Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive579

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

Noticeboard archives


ItsLassieTime banned or not?[edit]

Resolved: Yes, ILT is banned and his/her edits are always in question. Discussing the validity of G5 should go to WT:CSD. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Per this discussion, ItsLassieTime (talk · contribs) was banned for 18 months for socking, edit warring and general disruption and personal attacks - or so I thought. The latest few socks include Kathyrncelestewright (talk · contribs) who was defying the ban by creating numerous articles, nominating them for GA, and approving other people's GAs, etc. Per WP:BAN, I deleted several of the articles before someone pointed me to a discussion that I wasn't aware of. In that discussion from a few days ago, people said they were going to check the articles, but I'm not aware of any checking actually happening until this review of a single article. After starting another discussion with more mixed opinions, a DRV has now been started and this is getting silly.

So, once and for all, is ItsLassieTime banned or not? If s/he is allowed to edit any articles, that's fine, but then we need to officially unban. These banned-except-if-the-user-wants-to-write-articles situations come up far too often and it needs to stop. Do we need an RFC for the WP:BAN policy in general? Wknight94 talk 18:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

The policy does not mandate the deletion of articles created by banned socks. Contested speedy deletion proposals belong at AfD, not at ANI. Bongomatic 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
In this case, unfortunately, the currently correct venue is DRV: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks. Bongomatic 18:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't answer my original question - is ItsLassieTime really banned? If not from creating new articles, then from what? Wknight94 talk 19:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
If this ANI discussion isn't about the manner / venue for determination of deletion of the articles, then please comment on that topic at the DRV rather than referring the DRV discussion here. Bongomatic 19:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Easy one first: any article created by a banned user while banned can be deleted as long as it has no significant contributions by others. We don't retrospectively delete articles written before a ban but anything created by a banned user while banned using socks is subject to summary deletion, for reasons which are quite obvious.
If a blocked editor sockpuppets while banned then the articles created by the socks might reasonably treated the same way (I certainly would). Anything else makes no sense, because it would be an open invitation to socking. Large scale block evasion commonly leads to a ban anyway, so the margin between blocked and banned is not a bright line. WP:RBI articulates the general principles.
We do not distinguish on the basis of quality. We don't let blocked or banned editors contribute using socks, we don't let people proxy for them. There are excellent reasons for this. Those are general points, I've not looked to see the histories of the articles and individuals in this specific case, because you asked a general question. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Okay, well there are several people disagreeing with you and now a DRV devoted to restoring a banned user's edits. If those are indeed restored, then the user should be considered unbanned IMHO. Someone should not be simultaneously banned and allowed to create new articles. Among other things, it's not fair to that not-so-banned user. All we're doing is forcing them to change account names from time to time. Wknight94 talk 20:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Were they creatd by the user while banned? That's the test. Guy (Help!) 20:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
In this case, the ban was in April, the articles at question were from November (I think - definitely long after April). But more generally, this is the 3rd or 4th time I've been embroiled in disputes like this. Banned users who can assemble decent articles always gather backers. If such people can't actually be banned, then we shouldn't bother. Wknight94 talk 20:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now. For what it's worth, I think you are right. This is block evasion and subject to WP:RBI, and speedy deletion is just a special case of that. However, if the articles have significant contributions form others, or if others want to take them and make significant contributions while not actually proxying for the banned user, that should be fine. If the user wants to appeal the block (and a ban is onyl a block nobody wants to undo, timed or not), they can appeal to ArbCom. We absolutely do not make an exception to the rule to allow blocked or banned editors to contribute just because we like them or what they write. If people think blocked users should be allowed to contribute then they need to challenge the block, not facilitate block evasion. I do not deny their good faith, but I think they are mistaken and have perhaps not thought throught he implications of turning a blind eye to blocking and sockpuppetry. Guy (Help!) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
As the one who tagged the articles, I should state that I checked the history of all of them, and tagged only those that did not have significant contributions from others. A few that did, I tagged as disputed instead. They were also all created specifically by a single sock that was created after ItsLassieTime was banned. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree a bit with Guy here. I guess we all agree that the goal here is to create a quality encyclopedia. Actions which promote this are 'good', actions which take us further from the goal are 'bad'. The social aspects of Wikipedia, including banning, are meant to help the encyclopedia. In the cases of abusive editors who create quality content, I don't think deleting it is self-evidently helping the encyclopedia and merits some judgment. There are some people whose edits clearly are absolutely never welcome (such as those who have harassed other editors in real life), but in most run of the mill cases I'd lean towards blocking the account while not deleting the content would be a better course of action. henriktalk 20:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But what is the point of blocking but not deleting? That doesn't help anyone. I'd prefer someone be unbanned than forced to change account names from time to time. Wknight94 talk 20:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, Henrik, I don't often disagree with you but here I think I must, as you will gather. Blocked is blocked, banned is banned, and having us fight over the content contributed while evading sanctions is often precisely what people want - there is a long history of people gaming the system i exactly this way. But you can take ownership of the articles, make a significant contribution and then they can stay and the encyclopaedia wins without the problems. Guy (Help!) 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I accept that there are cases where we should make it absolutely clear to someone that they're not welcome and that their contributions should be removed or deleted on sight, despite this might mean removing good content. I just think that this should be a course of action generally reserved for the most serious cases. (I haven't managed to look into the particulars of this case enough yet to have a judgment on if that is the case here).henriktalk 21:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Guy just articulated the response I was looking for; really good contributions by a blocked/banned account can be taken over by a legit account - WP gets the content but the sock is not credited, thus providing a reason for the individual to use the proper processes to be allowed to be contribute. I realise that there is the rationale that the use of an alternate account to evidence an account blocked for specific reasons can contribute appropriately, but these socks are generally not recognised because of the dissimilarity between them. An editor whose socks closely approximate that of the blocked account are obviously continuing the behaviour that got them sanctioned, even if the content is otherwise viable. So, yeah - blocked is blocked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I also like Guy's idea of adopting the content (though there is a nagging question in the back of my head about how to swing copyright attribution). henriktalk 22:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
It would be fine if the adopter were trustworthy, and not just claiming to adopt the content simply to arbitrarily avoid deletion. I've been burned a bit by that before - someone claiming to double-check the content, only to have someone else triple-check the content and discover the double-checking was crap. Wknight94 talk 02:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing this discussion, it is clear that this is an inappropriate forum. This discussion belongs at WT:Banning policy and/or WT:Deletion policy and/or Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). This is not a forum for making policy, nor is it the forum for discussion these specific deletions. Bongomatic 23:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't delete something just because a banned user creates it. Banned user:Peter Damian tried to play that game with us a while back and nobody took the bait and deleted the good contributions his socks made. Has anyone gone and seen if Law made any new articles before The undertow's original one-year ban expired? No, because that would be immensely stupid. Things get deleted because of what they are, not because of what person or unperson created them. Now, if the banned user was banned for questionable contributions, as opposed to "backstage" antics, we have every reason to be suspicious of the socks' contributions and delete if anything seems sketchy. So I ask: is there any reason to believe that ItsLassieTime contributes bad content? If not, these should be undeleted. --NE2 23:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors with views on the manner of deletion of these specific articles are encouraged to opine at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 November 15#The Storks. I would hope that even those who support deletion would have the honesty to opine that the articles should be listed and then opine delete at the subsequent AfD. Bongomatic 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I plan to once I get a reply to my question (or am ignored). --NE2 00:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Here's an answer for you: {{bannedmeansbanned}}
I think that's pretty clear, and supported by current policy, albeit a policy that is often ignored. Beeblebrox (talk)
First, template≠policy, which can be found at Wikipedia:Banning policy#Enforcement by reverting edits. It may be "pretty clear", but your interpretation of it is one-sided. "May" does not mean "must"—an observation made on the policy page itself— and the policy is not written in a way that makes it obviously independent of other policies, such as the speedy deletion policy that prohibits renomination in favor of AfD listing. In my opinion, creation of these pages were "obviously helpful edits" which means that per the balance of policy, an AfD discussion, rather than a speedy deletion, is warranted. Bongomatic 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @NE2: Then what is the point of a ban? To answer your question, I've heard there were sourcing questions. The account and its socks used nothing but offline sources, and verification was difficult at best. The first link above gives the entire ban discussion. Wknight94 talk 01:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It is repellent to the notion of this encyclopedia to see FUTON bias being brought into a content discussion in this manner. Bongomatic 01:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The point of the ban was, as far as I can tell, to keep the user from abusively socking. I don't see any abuse by the user here, unless there's reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the articles. --NE2 03:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Also from the banning policy: "It is customary for the "ban timer" to be reset or extended if a banned user attempts to edit in spite of the ban. No formal consideration is typically necessary. For example, if someone is banned for ten days, but on the sixth day attempts to evade the ban, then the ban timer may be reset from "four days remaining" to "ten days remaining". So if the user doesn't subsequently evade the ban again, his or her eventual total duration would be 16 days." So that 18 months should be reset to the day the last article was created. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
The timer was reset, but the person doesn't care anyway. From the ban discussion and SPIs, people weren't real sure which was even the original account. Wknight94 talk 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • cmt i remember this user. They were abusive, they lied, the created hoaxes, they socked, they whined to get unblocked, they socked some more, they seemed schizophrenic (making up stories about neighbors and daughters and god know's what else) and the articles they wrote were fiction-filled pieces of garbage. They are banned. RBI and move on.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Do you believe that these articles were hoaxes? --NE2 03:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Per the [[original ban, it does not appear that there was any accusation of hoaxing or introducing incorrect information into articles. Bongomatic 04:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
@NE2, I'm not going to check each and every one of these articles, and frankly, I shouldn't have to. None of us should. It is not fair to expect the community in general to babysit a user who has shown a proclivity towards bad content or bad behavior. Or are you volunteering to be a permanent mentor for this person? If so, that would be news to him/her since I don't think s/he has engaged a single person in a real conversation, and certainly would not be interested in mentorship. The first time you caught him/her using one sock to approve another sock's GA, or sourcing an article with a book that may or may not exist, s/he would simply vanish into another sock and we start over again. Wknight94 talk 04:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
"Its Lassie Time" was a thoroughly bad-faith user who created a large number of socks in order to boost his own articles to GA status, until one slipup this past summer exposed his shenanigans. He's banned and should stay banned until or if he decides to abide by the rules. And, yes, anything determined to have been written by his socks since then "may" be deleted, for sure, regardless of any alleged "merit". Banned editors are not allowed to edit. No compromise. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Have there been cases of this user misusing sources? If so, can you link to the relevant discussion? --NE2 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with many of the comments made above. Think about it this way. The user was banned because the community reached a consensus that it could no longer deal with the user's edits and behaviour on Wikipedia. It was too disruptive to have to keep following them up and double-checking their work, and so on. If that was the point of the ban, then it makes absolutely no sense to put the onus back on the community to look at the work the user created while banned to determine if the content has merit or not. There should be a prima facie case that an article created by a banned user with no significant contributions by any other editor does not belong on Wikipedia. It is an exception to the normal deletion policy. The community should not be required to look up the sources, make sure everything is correct, etc., when the article is created by a banned user. Singularity42 (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
It's actually not an exception to deletion policy at all. See WP:CSD#G5 and WP:BAN. It's just a policy that is frustrating to those who value having any kind of content regardless of its reliability or the luggage that accompanies it. Wknight94 talk 05:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Banned users are not allowed to edit. That's the starting and ending point of any discussion on this matter. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Your argument makes sense if said editor was banned for bad articles. But if said editor was banned for, say, adding unconstructive posts to every AN/I thread, there's no prima facie reason to doubt content they add. --NE2 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Said editor was banned, however, for horrible socking and building an almost pathological set of lies around each sock and using those socks to support themselves in discussions over content. The editor lost the communities trust, and reflected an appallng lack of honesty that has only continued since the ban, as evidenced by the appearance of more socks since then. Why presume to trust their content is okay when all else were lies? We don't even know for sure if ILT was male or female as they claimed to be both. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

────────────────────Singularity and Wknight94, you both have implied or stated that the banned editor's content is somehow more suspect than the rest of the content that is added to the encyclopedia without stewardship or review. What is the basis for this? I was not a participant in the original banning discussion, or subsequent sockpuppet investigations, and such a claim, if demonstrated to be valid, would (of course, at AfD, not at Speedy) be a consideration favoring deletion. Why do you suggest this? Collectonian, if that logic is sound, then why don't we delete all content from banned users (not just that created after the ban)? Bongomatic 05:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, much of ILT's contributions have either been removed or reviewed by others and worked on to ensure they are valid. That said, the simple answer is they weren't banned then. They are banned now. They continue to lie to the community and engage in their attention seeking behavior to gain DYKs and GAs. The serious focus on this both in the previous ANI and now would seem to indicate an editor willing to go to great lengths to get these "awards", making it clear that any contributions they have made should be suspect and reviewed for validity. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Bongomatic, why "of course, at AfD, not at Speedy"? Is this simply a case of you being philosophically opposed to WP:CSD#G5? Wknight94 talk 05:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
"Of course" because I obviously believe (hence filing a DRV) that the speedy deletion of these articles is out of policy regardless of whether there should be a G5 in the first place. Bongomatic 05:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
By the way, how would the sex of the banned editor be relevant to anything? Bongomatic 05:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Then when would you consider a G5 deletion to be valid and within policy? The user was definitely banned and G5 is very clear. As to the user's gender, it was brought up as a pattern of obvious deception, that's all. Wknight94 talk 06:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
If no other editor removed the {{db-banned}} template from the article—per convention and normal operation of the speedy deletion process. Bongomatic 07:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Those who are calling for deletion: what's your view on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of libertarian organizations? --NE2 13:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I had already deleted that one in fact - back when that sock was first uncovered. But Skomorokh (talk · contribs) agreed to take full responsibility for the content, and has done so. I have heard no such agreement here, except for the one yet-to-be-deleted article approved at WT:GA. Instead, what I see here is people blindly opposing WP:CSD#G5 itself and removing db-g5 tags with no explanation or agreement to check references. If that were to happen in this case, I might change my tune a bit, but I firmly believe that the default action in such cases is delete. Wknight94 talk 14:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is sounding more and more like some editors are opposed to WP:CSD#G5. If that's the case, the discussion belongs at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion‎ and not here. Until there is a consensus to alter or remove G5, it is policy. Singularity42 (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the answer to the rhetorical question in the title is yes. At the very least, ItsLassieTime's (sock's) contributions are under greater scrutiny once the sock is exposed. It is how one interpets G5 that is the question. The real question is how much respect we should show Bongomatic, the editor in good standing who removed the G5's. As the banned editor was not an (article) hoaxster, there is not much doubt that the individual articles are not complete hoaxes. I think that the act of removing the G5s should be taken as sufficient vouching for the content, as taking enough responsibility for the articles that they should not be speedy deleted. That is the norm of how we understand reverting reversions of content additions by banned editors. Asking that someone immediately and completely verify everything in a large collection of articles is asking too much. Implicitly saying that the articles are as good as the average new non-speediable content is enough. This could be made more explicit in policy. People who are still suspicious could prod them, and if necessary afd them, which would lead to less drama.John Z (talk) 18:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I totally disagree that simply removing csd tags is sufficient vouching for the content. It could just as easily mean that someone is philosophically opposed to G5. In the other case that NE2 brought up, Skomorokh (not an admin at the time) asked me if s/he could take a look at that article and a few others so that s/he could take a closer look. I agreed and restored. S/he said articles A and B could be re-deleted and that C and D were okay and s/he wanted to take responsibility for them. So that is what happened. In the current case, other than the single article in this case, I haven't heard anyone vouch for any of this sock's contributions - and it's been four days or so. And I stopped deleting them when someone notified me that there had been discussion, so several are still in main space for viewing. The short version of my rambling here is that someone needs to really make a case for keeping such articles, and really agree to watch and maintain them since the banned user is (theoretically) unable to. Just removing a csd tag and forgetting about them is not enough. Wknight94 talk 18:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, if someone is philosophically opposed to G5 and goes around removing all speedy tags of a certain type, without regard to content, his actions will surely be seen and stopped. I don't think it is reasonable or fair to Bongomatic to assume he is such a person. There has been consensus for a very long time that reverting a banned editor's contributions is something that may be done, but is not something that must be done, and making G5 into a must-do is clearly beyond policy and consensus. Once an article is created, we do not insist that anyone watch and maintain it. I think that if we agree that removing correct speedy tags should not be done lightly - and I don't think anyone goes around reverting G5's on sight - what is the real problem? Would something in the G5 criterion warning removers and saying that removers vouch to some degree for the articles satisfy your concerns?
A list of the deleted and not-deleted articles is at User_talk:MuZemike#Check-list. I suggest people take a look at the blue links. They aren't at all the kind of crap that makes up almost all of CsD, and while checking everything could take time, checking enough to make a stub that would pass A7 with a few clicks to google books is easy for the ones I looked at. The articles make their own case. Deletion is a last resort. Stubbing and transferring the current content to the talk page is one alternative, prodding if there is genuine doubt of notability is another.John Z (talk) 01:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
removing a G5 speedy tag or any other speedy tag does not imply that you vouch for the article involved--it means you want to keep it there long enough for people to actually think about it. There is no deadline on getting a G5 deleted. What is unjustified is replacing it and deleting the article anyway. It implies that you are quite sure you can think for the community --for an admin to do that that after someone actually has disagreed is very close to wheel warring. In a more general way, if the policy is being used to justify that its time to change the wording of policy to avoid such an interpretation. It's clear from this discussion it such an interpretation does not necessarily have full consent. DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Poetlister etc, is back...[edit]

ARBCOM has been notified, and the ball is in their court. There is nothing further to be gained by continuing this discussion here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I thought I would ignore him, but he sent me *one* email (throught his "Poetlister-account") too many. Please check User:Grim23. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Context, please? Protonk (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Eh, context on the whole poetlister-saga? (or just this last minor event?) Huldra (talk)
enough to make heads or tails of what you want, what the problem is, and who the DP are. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
This is a mistake. Please talk to me. What can I do to clear my name? Grim23 18:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Wouldn't a better way to go about this be to forward the email to ArbCom? Random admins really can't do anything about this, true or not. If it all hinges on email, I don't think WP:SSI is right either. ArbCom is chock full of Checkusers who will know how to follow up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem w/ that is that Arbcom isn't supposed to (at least insofar as I know) undertake a role like that. I still don't fully know what's going on here, but I can surmise that Huldra thinks User:Grim23 sent him an email as User:Poetlister. If that is the case, then wouldn't SPI be the place to go? Protonk (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
So User:Poetlister sent User:Huldra an email. Why did User:Huldra accuse[1] me? Grim23 18:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, NYB kinda puts this to bed, but it strikes me as well outside their mandate to serve as the court of last resort. Protonk (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Protonk: I´ve just sent you an email. Huldra (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I read it. Sounds exactly like the kind of thing I want nothing to do with. Glad its kicked back to the AC, despite my reservations about scope. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
heh, I agree 110% with you! Huldra (talk) 18:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Please forward any evidence of Poetlister editing under any account name to the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser evidence will not show much, let's not forget how much wool they pulled before (after first being caught) yet the edit overlaps between accounts, especially on certain articles close to the person behind the account, are surely enough? Given what this individual has been up to, "beyond reasonable doubt" has to be replaced by "on the balance of probabilities", surely? GTD 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
You are assuming I'm guilty. Please remember mud sticks. Grim23 19:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I propose that it would be much simpler, and much better for the encyclopedia, if we judge the Grim23 account on the basis of what the Grim23 account has done. Everyking (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I would still like to know why I'm being accused. Please assume I'm innocent until proven guilty (I would prefer to be called an "editor" rather than an "account"). I would like checkuser used and any other investigation that could even partially clear my name. (it seems as I may never fully clear my name)Grim23 19:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I've checked the contributions of Poetlister/Quillercouch and I can only find three "edit overlaps" Whetstone, London, Totteridge & New Southgate. These are all towns in the London Borough of Barnet. These and all the towns in the borough have been on my watchlist for a while. Grim23 20:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you check for overlaps with any of the Poetlister sockpuppets, such as Runcorn (talk · contribs)? Of course any overlap is likely just a shared interest, but some here may see it as further evidence that you are Poetlister, so it may be worthwhile checking each of the sockpuppets listed here. Regardless, ANI clearly isn't the place for such accusations. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've found a few more but they are all to do with LB Barnet. There are too many edits for me to go through. Huldra, can you state exactly what you think is suspicious so I can defend myself? Where is the correct place to deal with this? Grim23 22:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
From what I can gather it is simple. Stop posting in this thread. This has been referred to arbcom and barring some sort of other revelation, no one will have much cause to post here. In 24 hours the thread will automatically be archived. If I understand things correctly, Huldra thinks you==Poetlister because of some email you allegedly sent him. The email feature includes a fairly trivial way for checkusers to determine whether or not your account sent an email, so if you didn't send one, then I can't imagine anything happening to you. If you did send an email to him but not the email he thinks connects you to poetlister, then things become more complicated. I would just stop posting and let this fall off AN/I. Protonk (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Eyes on Wesley Pruden please[edit]

He published an op-ed in the Washington Times arguing that Obama doesn't have the same love for America in his blood because his mother was attracted to third world men (thats pretty much a direct quote, actually) and its attracting a lot of people rightly pissed off, but unfortunately resulting in quite a bit of unencyclopedic and unverified edits. --Mask? 21:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotected. — Jake Wartenberg 21:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by User:Lambanog[edit]

Please consider this complaint withdrawn; I want to back off a notch and take this to a discussion at User talk:Lambanog. Hopefully, we can resolve it there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Lambanog has, I feel, engaged in disruptive editing in the nascent Sovereignty of the Philippines article. I am a WP admin but, as I am involved in a Wikipedia:NPOV dispute with this editor, it would not be appropriate for me to institute a block. Re the signs of disruptive editing, in this edit, the user fact-bombed and tag-bombed the article, he has been tendentious in talk page discussions regarding the article, and does not engage in consensus building. This edit responded to the fact-bombing, a discussion of the tag-bombing can be seen here. The user's initial edit was about six weeks ago, and his talk page contains several warnings and notifications of problem edits. Because of his precocious edit history, including apparently clueful comments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, I suspect that this user is a sockpuppet, and I will probably be requesting a sockpuppet investigation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I urge you Wtmitchell to withdraw your complaint. As an admin you should know other admins would rather not be wasting their time on frivolous complaints. This action of yours will either reflect badly on you or me or both of us if only because it is unnecessary. That said if this does push through I will vigorously defend my actions and have every confidence that I will be vindicated. My apologies in advance to whoever is going to handle this case if it pushes through. — Lambanog (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the complaint has merit or I would not have filed it. I look at WP:DE#Signs of disruptive editing and WP:TE#Characteristics of problem editors, and see that your edit pattern in the article at issue fits bullet points there. Having looked at your edit history and noted meritorious edits to other articles, I don't understand your positions in our article talk page discussions, your reasons for refusing to explain your positions, nor your disruptive edits impeding progress toward improving the article. In the absence of explanation or discussion, I am mystified by your multiple taggings disputing the neutrality of material copiously supported by verifiable reliable sources which I have added to the article and by your expressed unwillingness to discuss the tags you have added.
You have asserted that I have "selectively cited portions of various sources to present one viewpoint disregarding other viewpoints", something I have not consciously done—I have looked for and been unable to find reliably-sourced material supporting an alternative view of the article topic, would add such material with due weight if I could find it, and have asked you without success to please add cite-supported material on relevant points which you might be aware of but I have missed. Instead of cooperation and consensus-building, I've been faced with fact-bombing and tag-bombing.
I don't relish going forward with this complaint but, faced with your disruptive editing in the article at issue which impedes improvement of the article, it is the alternative which I see open. If you will stop the disruption and either remove your tags or work with me in identifying and dealing with whatever specific concerns moved you to place the tags, I'll be happy to withdraw the complaint. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 08:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
It is clear that WP:V is an entirely separate concept from WP:NPOV. Just because everything in an article is verifiable does not mean it will necessarily follow it will be neutral point of view. Both policies must be met. You say you have looked but cannot find any reasons. Hogwash, the reasons are there in front of everyone to see. One could use Westphalian principles just as effectively to argue on behalf of the First Malolos Republic. Certain facts in the article on the Philippine-American War and other related articles could be used to do the same. One could also extrapolate reasons pretty easily. For example does the United States accept international law as more binding than American law? Similarly what do you think the Philippine Supreme Court would say on the matter in regards to the Philippines? That you are blind to such arguments does not mean they are not there. Your entire approach to the subject can be criticized as having an intrinsic bias. The way you present it, the way you order it, the views you place emphasis on. For example why should international law have any relevance at all? You simply presume it does. Why should only contemporaneous views be the only legitimate ones? Again you presume and only cite text that conforms with your preferred point of view.
Also what's this about me impeding improvement of the article? You asked for comment and you have received it from me. You asked at Tambayan Philippines and hardly anyone else has responded. I can rightfully say that aside from yourself no one else has contributed to the article even if it may not be in the way you have wanted. I am not obliged to write the article for you. If you don't like my input ask someone else willing for theirs. I am not stopping you.
As for supposedly disruptive editing, aside from two short lines I introduced from the first time I saw the article to highlight the logical fallacies of text that you use, I have not even altered your original text much less deleted anything you have written in the article. My "disruptive editing" then would seem to consist almost entirely of the tags I introduced. I think I have been pretty descriptive in the talk section in stating my concerns. I note that you have made modifications to better conform to those comments, so even you conceded I have comments of merit. I note further that two others have commented that I have seen and the result has been silence from one and comments sharing my concerns from the other. Consensus therefore would seem to be on my side. If you think that is sockpuppetry at work then I will inform you now: prepare to be disappointed. As for being "precocious", maybe I'm just a quick study or more observant than you're used to. I've been reading a lot of the help and policy pages because of my bumpy initial reception. One of the things I notice for example is that you should probably read the top of this ANI page. Withdraw this complaint. Lambanog (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've asked that complaint be considered withdrawn in favor of continuing this discussion on your talk page. Hopefully we can resolve this there. I'll add a section there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Help on Special:Newpages[edit]

Massive backlog again! Are there any other NPPs out there right now? I swear, it feels like ever since the beginning of November Special:Newpages has really gone downhill... too many articles... etc. Blah.

Anyway, could a TON of people come help with this? It feels like every time I tag an article, three more pop up!—Preceding unsigned comment added by A little insignificant (talkcontribs) 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:NEWT has something to do with that? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Even if articles were still being created as part of NEWT, they were a tiny percentage of NPP. But they aren't even creating articles anymore... —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 04:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Interestingly, the backlog is three days better than normal. We have three days of buffer time (time before the articles unpatrolled disappear from the logs), better than the usual couple of hours. You can probably thank DragonflySixtyseven for that; he does a great deal of work at NewPages and is quite underappreciated. NW (Talk) 22:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As are most of the people on these pages. :) I'll go and leave him a barnstar. A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 23:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That's meaningless unless we know how the rate of new articles has been during the same time period.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Newpages is chronically backlogged. I've rarely seen it get below 25 days, and virtually never seen it get below 20. I'd go on and kill off a few days like I did a few months ago, but the initial drive to patrol the back of the newpages log has long since worn off... The thing that should not be 23:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

And who do you think's going to restart it? Allons-nous. That's the purpose of the Wikipedia community, right? That we all contribute collectively. It's as if we're all carrying a huge book that is the encyclopedia: we can't slack off and let everyone else carry the weight for us. We have to do as much as we can. That's how Wikipedia got where it is today, and how it's going to get to where it will be tomorrow. A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 00:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

John Tran, wiki- hounding and edit warring[edit]

I am reporting SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) for her continued harassment, edit warring and wiki-hounding. I was astonished at Skagitriverqueen's interest in my small town's politicians, two states away from her own. Why? "following another user around" from "Wiki-hounding" comes to mind. " Other than "following me around" there is no earthly reason for her to have happened upon these articles. This is a violation of wiki policy and done for the simple reason of hounding me and disrupting my enjoyment of editing for no overriding reason.. She has made 16 edits in the last 24 hours (edit warring). I am distressed that she has continued harassing me since she is prevented from doing so on Karel's article. Amicable discussion with this user is impossible and i will not attempt to do so again. Please intervene, I am as tired of this as the many users & admins who have tried to intervene.

Thank you. JoyDiamond (talk) 21:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Skag has also exacerbated her harassment by editing on my Mayor's article: Margaret Clark JoyDiamond (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I have made SkagitRiverQueen aware of this discussion. GiantSnowman 11:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, SkagitRiverQueen has edited a total of 2 articles that you've edited, from what I can tell. That hardly constitutes hounding. Secondly, I don't see many reverts (if any) from them on John Tran, so it doesn't seem like there has been much edit-warring going on (unless you have diffs showing otherwise). There may be wikiquettte issues with that editor, maybe not, though the bad faith between you two seems to go both ways. I don't really see substance to your accusations to be honest. -- Atama 23:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Atama, I have only edited three articles so far and she has edited my edits on all three. You want to see *substance* of "edit-warring," check out the "Charles Karel Bouley" article for the last year. I was not even aware of the term " hounding" until another editor pointed out to skagitriverquenn that she was hounding me. She has made further unsubstantiated edits based on assumptions in the John Tran article today. Furthermore, " following another user around" is a violation of wiki- hounding. Why else would she be editing an obscure small town article about Rosemead, in Southern California, when she lives in Washington. How could she have found said obscure article *except* by following me? *I* would have never found the Rosemead articles if I had not been requested to do so and I live here! Lastly, she has violated every rule of wikiquette in her egregious insults to my person to the extent that I requested the "Karel" article to be blocked. I attempted to make peace in "good faith" She rejected that overture. I am truly trying to edit in "Good Faith." I sincerely thank for your effort at impartiality. I wish you the best. JoyDiamond (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just following another editor to articles isn't hounding. I've done it myself, even WP:HOUND has a disclaimer that doing so can be beneficial, and that's even recommended in certain circumstances (spam and vandalism for example). But, following someone around specifically to hinder their editing isn't allowed. That's what is considered "hounding".
On one article, Margaret Clark, which you specifically have mentioned here the only edit that SkagitRiverQueen made was this one. That was a very positive edit, it fixed a couple of minor errors, added a wikilink, and requested sources (which is very important in a biography of a living person. They even explained the references tag on the talk page. If that was done on an article I was working on, I'd thank the editor, not complain to them.
Where Charles Karel Bouley is concerned, SkagitRiverQueen's first edit to that article was in July 2006, 2 years before you even created an account. I hardly think that you could accuse them of following you to that article. The edit wars in that article are troubling, but they involve more than just the two of you.
So your only credible claim of hounding is at John Tran. The dispute there is definitely not a good one, but it seems to be mostly a content dispute. What I'm wondering is, what would you like to happen? It wouldn't seem right for SkagitRiverQueen to be asked to leave that article, there seems to be a legitimate dispute there. The two of you are both in danger of violating, if you haven't already violated the three-revert rule (clearly a full edit war has escalated since my previous comment). Both of you are risking a block, so you need to settle things by talking rather than reverting each other. My advice is to stop accusing them of having bad intentions, ask them specifically what changes they want to make to the article and you can compromise on what to do. If you've already tried that, maybe I can give it a try (one Washington resident to another). -- Atama 20:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
In my personal opinion this may be retaliation against by Joy against Skag for Skag's complaints against Joy in the past, last I had seen there was supposed to be some mediation going on between the two after, per Skag's request, I reopened a Wikiquette complaint that had been prematurely closed. If the editor who had been involved with mediating could be asked to come here and state their opinion regarding the mediation it may be helpful learning from the that third party why things have disintergrated. I believe User:Equazcion and User:Dmcq were also involved in listening and working on the complaint long after I left it, perhaps they have some input to share as well.Camelbinky (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, IMO, this is just more of the same from JoyDiamond. From her first complaint against me on the Charles Karel Bouley article talk page to now, she has complained about anything I edit in Wikipedia. She looks for things to nail me on and this is just another in her long list of unfounded allegations against me. The latest wild accusation is that I caused an edit she made to the John Tran article talk page to somehow disappear because of a conflicting edit. Problem is, I hadn't edited anything on the talk page for nearly an hour before she claims I caused her edit to disappear. Whatever.
I've decided to take the high-road with her and basically ignore her crazy behavior. I will continue to edit the Tran article, but with taking great care that I don't do anything that could take on even the slightest appearance of an edit war or bad faith. Honestly, I think she has it in for me and no matter what I edit, where I edit, she will find something wrong with all of it. IMO, she wants to see me gone from Wikipedia and is working to make that happen with her wild allegations and accusations. JoyDiamond clearly does not understand that the articles she has edited are not *hers* (just look at how many times she refers to them as "my article") and that if she doesn't want what she edits to be changed or corrected then she shouldn't write it. She has previously asked that I be blocked permanently from editing the Bouley article. She's even told at least one other editor to not edit the Bouley article at all. From her own statements and actions in Wikipedia, she is not a team player.
I'm not interested in her dramatics and just want to edit in peace. Clearly, even when I have bent over backwards to try and reach out to her on the Tran talk page, she is not interested in anything other than arguing in oppositional defiance.

--SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The user SkagitRiverQueen does seem to hound people on here, per my posting on WQA. Although I have no first hand knowledge between her and JoyDiamond, she will place agitating posts if you differ from her POV, and when you then confront her on it, or defend yourself, she will immediately label your response as vandalism. Then, she goes and constantly whines to Admin. I will be the first to admit I have placed some not-so well thought thru edits, but I have never gone out of my way to harass people like she has Regisfugit (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Skag's comments stated "IMO" are hyperbole and generally fictional. Not so incidentally, her egregious statements are libelous. JoyDiamond (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Atami, as you said, "following someone around specifically to hinder their editing isn't allowed. That's what is considered "hounding". FYI, I never said she followed me to the Charles Karel Bouley article. I Immediately stopped editing the Margaret Clark article when she followed me there, to avoid the morass that would inevitably follow, as blatantly explicated in the John Tran article. She followed me to the Tran and Clark articles to specifically hinder my editing and any enjoyment thereof. As you stated, that is "not allowed" (regardless of the quality of her edits). Quality? Yesterday she edited the Tran article with a completely inaccurate and ill-informed account of his election which I had to undo. I have several Rosemead-related articles to edit and cannot do so while being "hounded." Again, I am respectfully submitting this report RE: Skagitriverqueen for "wiki-hounding," formerly, stalking." Action is required and expected. Thank you. JoyDiamond (talk) 14:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Action cannot be "expected", it can only come upon investigation. Dozens of admins read this board every day. Many recall the original discussion here by SkagitRiverQueen. I have tried to assist between the two of you as well. The commentary provided by admins above has tried to advise you of policy and the results of the investigations by a handful of admins. From my reading, there is nothing actionnable. You have not been stalked or hounded. Your use of the word "libelous" hints of a violation of WP:NLT so beware. Stop fighting each other: use WP:CONSENSUS, and also, realize your WP:COI on some topics. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The original discussion here by Skag is as fallacious as her many other accusations towards me. At the time, I was not aware of nor was I notified of said discussion. If investigation is required than please do so. Bwilkins, I respect your work here on Wiki but you can not possibly independently decide that I have not been stalked or hounded. Another highly respected editor disagrees: "Is there any particular reason you're WP:HOUNDING Joy, rather than putting forth an effort to stop the endless bickering? -FeralDruid (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)" I was not even aware of the term "hounding" until so informed. repeat: " following another user around" is a violation of wiki- hounding. Why else would she be editing an obscure small town article about Rosemead, in Southern California. Most people have never even *heard* of Rosemead! How could she have found said obscure article *except* by following me? *I* would have never found the Rosemead articles if I had not been requested to do so and I live here! Please give me one earthly reason why she would be editing this obscure little article if not for reasons of "Hounding." Again, she followed me to the Tran and Clark articles to specifically hinder my editing and any enjoyment thereof, a violation of wiki policy. There is no stated number of articles in respect to hounding. One is too many. I respectfully ask that if anyone can give me *any* other reason & consensus for Skag to follow me to the two articles in dispute, please do so. I feel like I am "tilting with windmills." As a relative "newbie" IMHO, she is trying to drive me away, another violation of Wiki policy. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely JoyDiamond (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

<sigh> What Joy Diamond is leaving out re: her addition above (Another highly respected editor disagrees: "Is there any particular reason you're WP:HOUNDING Joy, rather than putting forth an effort to stop the endless bickering? -FeralDruid (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)" I was not even aware of the term "hounding" until so informed) that feralDruid was referencing another issue at another date and time that is not even remotely related to this situation. FeralDruid was referring to me keeping on my talk page Joy's negative comments and complaints Joy had made about me on other talk pages and with another editor (who has been banned once - if not more than once), Regisfugit. I was keeping those comments on my talk page, AFAIR never reposted them anywhere *other* than my talk page, and kept them just in case something like this entire situation would crop up again. Keeping the comments had nothing to do with her or disrupting her ability to edit and/or her enjoyment in doing so, it had everything to do with me and the possibility of needing the comments in the future in order to defend myself against any future allegations she would make against me. Aparently, my gut feeling about needing them in the future was spot on. SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

As a heads-up...User:JoyDiamond is now violating Wikipedia:3RR at article John Tran. I have tried to explain to her in the edit summary as well as on the talk page that what I placed in the article's infobox is relevant and why. The pre-set Mayor Infobox has a line for "succeeded by" and "preceded by", and all I did was fill in the blanks. She reverted what I reverted back (after I explained to her why I was reverting it back) with the comment, "Having researched extensively this info is still irrelevant for small town Mayors". How is relevant information irrelevant when the relevant information is *asked* for? I will not revert the info back until someone makes a decision one way or the other regarding this - I don't want to violate 3RR myself. That being said, I would like it noted that I am not bringing this here to "tattle" on Joy, but to make the admins already involved in this issue aware that she has violated that which she was already warned about (in this thread). Thanks. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There she goes, whining again. Stop harassing people over this pettiness. Grow up! You sound like the tattletail kid in third grade that goes out of their way to get others in unneeded trouble Regisfugit (talk) 05:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regisfugit, the above violation of WP:NPA is about as helpful as most of your "assists" in this long-running battle. It has been clear throughout that both parties need to leave each other alone. You seem to enjoy popping up places to stir the merde, sometimes after resolution has been made. If you want to pick sides, how about picking the "why can't we all just get along" side. I think it was last week that I posted some recommended actions by ALL parties on JoyDiamond's talkpage. Live by those. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Guidelines for AFD commentary[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Comment redacted. Not really anything to do here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

[2] How is this in any way, shape, or form permissible on Wikipedia? JBsupreme (talk) 08:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Its not, and I'd support a block of the user. I notice they were told in June to stop marking all edits as minor but they've continued on doing so. This is disruptive editing, coupled with that comment, not to mention they're going through articles removing maintenance tags without addressing them or using edit summaries.[3], [4], etc.--Crossmr (talk) 10:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
The edit in question was two days ago, so I can't support a block just now - but I would warn the editor that a further attack of that nature would be grounds for a block. This is exactly the sort of edit that the level 4im warnings were made for. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, that comment should be deleted. Personal attacks of that nature are unacceptable here regardless of whether they're directed at other editors or at the subjects of our BLPs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Biting admins or fellow established contributors[edit]


Has a guideline been developed for this already? And do we seriously need to create one on how to be tactful to admins or fellow established contributors?

An anon (who gives all appearances of being a sock) reports an admin for reverting his banned editing and semi-pping Telegu. Some users respond to it and accordingly unprotect, but instead of leaving it there, went to file an RfC/U over it because it was an admin dragged through the mud in RfC and ArbCom previously. When they were given every chance to drop it, they didn't, and they went ahead with it recklessly. Meanwhile, the admin is on wikibreak in frustration and other than those who've responded already, the community is idly sitting on its hands. Can you clarify my questions above? Can something please be done? What incentive is there for Dbachmann (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to return? Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Did the anon give the appearance of being a sock when it all started? Did anyone mention that possibility earlier? Would the two rfc/u filing editors have dropped it if they'd known (did they know?) about the sock stuff? (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Biting admins is covered in WP:NOTNAS Toddst1 (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

But what about admins biting other admins? Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

To clarify: Dab noted on his talk page shortly after posting the wikibreak notice that it was due to RL issues. Also, he's accepted (by email) my apology for (part-)causing the drama, which it seems now was largely due to a misunderstanding. I appreciate Ncmvocalist was concerned about Dab leaving, but he might still want to reflect on whether those concerns manifested in the most helpful way, here and on the RFC talk page. The RFC was a good-faith attempt to deal with an apparent problem. Rd232 talk 08:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I think a community consensus spoke for itself against the way you handled this Rd232, and the fact you repeatedly engage in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for how responsible you were in escalating this is the only apparent remaining problem. Ideally this posting would've led to someone more uninvolved closing it but that's not needed now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Posting and re-posting the same POV rant[edit]

Been jumping through the hoops and am not sure where this fits, but can someone step in as regards the repeated attempt by an editor posting and re-posting the same poorly written POV "rant", under the names "Rences wiki," "Luca Marco" and "Comprehensible view" on the Christianity and slavery and The Bible and slavery pages? Evidently the editor is ignorant of the extensive debate as regards the wording of this complex and contentious issue, and the efforts at balance, as seen in their talk pages. Reversions by myself and others have resulted in him/her re-posting under a new name, and now just an IP, even since i posted an appeal and warning on each of the talk pages of the names (i presume are all) used by this same editor. Thanks and may God bless.Daniel1212 (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If you suspect sock puppeting, you'd want to put this at the sock puppet investigation page. It sounds like that's the main issue here. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Threats and vandalism from User:Glaxovont[edit]

User:Glaxovont (also edited from IP posted a personal threat to my talk page [5] after I posted a vandalism notice to his IP talk page [6]. This was prompted by two vandalizing edits made to an article [7] and [8] under his IP. After making the threat the user vandalized by user page [9]. Requesting immediate ban. Dragoneer (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked this user for harassment and threats. Crum375 (talk) 01:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Dragoneer (talk) 02:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That was a pretty vague threat. I mean, it was nowhere near as bad as this, for example.-- (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

BURDEN violations at BLP article[edit]

Resolved: Bad calls all around followed by good calls all around. All's well that ends well. Abecedare (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Violation of WP:BURDEN at a WP:BLP article.

Sequence of events
  1. I remove unsourced info from a BLP
  2. I moved it to the talk page
  3. Timeshift9 (talk · contribs) reverts, adding the unsourced info back to the BLP
  4. I warn him, citing BLP and BURDEN, not to add unsourced info to BLPs
  5. I revert him, removing the unsourced info from the BLP
  6. Nuclearwarfare (talk · contribs) blocks Timeshift9 for one week
  7. NuclearWarfare removes the unsourced info from the BLP
  8. Orderinchaos (talk · contribs) unblocks Timeshift 9
  9. Orderinchaos reverts NuclearWarfare (who had removed the unsourced info again), and adds the unsourced info back to the article BLP

Certainly agree with Cirt on most of the points, but I'm not sure if it warrants a desysop, but I can't see why Orderinchaos did this without discussion... —Ed (talkmajestic titan) 04:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
NuclearWarfare's block of Timeshift9

As I have acted in this matter I would like the community to review those of the blocking admin and myself as unblocker.

At 00:56 UTC, Cirt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) added a new image to the article Nick Xenophon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). In doing so, he removed a second image further down in the article. Timeshift9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) reinstated the image at 01:23 UTC, while leaving the new image intact. Cirt then made two uncontroversial edits, but at 01:31 removed two blocks of text with the diff "mv unsourced content to talkpg". As none of it was controversial, a better way to deal with it would have been to tag it and notify a project. Timeshift9 clearly held the same view, and at 03:09 UTC reverted with the edit summary "that's what [citation needed] is for". Cirt reverted, and at 03:32 posted to Timeshift's talk page: [10] " You have violated WP:BURDEN at a WP:BLP article, by your recent actions at the article Nick Xenophon. Do not do this again." Timeshift9 re-reverted at 03:44. During this time there was also a short interchange on the article's talk page.

At 03:46, admin NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) re-reverted without giving a reason, and in the same minute, blocked him for one week with rationale "Violations of the Biographies of living persons policy". At 03:51, Cirt posted to the talk page, "Standards are higher for BLPs. You know that."

The block was completely, utterly unjustified and I am of the view that NuclearWarfare should receive a clear message from the community that it is unacceptable. I have supported previous blocks on Timeshift9 over unrelated matters, but on this case, I am firmly supportive of him, as is User:Rebecca, a former arbitrator. Orderinchaos 04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Orderinchaos unblocked a user blocked for WP:BLP violation with no discussion, and then proceeded to add back in wholly unsourced material into a WP:BLP article. This is action completely inappropriate for an admin on this site. Cirt (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It would have been far more appropriate to take this here before unilaterally reverting a fellow sysop's actions and re-instating potential BLP violations. Agree with Cirt that your handling of this situation has been in very poor form. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:21, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Totally concur, we can't allow BLPs to be treated like this. What was Orderinchaos thinking he was doing, by adding the information back? If not de-sysopped Orderinchaos needs to take a break. NuclearWarfare acted per policy, and I see nothing wrong with his actions. I would have done the same. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Have you actually read the diff? Orderinchaos 04:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I have and it makes your revert even more totally inappropriate, that is not what the fact tag is for. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Julian. I also feel it is very wrong for an admin to undo another admin's decision without prior discussion of the revert first. ArcAngel (talk) 04:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we can nip this in the bud. If the diff in question contains uncontroversial well-known material, surely it can be referenced quickly. I am not informed enough of Australian politics, but are there references to support this [11]? -- Samir 04:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said in the intro, I'm happy for the community to decide what is acceptable here. That is why I brought it to AN/I (I was beaten to the punch, but a review of both my notices at NW's and TS9's talk pages will show I did not regard my own word as final and intended to fully justify my action here.) However, I think that the manifestly excessive nature of the block, the lack of warnings prior to the block, and the lack of any sense of a "preventative not punitive" approach should also be considered. Orderinchaos 04:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

@Samir The information was removed again by another admin, Closedmouth (talk · contribs), referencing it properly can be discussed at the article's talk page. The issue in question is now violations of site policy by two users, one of whom is an admin on this site. Cirt (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
@Orderinchaos: I'm fairly certain that you're aware that we discuss things prior to wheel warring, not after. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I appreciate that, but I think the issue of whether or not the material is easily referenceable is entirely relevant to this discussion. If the diff is relevant, uncontroversial and easily referenceable, then I am of the opinion that Orderinchaos was right in re-introducing the material. The unblock should of course have been discussed with the blocking admin -- Samir 04:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

He's on the front news of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation right now talking about Scientology. How prescient/good timing of the ABC given Cirt's editing interests. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 04:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: Having read the diff, I see only some negative unsourced content: "He is best known for his many media-friendly publicity stunts ..." But given that the content was both unsourced and removed from a BLP, adding it back without sources and/or talk page consensus was clearly inappropriate. Orderinchaos was wrong to unblock without discussion and incorrectly added back unsourced content to a BLP, without even participating in the talkpage. I think calls for desysoping are unwarranted though, unless this is or becomes a pattern. Trout at best and lets move on. Abecedare (talk) 04:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • There was a warning before the block: [12]. I don't see why we should humor people who ignore that sort of warning. At the very least, it would be reasonable to find out what the objection is before re-inserting material after a note such as that. A block is warranted if an editor responds to a note such as that by simply reverting the material again. "I didn't hear that" is not a reasonable response to notes about BLP violations. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is the quote:

"In 1984, he established and became principal of his own law firm, Xenophon & Co. which deals solely with personal injury claims. In this field he became successful, and between 1994 and 1997 he served as president of the South Australian branch of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers' Association. After legislation was passed in 1992 by the Bannon Labor government that saw the introduction of poker machines into South Australia in 1994, the increased incidence of problem gambling came to Xenophon's attention in his legal practice.... During his time as a sitting member, Xenophon has been an activist for a range of issues aside the elimination of pokies, speaking out on consumer rights, essential services, the environment, taxation, and perks for politicians. Xenophon was also vocal in the Eugene McGee hit-run affair, becoming an advocate for the victim's wife, with public opinion eventually forcing the Kapunda Road Royal Commission that led to harsher laws for hit-run offences. He is best known for his many media-friendly publicity stunts that have gained him both deep respect and ardent criticism.

I can't understand why someone would invoke BLP over such utterly unobjectionable (and, incidentally, all true) material. The whole point of Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is that you shouldn't expect to get blocked for a week for making good-faith common-sense improvements to an article, even you break the letter of some rule in doing so. IAR applies to BLP too. Timeshift's reverts might have broken the letter of IAR, but clearly the spirit of it was not broken here. The block was wrong. Hesperian 04:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If someone has just advised you, "don't do that again", reverting and claiming IAR seems to be a bad idea to me. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
IAR? BLP is a much, much more important rule to follow than IAR. IMO "improving the encyclopedia" is not as important as preventing libelous unsourced information, from being added to a BLP. The block was appropriate by all standards, especially affter being warned. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly right. "improving the encyclopedia" is indeed not as important as "preventing libelous unsourced information". But this information wasn't libelous. It was neutrally written, true, on-the-public-record material. It met the spirit of the BLP policy. It just didn't meet the letter. "Improving the encyclopia" wins then. IAR applies. Hesperian 05:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The entire content is sourced now anyway, so the point is moot. It took me just 10 minutes on Google - why didn't Cirt have a go? Orderinchaos 04:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
No how about the other way around. Why didn't Timeshift add the sources if it was really that easy? Seems like you're blaming the wrong person for the right thing. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 04:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The content had sat there for years - in some cases from the very, very first revision of the article in 2006 - without contest. Timeshift9 did not write the article, and once a revert war commences it's very difficult to get anything moving at all. Cirt was right to challenge the sourcing of it, but wrong to label it a BLP issue and prosecute it in a hostile manner. When I challenge content in a BLP like this, I at least attempt to ensure it has no basis or is in serious doubt before removing it. Orderinchaos 04:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

And people wonder why excellent contributors leave wikipedia. Honestly. What an entire shambles this entire thing has been. I can't believe how quickly I was blocked. WP:BURDEN states that material should have a chance to remain with tags prior to it's removal. The remover's attitude from beginning to end has been completely and utterly hostile. Poor form all round. Timeshift (talk) 04:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you ignore the warning from Cirt? That is the main issue that I see here. If sources were available, it would have been easy to scrupulously source everything instead of reverting. Especially after someone has pointed out the BLP policy applies. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The "warning", to me, looked to be in bad faith - it basically meant "do not disagree with me or else" on what was fundamentally a content dispute. Orderinchaos 04:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Was not a "content dispute". Was an enforcement of site policy regarding WP:BLPs. Cirt (talk) 04:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't mean one can simply ignore warnings. The standards for BLP articles are biased in favor of removing unsourced material, and if Timeshift9 could not take the itme to figure this out, a block was warranted. What does someone expect to happen if they ignore a note "don't do that again"? — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Not sure if I agree that the material was controversial, as I'm not the least bit up on Australian politics--but regardless, I think the block shouldn't have been for longer than 24 hours at most. This is the user's first BLP block, and though I can see where a block would be preventative (Timeshift9 was adding the info back and there was cause to think he might re-add it again), a week's block is clearly not preventing anything more than a day's would. Honestly though, this is just a fishslapper: Trout NW for the over-long block, OIC for unblocking without talking to the blocking admin, and possibly add a second troutslap for restoring material without joining the discussion about whether said material was appropriate. After that, I'm with Abecedare: trout applied, now let's move on. GJC 04:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll wear that. Orderinchaos 04:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I guess I'll take that. I'm not too happy about my block being reversed without consultation, but I do agree that this original block was a bit excessive. However, I stand behind the actual block even now; the edit was a re-addition of a BLP violation after a warning. But I'm happy to let the matter die here. Next time something like this happens though, please feel free to approach me on my talk page and discuss; I am always willing to listen to reasonable arguments. I promise I won't bite. NW (Talk) 05:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • At some point we will learn the error inherent in patrolling talk pages as though they were articles. I'm pretty floored that we have edit warred, blocked and wheel warred over a quote on a talk page which is borderline or only partially problematic. Protonk (talk) 05:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Nvm. not all of the fuss was over the talk page. Protonk (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Orderinchaos. Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with the substance of this complaint. It appears to me that Orderinchaos acted disruptively in reinserting controversial unsourced material into a BLP (any material that is contested in good faith between editors must be deemed controversial), and that he abused his administrator tools by (a) unblocking a user blocked for the same disruption, thereby using administrator tools to win a content dispute and (b) unblocking said user without getting consent by the blocking admin or the community, thereby violating the blocking policy. I encourage the Arbitration Committee or the community to consider appropriate sanctions, and consider this to be another example of why we need to have an effective community-based process to hold administrators accountable for their actions. A reblock of Timeshift is not needed unless he repeats the BLP violation.  Sandstein  06:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Update: RFC now resolved, per [13]. Please consider this thread resolved as well. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad this has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, but I think an important principle has been swept under the carpet. I think that all this trouble was caused because Timeshift9 was attempting to defend uncontroversial material which had stood in this BLP for a long time. I don't think that any WP policies actually distinguish between new material, which you would expect to be fluid, and long-standing material, which I would hope would not be removed without some kind of discussion. Maybe they should. cojoco (talk) 10:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The edit-notice seen when editing the article, as with all WP:BLPs, expressly states otherwise, in emphasized bolded text ([14], [15]). But I agree that this thread was marked as resolved, and we should leave it at that. Cirt (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible legal threat by Aedwardmoch[edit]

User:Aedwardmoch has repeatedly created apparent autobios. There is a claim to involvement in the remote viewing Stargate Project, but this hasn't been supported by reliable sources. They added info to that article, were reverted by another editor, added it again,[16], and I reverted. I warned them about this on their talk page and they responded thus: "I ask "Wiki" to cease and decest under the scope of posting courtesy... if refused again, to post... will be forced to present such information and documents to legal council, pending possible action."[17] This looks like a legal threat to me. Fences&Windows 03:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I re-warned him and also posted to WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely by Fastily. TNXMan 03:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I've been emailed twice by User:Aedwardmoch. Would appreciate some help/advice here.-FASTILY (TALK) 04:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)



We're really not supposed to post emails onsite, as the author didn't license them under the GFDL CC-BY-SA (Wikipedia's default license). As to the NLT issue, I can't make any sense about what he's saying. He seems to be withdrawing his threats at the same time he's offering to settle the dispute, which is equivocating as far as I'm concerned. I'd say everything here looks good and whether he gets unblocked depends on whether he continues nonsensically equivocating.--chaser (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
He hasn't withdrawn the legal threats, he's just wording them differently and using legalese to try and bully people into letting him write an autobiography and write himself into other articles in a direct COI. I pointed him toward Mike Godwins userpage where the latter has posted his phone number and email. If the editor has legal concerns he can take them up with the lawyers. Otherwise, I don't see any reason to go on wasting time. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
"I profess to be no lawyer, but I do have connections to the media. I had an ancestor-cousin named James Alexander, who represented a person named John Peter Zenger over a famous publishing issue." Is this guy for real? I have an ancestor who provided one of the Younger brothers a place to hide while on the lam. Can I mention that fact the next time I get into a dispute over a crime-related article? -- llywrch (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I've issued a final warning to the user and will remove his talk-page access if he continues. TNXMan 20:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
He did, so I did. TNXMan 20:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:[edit] has been repeatedly editing talk pages / deletion discussions etc then changing their signature to User:Hassaan19. That seems odd (it's surely easier to just log in) but I see no evidence is not Hassaan19: the articles being edited are the same, is being up-front about this, and Hassaan19 would surely have complained by now if it were not (s)he (especially as one of the edits was to Hassaan19's user page). I see no evidence Hassaan19 is blocked, so this would not be block evasion.

However, on one occasion, instead claimed to be Woohookitty, an admin who has confirmed (s)he is uninvolved, and did this to !vote twice on an AfD (and, to add to the complication, they created the article itself and raised the AfD to settle whether the article should be a redir or not).

Clearly the occasion they claimed to be Woohookitty is a problem. The aparrently legitimate occasions when they claim to be Hassaan19 may be worth checking further because it is odd, especially in light of the Woohookitty incident. Could someone pursue this? And sort out the AfD as it has multiple !votes by the same user?

Many thanks! I42 (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified all three editors about this discussion. GiantSnowman 18:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I find it interesting that in the Woohookitty situation, they voted "keep" on Hassaan19's AFD. Meebe an IP address changed? It happens. But this is just speculation, it really depends on Woohookitty's answer. A little insignificant Giving thanks to all that is me 18:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
That bit is easily explained. The AfD was raised to "settle" the matter about whether the article in question should be switched to a redir. From the nomination text you'll see that the nominator favoured keep. The IP in question is for a UK ISP and Woohookitty is in the US; they have confirmed it was not they (a) on the AfD itself (the latest version of the AfD shows text by Woohookitty that they actually placed), and (b) on my talk page. I42 (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if my name was picked from a hat. :) I don't know anything about the article my name was placed on. But no, it definitely wasn't actually me. I'm more perplexed than upset about it. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 22:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Senor Cuete's recent behavior[edit]

I am concerned about the recent edits of a fairly new (under 500 edits) user on the Wikipedia, User:Senor Cuete. This user has not been following WP:AGF and WP:NPA in recent edits. In this edit, he calls someone a "moron" in the edit summary (instead of correctly summarizing it as "RVT vandalism" or what not); in this edit he says "Füls is a fool". In addition, he was rather abrasive to me in this edit, stating "you are wrong" in impolite terms. Could an admin educate this user that politeness and courtesy is required as per Wikipedia policy. Thank you for looking at this. Samboy (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The one German-lifted edit summary was sour, yes. He's not particularly a new user by date and should know better I'd think... from edit count it appears that this is an area of expertise, which is at least motive for taking possible vandalism more seriously. Not an justification, but a reason at least. The 2 IP don't appear related (per Geolocate)... and without any reports then, we don't have much to go on. "Samboy: you are wrong" isn't that terribly impolite in terms ... can we hope he was referring to your earlier article edit and just gave and explained why he thought you were wrong? Best I can guess with much accuracy, at least. No prior history in ANI (according to the search at the top here, so I'm think this was just a bit of frustration. An admin will need to give some input, but without those IPs reporting those weaaker matters I'm not sure if there's all that much to do. I don't see any serious history of disruptive or harmful edits to other users which (ironically) means he should take your warning in good faith, and I that was fine of you to leaving that (politeness is never bad). Bonus points for it being custom and not a script and/or template and good to give a link over here for him to read.
Now see, I am new. You two? Not so much. This is where I step aside and have an admin make a statement. Hopefully this should die off quickly, but even if this were happily ever after already I still couldn't close this discussion on my own as a non-admin :p I think this situation will be fine, though. Best of luck!~ daTheisen(talk) 21:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

IP spamming own website[edit] (talk · contribs) is posting their own website [18](admitted on my talk page it's his) at Ur, Abraham and Gutian dynasty of Sumer - at my talk page he threatens to continue from public libraries, etc." I wish you Liberal Christaphobic megalomaniacs at Wakopedia would be honest & just admit that you delete anything that doesn't fit your preconceived misconceptions. I bet if my timelines proved that the Bible was 100% wrong, you wouldn't have called it spam. well have fun on Mt. Olympus with the rest of your egocentric liberal narcissistic Wakopedia dictators. As for me I will continue to post up Informational links to REAL BIBLICALLY CORRECT EDUCATIONAL HELPS even from Public Libraries if need be so ban away." The actual links don't all work - the link I've provided is the home page. Dougweller (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for linkspamming and general unpleasantness. TNXMan 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
This is my primary objection to labelling the insertion of links to unsuitable sites as "spam", unless it is done many, many times: the other side is allowed to ignore the real reason for reversing the edit. But I doubt this fellow would have cared what you called it, so TNXman's block was appropriate. -- llywrch (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
I am saddened that there does indeed appear to be a Wakopedia, and moreso in respect of the content... LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mobile historian[edit]

Took this to WP:WQA and got this response from Looie496. "Go to ANI, an immediate block is warranted here." So here I am. Below is what i wrote over there.

I've been engaged in something of a minor content dispute with this user. Details here [19], a little more of it in this soon to be rejected arbitration request here [20]. User has been escalating attacks on his talk page (full discussion here [21]). After he earlier today refered to me as "fetid" "vain," a "peon" and a "little friend who started getting his hands dirty [22] I asked him to strike the comments and desist or else I'd bring the matter here [23]. He responded "Sorry can't do that 'coz I'm still too numbed by your shameful, disgusting and shocking language and behaviour."[24]. I'd like him to desist. If you look at the longer thread on his talk page and the arb page both linked above, you'll see him describing my edits as "vandalism" me as "talking faeces" and suffering from either "plain ignorance or green eyed envy." I'd just like him to be told to stop with the continuous ad hominems, and have the next step explained to him by others if he doesn't (the civility policy has been pointed out to him on a number of occasions already).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A stitch in time saves nine....[edit]

Could some admin kindly blank this discussion from the talk page, as now 4 editors find it disparages the topic of the person. Nine days ago admin James086 stated he would blank the section if no further comment is made [25], and nothing more has been added since. I asked James086 a week ago to follow through, but it seems he has intermittent bouts of activity, so I request if some other admin could nip any potential escalation in the bud and blank the section. Thanks. --Martintg (talk) 00:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Noting that the individual referred to has died, what is so pressing about this discussion that it requires blanking? It seems to me like a legitimate discussion on an article talkpage. Crafty (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
So... because they're dead, we're free to spread vile slander and libel about them? Interesting logic you got there...-- (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
@Craftyminion, she only recently died, any living relatives, friends and associates of this person reading Wikipedia may find the discussion disturbing. Common decency and respect I guess. --Martintg (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Which four editors, Martintg? Aren't they the participants of the WP:EEML mailing list?--Dojarca (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Termer's already asked an administrator about this in an attempt to censor a valid, content-related question. This is the reply he got: [26]. This case strangely looks like a bloc action from EEML + Termer (often discussed as an ally of this aforementioned mailing list). For context, a petty useful diff to take a look at. So much for asking a legitimate and earnest talk page question – one that I would still like an answer to. Best regards, Anti-Nationalist (talk) 01:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Just to note that in the Australian context, due to the structure of libel law, people have a tendency to wait until a person has died to speak about them frankly. Additionally, wikipedia is not censored, and the BLP reasons for caution elapse with death. Of course, any added content should be RSed. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Many US states have libel laws against statements that “blacken the memory of one who is dead", but this is not some legalistic or abstract discussion on the appropriateness of libeling the dead and I am not requesting blanking of the section on that basis. But I am requesting that this be blanked on the following reasons:

  1. The article talk page is not a forum
  2. The question was asked and answered
  3. No further discussion has taken place in the last 7 days
  4. A number of editors finds the way the question was framed unnecessarily denigrates the subject and should be removed out of respect and common decency.
  5. This part of the question "I wonder why her son had no need to hide this sort of thing" could be construed as a BLP violation.
  6. Anti-Nationalist by uncivilly opposing a reasonable request demonstrates he appears not interested in building a colliegiate editing environment
  7. Anti-Nationalist has a long history of inserting tendentious BLP claims of Nazi sympathies into a number of articles contrary to what sources actually state, for example, this case being the latest in a long line.
  8. The fact that I made a reasonable and civil request here on ANI and Dojarca and Anti-Nationalist chime in with ad hominem arguments against myself and others indicates they have taken a bad faithed approach to this.
  9. In the interests of de-escalating this from developing into yet another pointless battleground.

--Martintg (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

    1. "The article talk page is not a forum" —The question asked at the talk page was relevant to the article and directly connected to the editor's task of editing it.
    2. "The question was asked and answered" —The question was never answered.
    3. "No further discussion has taken place in the last 7 days" —There was a comment just yesterday, but more importantly, the talk page question posed remains unresolved.
    4. "A number of editors finds the way the question was framed unnecessarily denigrates the subject and should be removed out of respect and common decency." —That number of editors was made up of EEML editors plus Termer, who was discussed by your friends as an ally of the abusive mailing list in the archives. The feedback consensus at pages such as this one appears to have taken a different view, as did administrator James086.
    5. "This part of the question "I wonder why her son had no need to hide this sort of thing" could be construed as a BLP violation." —I highly suspect, however, that that isn't the case, Martintg: the least you could have done, had that been the concern, was take it to the BLP board at some time in these intervening weeks, which you made no effort to do. Nor did you ever even ask me to remove the material about her son making this information public (which he did) specifically.
    6. "Anti-Nationalist by uncivilly opposing a reasonable request demonstrates he appears not interested in building a colliegiate editing environment" —I am very much interested in building a collegiate editing environment, but I am against being repeatedly attacked, directly or obliquely, and reverted by the same set of folks with such exacting consistency. "Nationalist" is a political stance and not a derogatory term (see your buddy Vecrumba's user page) – incidentally, you've referred to editors as nationalists, including myself, Martintg – such as in your attempt to remove information about antisemitism with your buddy Digwuren here (although perhaps you did it with the intent of smearing opposing editors), so I don't see what issue of incivility there is by your standards. Can't I not act hypocritically and agree with your old opinion that pointing matters out plainly is alright, even if you disagree when that pattern of reasoning is applied to your editing? Calling WP:DUCK on tendentious editing is not proscribed; nor was it done as anything but the ultimate resort, as amply testified by the well-documented evidence of months of your harrassment and the proposed ArbCom sanctions against you.
    7. "Anti-Nationalist has a long history of inserting tendentious BLP claims of Nazi sympathies into a number of articles contrary to what sources actually state, for example, this case being the latest in a long line." —The edit has a very good reference – by all means compare with cited source. You well know that I adjusted the wording right after some disagreement about interpreting the relevant line from that JTA article.
    8. "The fact that I made a reasonable and civil request here on ANI and Dojarca and Anti-Nationalist chime in with ad hominem arguments against myself and others indicates they have taken a bad faithed approach to this." —The fact that you came here for this request after already badgering me and an admin and having it denied by both attests to your WP:FORUMSHOPPING, if seen from where I'm standing.
    9. "In the interests of de-escalating this from developing into yet another pointless battleground." —Then why the deliberate spillover of the battleground, and why the continuing circus of the WP:FORUMSHOPPING, and why the mischaracterization of problems and all just mentioned above? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Lets keep it simple, editing wikipedia is suppose to be based on WP:RS, not on questions asked at talk pages. In case there would be any reasons to believe that the subject may have been a nazi-collaborator, there surely should be sources out there that look into it. Hunting down possible nazi-collaborators on wikipedia talk pages however remains to be out of the scope of wikipedia. And there is nothing more to it.--Termer (talk) 02:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Nobody is "hunting down possible nazi-collaborators on wikipedia talk pages" for the sheer exercise, actually. There is a source for her apparent work for Nazi German radio – and it's material from her son Juho Looveer, as was pointed out by me from the get-go. Surely you have now noticed, Termer, that Pantherskin has just joined the discussion with relevant information on Baltic broadcasting from Germany and that we are making nice progress with the discussion there? That's what our talk pages are for. And it's why we don't just blank them when we don't like a discussion or where it's going, if the concerns presented are relevant to the subject of said article. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
The source isn't even considered reliable, that was pretty obvious from the get go and speculating in circles on the talk on her alleged collaboration in the absence of any other source, simply violates WP:NOTFORUM. Pantherskin's source on German radio makes no mention of Looveer, and his claim that Looveer's daughter being born in the same town as Hilter is simply irrelevant. --Martin (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I still don't see any sources saying someone called Looveer was a nazi-collaborator, that by itself would be quite a serious accusation I think. Therefore I'm not getting it how a discussion implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources under the discussion would help to improve the article and wikipedia in general. And I'd be all for catching nazi collaborators, just that not on wikipedia.--Termer (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be a content dispute, and other than stirring up more drama and/or harassing Anti-Nationalist I do not see that this thread has a purpose. Posting it here, at one of the most watchted pages on Wikipedia, demonstrates that concern about the reputation of Lia Looveer are not the primary interest. Pantherskin (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

admin Future's Perfect and the 1R restriction he put on me[edit]

Because of this edit [27] I was put on a 1R/24h restriction, coupled with "you must accompany every edit in content namespaces, no matter if it's a revert or not, with an informative edit summary" and "you may make any revert only after providing an explanation for it on the talk page, and then waiting a minimum of 3 hours between the talk explanation and the actual revert to allow time for discussion." [28]. Since I consider my edit to be 100% valid, (I have removed the German name of Polish city which was added without explanation the day before and which has to reason to be there on English wikipedia) I can only conclude that since I recently had an animated discussion with this admin, because of his block of user:Jacurek which I felt was unjust, he is trying to revenge. I therefore request the restriction is cancelled. Loosmark (talk) 10:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you recognize that, correct or not, your edits have been part of a contentious edit war? The "restrictions" amount to what any considerate person involved in an edit war should do. rspεεr (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Edit war? There was no edit war going on that article. Somebody added the German name of the city the day before without an explaination and I removed it. I made one single edit. Loosmark (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
There may not have been an edit war on that article, but the admin saw a string of edits that were problematic, across multiple articles, this last one merely being the latest. He explained all of this on your talk page under the "warning" heading. I'm not making any judgment calls as to the restriction, but just wanted to make it clear that this wasn't caused by a single edit, and that this was explained quite clearly. Equazcion (talk) 11:33, 17 Nov 2009 (UTC)
There was no string of problematic edits, yesterday I made a good faith error and I have even self-reverted myself. All other edits he cited were valid, I stand behind them and I have explained them on his talk page to which he didn't seem to object. Loosmark (talk) 12:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Loosmark seems to have come up with a rather innovative new method of avoiding sanctions. Insulting and abuse every single admin who might impose sanctions, accuse them of bias every 5 minutes, and then scream "involved admin!" when patience runs out. Moreschi (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Moreschi I request you provide diffs that "I have insulted and abused every single admin who might impose sanctions". I have never done that and I demand you either provide evidence or apology. Loosmark (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by sanctioning admin: Loosmark, not surprisingly, is refusing to take notice of the rationale behind the sanction, which I very clearly explained to him on his talk page: "I'm not talking here about the objective justification of either edit (I have absolutely no opinion about that), but about your communication style". Arguing now that his edits were "valid" and he "stands behind them" is missing the point: they may well have been, but they were unexplained. This is all about Loosmark displaying a pattern of quick, undiscussed, drive-by reverting as a routine editing strategy in contentious articles, and the last straw was another such edit without an edit summary, only hours after I had warned him about just this problem. Given this situation, the restriction I imposed is quite mild -- it leaves him all the freedom to edit, and merely gently forces him to improve his communicative behaviour, hopefully. -- I would be more patient in explaining these things, if I didn't have the impression that there is still a group strategy going on here, with multiple users (all involved with the well-known EEML group) appearing immediately on my talk page to pile on and make a fuss about any and all administrative action affecting one of them, with one of them, User:Radeksz, even accusing me of "hypocrisy" [29]. We know they used to conduct these concerted campaigns in an organised, planned fashion only a few months ago; I wonder how spontaneous and independent they are now. Fut.Perf. 12:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me get if I understand this correctly, my edits might very well be valid but since I have not "explained" them you are putting me on severe restrictions and even call the restrictions "mild". And are you even aware Future Perfect that the last time I have tried to have a dialog with user:Matthead he simply told me to go elsewhere? [30]. As such I don't really feel motivated to explain my edits to him. Matthead made a wrong edit, he added a German name to a Polish city and I have reverted him, that's all that happened. I also don't know what are you talking about the EEML group, I was not a member of the EEML group and I don't care what is user:Radeksz writting to you, reporting him on the EEML ArbCom case or something. Your asumption above that I am part of some sort of group concerted campaigns in an organised, planned fashion borders on paranoia and most certainly is a complete contradiction with asuming good faith policy. Loosmark (talk) 12:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
A lack of edit summaries is always a poor communication style. A number of odd edits (including a self-revert) without edit summaries hits the radar like a bird in a jet engine. We're talking about a simple 24 hrs; a day where someone is being asked to communicate well - hoping, I expect, that the use of edit summaries and discussion would become more commonplace. There's nothing here to do with the validity of the edits overall, just how they've been done. Let me emphasize: it's a day. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
BWilkins please read the sanction he imposed on me again, it is much more severe than that, for example I have to first explain a revert on the talk page and then wait for 3 hours. Since I rarely have the time to sit in the internet caffe for 3 hours I am basicaly prevented to make reverts. (Not to mention that I am very sceptical that the discussion for which I have to wait will happen, the last time I've tried to communicate with Matthead he just told me to "go elsewhere".) Loosmark (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to assume there's a good reason why you didn't read my response to FPAS below before asking this? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Of course, bellow you are only talking about the timeframe where in fact you have ignored that Future Perfect punishment consists of 3 points. Loosmark (talk) 14:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Uhm, wait a sec, not sure if I misunderstand you or perhaps you misunderstood me: I didn't actually impose the restriction just for a single day; it's just a normal "1R per 24hrs" rule. Actually, now that you mention it, it appears I forgot to actually put an expiry date on it, so it's formally indef. If admins here would rather restrict it to a fixed period like most other sanctions of this type, we can of course do that; otherwise I'd propose leaving it in place open-ended for now to see how it works out and lifting it in a few months if he stays out of trouble. Fut.Perf. 13:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Too early in the morning, I likely misread - but (although not an admin) I recommend some timeframe ... fits with SMART principles... so that it's not punative, it's preventative. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
That revert really should have been discussed on the talk page. The Gdańsk/Danzig naming battle was one of the longest and dumbest edit wars of all time. Tczew/Dirschau is another of those cities in that part of Poland that was once German-speaking and this sounds like a smaller version of the same battle. Google Books shows a number of English-language mentions of Dirschau. The German name might be somewhat obscure today, so mentioning it only in the article Tczew could be good enough, but mentioning it in parentheses in an article about a German-speaking football player from that town is at least slightly defensible, so there should have been discussion or it comes across as battleground editing. (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Seeing as Loosmark seems to be missing the point (all those edits today without Edit Summaries of any type), I'll clarify/correct my point: although I have no input into the article - it is obviously a content dispute - based on the slow edit warring, and poor communication altogether, I support restrictions 1 and 2 wholeheartedly. I might be personally willing to reverse point 3 slightly allowing them to do their 1 revert per 24 hrs, THEN explain it on the talkpage as a means of gathering consensus. They must then stick to whatever consensus is - no exceptions, even after their 24hrs is up. Loosmark ... how long do you think it will take you to become a better communicator? In other words, how long do you think this restriction needs to be in place for? A month? 2 months? Obviously, it can't be less than at least a few weeks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all there is no wikipedia rule which would force you to make edit summary by default, if you don't believe me I can show you at least 100 examples of edits without edit summary in my area of interest in the last month and none of them was warned let alone hit with a severe 1RR restriction + forced to make comments on a talk page and then waiting for 3 hours before making an edit which btw seems to be a punishment invented for myself. (What is here also a bit comical is that I have made only one revert on each of those two articles, one of which I even self-reverted, so what exactly is the point to put me on a 1RR other than to tarnish my reputation? You see the twisted logic I have not made more than 1 revert but I have to be put on 1RR). Second you seems to ignore one of my points I made somewhere above so I will point it out again: the last I have tried to communicate with user:Matthead, he told me to "go elsewhere". As such blaming the failure to communicate with Matthead on me is a bit absurd. Loosmark (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I've never said that the other editor does not deserve similar treatment - it has already been suggested by others throughout this thread, and based on the situation, appears to have validity. Your complaint here was about your treatment, and the claims that that admin was "involved". Your complaint would have been better off acknowledging the situation, and suggesting that you should not be the only one being limited. A quick note: the best place to discuss the article content is on the article talkpage - it you took it to an editor's talkpage, then "go elsewhere" is a pretty valid response. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
BWilkins may I politely ask you what the hell are you talking about? I did not take that to any editor's talk page, it was on the article's talk page. And apart from that even if I had tried to communicate with the said editor on his talk page a reply as "go elsewhere" would have been just lame. Loosmark (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
As you're deciding to selectively read portions of what I say, I'm out. I'm trying to help you and this is the response - otherwise, your request appears to be going nowhere. Good luck. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Your comment was the following one the best place to discuss the article content is on the article talkpage - it you took it to an editor's talkpage, then "go elsewhere" is a pretty valid response. I have only pointed out that I did not take that on an editors talkpage but rather on the article page. I hope I have the right to correct the blatant error you have made, even more so since it's pretty crucial here: I am being accused of not being able to communicating with user:Matthead while the last I have tried to do so I was told "go somewhere else".