Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

ROC/China/Taiwan conflict[edit]

Werewaz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been on a spree changing China/Taiwan/Republic of China terms in several articles towards the "One China" view. I have no particular interest in this topic, but I do know that it's a contentious area and no-one should make wide-spread changes without discussion. I've asked the user to discuss, reverted, and given him a 3RR warning. He has not replied so far. Some additional eyes would be welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair there is a minority of editors (including myself) who feel the China/PRC split to be highly POV and rather ethnocentric. Although I don't condone vandalism even when I agree, to a limited extent, with the editors view, it should be noted that this is an emotionally charged issue that could be perceived as a problem spot on Wikipedia for about 1.5 billion people. (Most of whom don't speak english but, still)... Simonm223 (talk) 14:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed Werewaz of this discussion, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 14:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I almost blocked Werewaz for vandalism when I saw that he changed "Myanmar" to "Burma" in a list -- then I found that our article actually is moved-protected at Burma. Are we supposed to know better than the UN what that country has been called since before Wikipedia was founded? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Not a useful comment in this location, please don't discuss here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah yes. With the Russians, Estonians and Poles all tied up at Arbitration, why not get into another series of geo-social-ethno-political move wars on China and Burma. Good times, folks, good times. Thatcher 14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I have had a similar problem with this user, and warned them here after several exchanges (see history page of List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita. As happened later with Stephan Schulz, the user was invited to come to the talk page, and did not, not even making edit summaries. Whatever anyone's feelings, policy on this issue is very clear - see WP:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV and the section after that. Flags, as state symbols, should not be labelled simply "China" and "Taiwan". It may seem petty, but sadly it isn't, as evidenced by this user going through and changing all the names despite many requests not to. The account is more or less SPA, too.
(edit conflict) As a note, the Burma/Myanmar issue is a good deal more complicated, and cannot be compared to this more settled matter.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Werewaz (talk · contribs) has reverted again. I don't see any point in not blocking at this stage.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Standard 24-hour block for WP:3RR issued. EyeSerenetalk 17:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Note Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rayesworied; user was a block-evading sockpuppet. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Blanking by anons[edit]

For a year or more there has been a pattern of anonymous blanking or deletions at Mordechai Levy and Jewish Defense Organization. The same IP address invariably hits both articles. In recent history, it has been 216.194.60.200, 216.194.57.137, 216.194.59.51, 216.194.58.233, and 216.194.57.108, so I am suggesting a range block as a possible remedy. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Just looking at the IPs suggests that a rangeblock would be impracticable due to collateral damage. -Jeremy (v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!) 20:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
It's not an immense range (only a /21, so 2048 IPs), although I have not done much looking at how much editing gets done from that range. ~ mazca talk 20:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
216.194.56.0/21 would include all of the IPs listed in the original post, and would have some collateral (handful of users, looks like); whois seems to suggest 216.194.0.0/18, which would have far too much collateral. Looks like the problem only comes up every few months, anyway, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason protection wouldn't suffice? Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The frequency of editing from these IPs is quite low, seven edits this year for one article and five for the other. That doesn't seem intense enough to merit protection or range blocks.   Will Beback  talk  01:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tagging[edit]

Resolved: Doesn't require admin intervention.

[1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The more relevant diff is this one. Uncle G (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You're not suggesting we punish a good faith user for being comprehensive? :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
      • How exactly is this something for ANI? It requires neither administrators nor immediate attention. Ironholds (talk) 00:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I didn't suggest anything, let alone some mysterious "punishment". But if you are looking for suggestions, talking to the editor first is a good one. I notice that, despite notifications and resolutions flying about, no-one has yet to actually say to the person concerned "That wasn't good tagging. Many of those issues didn't even apply to the article.". Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect Pinochet request[edit]

Resolved: Unprotected as per request, message left at talk page to alert AN/I in the event of ongoing disruption. Manning (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

As the editor who was largely responsible for the edit warring on the Pinochet article, I would request that the page be unlocked. I am voluntarily not editing Chilean articles for a week after my rather regretable behavour there. The protection will prevent others from improving the article. I thnk the issue is now resolved. Pages are protected to prevent disruption, and diruption there will not be a problem (as far as I am concerned) if it were unprotected.--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your comment above. Manning (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BRFA needs more eyes[edit]

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ContentCreationBOT needs more eyes and input. If you have a moment please give your 2 cents. βcommand 02:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Mplating[edit]

Mplating (talk · contribs) left a message at WP:BLPN stating "We are in the process of contacting the attorney for King Adamtey I [aka. Dr. Kingsley Fletcher] so that the issues on Wikipedia may be resolved fully." Per WP:NLT he should be blocked(/prevented from editing) until the legal threats are resolved fully. ƒ(Δ)² 06:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have warned him to retract it or he will be blocked (not by me, as I'm not an admin). He's also quibbling over specific details that hardly seem to be BLP violations. Helping things out, he admits to being directly connected to the article's subject, so he's got a COI thing going on there too. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yea, he's removing reliably sourced material (from the Ghana Business News, for example). I reverted his removal, and I'll try to discuss this now. Thanks for your help, btw. ƒ(Δ)² 07:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Article in question seems to fail WP:BIO too. Ref: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Kingsley Fletcher. Article concerned is Kingsley Fletcher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), user concerned is User:Mplating (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --Whoosit (talk) 06:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I take that to mean he's a non-notable who's being promoted by the authors and protectors of the wikipedia article. "His Royal Highness"? Right. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm also inclined towards a non-notable speedy. Any seconders or do I need to go to AFD? Manning (talk) 07:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
A legal threat has been made. Perhaps better to wait until an admin can attend to it, so as not to muddy the waters. Decision on the article can wait.--Whoosit (talk) 07:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
An admin needs to block the guy immediately. Legal threats cannot be tolerated. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so keen on deletion -- the article is properly sourced. It was started by a PR company working on behalf of this guy and was pretty ridiculous at an early stage, but a few of us worked it into shape, removed the absurd parts, and came up with what I think is a reasonable version. The "His Royal Highness" stuff is ridiculous, but it does appear that he has been given an honorary title by a particular ethnic group of some sort in Ghana, and I think that satisfies BIO. It can be argued out at AfD, but not deleted via speedy deletion. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there any content-related merit to his complaint that led to his legal threat? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(drop indent) - Nomoskedasticity: reluctantly I agree. I suspect wholesale puffery, but don't have the ammo to prove it right now, so AFD is more appropriate. Manning (talk) 07:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I really think this article needs to go to AfD rather than a speedy. This claims that he is a traditional ruler of Greater Accra, and he has also claimed to have advised the UN Martin451 (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
A slight correction: It says he worked with "United Nations Development Programme for Africa". My brother in law (a ghanaian) worked for them as did/do thousands of other people. That's a LONG way from "advising the UN". (Am not disputing that AFD is more appropriate however). Manning (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
And if my math is right, his "kingdom" is equivalent to a square about 35 miles on a side. I can only guess at the size of Lesser Accra. AFD might be better than speedy, just to evoke a few laughs. Also, I think M-plating has been blocked, so dat's dat unless he appeals his conviction. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Bugs: The complaint is about being "knighted" -- he got suckered by one of those "false" orders, and Plating wants to remove the (reliably sourced) stuff about how the event got some attention in the news (from his point of view, the wrong kind). Keep in mind that deletion is now exactly what they are trying to accomplish (in the absence of the version they want). I'd really prefer that this article is not deleted. As for small "kingdoms" -- there are smaller, how about San Marino? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(ec)How about that little island off the coast of Britain? Principality of Sealand, that's not much bigger than a houseboat. That's pretty funny. An organization that awards knighthoods? Better he should have gone to that company that will name a star in your honor, for a slight fee. Keeping the article or not, based on what the complainant wants, is tempting but is not really the correct way to do things. AFD would be the way, provided someone wants to go to that effort. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way, 35 miles on one side is around 1000 square miles -- more than ten times the size of Liechtenstein. I'm not saying that size matters... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't forget Grand Fenwick, roughly 15 square miles. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Although Fenwick dwarfs the Principality of Sealand, the entirety of which can be seen in a normal photograph contained within the article. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I notice one of this guys titles is "Nene". It must be interesting to be titled in honor of the Hawaiian Goose. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, even "those who inform" can be fooled? I dare think I should write Roland S. Martin and ask him what he _now_ thinks. ouch! (check the comments from Ghanians) Then again, he might be able to point us to references that don't all trace back to "TBG Media" (Ghana) or web sites registered to Kingsley Fletcher. Shenme (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I just called my Ghanaian brother-in-law and he says its nonsense too. Hence I've listed this at AFD - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kingsley_Fletcher. Manning (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 66.245.250.185[edit]

This IP address seems to have been making several observably disruptive edits to user pages, though apparently no action's been taken. Just an early warning that this might be indicative of disruptive future behavior also. 72.51.35.208 (talk) 07:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I reported him to WP:AIV, which appears to be backlogged. No admins awake at this hour. →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Blocked 31 hours; I've also cleared the more urgent-looking stuff from AIV (without my precious autoblock.js due to being at work!). There are still unaddressed reports at AIV and I need to head off, so any other admin reading this may wish to take a look. ~ mazca talk 08:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
AIV now empty. Baseball Bugs- there are admins awake at this hour you know - just less than at some other times of the day! A good recommendation if you need very urgent assistance from someone with the admin tools is to look at the block or deletion logs and find someone who has just performed an action. Pedro :  Chat  08:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a good point. In some few seemingly urgent cases (which this really wasn't) I have been known to go straight to a particular admin and ask for help. And I know the admin corps isn't really asleep. Is it true what they say, that the sun never sets on the wikipedia empire? →Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Outside administrator needed[edit]

It would be very helpful if one or more uninvolved administrators, and possible a CheckUser, could look over the AfD above. The discussion, article history, and related areas need to be reviewed for sockpuppets, bloc voting, conflicts of interest and soapboxing.

Other relevant links:

Thank you in advance for any assistance. Vassyana (talk) 19:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • We have been, already. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CharlotteGoiar, for example. I've also nudged one arbitrator to suggest a speedy decline to xyr fellows in favour of the existing on-going WP:AN/I incident discussion which is earlier on this very page. Uncle G (talk) 20:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Egg on my face. However, when I plugged the editor's name into the search, neither the ANI thread ("Crusade") nor the SPI came up in the results. In the future, I will endeavor to doublecheck my Wikipedia searches and do a bit of manual checking. Vassyana (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Casasgaspar[edit]

This one is slightly too complex for AIV, but not much. I gave Casasgaspar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) a final warning last night for introduction of false and unsourced material. I've reviewed his edits, and it consists of a long, long stream of figure tampering. I first noticed him last night at I Kissed a Girl, inserting false certifications]. Tonight, he decided that every figure in that article should be slightly higher. As I review, I find nothing but this kind of edit: unsourced changes to movie grosses, unsourced sales reduction for The Fame, corrupting procession boxes, more figure tampering. It just goes on and on.

Since he repeated after final warning, I think a block is in order. I don't think a timed block is appropriate: given the chronic nature of it, I would recommend indef until the editor explains that he understands the concept of sourcing.

For the record, this edit looks constructive. It's the only one I found.—Kww(talk) 04:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed the user of this thread, on their talk page. Basket of Puppies 05:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a weird one. I agree with Kww's assessment of their edits, and have indefblocked Casasgaspar. I'd be interested to hear their reasons for doing what they've been doing (from a merely behavioural point of view; it would have to be a very convincing unblock request before I'd consider an unblock). EyeSerenetalk 12:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Reseau de Resistance du Quebecois article and User:WikiQc[edit]

Hello,

In an attempt to bring some civility to the conversation at Réseau_de_Résistance_du_Québécois, I hosted the page at User:Frmatt/RRQ while it was blocked to try and bring an NPOV to the whole thing. In the course of this, User:WikiQc made some non-npov changes, which I reverted. Upon being informed of my reversion, the user then accused me of racism and being anti-quebecois (which is a little amusing as I'm a proud bi-lingual Canadian!) I would appreciate it if there could be some more eyes on this article which has been the subject of some major edit wars and non-npov wording by both sides. I also issued a warning to the user about their behaviour at User talk:WikiQc upon which they promptly denied having made any personal attacks. At this point, in order to avoid further inflaming the situation, I am excusing myself from any further involvement with either this article or this user. I would greatly appreciate it if someone could review both sides of this incident (not only the user above, but also my own behaviour so that I can be aware if there were things that I should have done differently. I am always open to hearing from people with suggestions for improvement on my talk page. Thank you very much. Frmatt (talk) 03:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried other methods of dispute resolution, such as Third Opinion (WP:3O) or Wikiquette Alerts (WP:WQA)? Those noticeboards may be better suited towards a first attempt to resolve this problem. Admins are more likely to act when other avenues have been exhausted first. --Jayron32 03:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I had considered WP:WQA (I wasn't aware of WP:3O, however given that I am now involved in a personal attack, instead of one over content, as well as the ongoing problems with this article, I felt that it was a little too comprehensive for simply WP:WQA. The issue is not solely with the user, it is also with on-going pov-slanting at the article mentioned as well. If the majority feel that it is better dealt with at one of those boards, then I'll take it there. Frmatt (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I also made a try at that article, so it did get a 3O, and i agree with Frmatt that another view might be desired. This might be one of the cases where someone other than the present editors should work on the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Dispute resolution isn't needed, in my opinion. User:WikiQc is undoubtedly another sock of User:Philbox17. Other socks can be seen here. They're an aggressive, single-purpose sockmaster whose entire purpose on Wikipedia is to push the same agenda at that article, and is constantly edit-warring to do so. They keep making new accounts then accuse the person blocking them of opposing "every French Quebecer". -- Atama 05:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

<-I've confirmed that WikiQc is indeed another sock of Philbox17, and I've blocked the account. I'm sure he'll be back with another sock in short order. The range of IPs he's coming from is too large for an effective range block (without collateral). --Versageek 15:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism of Ranma Saotome[edit]

Will someone please check the revert I made to Ranma Saotome. In the infobox a edit was made to modify this text "Megumi Hayashibara (female)" to this "Megumi Hayashibara (female/child)". I am uncertain how to respond to this editor. -- allennames 03:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

While I can't help with the specifics of the edit, from their edit history the IP has been contributing for a while and seems to be operating in good faith. The address looks to be stable, so I'd drop them a friendly note on their talk page asking why they feel their version is better. EyeSerenetalk 12:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I have looked at the related character articles and they seem to fit my lost sheep criteria, viz. there seem to be no involvement of an experienced editor to watch for and correct undesirable changes. It is likely that these articles will have to be converted into redirects. Again thank you for your help in this matter. -- allennames 13:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that's a possibility, though we musn't WP:BITE too hard ;) If you (or someone) has the time to provide some guidance though, perhaps the IP can be encouraged to bring their work into line with our editing policies. They are clearly keen, so if we can harness that enthusiasm all the better. It might be worth mentioning the benefits of creating an account, and pointing them towards WP:ADOPT? EyeSerenetalk 13:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I am a little green myself but I will keep your suggestions in mind. -- allennames 13:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done You can see the message I left here -- allennames 14:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thank you for your assumption of good faith with the IP too - it's something we unfortunately don't see enough of, and it does you great credit :) EyeSerenetalk 14:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Asking for audio is harassment campaign?[edit]

Resolved: Administrators does not have any power to compel SH to release the file. The case is closed. Ruslik_Zero 15:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Back in July, about 10 people devoted two hours of time to an audio interview of WMF Board candidates. For a couple of months now, the audio file has been deliberately withheld from public sharing. Despite both myself and Sage Ross offering to lightly edit, or to simply post unaltered, the audio file, the user who holds the file patently refuses to release it to the public, choosing instead to withhold it for "a year or so" to prove a point. User:Shoemaker's Holiday also has described the requests to post the audio file as a "harassment campaign", which is really over-the-top and borders on deliberate defamation. Harassment is a serious crime, and no crime has been committed in asking for an audio file to be posted to Wikipedia. Could some uninvolved admins please look into this situation? I am not going to inform Shoemaker's of this request, for fear that it be taken by him as further "harassment". I just want the audio file posted, to show some respect to the 20+ person-hours that were committed to this engagement and are now shown disrespect by this silly gamesmanship. -- Thekohser 11:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

How is this en business? It's not clear from your post if this is connected to a en project? Surely this is to do with the foundation and between the individuals concerned. What can admin or indeed any of us actually do in this situation? go to his house and rubberhose him until he posts it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The program that sponsored the discussion is Wikipedia:Wikivoices. I don't know how much more "en business" we can get. Also, it is expressly not a Foundation issue, as I was told it has "nothing to do with the WMF." As for what any admin could do to persuade cooperation and peaceful resolution, see my comments below. -- Thekohser 14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'd like to hear that audio as well, but I was away during the summer, and may be confused. The election ended, yes? Is there some drama surrounding it that I'm unaware of? It'd be a shame if someone (or someones) took that much time to put something together that won't see the light of day, but I doubt there's any cause (or means) to compel its release. There may be some historical relevance, but not enough to make a fuss over it, I would think. Per ANI rules, I have notified Shoemaker's Holiday, since they are under discussion here - we can't discuss them and hope they don't notice their name on the highest traffic noticeboard on the project. Besides, as Cameron Scott notes, this has little to do with EN apart from you bringing it up here. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 12:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Even if it was conducted in relation to .en - what could anyone do? Even though it's connected with the WMF, it didn't happen here and regardless of what was previously agree, how could anyone compel him to upload the audio? They can't and he committed no "crimes" on en. that require or indeed allow for any action. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


Thekosher has sent me e-mails constantly, accused me of conspiracy, posted on and off site, made attempts to blacken my name, and generally, blamed me because the user who had actually agreed to edit the episode backed out, and I was the only other editor available. I did agree to attempt it once that editor dumped the task on me, but was too ill to - one cannot edit sound when one hasd a severe headache - and could not before the election ended. After it did, he then tried to get me to give him the raw audio - which other candidates specifically said they were not comfortable with, and threw a fit when I said no because of that.

Thekosher is fully aware I have health problems, but has now decided that if I do anything else but what he wants, he has the right to lambast me over it.

The episode is about 4 hours long. Audio editing, unsurprisingly, requires listening to the episode at least once, editing as you go. I'd estimate 8 hours as the minimum, with about 12 to 20 being realistic. As the election is over, the usefulness of the interviews is now minimal.

I am a volunteer. Thekosher will be surprised to learn does not have the right to say that I must spend an entire day on a task which now has merely historical relevance, particularly when I was not even the user who had accepted responsibility, merely the person who had offered to do a small part of the editing, then had the person who WAS responsible lie and tell Kohs it was all my responsibility when he decided not to do it. Kohs is fully aware of this. I will forward e-mails where he comments on this to anyone who asks. He is also fully aware of the health problems I had at the time.

However, instead of being nice, and asking me to do it as a favour, he has decided that this is part of a massive conspiracy theory to suppress an interview which was so good that it might have allowed him to get elected.([3] " I'm chalking it up to their fear of my winning a Board seat, thanks to how appealing was my contribution to the verbal discussion. It's a cover-up, folks. I'll bet it gets posted about 24 hours before the Board election polls close.") He also thinks he is entitled to tell me how to spend my time, and demand that I spend an entire day editing the file. Indeed, he has put me into a situation where, if I do what he wants, then I demonstrate that harassment works - a completely counterproductive situation for him. Shoemaker's Holiday Over 208 FCs served 13:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Would everyone stop pleading for someone else to be banned? The simple fact is that the owner of the audio files refuses - for whatever reason - to release them. These files constitute someone's private property, and short of a court order there is nothing you (or anyone else) can do about getting access to them. Unless you can provide evidence of a contract where Shoemaker's Holiday was formally bound to release the files then no-one at Wikipedia (or Wikimedia for that matter) can do anything about it either.
Furthermore to complain repeatedly about it here WILL constitute harassment, as it does not concern a Wikipedia related issue. Hence sooner or later the admins will be forced to take action and then you'll be angry at us for having to adhere to our policies on user conduct.
Feel free to bad mouth Shoemaker's Holiday in private or elsewhere, but do not do it here. Go and construct a voodoo doll if that helps. But please do not come seeking remedies that we cannot possibly provide. I don't wish to sound like a jerk, but that's the deal, sadly. Manning (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(EC) Manning has it. You've made your request, and it looks like you have a response. The English Wikipedia lacks the authority to compel Shoemaker's Holiday to do as you request, and I don't see any rationale for doing so even if we could. Shoemaker's Holiday clearly considers the matter closed, so I'd ask that you let the matter drop. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
People aren't being very creative in thinking of how Shoemaker might be compelled to release the audio file (note, once again, nobody is asking him to personally spend more than 3 or 4 minutes to simply upload or electronically deliver the raw file). If I am not to be trusted with the file, then certainly User:Ragesoss or new Board member User:Sj -- both of whom have expressed willingness and interest in taking the file -- would suffice. Here are some ways to compel cooperation:
  • Deny Shoemaker participation in the Wikivoices program until he transfers the file to any other willing volunteer.
  • Publicly rebuke Shoemaker for hoarding free content, against the wishes of at least several of the participants whose voices were captured.
  • Appeal to the original user (Promethean?) to share the file with the public, thereby side-stepping Shoemaker altogether.
I'm not trying to troll here. I'm trying to lift the standards of accountability, professionalism, and just common respect for others. What we're seeing right now is trolling by Shoemaker, in that he will continue to participate in Wikivoices programs, and there will be the overhanging threat, ever in the future, that he may pull this sort of stunt once again. I wish him all due health and recovery from whatever sickness ails him. In fact, wouldn't this be so much stress off his plate if he were to just simply accept the generous offer from User:Ragesoss to edit the file himself? Don't make this a political battle. It's really a simple matter, and you're playing directly into Shoemaker's drama trap. -- Thekohser 14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thekohser - Dude - I'm not kidding. This is NOT a Wikipedia matter. You are consequently harassing a Wikipedian in good standing. Even if Shoemaker had slept with your sister and run over your dog, he remains an editor in good standing at Wikipedia because this has nothing to do with us'. Seriously. Let it go. I respect the fact you are annoyed, but I would really hate to see you subjected to administrative action for harassment on Wikipedia over this, and that is where it is heading if you don't let this go. As I said, I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just telling you how it is. Manning (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

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

MarshalN20[edit]

User MarshalN20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) doesn't stop to insult me.

Nr 1:

  • Keysanger is a highly biased POV.
  • Keysanger think of yourself as some sort of heroic defender, with idiotic little phrases
  • Come on gentlemen! Wake up

I twice reiterated please for a civile ton (I signed my last 2 postings)

Please, stop it, thank you. --Keysanger (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, comment this questions without personal attacks. Keysanger (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

He continued his attacks in Nr 2

  • Please don't spam the talk page with repetitive discussions, Keysanger.

Here I asked him to cooperate with the relevant text of the reference:

Keysanger: You must write the text passage supporting your statement.

He answered here:

  • You must learn to read

And again in Nr 3 he calls me a lier:

  • You're lying on what has been thus far agreed.

(by the way, he retired his statement "The treaty was only used defensively." here and accepted the first three)

And He insulted me again in the edit summary of following Nr 4

  • (Here lies the truth about the War of the Pacific. Hopefully someday this will come to the light of others.)'

Here he call me a nationalist fool Nr 5:

  • I explicitly blame Keysanger and the rest of the nationalist fools who focus on promoting their nationalistic POV instead of focusing on presenting the true history. The lot of you are not even worth to be called "Wikipedians." (Bold by MarshalN20)

I think that is enough, someone have to explain him how works wikipedia. As you can see, he doesn't believe me. --Keysanger (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I really find this to be quite ridiculous. First, what you're presenting here is such a mess that I don't even understand half of what you've written. Second, every one of the statements that you present have been taken out of context (which might certainly account as to why they don't make sense in the first place). Third, as can be seen in Talk:War of the Pacific, several other users see Keysanger's WP:OWN of the article as a destruction of a Wikipedia article. To further check on Keysanger's "Ownership" of the article, please feel free to check the War of the Pacific's history and take note of all of the edits done by Keysanger. Fourth, as can be seen in Talk:War of the Pacific, User:Dentren proposed a chart of problems that would be fixed one by one in order to make the article factual and neutral. That being said, we did not get to even half of the chart before Keysanger decided to edit the article to his liking. As such, in the final statement that Keysanger provides I state: "I explicitly blame Keysanger[...]." Need I explain more?--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
If a Wikipedia Administrator sees this, I urge them to take a look at the War of the Pacific article and take note of the destruction caused by Keysanger. The article has been changed from a neutral POV to an explicitly Chilean POV. Once again, I explicitly blame Keysanger for the destruction of the article, and would like to see a Wikipedia administrator to try and explain to Keysanger how a Wikipedia article should be written. Me, User:Likeminas, and User:Dentren have tried our bests to work with Keysanger; but after a series of pointless discussions with him we have all decided to leave (At least me and Likeminas have posted open statements in the talk page about it; Dentren simply went on to do better things than to argue with stubborn people).--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Here is an example of the Chilean POV inserted by Keysanger in the article: "The defeat engendered a deep revenge desire[1][2] among the ruling classes, which also led to a skewed view of the role of the armed forces; this attitude dominated society throughout the 20th century[citation needed]"
Keysanger bases this statement on the opinion of two Peruvians, and yet he talks about the "ruling classes" of Peru. He also inserts an unreferenced statement of the "skewed view" of the Peruvian armed forces "throughout" the 20th century. There are plenty of other examples of Chilean POV in the article. I deleted this in the War of the Pacific article, and gave an edit summary as to why I deleted the information. Keysanger reverted it.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass PROD/AfD/Redirects from new user[edit]

Resolved: That was probably due to a burnout - something I could understand from reading an e-mail from the user. Account retired and blocked. No further administrative action needed. - FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:45, 24 September 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.

A new user Moral Authority has set about nominating multiple articles for deletion, PROD, or simply redirecting established articles without concensus (example). The account was just created today and is causing major disruption to BLP articles. This is obviously not a new user and they seem to be going through the articles trying to fulfill a personal agenda (not entirely surprising given the username). Could someone take a look as I can't keep up with the edits. The user is nominating an article for deletion or redirecting every 2 minutes! I will go notify them of this thread now. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 15:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes this user has mass-taged many articles in his first day on Wikipedia. And has put on Deletion tags on a number of articles within minutes. Making it impossible that he actually read them trough and established notability or not. I request that all his edits are reverted. I can also say that i dont think ll the users edits are in good faith.--Judo112 (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The first thing that springs to mind is that it's WP:POINT by a sock in connection with an ongoing AFD, because the 'point' they are trying to made would nicely tie in with that. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what Cameron mean.. i guess this is a sock case.--Judo112 (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It may be a sock case, but all the edits should not be overturned -- there were some IMO valid nominations there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
If someone has socked in order to prove a point the edits should be overturned en masse, especially in a case wherein they have obviously not even read the articles in question. If you throw enough darts simultaneously at a dartboard you're bound to hit a bullseye. --Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 16:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That's an interesting theory. I did notice this comment to delete per BLP1E "which always wins against notability". I can see how you might interpret that as a POINT crusade by someone angry that a rationale of that variety was being used against a favourite article of theirs.  Skomorokh  15:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to block the nominator as an obvious sockpuppet, though- if she has something she wants to say about notability and BLP1E, it seems like she could say it with her existing account. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I think such a block would be out of process as I've done nothing wrong. This is my only account that I use, and I have no blocks hanging over my head. If I was some illicit socker wouldn't I have been a touch more subtle? All my edits are in good faith. This discussion is frightening in the lack of the same, sadly. Moral Authority (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
My experience doesn't lead me to think of sockers as 'subtle.' They are more usually the opposite. You have it in your power to explain to us what you're doing, and why, and how you happen to know our rules and our terminology. I accuse you of nothing; I invite you to explain, so we can understand. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I explained this on my talk already.[4] I've literally done nothing wrong, beyond laying out a variety of PRODs and half a dozen AFDs, some of which are progressing just fine. Again, is there a problem with my edits themselves? Or the fact that I know what I'm doing. As I said, there is absolutely no prohibition on me, the operator of this account, being here and editing. Is AGF totally dead? Moral Authority (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
While your edits may have been in good faith, surely you have realized by now that your strategy has backfired? If you are really serious about wanting these articles deleted, it is unfortunate that you could have actually set that cause back by your actions, because you have drawn negative attention to yourself by using a new account in this way. If you are serious about the problem you are trying to tackle, you would do well to slow down, use a bit more tact, and be less single-minded in tagging and nominating articles, especially if you are determined to start over with this account and not return to your main one. Dominic·t 16:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
You guys are making me out to be Spartacus here. I saw a handful of articles that I thought were crap per notability and BLP, and tagged them up as such. Moral Authority (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I am just giving you some advice. Even if you have done nothing wrong, if you act in a way that is likely to attract suspicion, then you are unlikely to actually achieve what you set out to do with this account. If am I am to believe that you are being serious and acting in good faith (which I do), then you should think little bit more about your methods before continuing on. Dominic·t 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

User now "retired". --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Wow, this is just ridiculous. Since when is tagging and nominating for AfD an issue that requires immediate administrator action? Did anybody try any other form of dispute resolution before running here to tattle to the teacher? The very first post on Moral Authority's talk page is the notification of this thread, there seem to have been quite a few steps skipped on the way here. If these AfDs are inappropriate then the discussion at AfD is the place to hash that out not here, if tags are inappropriate then the article's talk page is the place to discuss it not here. L0b0t (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
As the individual who brought this to the board I can explain my rationale - the editor, since the moment the account was created, had decided to nominate a large number of articles for deletion without reading them thoroughly to evaluate their individual content and merit. As the person was obviously not a new account and was also redirecting articles without any discussion or concensus, I brought the issue here so that we, as a community, could determine whether the edits were legitimate and halt them until that could be determined. I find your comment regarding "running to teacher" personally insulting. I work on BLP articles for hours every day and saw an issue that raised major alarm bells for me. I'm not a frequent poster here by any means and felt out of my league with the swiftness and apparent single-purpose nature of the edits. Jezebel'sPonyoshhh 17:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, I apologize for hurting your feelings and have struck out my comment. However, the point still remains, there are several steps in the dispute resolution process that were needlessly skipped. Had they been attempted, drama and hurt feelings would have been far less likely. Seriously, talking to the editor in question would have been a much more appropriate way to begin. L0b0t (talk) 17:41, 24 September 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:BakedFWS22[edit]

Resolved: Left a message on user page. Admin action is not required. CactusWriter | needles 19:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

BakedFWS22 (talk · contribs) was warned about creating articles with content copy and pasted from the USFWS.[5] (I've posted a list of articles created or edited by the user that need to be deleted or rewritten here.) User ignored my warning on the 22nd, and a day later, continued to engage in the same copy and paste behavior.[6] (compare with this) I warned the user for a second time[7] and I bring the issue here for review. Viriditas (talk) 23:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

If USFWS is from the US Federal Government (and I assume it is) then he's fine. While they may need to be tweaked, the US federal government releases all content into the public domain. Ironholds (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter that the content is public domain. See: Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Plagiarism. You have to say where you got it, and we don't copy and paste material from any website. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Read Wikipedia:Copy-paste properly, it applies to non-PD stuff. Wikipedia:Plagiarism says that "Works that are public domain because they were never protected, or their copyright has lapsed, carry no legal requirement for attribution", unless I'm missing something. Ironholds (talk) 01:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no legal requirement for attribution, but it's still very important to Wikipedia that the source be attributed. There are two reasons. First, the ethical requirement to attribute sources still applies even if the legal one does not. Of more practical importance, if we don't know that the material is in the public domain we will be tempted to think that Wikipedia's standard copyright applies to it, and may even be led into trying to defend it legally. Looie496 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:PLAGIARISM#Public domain sources's first sentence states "Material from public domain and free sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed." I think that makes it quite clear that attribution is still required, even for PD sources. MLauba (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The text added by BakedFWS22 is in the public domain so the copy-pasting is permitted -- of course, that is said without regard as to whether it still needs tweaking to meet other guidelines like NPOV. Our guidelines for copypasting state that the text must be attributed by using either quotes, in-line citations and/or a reference section template (like Template:Catholic, for example). Additionally, it is preferred that editors note in their edit summary that they are making a copy-paste and what their source is. BakedFWS22 has clearly added some attributions to the text, but I think there should be more, especially in the cases where the added text was split into separate paragraphs. I'll leave a note on BakedFWS22 user page about this as well as remind them about including the edit summary. CactusWriter | needles 10:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Backup admin: look at this issue?[edit]

There is a rather new user (less than a year), User:Cameron_Scott, who has done some nonsense edits to Comparison of vampire traits on really vague terms. After being warned (check the history of his talk page), he blanked his talk page, re-added the content, and then threatened me with a 'Welcome to Wikipedia' template (heh) and 'informed' me that me removing them again would be vandalism (really). I don't have time or desire to get into anything resembling a wheel war, could someone else take a look at it? I believe I was correct (as his intent seems to have been to undermine the page during the recent AfD), but since I'm ticked I figure I should leave it and have someone else to back me up (or tell me I'm wrong). --Thespian (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Your wrong. How's that?

First of all - do you read the top of the page, the bit where you inform users that you are bringing a matter to AN/I? Because I never got a notice. Secondly the page say "Vampires in fiction", it does not say "only serious vampires in fiction" I am adding vampires who exist in fiction, one that have their own pages here and are covered in multiple reliable sources. As for 'vague', what is vague about adding the vampires from 30 days of night? Characters who have been in over novels, comic book series and films.

Lastly, I templated you because you template me - it's not nice is it, you know to template the regulars, they see it as an insult - like you did, like I did. At best, this is a content dispute and here you are asking for administrator back-up to enforce your version of the article - an article where I have simply added links to a table to other articles. Have you started a section about it on the talkpage, have you asked for other people editing the article to take a look? have you asked for an outside view? no you warned me and now ran here. There is nothing here that warrants or indeed invites admin action.

Oh and as for blanking the page - blanking the page is accepted as the user having read the notice and it is perfectly acceptable (unless they are removing block or ban notices) for users to remove content after they have read it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I templated you because you have been here under a year, and you started messing with an article that was up for AfD in a silly (and inconsistent, by only adding it in one of the lists) fashion that supported the AfD. It was a newbie mistake, and I noticed that you had several complaints against you in the last fortnight that you had ignored, threatened the complainer, or undone their mistakes in a WP:OWN fashion. You showed no real sign of being a 'regular', and it's about your behaviour during a contentious AfD, and not the content itself. Following it up by threatening a mopholder admin with vandalism was newb-like. --Thespian (talk) 09:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Thespian reverted edits that weren't obvious vandalism, thereby abusing rollback. I can see no involvement in the AfD by the user, or any evidence for what thespian claims were efforts to undermine the AfD. What I do see is incorrect reversions and assumptions of bad faith by thespian. There were no attempts to discuss why the edits were problematic. And characterising someone who has been here nearly a year and has over 8000 edits as a 'rather new user'?! Cameron Scott's response was petty, but that's about it. No admin action has been requested, so I'm not sure why this is even here. If further input on the content issue is wanted then do an RfC. Quantpole (talk) 09:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Or simply start a discussion about it on the article talkpage - admin intervention should be the last action (and Thespian is involved so an editor rather than an admin for this discussion) rather than the first and the next step should be discussion on the article talkpage. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Moved article to "Traits of fictional vampires", since all references were to works of fiction. --John Nagle (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Please tell me we are all operating from the assumption that all vampires are fictional. Simonm223 (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE DARKNESS OF MY SOUL!. Seriously, we have an argument over vampire traits? We have an article about it? What?--Tznkai (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Tznkai, you have looked at WP:LAME at some point? Arguments over vampire traits are nowhere near the nadir of Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
There actually have been some serious folklorists who have wrote about how vampires have changed over time. I'll see if I can dig any of them up. In the meantime, is there any serious reason this needs to be at ANI? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Granted, but I would think that could be subsumed into vampire or what not.--Tznkai (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
That article is already quite long without that and has generated a lot of spin off articles. It shouldn't be that hard to find that much well sourced material on this subject. Give me a few days. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Stealth canvassing on Wikipedia Review in AfD discussion : Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Miriam_Sakewitz[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.

Resolved: no admin action required or forthcoming

This hotly debated AfD is being likely affected by a canvassing case involving five users, among whose threefour admins: The canvassing took place on an external forum, Wikipedia Review see thread. The editors involved are:

This looks like a serious case of canvassing, since it meets at the same time three of the four WP:CANVASSING cases:

What a fantastic BLP and DYK about Miriam Sakewitz, a woman who has issues with rabbits! Da 'pedia just gets better and better.

(given subsequent thread and actions, clearly sarcastical tone)

This is an open forum is provided for people to talk about issues related to Wikipedia and sister projects like Wiktionary and Wikimedia Commons without the possibility of censorship by the Wikimedia Foundation openly-undemocratic administration

The Forum Usage section reports:

General Discussion This is a kind of catch-all, Front Page News section, containing the latest horrific and scurrilous Wikipedia-related events as reported by our members.

I want to make clear I have no problem at all with the existence of WR, and editors are obviously entitled to their opinions. It is also clear, however, that it is a clearly biased forum, especially about BLP treatment, WP policies and administration, etc., and as also evident from the thread in case. As such, opening a thread there to ask for deletion, and where editors flock to intervene in a deletion, looks like canvassing to me.

  • 3. Stealth. After User:RMHED started the thread, and User:Alison, from the same forum, subsequently nominated the article for deletion, and other parties joined the AfD, there has been no disclosure of the AfD being monitored and followed by WP editors on the forum, until User:Aboutmovies stumbled upon the thread. Most importantly, the forum is even not googleable: a header says Discussions in this subforum are hidden from search engines. The only way one has to protect a WP discussion on a BLP from WR is actively monitoring WR.
  • 4. Not really a problem with WP:CANVASSING, but I want to be noticed that the editors involved in the WR thread made uncivil and AGF-dismissing remarks about other editors on the thread. Just two examples:
  • This AFD is a clusterfuck. (LaraLove on WR, User:Jennavecia)
  • (Quoting a comment of mine on the AfD) *facepalm a go-go* (SirFozzie on WR, User:SirFozzie)

After User:Aboutmovies comment, I opened a sub-discussion on the AfD, and a brief discussion with User:Jennavecia made clear that she openly admits the canvassing, only dismissing the policy as "silly" and that it is "widespread knowledge" that she posts on WR. User:Alison only today added on her user page that she edits on WR.

Finally: I didn't discuss with editors on their talk page for the following reasons. First, it is not a case of me asking to some editor to "stop canvassing", because it is more complex than that: it's that several editors with similar views stealthily discuss AfDs between themselves, recruit similar-minded editors and intervene, without giving the WP community notice. It's unclear what discussing on the talk page would have been solved: it seems there's a deeper problem here. Second, four of the five involved editors are admins, and the other do not seem to be a new, unexperienced editor at all. I don't think I have to remind them of basic guidelines and policies. Third, I opened discussion on the AfD, and at least one of the editors involved openly admitted the canvassing, only to dismiss it as irrelevant and silly.

I hope, in this regard, not to have mismanaged this too much. I feel the situation is serious because, while the existence of WR per se is completely fine, the fact that several like-minded editors and admins meet there and discuss editors and AfDs stealthily is, in my humble opinion, a serious problem for the WP community.

I hereby courtesly ask for uninvolved, experienced admins to comment on the issue and suggest what the best course of action is. Thanks a lot. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for canvassing for the AFD as well, though not your intention. And no, I'm not even being sarcastic. Lara 17:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Are we really going to basically assail these people for using WR? Protonk (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Absolutely not. I would just appreciate they at least disclose they are discussing there, if they come in numbers to an AfD. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
(triple ec) Appropriate action to take is : do nothing. So someone commented on an external site that there was a crappy article and nominated for AfD, and others who read that site come along and !vote in the discussion. Is there anywhere where anyone said "Hey, this article is up for AfD, come !vote to delete it"? No. The existence of AfD'd articles gets advertised all over the place: AfD log itself, on the article in question, and often on interested WikiProjects. No canvassing going on here, get over it. There's also no incivility going on - if you really believe someone referring to a discussion as a "clusterfuck" is incivil, I fear for your sanity on the internet in general. We also cannot be censuring people for their "incivil" edits on other websites. Shereth 17:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Is there anywhere where anyone said "Hey, this article is up for AfD, come !vote to delete it"? No.  : Technically true, but posting the mere existence of something on a forum biased about that is equivalent to the above hypothetic sentence. A (somewhat silly) but hopefully clear example: Imagine there is "WikipediaCreationists.org", and I comment there "Someone posted an AfD of Charles Darwin" -what reaction do you expect? --Cyclopia (talk) 18:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Give me a break. You (referring to the person who opened this ANI report) spend the entire AfD haranging every single Delete voter on the AfD, to the point where I had to wonder why you are so vehemently defending this article? (in a vast minority, EVEN IF our votes are somehow tainted.) I actually learned of this through Alison's contributions. I can state conclusively that it wasn't the WR thread that attracted me to the AfD, nor was their any canvassing on this in the way I voted. I read the article, realized it was a WP:BLP hitjob. And then the *facepalm* comment for your Decency is not a criteria to decide what goes in WP or not. See WP:CENSORED crack was my honest feeling. BTW, it couldn't have been too stealthy if you picked it up, you know. The actual good thing is that WR hides its BLP discussion forum from the google spider.. WP proclaims it for all to see. SirFozzie (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
What he said. – iridescent 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Just to answer: I am actively (maybe too much, I admit) opposing the deletion not because I care of the article itself, but because "moral" grounds for deletions are plain harmful in my opinion. But that's not the point in case, I am here to discuss of the canvassing incident. As such, I appreciate your statement about having known of the AfD elsewhere. Still, it has IMHO to be explained why at least didn't someone of you disclose that you were discussing about that on the forum. I feel WP is an open process, and discussing about AfD in a non-googleable subforum is pretty much the opposite of open.--Cyclopia (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Cyclopia, what you're not getting (and what may be the core of the differences we see here), is that many many people believe that Wikipedia can be used to harm living people. Look at the Siegenthaler incident, for gosh sake. I'm not just talking about random "X Killed Kennedy" vandalism, although that's bad enough! That's why the BLP policy is as strong as it is. Would you consider people appearing in newsoftheweird/Darwin Awards columns to be notable? After all, both are carried far and wide by newspapers, radio and the like. WR believes (if it can be said to have a monolithic belief at all) that WP has the possibility of doing great harm to living people, and while it merits discussion, WR has decided that they're not going to "pile on " with additional googlejuice. SirFozzie (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Fine, but could you at least disclose the existence of your threads on the AfD's etc. you discuss? Why are you unwilling to do that? It would help everyone. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Because at the time, I didn't know about the AfD thread. As I said, I was made aware of the whole kerfluffle after I viewed the article and decided that it should be deleted on its own merit. SirFozzie (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Because it doesn't matter. The AFD is about the weight of arguments. In that people are discussing it elsewhere is wholly irrelevant. Lara 18:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I must agree with Lara here. It isn't canvassing because people are bringing in good arguments as to why the article should be deleted. And it is WR, not a group of friends doing one friend a favor. –túrianpatois 18:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Not canvassing - why? Because that Forum is dominated of people with conflicting opinions and more often than not drums up the opposite reaction. I, for instance, have disagreed with quite a few AfDs or other statements posted at WR. If I agree, I agree. But everyone knows that I have a long standing antagonistic relationship with WR, so there is no way to claim that at least my actions are based on a canvassing prejudice (as canvassing only applies when there are not well reasoned votes by people who think objectively and independently). Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I see your point. However, there has been not a single post against in that thread (while the AfD shows several keep for example), which makes me wonder how much "conflicting" is in this case the coverage. The forum POV on BLP management is pretty explicit. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Do nothing. While the standards of behavior are significantly different, and arguably beneath our own (please oh please do not start that argument here, there, or anywhere), there stated position on Biographies of Living Persons is well established, reasonable, and in the best of faith, and is not all the different from our own (do no harm). One can make the argument that the heightened awareness of the difficulties BLPs pose is the enduring and most positive contribution the forum has ever made to the this site.--Tznkai (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yayy - WP:BADSITES is back. I'm so glad I unretired :) Nothing much else to say really as I'm primarily interested in BLP issues and not petty WikiPolitics™ - Alison 17:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I've got a lot of respect for you, but I don't think one person's accusation followed by (currently) unanimous rejection means that BADSITES is back. Rather the opposite, wouldn't you say? Protonk (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the bigger issue is how this got through DYK. Grsz11 17:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Anyway, what administrative action are you asking for here? I don't see anything to do. Black Kite 17:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't know. I am not an admin, and I am not sure what should be done in such cases. To me this looks pretty serious, but I don't know if banning/deadmining(?)/whatever is the course. I'd like some uninvolved admin (someone not on WR) to comment and decide. --Cyclopia (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm an admin, and I'm uninvolved (I posted on WR once, but only to reply to a thread about me), and I can definitely confirm that no-one is going to take any action here, for the reasons posted above and below. Black Kite 18:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I removed the rescue tag, which I'm sure even the ARS would be embarrassed about. Black Kite 18:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't care about WR. We should concentrate on the AFD rather than what goes on an external website. AdjustShift (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I wouldn't go that far.. there's a fairly major ArbCom case right now about actions external to Wikipedia (a mailing list) and its actions ON Wikipedia.. But as I said, even if our !votes were somehow tainted (and which I firmly believe their not), there is a consensus that this article should be deleted. SirFozzie (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Briefly, and with apologies for redundancy with previous comments: I believe that any observers of Wikipedia Review will conclude that the main intention of the editors in question in discussing the article was to call attention to serious BLP problems we are confronted with as a project, not to get their way in the AfD; there is no imperative to declare where one learned of a discussion – and there plenty of editors of opposing philosophical stances to the above named on WR; finally, Wikipedia norms, policies and guidelines, do not apply off-site people may do as they damn well please off-wiki without our getting involved, as long as it does not damage or intend to damage the encyclopaedia, its contributors, or its readers.  Skomorokh  17:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Disclosure: I have no account on Wikipedia Review.  Skomorokh  18:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Meh. --Jayron32 17:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • People offered opinions on a an open external forum, so that seems quite distinct from canvassing where a solicitation to involved parties. If a pointed request was made on a website that had an interest in advocating one way or the other on the AfD outcome that would be different. But this just looks like people discussing the article and AfD quite openly off site. So I don't see how that's canvassing. Anyone is free to go there and post their view. If you do, please remember to mention how charming and wonderful I am. Appraisals of physical appearance and likability are a key component of what seems to be discussed there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Do nothing, in case it wasn't clear from my comment above. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I votes delete in the AfD, but the canvassing is pretty blatant. It looks like all the people above me are trying to shout down Cyclopia because WR is the place where the Wikipedia in-crowd get to canvass at will. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Er, no one is asking others "hey you, come vote in this AfD", it is more like "hey you, look at how irrevocably fucked this article is". Calling attention to a bad article in an off-wiki place where other users may be on the conservative side of what kind of BLP articles the Wikipedia should be hosting is not "canvassing". Tarc (talk) 18:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Indeed. Can you give us a single example of "canvassing" on that WR thread? (When you're done with that, you can do the same for Exploding tree, too.) – iridescent 18:20, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • At this point our canvassing policy is a complete clusterfuck. We have a checkuser who has canvassed and that's ok. But we're frying some people for having a mailing list. Moreover, despite WR being an open forum, the general preference of users and readers is clearly deletionist in regard to BLPs. Finally, when non-Wikipedians post on blogs and fora about deletion discussions we get annoyed. This is a host of contradictions. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Posting on a publicly-viewable website is not normally "stealthy." That said, thank you for bringing that atrocious BLP to my attention, Cyclopia. Cool Hand Luke 18:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: May anyone taking part in this discussion disclose explicitly if they have a WR account or not and if they are active on that forum? Otherwise it is hard to decide if there is a conflict of interest. Me:I just made one, practically only for the purpose of noticing the current AN/I and monitoring the situation on the forum. --Cyclopia (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • They may if they like. I don't think it is necessary because all that will happen is that someone will come along and count heads. Protonk (talk) 18:27, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I publicly and fully disclose that I will make no such statement about whether or not I hold an account or read or comment at Wikipedia Review or any other such website. I may, or I may not, but you will never get me to disclose such information. --Jayron32 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Wow. Did you really just ask that sort of question? Tarc (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Amongst all this one wonders why you haven't considered that whoever commented on WR about this bunny lady might actually have a brain of their own to decide themsevles whether or not the article is accpetable regardless of what anybody else thinks. Maybe the people commenting at WR actually genuinely believed this article is an embarrassement which is why they could not believe people wanted to keep it. As it stands people viewing this ANI report can make up their own minds about it as is clearly happening at the moment but probably not in the way you had expected.. Himalayan 18:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Can we archive now? I'd already explained the situation to Cyclopia before he opened this thread, I think this confirms it, and considering his expressed intention is to get me and the others banned and/or desysopped, I think it's time to close shop on this one. Just my opinion. Lara 18:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not my "intention". It's one of possible outcomes I could think about, but I am not an admin and I do not know. I feel that this is a really serious problem; admittedly most people here think otherwise but it is funny that only a few disclosed their WR status (sincerely sorry if this is a bit not AGF).--Cyclopia (talk) 18:41, 24 September 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.

TfD[edit]

Resolved: User:Ruslik0 knocked it out, and I learned about a cool closing script! Protonk (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

this item is now ten days old, would appreciate if someone could close it or relist it. 81.110.104.91 (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I was just noticing that as well. However as one of the parties participating in the TfD, I cannot resolve it. Anyone else up for a TfD close? — Kralizec! (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
This is gonna sound really, really, really lazy, but the reason I didn't close it as keep last night was that I didn't have a one-click javascript closer. Does anyone know of one for XfD's (I have the AfD/DRV one from lifebaka and Mr. Z man)? Protonk (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
User:King of Hearts/closexfd.js does the job - it seems to be modifications of Lifebaka's DRV one for the other types. ~ mazca talk 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, I already began taking the long manual route in deleting the templates but I can restore if you want to use the java closer. Also, I wasn't sure if this has screwed up Huggle or Twinkle. Can someone with Huggle check that? CactusWriter | needles 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

IP 69.77.136.161 - returning sockpuppet[edit]

This sock-IP and one other (204.84.96.201) from North Carolina have returned to add the following nonsense to the Viggo Mortensen article: "In 2008, Mortensen wed Boomer, NC librarian Christy Earp." De728631 (talk) 18:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither IP has made any other vandalisms since that one, so a block is inappropriate, and two instances of vandalism probably does not merit semi-protection yet. But I have watchlisted that article, and will promptly take action should this ramp up further. --Jayron32 19:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Mass violation of WP:ITEXISTS at AfD[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.

Resolved: No admin action required here, nothing to do Shereth 22:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

At this AfD there seems to be a great amount of !votes for keep simply because the subject matter exists or has "been confirmed". This is clearly agains WP:ITEXISTS and I hope I'm not breaking WP:CANVASS by asking admins to put in their two cents? Thanks, Dale 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • You can't really "violate" that essay. you aren't breaking canvassing rules but you aren't about to get a response from administrators. I suspect that the article will be kept, the best way to go about the debate is simply to make you case persuasively, calmly and once. After that just step away. Protonk (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I would submit that the best way to go about it is to not go about it. Clearly, there will be an article about this compilation. What's the benefit in temporarily deleting it? Why not focus on the more egregious stuff that needs to be deleted and will be uncontroversial? Friday (talk) 21:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Before complaining, its helpful to ask what administrative remedy do I want applied? --Tznkai (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Crystal was used in the nom. So, "Itexists" seems to be the specific counter argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
and yes I see this as a violation of CANVASS. There is nothing specific for an administrator to do there.--Crossmr (talk) 22:00, 24 September 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.

Jeff G's use of Huggle.[edit]

Bringing this here for a review. I was going to let this pass because this incident happened a couple of days ago, but it seems there are ongoing issues with their use of Huggle. Earlier in the day, I saw this report where they stated the IP had been removing the {{whois}} template from the top of their talk page. I discussed this matter with the IP, and explained the situation. They co-operated, and I closed the matter at AIV as resolved.

Seeing this IP at AIV again later in the day raised my eyebrows, and the six diffs he cited as vandalism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), none of them vandalism. I raised concerns on their talk page, as did an administrator who blocked the IP in error. When asked for an explanation, they basically blamed Huggle[8] for the error. A mistake or two is excusable, but an ongoing pattern is not. This edit today was pointed out to me as well.

I feel that Jeff is unable to differentiate between what is and what is not vandalism, and should have his rollback removed. Alternatively, he could take these two lessons on vandalism, and keep his rollback, but I see an ongoing pattern here that needs to be addressed, and I'd welcome input from administrators. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Procedural Note I have informed Jeff G of this discussion, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 02:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That slipped my mind. Thanks. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Other questionable uses include; The Funniest Joke in the World, Anadolu Airport, Marsia, List of Omnitrix aliens, Wes Ramsey, Glasses Malone, Characters of Extras, Taronga Zoo, and Eskişehir Airport, and CityRail K set, just to list a few. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to address these one at a time:
But your edit restored the questionable assertion. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Lack of an edit summary doesn't make it vandalism - in fact, it's at least in part a valid edit as two minutes of research shows.[9] 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Your use of Huggle to undo an edit that may be questionable but not obviously vandalism and apparently done in good faith. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Still doesn't make it vandalism. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Given the current state of Wikipedia:VAND#NOT, under exactly what circumstances is it appropriate to use the following unsourced templates (and consequently the Huggle versions of them)?
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Another accurate edit, as shown by 3 minutes of research, labeled vandalism. Hardly a case of unambiguous vandalism. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I think this concerns me, Jeff G. (talk · contribs) (note the dot), rather than the uninvolved user Jeff G (talk · contribs), who has been inactive since February, so I undid the notification mentioned above by Basket of Puppies (talk · contribs). Concerning this edit, the user I was reverting, 93.86.164.168 (talk · contribs), sarcastically called Verbal (talk · contribs) "allknowing" and accused that user of "lying" in this edit. I took the "lying" part as a personal attack (since it involved the language of {{subst:uw-delete1}} in this warning edit, which was not a lie and concerned this original content removal edit), and reverted/warned accordingly.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Rollback is only to be used for reverting vandalism or your own edits. This clearly states that personal attacks (perceived or otherwise) does not fall under that criteria, so rollback should not be used. The edits that 98.248 also outlined are concerning. Why should you be allowed to retain rollback, when there is clearly an ongoing pattern of problematic edits. Unless you'd agree to go through a lesson on how to use rollback appropriately, and how to differentiate between what is and what is not vandalism, which I'm happy to go through with you, I'm worried that problems like this will continue to arise. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 05:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to go through a lesson, but I'd like to finish responding to all of the above first.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Given the current state of Wikipedia:VAND#NOT, under exactly what circumstances is it appropriate to use the following templates (and consequently the Huggle versions of them)?
  — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 06:07, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Good question. Some interpret the vandalism policy a bit looser than others, I interpret it quite strictly, simply because reverting poor edits, that may be made with good intentions, and labelling them as "vandalism" is one of the fastest ways to make a new editor stop editing. When you're ready, pop a note on my talk page and we'll go through the Vandalism lessons. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, not tonight, I'm too tired (it's about 03:06 here). I'll be back tomorrow evening or night.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
All those templates appear to relate to personal attacks, not vandalism. I can say that vandalism is only when it is unambiguously clear that an edit was made with the sole intent of damaging wikipedia as a resource. There is a long (but not exhaustive) list at VAND#NOT of disruptive or unpleasant edits which aren't vandalism. The basic rule is, if there is any doubt, use the edit summary feature in HG. Protonk (talk) 07:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a note here; rollback is for blatantly unproductive edits, and not only for vandalism. If an edit can in no way be thought as made in good faith, it is quite appropriate to use rollback for that. Huggle provides options for reverting personal attacks and unexplained content removals, among others. However IIRC, in each case huggle gives the same edit summary by default (Reverted edits by x to last revision by y (HG)), but the warning issued will be different. That aside, I agree that Jeff G. should exercise more scrutiny and care when using huggle. This edit is somewhat understandable considering that a large amount of text was removed without explanation, and I think many RC patrollers would have reverted that. But almost every other example seems to be a careless mistake or a result of being too hasty. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 07:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
With as many as 9 edits per minute (03:26, 22 September 2009), there's not any doubt in my mind that Jeff is being too quick to push the button. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 08:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I must agree with this. he reverted my edit too because i said other editor lied -- which he did -- so it was not a personal attack. 93.86.164.168 (talk) 10:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Is it reasonable to assume that the nine-edits-per-minute revert rate described above is too fast for an editor to be effectively judging the individual merits of each edit? — Kralizec! (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
───────────────────────── That's only 5 reverts, plus 3 warnings and one AIV report. The reverts in question are [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]. I'll leave it to others to judge if they are good reverts. Tim Song (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
"Craftsman is someone that is a tool, or a big douche bag!", "it has somewhat of jewish origans" concerning a family of beetles, "The Ford Mustang is an insanely awesome automobile", and "*Howard Stern - Radio show host, King of All Media" were easy to spot as vandalism. The birthdate change I had to research for a bit. The user I reported to AIV for vandalizing Ford Mustang, 72.199.232.33 (talk · contribs), got blocked subsequent to my report.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Try not to obsfucate the point being made - that the speed of rollbacks is indicative of Jeff not taking the time to give each due consideration. This one minute period is just an example of his rapidity. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 18:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how I'm obfuscating the point - I agree with Jeff's assessment of the reverts, BTW - you said that he's rolling back too fast and not giving each due consideration because he made 9 edits in a minute; I pointed out that it's actually only 5 reverts; I also think that they are all sound. And for four of them it probably takes 3 seconds to figure out that a revert is appropriate. So, no, I don't see you proving your point with this example; if he made a bad revert in the minute, yes, but I think that they are all good. Tim Song (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Tim, not you. Jeff is the one who is attempting to justify individual edits without addressing the larger issue of the overall trend demonstrated by the examples given. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

←I think it's suffice to say at this point that Jeff should be more careful in his reverts. I haven't looked at the diffs provided in this ANI thread, but I did some of my own investigating about a week ago, and I was concerned. Jeff, please consider the concerns of everyone in this discussion when you use Huggle. Thanks. Killiondude (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. About the speed problem; 9 edits per minute (actually 5 done by him, since the warnings and report are automated) is not very unusual for a huggle user at a time when vandalism rate is high. Jeff G. has been doing RC patrol for some time, and has done good work there. Removing his rollback would not be a net positive for the project IMHO. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 02:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Coughlin[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved: User:JamesRenner has agreed to stop editing the article, all parties advised to use dispute resolution methods such as WP:RFC or WP:3O to seek wider input on the use of sources. Since this is now a content, and not behavioral, issue, there is nothing left for admins to do here. --Jayron32 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

JamesRenner (talk · contribs), who is apparently James Renner, has been edit warring at the BLP Kevin Coughlin to add details of a lawsuit Renner filed against Coughlin. There has been discussion on the talk page, but there is no consensus to add the content that Renner wants to add. Needless to say, this is inappropriate due to the huge conflict of interest. JamesRenner has been warned not to edit the article. There is likely sockpuppeting too, considering the single-purpose IPs whose only edits have been to push Renner's interests. Peacock (talk) 17:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • You should always notify an editor when you open an ANI discussion -- I've done so for you this time. I'm not an admin, but my opinion is that the behavior would justify a block if JamesRenner (talk · contribs) had been given a sufficiently direct and recent warning, but that doesn't seem to have happened. He has received serious warnings in the past, but the most recent talk page section is "friendly advice" from SlimVirgin on September 10. Looie496 (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for making the notification. Peacock (talk) 18:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
      • As an otherwise un-involved, outside admin, I added the article to my watchlist as per the previous AN/I thread as well as the BLP/N thread. In the two days since protection expired on the article, falsely sourced and BLP-violating content has been added five times. As such, I have reverted [15] the article back to its pre-dispute state, fully-protected [16] it for twenty days, and informed the involved parties [17] that I will lift the protection early if consensus forms around a fully and properly sourced and cited version. — Kralizec! (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me clear up a few false bits of info being thrown about by Kralizec, who I do not believe to be an unbiased admin in this case. One, I'm not just some joe blow with a beef. I'm a journalist and editor of a newspaper, The Independent [18]. I understand, quite well, libel law and proper sourcing, especially after my recent suit with Coughlin. If you'll read through the discussion page at Kevin Coughlin you'll see that I have provided a valid sources to support the inclusion of this incident. This lawsuit with Kevin Coughlin was covered by the Columbus Dispatch, which Kralizec inaccurately describes as a blog, the Akron Beacon Journal, and several smaller publications. I agree there is an inherent conflict of interest here. However, I also feel this incident was large enough to merit inclusion in Coughlin's bio, especially in light of the fact that Coughlin announced his retirement from politics during my lawsuit with him. There are also court filings where Coughlin, through his lawyer, admits my story about his alleged affair and altering of petition ballots was not defamatory and that his threats of a lawsuit were bogus. My point is, maybe I'm not the one to write it into his bio, but the sourcing is there and someone else should. "JamesRenner (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"

  • James, per WP:COI and your clear involvement with this individual in real life issues, you should NOT be editing his article. Perhaps you should leave info about the sources you describe at the article's talk page for other, uninvolved, editors to evaluate and decide what to do with, but the level of your conflict of interest with this subject makes it impossible for you to make an objective, dispassionate assessement of the source material and how to properly incorporate it in the article, if it needs to be added at all. That the conflict of interest centers on an article about a living person (see WP:BLP) makes it doubly important that we tread carefully here. --Jayron32 19:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Hey, I agree. I would love for someone to read the sourced articles and take a stab at an edit so we can move on. "JamesRenner (talk) 20:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"
      • Well, since James is agreeing not to edit the article, I can't see what admins can do in this situation. If necessary, someone can start a WP:RFC or WP:3O discussion at the article's talk page, in order to attract more attention, but unless James, or someone else, starts up the edit war again, there is nothing else for admins to do here. I'm going to mark this one as resolved. --Jayron32 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
As the protecting administrator the last time around, I fully endorse the re-protection. Although I suspect that further administrator action will be required, as it seems that the blocking tool will become the more appropriate tool to address this problem with, rather than the protection tool, since the repeatedly-reverted edits are clearly coming from one person.

During this protection period, I suggest that the people involved in the talk page discussion answer the elephant-in-the-room BLP question: Why is information about James Renner's lawsuit against his employer for unfair dismissal, and subsequent settlement of that lawsuit, being repeatedly put in Kevin Coughlin in the first place, and not in the obvious place for information about James Renner, James Renner? Uncle G (talk) 20:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

  • A lot of spin going around here. I had not read the Coughlin page in over a week, so was not a party to most of the reverted edits. [Violations of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons removed. Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)] In Ohio, this is sort of along the lines of the Lewinski drama. Big story. More Coughlin's than mine. But if you want to include it on both pages, fine. But it really merits inclusion on Coughlin's page. The reason I became personally involved in this, is because the first person to revert edits here was a proxy of Kevin Coughlin, himself, which I believe you can verify by looking at the history of the article to see who reverted those first edits. Coughlin asks him on his talk page to help him out. I need help from you guys to see through the spin Coughlin and his sock-puppets are creating here in an effort to keep this info off his page. Any help would be appreciated. This is what wikipedia is all about. Don't let them get away with censorship. "JamesRenner (talk) 22:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)"
    • That's enough. JeffBillman (talk · contribs) is not a sockpuppet of some politician that you don't like, and this noticeboard is not for repeating the BLP violations that you couldn't get into an article. The very next time that you make an edit like this, M. Renner, your editing privileges will be removed, permanently. Wikipedia is not your battleground for an external dispute, nor is it a platform for getting your own allegations against a politician published. Do I make myself crystal clear? Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Billman admits he's a sock puppet or did you not read his page? And, let's calm it down a bit, UncleG. I don't know who you are in the real world, but you're certainly not my mom there or on wikipedia. "JamesRenner (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)"