yourself as having been accused of sinning, he points out what he understands to be errors in your argument. If you fail to explain your argument and just invoke TAGS then clearly people will either interpret what your argument could be or choose to ignore them; UncleG didn't ignore you. To avoid such misunderstandings in the future it would probably be a good idea to fully articulate your arguments. Unomi (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
          • There is no word count guideline on AfD discussions. I felt it was a clear cut case, with nothing more than a template needed for clarification of my position on the article in question. The only one advocating a keep on this is the admin who attacked me. The 2nd response he made to me was what went out of bounds. "Cardinal sin" was a euphemism, I didn't ask to be psycho-analyzed about my deep-seated insecurities and shortcomings. There were 10 words in that diatribe that were honestly related to the discussion at hand. It was the 2nd response that was completely out of bounds. Even someone who is an admin should not have the right to "credibly" tell people what their motivations for thinking are. Is he psychic? I have a right to defend myself (to the extent I tried) when someone is being unreasonable. Also, I was kind of hoping from some Admin input here. The above user has been on Wikipedia for 30 days, and has already been accused of being a sockpuppet. Amazing how he has grasped the subtle intricacies of Wikipedia guideline theory so throrougly and closely to Uncle G, that they are virtually identical in structure and content. You two should consider a collaboration. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 17:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
            • Are you seriously now alluding to the possibility that I am a sock of UncleG? There may not be a word count guideline, probably because it should not need one for it to be understood that per discussion guidelines of the deletion policy that tag invocation is inappropriate. If you had read the policy regarding WP:OR and how it applies to reasons for deletion, and lived up to your responsibility to refer to the sources you would have understood that it was just plain wrong. I don't know how long you have been here, but that you have failed to read and/or internalize these policies is not a reflection on me. Considering your willingness to paint me in a negative light with the conjuration of 'sock puppetry' I also think that some Admin action is warranted here. That I may agree with UncleG in his interpretation of policy could just possibly be because it is the correct one. Unomi (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
              • While Uncle G's comments were definitely incivil and inconcise Oliver, there's really nothing to do here other than be the bigger man and let it slide. If he persists in incivility, WP:WQA might be an option. Otherwise this definitely isn't in need of immediate administrative intervention. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
                • I should not have to install etiquette templates on the user talk page of an admin. I'm not asking for him to be stoned in the public square, I just want whoever it is out there in the Wikipedia ether who evaluates Admins to have this information. I've already cracked a joke or two on Uncle G's user page to show there are no lasting hard feelings. Elvis will now leave the building on this topic. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 17:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Perhaps somebody more subtle than I could nudge Uncle G in the right direction with a post on his talk page? Chillum 17:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Having also recently had a somewhat fraught interaction with Uncle G, I'm not too surprised to see this. A look over his contribs shows an admin with an idiosyncratic attitude toward sourcing rules, who tries to enforce it by giving condescending lectures to highly experienced editors. I foresee WQA or other measures in the not-too-distant future if this continues. Looie496 (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Actually, what his contribs show to me is that he isn't really an admin but something much better: A content contributor (latest example). This takes a lot of work and dedication and offers a lot less instant entertainment and gratification than certain types of adminning, or arguing at AfD. And I think it's absolutely natural that when he sees a doomed article that he decides (or at least contemplates) to rewrite so it fits into the encyclopedia, with a lot of personal effort, he gets a bit angry with those who argue for deletion without at least giving a rationale that clearly makes sense. He shouldn't, but it's human. Both sides were wrong in this case. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The article seems to be a fork of Public speaking. Is there any need to comment on the merits or demerits of particular editors or administrators? Mathsci (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Having looked again, I think that User:Uncle G has made a valid point about the subject matter, despite the poor state of the article. He does argue forcefully, but so what? Mathsci (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I'm not angry at all. I keep pointing out that someone else is saying the things that are being asserted here, saying them about xyrself no less, and that I never wrote anything along those lines. It's someone else that is angry, too. If I were angry, I'd just go and do something else. I still have that food to buy, as a matter of fact. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No Wikipedian's arguments are presented more cogently, forcefully, and, yes, didactically, than Uncle G's. I suggest to Oliver, Looie, and whoever else takes offense at Uncle G's manner, to learn from what he has to say, or if you disagree with him, simply engage him in the substance of whatever the dispute is. If you feel condescended-to, it's probably because your stance is indefensible. (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Everyone is free to their opinion, but Gs forceful and condescending tone are inappropriate, whatever his motivations. It is also self-defeating. Whatever the merits of either argument, Gs tone and argumentative edits are not helpful or of benefit to the project. Verbal chat 18:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The didactic style obviously fails to persuade editors like Oliver in the short run. Maybe, eventually, after Oliver's and others' feelings recover from whatever injuries they sustained in what their psyches perceived to be G's verbal thrashing, they will emerge with a deeper understanding of the ideas G tried to impart. Or maybe not. (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm glad you agree there was a "verbal thrashing" (although not directed at me, at least not the first one, and I don't think that's what you meant...), and such behaviour is against our guidelines. Sometimes G is right, sometimes wrong, but his actions are harming his argument. My feelings weren't hurt, and I don't think many will be hurt by my getting a thrashing. Is there a reason you don't use an account? Verbal chat 19:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
          • No reason in particular. Can you say which guideline/s G has violated? (talk) 19:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G's arguments there are thought out, but thoughtless. He writes to defend, and does so well, (I voted keep after reading the deletion arguments), but he does write with either no regard, or deliberate disregard, for how his arguments will be received. He needs to learn to re-read his comments to be sure they not only say what he wants them to, but do so in a less derogatory and arrogant manner. that or learn to say 'and fuck you', at the end so we know he knows what he's doing. ThuranX (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • There wasn't anything derogatory in them. All of these derogatory ideas and names have come from OliverTwisted's own edits. I actually wrote nothing derogatory at all. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yet they were uncivil, they were rude, lacked tact, and were thoughtless. Verbal chat 19:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Did you read what I said? clearly not. You have an attitude that is apparent to many others, which comes through your writing, or worse, you write with it completely oblivious to it. Your writings come off as arrogant and condescending to others. that you not only aren't listening to anyone in this thread, but actively behaving in an obtuse manner about this matter shows me that you may be doing it intentionally. You need to stop thinking you are 'right' about things, and listen to what a lot of other editors are tellign you they take away from what you say here. ThuranX (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Err, who are you talking to? :) I'll take it on board anyway! I think this has run its useful course. Verbal chat 20:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break. He didn't call anyone names, behave coarsely toward anyone or act in a particularly cruel manner. As thuran said, thoughtless, perhaps, but so it goes. I get a little frustrated when I see this magical barrier being erected between AfD and other discussion pages, where somehow it is inappropriate to discuss other stated reasons for deletion on an AfD page. I find that interesting little interpretation invoked mostly when someone is upset at having their opinion questioned. AfDs are the kind of discussions where if no one had said what UncleG said, we would have gone five days with "delete per above" and "delete per nom". Comments are added and generated serially. If no one steps in to correct a particularly inaccurate nomination statement or deletion rationale, then it will go unanswered. If, instead, I came to your talk page and said "your reasoning in this AfD is flawed because of A, B and C", you might go back and modify it, assuming you agreed with me. Or you might not, and after 5 days of perfunctory responses, the article would likely be deleted. I see no problem with letting you know that you were wrong and why you were wrong. Retreating behind the veil of the user talk page doesn't further the overall discussion and frankly after a comment has already been made demanding that it be made in a different venue doesn't help matters. Protonk (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Also, will I get in trouble for telling Oliver that his complaint is baseless here, rather than on his talk page? Protonk (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The complainant seems quite unfamiliar with our processes. Apart from his excessive response to proper debate at AFD, the matter of which he complains is not appropriate for this venue, being handled at WP:WQA per the rubric at the head of this page. No admin action is indicated or called for here and so the discussion should be closed. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Please Close: This conversation has taken on a life of its own, even in my absence. I have resolved my differences with Unomi, Uncle G, and have thanked those who gave me appropriate feedback. I have no desire to continue distracting anyone from the serious work that needs to be done here. If I posted my concerns on the wrong forum, I apologize. Letting me know earlier in the discussion might have avoided some unnecesarry typing on the part of several editors. Again, my apologies. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) Moreover, as Oliver has stated that he no longer cares about the matter, is there any point to further dramatizing this situation? As other editors and myself have suggested above, WP:WQA may be more appropriate for this. Uncle G hasn't abused the mop in this situation, so Oliver's request that his conduct as an administrator be reviewed is unnecessary. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Repeated reversion of legitimate page move followed by profanity-filled outburst on talk page[edit]

I've been trying to keep C.A. Monarcas Morelia at that location, given the locations of articles about clubs with similar names (C.D. Guadalajara, C.F. América, C.D.S.C. Cruz Azul, etc.), but have run into resistance from Black N Red (talk · contribs). This is annoying, as I've tried to justify my move several times based on the fact that this is undisputedly the correct name of the article given the name of the club and article naming conventions for football clubs on WP, but it isn't the end of the world. I even left a comment on their talk page asking them not to revert without a legitimate justification. What followed was this, this, and this. I'm not a teatotaller or anything, but this is not discussion, and it is clearly rude and disrespectful. I've advanced legitimate reasons for my move, and they've been answered in this way, which is unacceptable. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:19, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you are trying to reverse a move that was made in Dec 2007 as a result of consensus. Why didn't you discuss this on the talk page before you did it? Looie496 (talk) 22:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm concerned more with the outburst afterwords. There is no justification whatsoever for that behavior. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, two people constitutes a pretty weak consensus. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
He's at it again, in case anybody cares. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Warned. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
...and to think that I responded to the WQA filing on the same subject a couple of hours ago. Grant - please note that once filed at one location (WP:WQA was the correct one in this case) then please do not re-file elsewhere, as it's considered to be "forum-shopping", and uses a lot of additional volunteer editing time. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog[edit]

Resolved: Back down to normal now. — neuro(talk)(review) 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If an admin or two could take a look, it would be much appreciated. - NeutralHomerTalk • April 6, 2009 @ 02:00

Seems to be over. — neuro(talk)(review) 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bot getting it wrong[edit]

Resolved: Bot operator has acknowledged the problem and agreed to fix it. No admin action necessary. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-bot has been approved (I found the page but can't find it again) to replace {{unref}} on living persons articles by {{BLP unsourced}} - BUT it is also moving that template to appear above any hatnotes on the page, as here, in contravention of WP:HNP which says "Hatnotes are placed at the very top of the article, before any other items such as images, navigational templates and maintenance templates (like the "cleanup", "unreferenced", and "POV" templates)". This move doesn't seem to be in the Bot approval. I've left a note on the editor's talk page, but the bot is rampaging on. Can it be (a) stopped from doing this and (b) made to correct the ones it's got wrong? PamD (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Found the bot approval: Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Mr.Z-bot 5. PamD (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
And at least one of the 100 examples in the trial makes this mistake: [2]
Why are you bringing this to AN/I? Just continue your discussion with the bot operator on his talk page. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Because the operator appeared not to be online, the bot was still running and I hoped it could be stopped from making further mistaken edits. Was that not the thing to do? Discussion is now ongoing on his talk page, and he's stopped it. Thanks. PamD (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran2 failing to respond to copyvio notices, still continuing after last AN/I thread[edit]

Resolved: Blocked 1wk by Xavexgoem (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) — neuro(talk)(review) 10:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Iran2 (talk · contribs) has persisted in uploading copyvios, even after the last thread on him, which was only from a few days ago. He is still failing to respond to copyvio notices, or engage in discussion about the images. I suggest a longer block. — neuro(talk)(review) 10:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

blocked 1 week, with blocknote. He can contest on his talkpage. Xavexgoem (talk) 10:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. :) — neuro(talk)(review) 10:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me steamrollering over this like that, but I've upped to indef. He was an obvious block-evading sock of a previously blocked user anyway. Let's delete all his images without waiting for the PUI process, I'd say. Fut.Perf. 15:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Urgent vandalism problem at Stormwater[edit]

Resolved: Template:Precision now fixed. — neuro(talk)(review) 17:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what happened, but the article Stormwater has recently been massively (and disgustingly) vandalised with a picture of faeces. I can't see how this has been done, as it doesn't even show up in the history! Could an admin please work out what has happened here, and revert it as soon as possible? Thanks. Robofish (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Template vandalism? The article seems OK now; I'd guess that a template used somewhere in the article was vandalised, and then fixed. Try checking the article again - and if it's still apparently vandalised clear your cache (Control-F5 on Firefox, I think) and check again. I saw a comment on WP:AIV about faeces pictures being used to vandalise a template - by the time I looked it seemed to have been fixed as well, so I'm guessing you may just need to clear your cache. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I still see it, even after pressing F5. It says 'Blame LOLiver' at the top, followed by text such as 'MURDER ALL GEORGIANS', 'THEODOR EICKE MASTURBATED TO THIS ARTICLE', and a large picture of shit-stained daipers. I can't see the 'edit' or 'history' tabs. Help! Robofish (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, it's gone now. And I still don't know what happened - must have been template vandalism, I guess. Robofish (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I think so - "THEODOR EICKE" was referenced on WP:AIV. Glad it's sorted out - that kind of thing is weird. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

2008 Greek riots[edit]

The name of the article was changed without consensus being formed. The claim made on the summary is clearly false. Maziotis (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(shrugs) Does it really matter whether it's "civil unrest in Greece" or "Greek riots"? What do people think it is, fraternity hazing? — Rickyrab | Talk 23:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
I started caring when I understood the guy who wanted to change this to "greek riots" was a right-wing activist who wanted to make the government appear clean on this one. The fact is that, contrary with what both anarchists and greek conservatives were saying, the event isn't exclusively about crazy youths throwing rocks over a "dead comrade". All sources like to sell paper by talking specifically about the riots, but all of them are naming the overall event "civil unrest". If you want I can give you a list. Maziotis (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, ignoring your personal attack, it seems like the majority of users at Talk:2008_Greek_riots support a rename back to riots. In fact, it doesn't look like anyone other than yourself wants to call it a civil unrest. Perhaps work on finding reliable sources (probably more likely from scholars over sensationalist newspapers) and come back in a few weeks or a month? Create a user subpage and work on it there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you please point out where have I made a personal attack? That was certainly not my intention. I do have a list of sources. And for a long time we were several arguing against just one editor. The problem is that those arguments were systematically ignored, and what took place just now was basically a head-count vote, with no respect for due process. Maziotis (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

←This really doesn't seem to be an ANI issue or particularly need immediate admin intervention. And considering the editor who performed the move and subject area in which the move was conducted, I'm reasonably sure this is just an attempt to resurrect the collapsed thread further up. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Heh. Your guess is understandable, but I can assure you this is wholly independent. In fact I suddenly found myself in full agreement with just those users I clashed with most strongly in the other case :-) This is a Greece-internal issue and the ideological frontlines are quite different. Fut.Perf. 16:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I stand corrected. :-) —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

What do we do about suicide threats?[edit]

If anyone wants to be a big brother (in either sense 718smiley.svg) here ya go. --NE2 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

IP appears to be an exit node for Illinois Wesleyan University. This probably should be sent in to their Dean of Students just in case. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fictional TOV[edit]

I've deleted Enrico Fermi High School, which contained a detailed account of a school shooting that supposedly occurred in 2005. Obviously, there was no such incident, but I've gone ahead and reported it to the Enfield, CT police and forwarded information to the school resource officer so they can look into it. No further action needed, AFAIK. Acroterion (talk) 21:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


Resolved: Resolved for now, continuations of this should go to AIV. — neuro(talk)(review) 16:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

An anonymous editor, possibly Melvenorc121 (talk · contribs) keeps spamming a link to an online glowsticking community to the page, ignoring WP:ELNO points 4 and 10 (see [3], [4] and the page history). I'm at the 3rr limit today but I wouldn't mind some outside opinions. IP has been warned [5]. Refuses to review the external links guidelines ([6]). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted again and gave final warning. AIV is appropriate if it happens again. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
...and now blocked. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll see your block and raise you one semi-protection. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 19:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Apparently rightly so; here's the off-wiki canvassing. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Nice catch. I've posted a note on talk:glowsticking. Hopefully it gets someone's attention and they'll stop. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"Blame LOLiver"[edit]

Resolved: Template vandalism reverted, AbuseFilter filter added. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Someone have done serious vandalism to Elbe class replenishment ship and possibly elsewhere. I have tried to revert it myself but it is not evident in the source what's wrong (the proper page is behind a box filling the page with disgusting pictures). My best guess is that the vandalism is done in some template. Good luck to whomever tries out to solve it. Steinberger (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Fixed now. — neuro(talk)(review) 17:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
No, It have not been fixed. F5 did not take it away, so I have looked at it from a separate computer. It is still there, the Theodor Eicke/feaces vandalism. Steinberger (talk) 17:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
If F5 doesn't work, try adding "?action=purge" (without the quotes) to the end of the url on the page. --OnoremDil 18:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It's gone now. Thanks. Steinberger (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The article Mu (lost continent) has been vandalized in a way that I cannot fix. Apparently the hack is in some template included by the page, but I could not figure out which one (<ref> or {{rp}}, perhaps?) or who did it. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be the same "Theodor Eicke" hack as above.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there's a very useful script available, User:Splarka/temused.js that can be installed in your monobook.js file; this script adds a tab labelled "Templates used" to the top of each page, clicking on this shows every template transcluded onto the page together with details of when the template was last edited and by whom. I would recommend any administrators without the script, and those who routinely report such vandalism install the script. Nick (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed the resolved tag[edit]

This has just occurred again, this time to the People's Republic of China - seriously looking terrible. The whole page was red and the only part that was scrollable was the part at the left (i.e. the column that starts with the Wikipedia logo. It also removed the edit/last etc buttons from the top of the page. Also, I can't remember the exact wording, but it said something like "Nikolai has a 5 lightyear long dick".

I had a look at the history of the page and it didn't show the hack within the history previews, so I reverted the last edit, hoping it was that. It seemed to fix the problem, but I reverted my revert just to double check, and strangely enough, the hack was still gone. So now we're back on the version it was at before I touched it, yet it shows no sign of the hack.

I have since purged and the hack is definitely no longer present. This has only JUST happened so if someone has a bit of know-how, then seriously look into it. I'll watch this page.

Control-alt-delete ★ usertalkfavs 22:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Original research (rants) in Yahoo! and Criticism of Yahoo![edit]

Can a neutral 3rd party please review the recent edits at Yahoo! and Criticism of Yahoo! by Optfx (talk · contribs), (talk · contribs) and (talk · contribs). I've been trying to keep out unsourced original research (rants) regarding the closing of Yahoo Briefase, and don't want to get into a 3RR violation. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim talk 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Optfx (talk · contribs) is edit warring again, and responding to anyone who tells him his paragraph is original research by blowing them off with a line about "March 30, 2009 was NOT Tuesday." [7] [8] He seems to be wholeheartedly avoiding discussion and edit warring now. Admin attention seems to be necessary at this point, thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 00:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted him again. It is now little more than POV-pushing vandalism. --ZimZalaBim talk 02:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppet[edit]

Resolved: indefblocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:AlanjohnsTheReturn is a sock puppet of User:Alanjohns (per user names and love of Eminem). Admin Spellcast marked Alanjohns as a disruptive sock puppet. — R2 20:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. indef blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Inflamatory comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Truth in Numbers[edit]

Resolved: Attack refactored.

Note this !vote and comment in the AfD. Since I voted to keep, and it's a delete vote, there is the appearance of COI. Will an uninvolved admin look and decide if it should be removed as inflammatory and/or WP:NPA violating? Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • It's definitely violating NPA and a host of other provisions we keep around to ensure that this remains a nice place to be. I'm less convinced it needs to be removed. Have you had a chat w/ the editor and informed him that his comment is being discussed here? Protonk (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    I've refactored the attack out. — Coren (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    No I didn't leave a message, since he/she retired. There was an MfD on his/her talk page also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Alkivar. — Becksguy (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    PS - I just left a message in case the editor un-retires, or checks in. Also tagged resolved here. — Becksguy (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


It seems a bit odd to me that this shiny new account, TruHeir (talk · contribs), would go through and be randomly adding {{fact}} tags to some 500+ articles, all today, including things that don't need citations or are already cited. The article selection is extremely random, from fist guest...everything from films and media series to country/city articles to biography. Seems like someone should take a closer look at this, though maybe I'm just suspicious natured. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

  • That user doesn't seem to be doing anything seriously wrong. It might be useful to encourage them to actually find references, rather than merely generating work for others. They seem to be picking articles more or less at random, and they're finding ones that predate Wikipedia's modern "must be cited to death" standards. --John Nagle (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I beg to differ with you, but it is editors who add unsourced material to Wikipedia that create work for others. Placing a tag on unsourced material merely points out where there is a problem, and is perfectly acceptable if the editor doesn't know where to find reliable sources for the material. I am also not aware of any exemption for older material from the verification policy. Having said that, I do think that an editor's choice to add {{fact}} tags appears a lot more creditable if that editor also adds sources for new and/or existing material in other articles. -- Donald Albury 13:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • That is a true statement, but it fails to address the question of how a brand new user gets into this kind of work immediately. It suggests that the new user could be a sockpuppet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • ...or it may constitute a "valid" use of an alternate account. Nevertheless, it's seems fairly obvious that the user has been on Wikipedia before. That, or it's like handing a bunch of manuscripts and a red pen to a University prof for the first time - they will definately find a lot of things to circle. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • It also appears more credible if he doesn't add fact tags to things that do NOT need an inline citation: film/series plot summaries and the lead where the statement is cited within the article proper, per WP:LEAD. The sheer quantity of it, the random nature of it, and it seeming to be the only purpose of the account also just seems odd to me...random editor see something and wants a source, yeah, fact tag. One on an apparent crusade of some description to tag it all? Almost wonder if its another one of those school assignments or something.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia's little "citation needed" note is not a secret known only to those that have graduated to the inner mysteries, nowadays. It's quite reasonable to suppose that someone new to Wikipedia itself may have heard of it elsewhere. Here in The Globe and Mail, for example. So it's not the simple use of the tags that should raise suspicion, but how they are used.

      I agree with John Nagle. A quick sampling of several of the edits shows nothing actually disruptive, and this is barely 2 days' worth of edits, so far. Not even the randomness is of particular concern. People pick random pages and work on them all of the time here. It's a widespread practice. Just ask any stub patroller, recent changes patroller, new pages patroller, or AFD patroller. Indeed, there is even such a thing as random page patrol. I'm sure that the fact that I have edited Jewish mother stereotype and Digger slang in the past week appears random, too.

      We were all new, once, and we all, at one time, needed to learn that we could boldly make improvements ourselves, editing the encyclopaedia without mercy in order to make it better, instead of timidly tagging areas of attention for other people. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, Collectonian, 500+ articles in one day WOW isn't that a bit much? I don't even think I've cracked 100 within the past 4 days. To Baseball Bugs I am not a sock puppet. This is my 1st account but I’m not “new” to Wikipedia. I use to make edits before I decided to create an account. You guys have clearly analyzed my edits and you can obviously see that it’s more towards geography and history. They aren’t as “random” as you think, history and geography are some of the things that interest me and there are several articles that’s I’ve come across with zero to little citations and references. That’s why I placed the tags. I’ve noticed that if you add or remove something from articles you can be blocked for vandalizing. I didn’t think that placing a tag that an article need references or proper citations was a problems. I really don’t think I have done anything wrong but please feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.

Take care TruHeir (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC) about a typo (that no one noticed until now :-P; you're at around 200 or so now). I was just concerned at the sheer number and that seemed to be the only activity on the account. There really isn't a need to stick in specific tag on so many articles that already already tagged as needing more citations. Also, the plot summaries in television, book, film, manga/anime, etc articles do not need citations at all - the series is the citation.[9] - nor does the lead of an article need a citation if the statement is cited in the article proper. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, I disagree with you. I find it hard to believe that the "plot summaries in television, book, film, manga/anime, etc articles do not need citations at all - the series is the citation". What if a person has never read the book or has seen the film? How will he or she know the information presented is correct? The reason I placed the fact tag on the Vampire knight’s plot was because everything from the characters, to the different versions, to the video game had references. And that was the only section that didn't have one. Same thing goes for the tag I placed in Dragon Ball. (one that you reverted) Looking at our edits I see that you are interested in anime and films etc. Maybe the edit I made upset you or something lol, either way please free to leave me a message on my talk page if you would like to discuss. Have a good day TruHeir (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It is long standing consensus that a plot summary does not need a reference. See any FL/FA list/article, etc and you will see this is so. The source IS the book, film, etc. Adding an explicit in-line citation has long been seen as pointless and silly. It doesn't matter if a reader has read the book or seen the film. Other editors can easily view the medium if they question something added. And no, it didn't upset me, just screamed "new editor" at me and was reverted, then I noticed you were seemingly randomly doing this on many articles and was concerned about a sock being pointy or the like (has happened before). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they seem random to you, I can't change that and no I really don't care about someone thinking that I'm a sock puppet. I only responded to Baseball Bugs because he said something like I was two new to know who to place a tag. TruHeir (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian, I think I misread what you wrote, were you saying that you were worried of a sock? I thought I you meant I was worried of being called one. Either way it doesn't matter, but I still disagree about plots not needing references. How about this, Since your the seasoned editor if I'm about to make an edit that I'm "unsure" of I'll leave you a note. Take careTruHeir (talk)
That doesn't really work, I'm afraid. You seem to be in no doubt that plot sections should be tagged as needing sources, when the established consensus is that they do not. If you persistently make that sort of edit, when it's been pointed out to you that it goes against consensus, then you're likely to be blocked for tendentious editing, causing disruption, or vandalism, or something similar. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Not just plots, etc. Take a look at this edit to Askelon [10] -- given a choice of a lot of unsourced possibly controversial stuff, TruHeir decides what really needs citing is whether a hospital was opened in a certain year. Something isn't right here Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Gut feeling is that you guys are overreacting here. I'm guessing that he's a good faith editor. Of course, I could be wrong, so feel free to keep an eye on him, but I'm not sure how much more discussion is warranted on here verses a talk page. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Jauerbach, I can't be as confident as you because I have encountered some puzzling edits by Truheir. Have a look at these edits TruHeir made to Atbarah River. The first asks for a source to the statement, "The Atbarah is the last tributary of the Nile before it reaches the Mediterranean." This is a statement that can be confirmed -- or denied -- by looking at a reliable map. Either it is the last tributary -- which is more than probable since from this point on the Nile enters the Sahara desert -- or checking a reliable map will show that it is a mistake, & should then be corrected. I don't think adding a tag here is the wisest solution -- it is disruptive.
As for the second edit, to a paragraph which contains two statements: the Battle of Atbara was fought beside the river in April 1898, & that it was dammed at Kashm-el-Girba in 1964. I am puzzled why someone would doubt that the "Battle of Atbara" was fought anywhere else than near ... Atbara? As for the existence of a dam, again I'd suggest this can be verified by examining any reliable map: either it exists, or it doesn't.
IIRC, established consensus is that uncontroversial statements -- like these three -- do not require a source. On the other hand, if TruHeir has found a source that shows one or more of these statements to be doubtful, Wikipedia would be better served if TruHeir shared this information, rather than flagging them with {{fact}}. So until TruHeir provides this information, I'm going to revert these tags, assuming this is simply a good-faith mistake made out of enthusiasm for accuracy. Reverting my edits -- or making similar edits -- would indicate she/he is not contributing in good faith. -- llywrch (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Again you all have clearly analyzed my edits you see that it focus mainly geography and history. I only made two edits to plots and I doubt that one edit to dragon ball and another to vampire knights constitutes as persistent tendentious editing. However thank you very much for the link, You are correct, I was in doubt about the plot sections. Collectonian didn't show me a link for the consensus he was talking about and I searched for it but could not find it, it’s funny to see this whole thing could have been solved with just a link. Thank you very much. It’s much appreciated like I said before no one should hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page, it's been a long chat and you all have a great dayTruHeir (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller, I placed the fact tag on this entire statement"- "Ashkelon was soon rebuilt. It was an important Hellenistic seaport. In the period of the Hasmonean Kingdom, Rabbi Simeon ben Shetach - Pharisee scholar and Nasi of the Sanhedrin in the First Century BCE - is reported to have on a single day sentenced to death eighty Ashkelon women who had been charged with witchcraft. Later, the women's relatives took revenge by bringing false witnesses against Simeon's son and causing him to be executed in turn" - claims that it was an important seaports and other claim but yet there were no refs to show . the tag was not for when a "hospital" was open, why the lies? Also that wasn't even the only part of article I placed a citation tag on. I'm really not going to do this back and fourth thing its like I'm pleading a case and people are trying to find something aganist me and I haven't even done anything wrong so I'm done TruHeir (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You've called me a liar, that's clearly wrong. And ironically, you seem to have forgotten where you put your citation tages. The ne on the paragraph you mention is dated July 2008, you added a tag to the paragraph below. If you knew why you added your tag I'm confused as to why you've forgotten where you added it. It's no good adding a tag to a whole paragraph as the citation needed tag should apply to the sentence you are tagging - see Template:Fact. Also please date your tags. A "refimprove" tag to the whole article in this case would have been fine and I've added one. Dougweller (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can or should anything be done about[edit]

Resolved: Consensus is to ignore. Page is on CAT:TWU anyway, so should be deleted automatically after a time Tonywalton Talk 10:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


A couple of weeks ago Raquel Baranow was reported on here for soapboxing, POV-pushing, introducing inappropriate external links to her own website ( and so on, mainly on articles concerning 9/11. Several editors, notably Georgewilliamherbert (to whom kudos for his patience), tried hard to explain WP:POV, WP:RS, WP:V and all the rest to her. Raquel's response was that she was "learning", and, eventually, to withdraw for a short period, citing ill-health. When she returned she resumed the contentious editing mainly on talkpages. Eveutually an Arbitration Enforcement was filed, citing WP:ARB911. After some less-then-productive input there she was today indef blocked. So much for the background.


Raquel, having copied pretty much all of the original AN/I discussion and the AE discussion to her talkpage, is linking from her website to that talkpage under the title "Wikipedia Censors Raquel Baranow: Orwellian Thought Control (April 2009)".

My question[edit]

  1. While I realise that the talkpage she's linking to does contain a complete record of the block discussion (as far as I can see she's not redacted it to distort what happened, and it's all followed WP processes) the context of the link, and the possible readership of her site, are likely to combine to bring WP into disrepute as a "censor" (especially as many casual readers won't be familiar with WP processes).
  2. Currently her talkpage is not protected; would protecting it so she can't edit it further be a good idea so she can't, in future, edit it to make herself look like an innocent victim of "Orwellian Thought Control"?In fact strike that, I've just full-protected it. Please feel free to remove protection if protection wasn't appropriate.
  3. Is there any general policy for people setting up incoming links, particularly POV links, to WP?

Tonywalton Talk 21:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad to see that hate-mongering troll has been blocked. As for incoming links? I don't think there's anything wikipedia could or should do about it. If there's objectionable content here, we delete it. There are tons of people ranting all over the internet about the leftist/rightist/fascist/communist/ etc... wikipedia. And that's fine. She's just another marginal voice among them.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Most of what is on her/his talk page is copied from elsewhere on WP, e.g. WP:AE, WP:ANI and Talk:Holocaust denial. It was an odd thing to do. The website has a lot of quite vile things on it which contradict what was claimed on wikipedia, e.g. the unequivocal self-identification as a holocaust denier there (amongst other things). However, the website is very badly set up and largely unreadable because of superimposed text. I don't think the link is problematic. Mathsci (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think any website can have a binding policy over incoming links (except one that evinces a desire to make mischief with those who hotlink images). that said, the user is blocked and will eventually tire of this particular avenue of protest. It is in our best interest to just ignore them. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Can't see us doing anything about it coming in; I'd have just left it alone, personally, until she started soapboxing, then blank and protect. Good block, though, she wasn't showing any indication of Getting It anytime soon. (And anyone who uses 'U' for "you" makes me grind my teeth painfully, so...) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think this is a bad case of the soapboxes that should be blanked. We are not here to offer a platform for grievances from effectively banned users, and a talkpage is not meant to be a diatribe. They have their own website, let them host their own rants. — Coren (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ignore - After looking at the site [11], the best option seems to be to ignore it. I can't see anyone taking that seriously, other than as an example of the worst web design seen since 1997. --John Nagle (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Ignore Heck, by talking about it, we give it more credibility than it deserves. I was right though about this editor WAY back when, aw this block coming about a mile away. Wildthing61476 (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your inputs. I'm flagging this as "resolved". Tonywalton Talk 10:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Where's the Good Mice Brigade when you need them?[edit]

Could some good mice perhaps keep an eye on Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia? Edit-war in full swing, and I'm tired of handling it. Thanks all you groovy guys and groovy gals, Fut.Perf. 21:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I had a look through the last 20 or so edits and while there were a few reverts it seems that productive editing outweighs warring. I'll watch the page, for what it's worth. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 21:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually it's all settled now - see the talkpage. --Laveol T 21:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the other thread about Future was closed as no consensus, perhaps some good mice could also see what he has written in Talk:Greece/Naming_poll#Results_summary and weigh on whether this kind of categorization is conformant to Wikipedia policy and ethos? In the meantime, you can also look at him mass-reverting articles claiming that there is clear consensus.--Avg (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with noting that Greek editors are lining up on one side of an issue when that's the plain truth of the matter. On the other hand, there is something wrong with throwing around bogus accusations of racism, as some people have been doing in an apparent attempt to distract everyone's attention from the obvious problem of ethnic-nationalist point-scoring. As for reverting policy-violating edits, it's a disagreeable task but someone has to do it. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Cla68 and deliberate canvassing[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One bad step does not a block make. If Cla68 persists, maybe there will be something to discuss. I'll leave a note on the AFD that some votes may have been canvassed. In the interim, go to for all your drama needs, the servers are running out of electrons. Love, WilyD 15:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Cla68 is engaging in apparent deliberate canvassing off wiki to influence deletion debates. He did so here where he links to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scott Waddle and says explicitly "And yes, I am canvassing off-wiki for support for the deletion." When I asked him about this he remained apparently unrepentant.[12] This is in direct violation of WP:CANVASS in the most blatant fashion possible. Whether or not one agrees with Cla68 that deletion of marginally notable BLPs is correct and whether or not one agrees with him that this is a marginally notable BLP in question, this is a clear attempt to violate basic policy and interfere with basic consensus forming mechanisms. This needs dealing with. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

feels like joshuaz is stalking/trolling cla68 to me. Even if cla was incorrect in canvassing for the afd. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That has nothing to do with it. Canvassing is still wrong, and Cla is wrong. Grsz11 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
but what does posting a drama note here gain? they had a conversation on cla's talk page where each position is made clear. Is cla going to get blocked over this? A quick read of the afd indicates that it's not going to be deleted. So the canvassing was to no effect anyway. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Cla68 warned to stop the canvassing and that this was intentionally disruptive.
Yes, this is a blockable offense. To my knowledge Cla68 hasn't been disruptive or otherwise abusive in any way recently, so block on first offense would be excessive, but it's a blockable offense. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Calling this a "drama note" is completely underselling the offense. Looks like Cla68 is not only canvassing, but doing so to prove a point, and inviting people from a place that's not pretty much anti-wikipedia at all costs. Dayewalker (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's not have another "Bash WR" thread - there are wikipedians in good standing who participate there, honest and constructive external critics, as well as some less constructive critics. Painting the whole site as hostile is not helpful.
There was no unanimous support for Cla68's position there in the thread, once posted, so it wasn't a knee-jerk response on "their communities" part either. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
[13] [14]. Cla68 (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Cla was just blocked for 48 hours by GWH. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 01:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 48 hrs for blatantly violating WP:CANVASS, disruptive and pointy editing, immediately after warning not to... This was not constructive or helpful to the cause of convincing the community to reduce the number of lower notability BLP articles, Cla68. Please edit in a more constructive manner going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The WP:CANVASS policy doesn't seem to make any mention of off-wiki canvassing, and focuses only on canvassing within the wiki itself. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Quoth WP:CANVASS, "Because it is less transparent than on-wiki notifications, the use of email or other off-wiki communication to notify editors is discouraged unless there is a significant reason for not using talk page notifications." But yeah, sure, maybe "off-wiki communication" means "only canvassing within the wiki itself." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Boris, what you quoted was in the "Stealth Canvassing" section. other off-wiki communication obviously referred to stealthy communication. There's nothing stealthy about a Wikipedia Review post. -- Noroton (talk) 04:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm confused. Could George or anyone please explain what specific part of WP:CANVASS was violated? When I first saw Cla68's post at WR, I took a look at WP:CANVASS and couldn't find it. The closest thing I could find was WP:CANVASS#Campaigning: Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent. But that sentence is immediately followed by this exception, which Cla68's Wikipedia Review thread is covered by: While this may be appropriate as part of an individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages. He opened a discussion there. The matter was discussed there. He linked to the AfD, which is reasonable. He said he hoped people would vote to delete. I don't see the disruptiveness of that. I don't see that that's worth a block. Please enlighten me. -- Noroton (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
He did so with the explicit purpose of getting delete votes. He was very explicit. He was aiming at a group of people he thought would be sympathetic to his viewpoint. WP:CANVASS is quite explicit: "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." Regarding Dan's claim: that's precisely why the policy has a section against so called stealth canvassing. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec with Fozzie, below) I thought his I-am-canvassing statement over there was deliberately provocative and incorrect. I think what your arguing contradicts the spirit of WP:CANVASS. Your quote refers to "messages", but Cla68 began a discussion at WR, not a series of similar or identical "messages" cross-posted. Beginning a discussion, wherever you do it, is simply different from posting an announcement. And your quote is out of context. The rest of the first paragraph (the first half) reads, Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion.[1] Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions I think it could be written with more clarity, but "messages" implies cross-posting, not starting a discussion somewhere else. Discussion is supposed to be what leads to consensus. It cannot be the intent of WP:CANVASS to squelch discussion but to squelch the disruption caused by spamming user talk pages and mindless, repetitive notices. Your reading is against the spirit of the guideline. -- Noroton (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
First it was deliberate, outright canvassing, now it's stealth canvassing? Seems to be incompatible with each other, somehow (confuzzled)..... I really don't think GWH's actions are really beneficial. In short, it's an action that will raise drama, and not lower drama. I suggest that GWH undo the block. Note: I'm not saying that Cla68 is totally in the right here. He did admittedly canvass the folks on the WR thread. I suggest that instead, any !votes that would have resulted from the AfD (such as mine, if was logged in), be discounted. That probably would be more proper then an over-reaction (GWH) to an over-reaction (Cla68). (Fozzie, not logged in) (talk) 03:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Not my point. My point is that the notion that stealth canvassing is a problem only makes sense in a universe where off-wiki canvassing is problematic. In any event, off-wiki canvassing is not acceptable. It hasn't ever been acceptable. And Cla68 knew that. He responded to a formal warning about that with contempt for the admin making the warning. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Your position would disallow, say, bloggers who are Wikipedia editors from discussing current AfDs or other discussions. The off-wiki prohibition concerns stealth canvassing, not open canvassing. -- Noroton (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Discussing open AfDs with the stated purpose to canvass for a specific viewpoint is not ok. That's not new and that's exactly how we respond whenever some SPA tries to do this on some random internet forum. Cla68 isn't any different simply because he's a long-time, very productive user. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
So, if I were to open a thread at Wikipedia Review and restate what I've just stated here, I could be blocked for violating WP:CANVASS for trying to canvass about this AN/I discussion? If I left out the words "And I think you should all go to that AN/I page and help create a consensus on behalf of Cla68" then would I suddenly not be canvassing? Preventing discussions elsewhere is not workable, it furthers nothing that WP:CANVASS wants to promote, it discourages nothing that WP:CANVASS actually wants to discourage. And it doesn't help the encyclopedia in any way. -- Noroton (talk) 04:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. We're not talking about someone adding in a magical phrase. We're talking about someone who explicitly stated that they were posting it to a specific forum to get a specific result. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Quit crying. You do seem to be arguing about someone adding a magical phrase ("I am canvassing"). What matters is not whether or not he states it, but whether he actually does it. -- Noroton (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In my view, WP canvassing policy is rather hypocritical as it seems to give a wink and a nod to certain types ("JUST SAY NO to FLAGGED REVISIONS" claptrap flashing away in the corner when you visit someone's talk page) while disapproving others. This block was not a good one, and I suggest it needs to be overturned forthwith. ++Lar: t/c 04:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Lar, so you agree that GWH has correctly interpreted policy as it stands? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
No. If I had, I would have said so. What part of "this block was not a good one" were you having trouble with? ++Lar: t/c 04:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The part where you said that "WP canvassing policy is rather hypocritical " which only makes sense in this context if GWH has correctly interpreted policy. In any event, note that given Cla68's response it seems pretty clear he thinks that that's policy too. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Meh. Ok let me be more specific since you seem to be trying to misunderstand me. The policy is lame. The block is a bad block even under a strict interpretation of the policy as written. These two facts are independent of each other. The block should be overturned forthwith as it's not sustainable once a few more admins with clue turn up, would be my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Consider the issue minus the personalities: if this were an AFD for a biography of a knitter, and a participant to the discussion had posted in a similar manner to an online forum about knitting, what would our reaction be? What's good for the goose is good for the gander; same rules for everybody. DurovaCharge! 04:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

WR is not devoted to either knitting or removing BLPs, so the point is invalid. Now I wish I'd gone to that AfD and voted Keep, as I was thinking of doing. -- Noroton (talk) 04:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Quite valid; no online knitting forum is devoted to removing BLPs either. If someone had posted to any other open online forum about an AFD in exactly the same manner, what would the reaction be? DurovaCharge! 04:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec with Lar, below) Hopefully the reaction would be for thoughtful Wikipedians to get involved in the AfD discussion. This is no different from a blog posting. You have a blog. Should you be prohibited from commenting in your blog on a discussion on Wikipedia? You should be able to post your opinion off-site just as you should be able to on your talk page (flashing "JUST SAY NO to FLAGGED REVISIONS" or a long essay), which WP:CANVASS clearly doesn't forbid. If you get away from the spirit of what WP:CANVASS is about, you get tied up in all sorts of conundrums. Start asking yourself if this kind of policy of blocking people for this kind of "canvassing" can be good for Wikipedia. (I'm commenting too much here. I'll withdraw for now.) -- Noroton (talk) 04:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec's)Actually I have seen several threads over at WR which have devolved into "Wikipedia needs to delete all articles about living people" echo chambers. Guettarda (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow you. The reaction would be a banner saying "if you were brought here, remember AfD is not a vote" and that would be that. This is BADSITES overreaction. ++Lar: t/c 04:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This is quite simple. The specifics of who it was or which site it was are irrelvant: if it were anyone else, posting in the same manner to any other forum, how would we handle it? DurovaCharge! 04:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
(ec's)IIRC, the Rama's Arrow et al. RFAR was based on off-wiki canvassing among like-minded editors, and a huge amount was made about Filll sending out a emails to people who had voted "no!" on Giggy's prior RFA. I didn't follow the RFAR, so I don't recall the outcome, but even though Filll was unaware that there were rules against canvassing, he was subject to some pretty serious hounding. So no, this would be a serious problem even if it were a knitting forum... Guettarda (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
As I outlined, just above. Put a banner up on the vote and that would be that. ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Is that the way they handle this at AFD these days? I don't participate there very often. BADSITES has been dead letter for two years; it seems to be a red herring to even mention. Whatever would be done in an equivalent situation with other editors and other fora, please do the same here. DurovaCharge! 04:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we're there. The banner is on the AfD already and the editor is not blocked. The only remaining cleanup is a trout for GWH and JoshuaZ. By the way, Cla's "canvassing" caused me to go read the article, think about whether the person is notable or not, and vote "keep" in the AfD. Some canvass, it worked really well, if it got me, a pretty hardline BLP deletionist at this point to vote keep. ++Lar: t/c 05:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Threads like this make me glad I don't spend more time at AFD. Not sure anyone deserves a trout slapping here. Seems to have been a good faith thread. Just a couple of old hot buttons converging. Heading back to Photoshop now; restoring an 1850s photo of the Suez Canal. It's much more peaceful. DurovaCharge! 05:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, comparing or associating things with BADSITES is my job! You guys are violating my patent, or trademark, or copyright, or something. (Hey, am I violating WP:NLT now? I guess I'd better call somebody a Nazi so I can violate Godwin's Law as well.) *Dan T.* (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkey (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has unblocked, just about the time that I was granting the unblock request (I do those first before the unblock, for whatever reason...) Clearly no consensus for the block exists. ++Lar: t/c 04:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok Lar, so may I ask how you reconcile Cla68 unblock request with his earlier replies to me and GHW? Because frankly it seems pretty clear to me that Cla68's unblock request was made after this novel interpretation of CANVASS showed up. It is completely inconsistent with his earlier remarks. If he thought it was ok, he would have said so then. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Easy Peasy. Don't believe everything you read, for starters, with a dash of WP:DENY for good measure. The other day, someone was demanding to be blocked for some supposed transgression. I didn't oblige them because blocking them played into their hands. Suppose Cla68 WAS making a POINT... you and GWH just played right into his "diabolical plot", and what's more, you can be counted on to do it again and again. But I don't think he was, any more than I would be if I posted on my blog that I thought a particular article needed to go. The policy, interpreted correctly, does not disallow public statements about AfDs, there was no policy violation. As I already said, above. Really JoshuaZ... think, man, think. ++Lar: t/c 05:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you everyone, for your support. Let's not miss the real issue here, however, which is BLPs on marginally notable people. These articles are not watched by very many editors, and are thus extremely vulnerable to abuse. My AfD for the Waddle article was for that reason. I truly do regret creating that article on Bill May, now it will be hard to get it deleted, and it's my fault for creating it in the first place. He doesn't deserve having that bullseye painted on his back that that article represents under Wikipedia's current BLP system. Cla68 (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Bloody ridiculous trolling block. I regularly post to other sites discussing my AfD nominations and how the response shows the inherent weaknesses in wikipedia. Have I been blocked? Have I even been warned? And can someone please tell me how this block is any way preventative? Was there a Cla would do it again in the next 48 hours. NO. This was a trolling block intended to cause drama, make a point, and wage another round of the imaginary war against the Dark Forces of Wikipedia Review.--Scott Mac (Doc) 08:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

See [15] (a link to WR and it's not behind proxify) where Scott says:
Oh, I've just AfDd Gloria Chang who is utterly not notable.
Perhaps people here would like to vote in this discussion - I could use some deletion support.
Sorry for bothering you with my canvassing.
So, GWH and JoshuaZ... make the case to block him too. If you don't, you prove the point that your block of Cla68 was ill founded and politically motivated. If you do, I'll be watching WP:RFAR where I predict I'll be seeing you soon enough. YHBT. HAND. ++Lar: t/c 11:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS specifically in intended to apply to articles and deletion arguments, but from the immediately above it seems to have wider applicability. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review is becoming a canvassing central for certain wiki-factions to increase their on-wiki power. Lar and Scott MacDonald are among those often using WR for that. WR-readers are well known to be BLP-deletionist. The only difference between this and canvassing for deletion of a Kosovo topic on a Serbian forum, is that WR member carry more on-wiki clout. BADSITES is an obvious red herring. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's called "discussion", Apoc. It's public and can be read by anybody. Before I joined WR, I read it and sometimes went to AfD and other discussions -- as often as not to oppose what the person wanted who brought up the matter at WR. It's a discussion board, not a political party. We're all better off if we have more forums like WR where people interested in Wikipedia can discuss, trade ideas and learn where on this massive website there are important decisions being made (other problems with that website, which I've complained about loudly, have nothing to do with what we're talking about here). Shedding light makes skulduggery more difficult. It's not like a Serbian forum at all. The only way that discussions on that site, which is in English and is concerned with Wikipedia as a whole, can "increase ... on-wiki power" is the same way you do it right here: by making an argument that people find convincing. That's supposed to be what getting a consensus or prevailing at AfD is all about. -- Noroton (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not trying to forbid WR. I do no want to, and it wouldn't matter if I did. I disagree with how it is sometimes used. Selectively inviting people to a discussion with loaded language to fake a desired consensus is the problem with canvassing. It is similar to having a popular culture inclusionists noticeboard where you can go to get those extra keeps needed. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
"Lar and Scott MacDonald are among those often using WR for that" [citation needed]. Seriously, where do you get the idea that I ever do any such thing? Not that there's anything wrong with raising issues on an external public forum. When you say stuff like that, you come off sounding rather foolish, I'm afraid. ++Lar: t/c 15:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on Lar, "foolish"? If it wasn't for long, tortuous defenses of misbehaviour by the WR crowd (that and elections for whatever new position becomes available), I don't think I'd ever encounter your username. I can't say the same about Scott, I see him everywhere I turn. So while it's perfectly valid to ask Apoc to support his/her assertion, one doesn't look "foolish" when one's comments ring so true. Guettarda (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry to throw around more of this, but I found it to be a bad block as well. Gathering that we have far too many BLP's and far too many BLP's with serious issues, perhaps it is time that we start throwing out the trash and focusing on what we can adequately fix and spend our resources on. seicer | talk | contribs 12:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I realize this is now moot but.. considering that AfDs are not actual votes but supposed to be discussion of policy any canvassing *should* only serve to supply more policy based evidence. If the AfD process is broken to the point that closing admins don't distinguish between simple votes and actual policy arguments then that should be addressed. Unomi (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
True. But that has always been the case. Canvassing votes has always been frowned upon unless you make the effort to invite all sides. Outside canvassing has been unacceptable at least as far back as 2004 or early 2005 (when I became aware of a VFD via Daily Kos; that caused quite a shitstorm...and rightly so, I now realise). The issue of public or private canvassing is entirely beside the point. Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I also feel this was a bad block. The better thing to do would be to abort the AFD and then restart it once the furore had died down. If the article is bad enough we already have a provision under BLP to delete it without discussion so no BLP vio need be tolerated by the approach. Spartaz Humbug! 14:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That's not new and that's exactly how we respond whenever some SPA tries to do this on some random internet forum. - Wrong - We don't block when that happens. (of course, that may be because in those cases they're usually trying to get the article kept, and you're an inclusionist. But whatever.) --Random832 (contribs) 15:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Henry Delforn[edit]

While patrolling pages from the "new pages patrol backlog", I stumbled upon Anna Baltzer. After initially tagging it for several perceived problems, User:Henry Delforn posted this rather nice "thank you" note on my talk page. Although I had initially not watchlisted the Baltzer article, I then decided to give a hand and performed an admittedly rather rigorous clean-up of the article. This revision was reverted to its original state by Henry Delforn without any comment. I then posted a message on his talk page, explaining what I had done (please also note that I had provided rather detailed edit summaries in the different steps of the cleanup) and re-reverted back to the cleaned-up version. This was met by (1) again a reversion to the original version, (2) this accusatory note on my talkpage, and (3) the same message emailed to four of my "real-life" email addresses, which does require (albeit perhaps not much) some Internet searching to find personal information about me.

I guess that opinions may diverge about my revisions to the Baltzer article, although I assure that I acted in good faith and could have been talked about. However, they certainly did not merit the above described personal attack. Given the severity of this attack, I have decided not to take this up with this user, but bring it immediately here. I will place a notification of this action on his talk page, but will refrain from further interactions with him and will not edit the Baltzer article again. --Crusio (talk) 07:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Message left (with welcome template) on user's talk page, your version restored (my message specifically referred him to WP:EL as well as WP:Civil. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks, much appreciated! --Crusio (talk) 10:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
User:Dougweller - By simply reverting and not improving the article you are just taking subjective "sides". Do something to improve it.Henry Delforn (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I just did that by suggesting how you might use the 'Sponsorship' links that fail WP:EL but might (I'm not saying will), be useful within the article as references if they mention her. And I think my reversion improved the article or I would not have reverted. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

vandalism on Michael_Robertson_(businessman) article ..[edit]

This issue has now been listed at BLPN per Emacsuser's request. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"In 2005, Robertson stepped down as CEO in favor of Kevin Carmony. Carmony resigned from Linspire in July 2007, after several hundred thousand dollars went missing from the company. He continues to make slanderous comments about Robertson on the Internet. He was questioned under oath about a great many things regarding his actions and will not discuss publicly the answers he gave under oath", Leslieaudra emacsuser (talk) 12:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to before the dispute, but this belongs on WP:BLPN. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)----
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lester Coleman help please[edit]

Nobody intervened on my last attempt to get administrators involved. Now there appears to be a possible threat of legal action (see talk page). I'd appriciate it if admin's intervene. Thank you.Nrswanson (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you think an admin would be able to do? An implausible legal threat by an IP is not really actionable, except by blocking the IP, which isn't all that useful. Looie496 (talk) 00:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Word of advice: provide diffs if you want faster results. "See talk page" isn't helpful and people passing by aren't going to help if you don't put in the slightest effort. Now, I'm going to archive the inappropriate sections as a violation of WP:TALK. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, note the fact that the IP address is located in California for a man supposedly in Lebanon with counsel in New York, to an IP address whose talk page has a long history of shenanigans makes me doubtful about its voracity. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Just ignore it. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I cannot read a legal threat in the signed posting. If Coleman is indeed dead, then it is only natural that his interests are represented by a attorney. Claiming to be a laywer is not in itself a legal threat. It seem that Nrswanson is only trying to push a POV here, which just happens to be the same as the one pushed by the hoaxter. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S. - Whether the poster is Coleman himself or his attorney does not really matter. As a possibly living person this clearly falls under WP:BLP. Coleman has every right to object to the content of his article without being censored. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Um... POV? The same as the hoaxster? Both absolutely false. The only thing I am advocating is that the content be cited to reliable sources. Where exactly are my interests in line with the hoaxster? I removed all of the hoax content. As far as I can tell I have opposed every single piece of content not cited to reliable evidence. My only goal has been to rid the article of original research/false information. Further everything I have done has been in the interest of the guidelines at WP:BLP. If you are going to make accusations provide some evidence. Further, the IP address claiming he is Coleman's lawyer is located in California and not New York as claimed. You are making too many assumptions Petri Krohn about the anon IP's identity. Even if he were Coleman or connected to him in some way, then its a clear case of WP:COI. Nrswanson (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Pietru il-Boqli's editing [16] spicked with his edit summary pearls before swine. Is this alowed? Pietru think it is on grounds it being a perfectly respectable Hebrew idiom. In the previous link he accused me of being pointedly racist. What should I do? Advise me, please. These are not the only transgressions of Pietru against me, and I have come forward now.

He labeled other editors as racist [17] and described why this is not an offence but as he put it User talk:Pietru/Archive 1#Blocked, or, Why Wikipeda is full of Sycophants. For that he received 1 week block.

Imbris (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Interesting he should say pearls before swine is a Hebrew idiom. This is from the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 7, verse vi: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet", meaning (basically) "some people don't understand how good what they're being told really is". It's a marginally uncivil edit summary and I'm warning him about it. Tonywalton Talk 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
    • What about he accusing me as being pointedly racist [18]. He has labeled one editor before as being racist. -- Imbris (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Your use of the word "spicked" in that diff appears to be a typo or mis-spelling, though from context I'm not sure what was intended. You may not be aware that the word "spick" or "spic" is a derogatory term for a person of Latino origin. As read, your post could indeed be seen as racist (though assuming good faith I'm sure it wasn't intended that way. I suggest you contact Pietru and explain this was a misunderstanding. (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC) well who needs a CU? That was me, that was, not logged in on the secure server) Tonywalton Talk 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Obviously I meant spiced. What about his accusatory methods. -- Imbris (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Jesus Christ (a Jew, hence Hebrew) used the idiom, in a gently chiding and generally wise manner. Apologies if anybody here feels 'swine' is somehow derogatory. I referenced Imbris' racism in that he asked for details on my ethnicity, after using the argument that my edits were ethnically biased. He persisted along this line until things got to a head. I am still unclear as to why his revisions are not being looked at critically in hopes of consensus: I've listed many of my objections and points on the Maltese dog talkpage.
His blanket reverts of my work or simply removing what he doesn't take the time to understand (eg. the position of maleth v malat in Phoenician, a Semitic language).... I have never, since the page got cleaned up, tampered with his good work in the history section, for example. But tolerating random changes and insidious wording (possibly due to Imbris' lack of technical skill when it comes to English) flies in the face of making the encyclopedia truly useful. Pietru (talk) 23:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(1) You have not phrased your edit summary as: Jesus Christ said something and something which would be properly quoting someone.
(2) I have never asked for details about his ethnicity. His superb knowledge of the English language is what I have commented, and commented in a indubiously positive way.
(3) I have never said his editing is ethnically motivated, simply noted that his POV is using as much as wikilinks and names of the same locality in the article. This is his attempt of equalization of approaches (in editing and discussing) and laying the blame upon the other editor. Calling me a racist is the continuation of labeling editors with defamatory labels (such as vandal, racist, antisemitic, ...)
(4) I have not persisted anything. When offended I tryed to pass over it, and the sittuation has gone to a head better said exploded when the third editor agreed with me. Then a conflict was tryed to be provoked, the highest order of offence was prepared, and we have a smoking gun.
(4a) In the old days at Usenet we had Godwin's law. I think that his attempt to label me a racist qualifies for something.
(5) As to involving content into this discussion, Pietru has definitely not read the disclaimer about ANI not being for content disputes, we have dispute resolution for that.
(6) The article is of no importance here, Pietru denies every chances of a compromise by insisting on POV even if his POV had not been acquired at the RfC, etc., etc. I repeat this is not the place for DR.
(7) Pietru has not listed almost anything at the talk page, other than a lots of harsh language.
(8) Pietru has not made any work but shifted content in order it to seem working, edited against the RfC
(9) I have taken the time to understand that editing with false pretences, destroying the sourced statement by adding irrelevant data, which that source do not recognize thus distorting the original sourced statement.
(10) Attacking my grasp of the English language will not help you. Pietru thinks he could change the time line and accuse me of randomization.
(11) Pietru thinks he WP:OWN's the article. He has been proven wrong at all of my edits made at the article. Don't get me started. I must remember that advice I gave to Pietru, this is not the place to discuss content. But I must defend myself.
Imbris (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Imbris, what is with the list fetish? You have complied about a dozen already! In simple response, I would direct interested parties to the Maltese dog talkpage (and Maltese dog edit history) and Imbris' talkpage. Both are very enlightening. I'll add that the suggestion my contributions are limited to 'moving stuff around' is highly unfair and very immature. Is this another example of something Imbris says being lost in translation? As for attacking you, I have not, unlike your constant 'Pietru upsets Imbris', 'Pietru's vandalism' sections on the talkpage, discussing personal issues with me and not the content of the article. Regarding the RfC, you failed to act upon it or discuss it, and when changes were made, they were made tangentially and following your own modified initiative. Pietru (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
You should mention your talk page and your block list, as well as [19] and that part where you admitt some blame at the talk page, then remove it from the talk page. I'll find it soon. -- Imbris (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Please furnish proof before making scandalous accusations. You need to be a lot more careful Imbris. Anybody with the time should check out your blocks too, especially those you incurred as a result of activity on Maltese (dog). Pietru (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

On the pearls before swine part[edit]

"Swine" is by no means a "gentle" insult, then or now. Hogs were and are considered "unclean" animals in Jewish law (and Islamic law also). "Casting pearls before swine" is an expression I have been known to use, and I assure you I do not intend it to be "gentle". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

So calling somebody a ham is rude now? What's up with that. Pietru (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
At least hams can be cured. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Cute. "Ham" in this context is slang for "amateur", and has nothing to do with swine, generally speaking. Ham radio = amateur radio, as opposed to commercial radio. Hamming it up = amateurish acting, i.e. overplaying, mugging, etc. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
And sows make great silk purses. What's yer point? Pietru (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually not. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I can.Pietru (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Pietru - Please stop poking people like this. Our policy on civil and constructive editing and our policy against making personal attacks apply to everyone here. We ask that you assume good faith about other editors and not turn around and attack them when they criticize you.
Even if your initial transgressions were innocent mistakes of not understanding common usage in English, your responses now once you've been notified are not ok.
Please stop this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I shall examine my conduct, but the pig thing was hardly meant to suggest Imbris as somehow "unclean" (whether he is a gentile or otherwise). It wasn't my intention at all and the idea it may have been is getting rather.. boaring. Pietru (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "Pearls before swine" is also attributed to Dorothy Parker, who was famous for her retorts, and sparkling and caustic wit in the literary world. In a supposed exchange with Clare Boothe Luce, when arriving together at a door, Luce said: "Age before beauty", to which Parker retorted "Pearls before swine" and swept through the door first.[20] The phrase is also the title of a comic strip Pearls Before Swine (comic strip) and other things, including a game and two bands, see the DAB Pearls Before Swine. So it's meaning and intention depends on the context. — Becksguy (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In the context of the edit summary, it was condescending and insulting. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 01:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion has been noted. Pietru (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
In this context, that response is also condescending and insulting.
Pietru - WP:CIVIL is not negotiable. You have to edit in a collaborative manner, not abusing those around you. Continuing to abuse people is a blockable offense, and users will be indefinitely blocked if they keep doing it repeatedly. Please reconsider your approach here.
You don't have to like people. We encourage constructive disagreements. But you have to edit in an adult manner and respect that the rest of us are human beings too. If you don't do that, you'll be asked to leave. Please don't push things that far.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't doubt your humanity, nor have I forgotten a basic duty to respect and honour that. Rather than blame anonymity and difficulties inherent in this medium, I'll reread WP:CIVIL. Pietru (talk) 02:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

On the issue of Pietru calling me a racist[edit]

Direct from the talk page:

9 Pietru il-Boqli's editing spicked with his edit summary pearls before swine are not helpful. -- Imbris (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

'Spicked'? Is the veneer well and truly off, are you being pointedly racist? Or is this another instance of Imbrisese (scan the article for various examples). Pietru (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Still no answer on the accusations of racism? -- Imbris (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to have decided that you experience difficulty writing in English and I should forgive you. Pietru (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Which I do, naturally. Pietru (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
He does seem to make a habit of such accusations out of the blue: [21] --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Can I ask, given how much trouble User:Malleus Fatuorum has been given for occasional losses of temper, why User:Mattisse seemingly believes it is ok to spread slander like He is not a very pleasant character. on the pages of third users with impunity? Spreading slurs and making personal attacks about users to third parties, even when you have a bad relationship with them, is surely unacceptable. It can do nothing but escalate ill-feeling, spread [whatever is] the dispute, and, if not dealt with, give the victim little choice but to "retaliate". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What do you propose? Rklawton (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
That someone uninvolved but preferably familiar with whatever personal dispute Mattisse has with Malleus deal with this in whatever manner gets behaviour like that to cease being acceptable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow, I just went and started an essay and invited both Mattisse and Deacon to participate, only to see this on my next refresh of my watchlist. This is unexpected. Interesting, time will tell who is correct. I think it would be the essay's advantage to have people who disagree with each other work on it, I hope they both accept. Chillum 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I think "not very pleasant" is a rather tame comment, and one I must agree with. My experiences with that editor have not been very pleasant. Is it suddenly slander to not consider someone "very pleasant"? Chillum 01:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the timing was certainly funny. :) For the reasons I gave, going around telling someone a third person is "not a very pleasant person" is a completely pointless violation of WP:NPA. At the very least do this sort of thing by email, where, although still libelous, won't at least escalate conflict. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
How is the truth a violation of NPA? Malleus is not very pleasant. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
First off The comment would have to have a real effect on his reputation for it even to be close to slander or libel. Mattisse was not really revealing any new information to me. Lets leave these legal terms for the lawyers outside of Wikipedia. I agree that particular turn of phrase could have been left out of that comment without effecting the point it was trying to make, but there was a relevant point there. Like I have said on my talk page I have not made up my mind about Malleus, but I certainly can see how someone would come to the conclusion Mattisse did. Mattisse simply needs to learn how to address behavioral problems with other users in a manner that is more acceptable. Chillum 01:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Chillum, while I respect your friendship with Mattisse, you are not addressing my concerns and thus not helping to solve the problem. Comments like that do effect reputations, and more to the point, escalate conflict. Don't know why Malleus is expected to be more pleasant if people are going around saying stuff like that. Wikipedia doesn't work on the principle of "one rule for the goose, one for the gander". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I barely even know Mattisse. The comment he made on my talk page is the extent of our communication. If anything I am far more friendly with you. This isn't so much about goose vs gander, it is about calling a quacking waddling bird a duck. Since when is withholding compliments considered an insult? Is what one considers pleasant suddenly not a personal choice? If someone acts to you in a way you don't find pleasant should that be kept a secret? I am a firm supported of NPA and enforce it rigorously but even I find this to be a stretch of the policy's spirit. Chillum 02:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I assumed this because of his presence on your talk page and apparent familiarity when making those remarks about Malleus. Anyway, what value do you see in calling a "quacking waddling bird a duck" if at the same time you are insulting another established user with whom you are in a dispute? I just don't get that, and it's not like this was a matter of a personality trait affecting article content. As far as I see, this is little more than a disruptive social attack, and serves no purpose beyond satisfying Mattisse's desire for reprisal. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I have added a section to my essay about how even the mildest of offensive comments can completely discredit your defense against a user using bad faith ad hominem attacks. I am trying to point out the contradiction of such an action as well as its self defeating nature. It is rather poorly written right now, but I have gotten my thoughts out. Either me or a person with better writing skills will improve it later.
I don't really know enough about the surrounding dispute(if any) to tell if this is the case here, I don't know if Malleus is acting in bad faith, and I also don't know how much truth there was in most of Mattisses comments on my talk page. What I do know is that "not a very pleasant person" while uncalled for and inflammatory is neither false nor significant, nor actionable. Perhaps other administrators will feel differently, as always I welcome dissenting opinions as well as any other. Chillum 02:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
It does need to be acted upon [meaning someone neutral needs to interfere]. Not by either me or you, but by another admin familiar with the situation. Besides being inflammatory, it's the context that makes it actionably unacceptable. If he says it on his own talk page, fine, but getting into a habit of going around wikipedia doing it is different. Anyway, I've said really all there is that I can say. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to say it shows Matisse's ability to be neutral to be rather unimpressive. He's stated as fact that Malleus is unpleasant when in actual fact all he is doing is spouting opinion as fact. I find Malleus to be rather personable and the sort of person who makes it easy to know where one stands. Invariably the people who don't like Malleus come into two groups - those who have been told the blunt truth and don't like it, or the incurably politically correct who can't abide a spade being called anything other than an earth moving implement. It strikes me that Matisse has now opened the doors to allow people to pass comment about him, after all it's only fair that if he can do it then so can anyone. I'll take ticket number one and state quite categorically that Matisse is a prick. Now is that opinion or is that fact or is it a personal attack? Either way Matisse's behaviour and comments deem it to be quite okay to pass opinions like that on people he doesn't like so I feel quite happy to do so myself. Obviously others' mileage may vary. --WebHamster 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If this is just going to degenerate into a name calling contest, perhaps another venue is more appropriate. How about usenet? Chillum 13:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd love WP to adopt Usenet rules, but your above comment demonstrates that you obviously haven't understood a word I said/meant. --